Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Can Class Rules establish Turns-Penalties for breaking on-the-water CR's?
P
Angelo GuarinoNationality: United States
Certifications:
- Regional Judge
- Fleet Measurer
1
Background:
- RRS 86.1(c): Class rules may change only racing rules 42, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55. [note RRS 44 is not in that list]
- RRS 85.1 [...] A change to a rule includes an addition to it or deletion of all or part of it.
Scenario: The CR's for the GoFast OD fleet has a CR which limits pole extension on the water.
- CR 9: When not in the act of raising, lowering or flying the spinnaker, the bowsprit shall not be extended until the bow passes the windward mark and shall be retracted at the first reasonable opportunity after the spinnaker is lowered.
- CR 10: When she may have broken CR 9, a boat may take a 1-turn penalty as described in RRS 44.2.
Question: Is CR 10 valid?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
I say no and cite Case 85, "If a racing rule is not one of the rules listed in rule 86.1(c), class rules are not permitted to change it. If a class rule attempts to change such a rule, that class rule is not valid and does not apply."
And don't get me started on ISSA PRs.
JDF
What if they don't reference RRS 44.2 and describe a 360 deg turn-penalty including 1 tack and 1 gybe?
Case 85 is not relevant.
I'm remembering an old adage:
Q: If you call its tail as a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?
A: Four. Calling a tail as a leg doesn't make it one.
That's right.
Equipment Rules of Sailing Definitions
C.2.1 Class Rules
The rules that specify:the boat and its use, certification and administration.
personal equipment and its use, certification and administration.
portable equipment and its use, certification and administration.
any other equipment and its use, certification and administration.
changes to the Racing Rules of Sailing as permitted by RRS 86.1(c).
The term includes rules of handicap and rating systems.
Class rules are about the shape, size, crewing and configuration of boats, and related controls. They don't validly mandate the conduct of racing
Consider the rules listed in RRS 86.1(c). Except for RRS 42 Propulsion, they're all rules of Part 4 SECTION B EQUIPMENT-RELATED REQUIREMENTS.
RRS 85.1 in full says
A change to a rule shall refer specifically to the rule and state the change. A change to a rule includes an addition to it or deletion of all or part of it.
If a document that RRS 86 allows to change the RRS says something different to, or something directly related to, and additional to something that's in the RRS, that's a change to the rule and requires the magic words.
If the Class wants a change in penalties they need to get the OA/RC to put it in the NOR/SI, like some classes do to reduce Two Turns Penalty to One Turn for Part 2 breaches.
Likewise I don't think it changes 44.1. I'd say the CR stands alone in describing a prohibited action and references 44.2 as the penalty for a breach.
Take a look again at Case 85 cited by John Farris above.
Doesn’t CR 10 effectively add CR 9 along side RRS 31 in the 2nd sentence of RRS 44.1? (see RRS 85.1)
The CR purports to add to RRS 44.1, which according to RRS 85.1 is a change to that rule. CR can't change RRS 44.1.
I think an argument can readily be made by extension and analogy from Case 85 to support this.
Serving as Standard Sailing Instructions for all events organized by the Interscholastic Sailing Association during the years 2021-2024.
As long as the actual NOR/SI have language including them as rules for the event i think its valid.
But its a horrendous change. Why? Because they expect their protest committees not to write proper decisions?
Write your decision before you deliver it to the parties at the end of the hearing and publish it on the official notice board and email it to the parties ASAP without making them ask for it.
You seem to be missing the point I made in my previous post:
Equipment Rules of Sailing Definitions
C.2.1 Class Rules
The rules that specify:the boat and its use, certification and administration.
personal equipment and its use, certification and administration.
portable equipment and its use, certification and administration.
any other equipment and its use, certification and administration.
changes to the Racing Rules of Sailing as permitted by RRS 86.1(c).
The term includes rules of handicap and rating systems.
Class rules are about the shape, size, crewing and configuration of boats, and related controls. They don't validly mandate the conduct of racing.
Class rules shouldn't be about how to run and administer races.
This is quite common with J70 and Melges. However there is some hurdles to set.
a) the class rules are rules as defined in RRS
b) NoR/SI should state that 2 turn penalty is changed to 1 turn penalty. (Was it?)
c) infringements to to class rule are added to race documents.
Valid.
The question was whether or not CR10 was valid alone.
The RRS does not "invoke" the ERS definition of "class rule" when it uses "class rule" in RRS: Definitions or other instances "class rule" appears in the RRS. Therefore, I do not believe we can say the ERS definition of class rule is a rule in the RRS. In the absence of that invocation, "class rule" is used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use (not limited by the ERS def)
Now, if the Class Rules themselves reference the ERS definition of "class rule" within it .. then the ERS definition would hold within the CR's, but I do not believe it would validly carry-forward into the RRS as that would be adding an RRS definition, which is forbidden in RRS 86.1.
From ERS "Applicability" section:
Many World Sailing Class Rules include a section on Conditions for Racing. Minimum/maximum wind speeds, kinetics (when ooching, pumping and rocking are allowed) # of crew (fun fact, ILCAs may be raced two up which I agree may fall under crewing), class membership and advertising.
I don't think CR10 changes 44.2.
However, I do believe CR 10 changes RRS 44.1 by adding CR 9 along side RRS 31 as a breach eligible for a 1-turn penalty ( .. and additions are changes).
The J/105 have a few CR's limiting ..
The J/105 Class has decided that boats should be able to take an OTW penalty less than retire/DSQ for the above (1-turn or scoring penalty).
To put these on the OA/RC to insert all these items into the NOR/SI's for each event can be a PITA .. and just invites opportunities for mistakes especially as the list of OD fleets at an event grows.
I think I'll write-up a submission (work-in-progress below) .. it's a very simple fix.
PS: I wrestled a bit until I landed on "eligible" above. Other candidate-words were:
Let me know if you think one of the above (or if you have another word) might work better. - Ang
Also, suppose a class association wanted to invoke a two-turns penalty?
That would be Proposal 2 .. :-) (added above)
14 PENALTY SYSTEM 14.1 The first sentence of RRS 44.1 is changed to read: “A boat may take a One-Turn Penalty when she may have broken a rule of Part 2, RRS 31 or class rule C.11 while racing.”
By contrast consider an event with twenty classes which make varying changes in class rules, so that different rules apply to different competitors. Let's say some classes have no penalty for hitting a mark, some for some reason make it two turns, another a DSQ, the rest standard RRS. Lets add a few more changes like that in the mix, all of which apply to different classes in different combinations. Not, I submit, remotely practical!
That’s impossible. A class rule can’t change rule 31 or rule 44.1.
Our sport is self policing and this helps classes police themselves. The RC doesn’t need to know that a J105 can do a turn if they are protested for adjusting their rig after the prep signal. They get protested on the water and either do a turn or not. If they did a turn and it goes to a hearing, the boat that did the turn will point to the CR that allows it. The PC will see that the boat took an appropriate penalty and not penalize them further.
As infrequent that protests occur for these infractions. … it’s over-kill to have to put them in the race docs each time.
This isn’t an issue at regattas for single class championships. But in regattas with multiple classes it’s practically unworkable.
Take for instance my local J105 Fleet 3 in Annapolis, MD. We just finished scheduling 2024 and we have 24 separate multi-class events. That means just our class would need to get all 24 docs changed just to suit our CR’s. That’s a royal PITA … it takes hounding the OA/RC’s because many will drag their feet or not get it done.
It would be MUCH better to just let the CR’s handle it directly.
Yes I was aware that the ERS are not rules unless they are switched in in the NOR/SI.
However I think they are quite persuasive in construing terms 'understood in ... nautical use'.
I also think this from WS Class Rules and Ratings Systems is also helpful:
These are read in conjunction with the Equipment Rules of Sailing (ERS) which provide more general governance of the equipment used in the sport. The rules are revised and published every four years by World Sailing.
I don't want to labour the point.
Jerry,
Yes, I agree that there is a 'grey area' between CR and NOR/SI. I think Penalties is on the NOR/SI side of the area.
Eric,
I think your comments are a good reason for not messing around with penalties unless you do it globally, as is done in US Sailing Prescription Appendix V, or with considerable care for interactions between classes racing in NOR/SI.
Jim,
The bigger problem with class-specified penalties would be in PY racing, where CR apply to boats of each class, and you would have boats of different classes taking different penalties in the same race. There may be a similar problem with USA PHRF racing where PHRF rules require compliance with CR.
Angelo (again),
So I think you need to 'corral' very carefully, the CR that you want to allow voluntary or reduced penalties for, then, to devise a written rule to do that for the benefit of rule writers.
That really would invite mayhem I think.
I agree with Angelo, my sense is that's just asking for trouble.
Seems like it would be simpler, as I suggested earlier, to move 44.2 to Definitions so turns penalties could be assigned by NOR, SI or CR without RRS 44 implications.
> The bigger problem with class-specified penalties would be in PY racing,
> where CR apply to boats of each class, and you would have boats of different
> classes taking different penalties in the same race.
Yes indeed, that's exactly what I meant. In the UK mention of large multi class handicap events will tend to assume PY racing, I forgot that's not universal.
Also with my sadly UK centric hat on I think of club level racing where 'not-quite-elite' level racers may never read class rules beyond a vague awareness that they aren't allowed to alter the boat. As a former volunteer in PY admin I can assure you all that hereabouts it's not unknown for both club and competitor to be less than clear about precisely what class a boat is (although multiple rig configurations on the same hull create most problems) and also that substantial numbers of boats are raced that have no functional CA and have not had Class rules published for many years.
All in all I think that while nothing is perfect the current RRS pretty much has it right about what class rules can and cannot alter, and that having class rules mandate on the water penalties would be an unwise complication. I really don't like the idea that competitors might have to go beyond the standard RRS, NOR and SIs to know what rules apply on the water.
There is so much in the above .. so one at a time I think.
Let’s start here. First, the penalties are not “mandatory”. Like any turns penalty on the water, they are optional (a boat “may” take), usually resulting is a score that is less than retiring.
Second, Class Rules exist and they define both physical and operational specifications/limitations of the boats. Even handicap classes have class rules which competitors are expected to know, follow and enforce.
Not every rule within the class rules would be permitted by the CR’s to take an OTW penalty. Like now, the CR’s would pick the ones out and specify them.
Look at it this way ….
For those who don’t read their class rules … nothing will change. Because they don’t know the rules which govern their boat and its operation, they will be just as likely to unknowingly break a CR as before … and if they get protested … they are just as exposed to receiving a DSQ as before if found to have done so in a protest hearing.
But … those who read the CR’s that govern their boat will know the CR breaches for which an optional turns penalty is available and may choose to avail themselves on the water.
From my discussions with folk on rules committees, the Definitions section is rare earth and they are VERY, VERY particular about adding new items in there. One of the criteria is how frequently the term is used in the rules and how core that term is to other rules.
Looking at it that way alone, you can see that RRS 44.2 isn’t used frequently elsewhere in the rules and other rules are not reliant on its definition.
Also, moving 44.2 to def’s doesn’t solve the problem as my hypothetical CR10 would still change 44.1.
For the record I disagree with the interpretation that CR10 impermissably changes 44.1. I don't see the utility in that interpretation - why shouldn't a class rule (or SI, or NOR) be able to assign a penalty less than DSQ?
Regarding CR10 changing 44.1, I take the approach of looking at an added rule (NOR, SI, CR, etc) and though the writers might not "think" it is changing a rule, if the end-effect is such, than it does. For instance, we've discussed on this forum an NOR/SI that states "After 8pm, boats shall keep a min separation of 100 feet at all times". The writers might not be cognizant of it, but that rule changes Keep Clear and Rule 18 (and many others) and thus would be invalid. So when CR10 allows a 1-turn penalty, I see it adding CR9 alongside RRS 31 in RRS 44.1 ... and additions are changes.
Now to your point of "interpretation", WS could write a Case in which they state your interpretation that it does not change RRS 44.1 ... and that would solve the matter unambiguously. As it stands, I see it as ambiguous as evidenced by the differing POV's voiced in the thread.
I agree with you there .. they should be able to do so. Also, to my main purpose in starting this discussion, those Classes, that have identified certain CR's that are eligible for turns-penalties on the water, are operating under the assumption that they can. IMO, we should unambiguously underline (by rule or Case) that they can.
How about we take a swing at that? How would you write an interpretation which states that such a CR does not change RRS 44.1?
One of my thoughts would be to say that def: Rule(a) states that rule-titles are not rules. So, maybe using that, state RRS 44's title "Penalties at the time of the incident" does not bound all OTW penalties for breaking a rule that is not described by 44.1 [and is not a rule stated in the "book" of the RRS] as falling within RRS 44?
Here's my go at it (talk about arguing with yourself!) .. not sure I buy it at first .. but maybe warming to it a bit.
Q&A
Question:
Is a class rule, that permits a boat to take a 1-Turn, 2-Turn or Scoring Penalty for a breach of specified class rules, valid without those CR's and penalties also being described in the NOR or SI's? If "yes", why does such a class rule not change RRS 44.1 by adding the specified class rules to RRS 44.1 and therefore break RRS 86.1(c)?
Answer:
Yes, such a class rule may be valid without the necessity of repeating its penalties and the class rules it applies to in the NOR or SI's, as long as the class rule does not also describe penalties for breaking a rule of the RRS.
The RRS definition of Rule(a) states, " ... but not titles", excluding rule-titles contained within the RRS as being interpreted as a rule. Therefore, RRS 44's title "PENALTIES AT THE TIME OF AN INCIDENT" is not an applicable rule which would require all penalties, which can be taken at the time of the incident and that are described outside of the RRS, as necessarily falling under RRS 44.
RRS 44.1 'Taking a Penalty' describes the available penalties for breaches of specific rules of the RRS and the conditions and restrictions in which they may be taken. Those rules are the rules of Part 2 and RRS 31.
A class rule which describes turns and scoring penalties available to a boat which may have broken one or more of its class rules, does not describe a penalty for breaking a rule of the RRS. Therefore, such a CR does not change RRS 44.1 as long as that CR does not also change or define penalties available to a boat for breaking a rule of the RRS.
Available penalties for breaking a rule of the RRS, beyond what is already described in the RRS, must be described in the Prescriptions of a Nat's Authority, NOR or SI's as described in RRS 86.
--------------
PS: One nice thing about the above is that the CR can still reference RRS 44.2 and 44.3 in describing the penalties, though the CR may have to repeat the RRS 44.1 exclusion conditions if they want those to apply.
Because despite what Class Associations might want that's outside the scope of what CR are meant for. See my previous cites from WS Class Rules and Ratings Systems
And RRS 86.1 is an exclusionary list of what RRS CR can change and it doesn’t include Penalties.
Put it in your class standard SI.
When you're negotiating a class start with an OA for a regatta, have the discussion with them about putting it in the event SI.
Angelo Guarino
So I think you're on the wrong track.
But if you want to go on, If you can't persuade the RRC to change the fundamental restrictions in RRS 86.1, then i don't think you should be weaselling around with Q&A and suchlike trying to achieve the same result through the back door.
The above was simply an exploration of a possible approach to see if something was there or not.
We are talking about a race where the class rules apply. The only boats that the CR’s apply to are boats in that class and the penalties would apply equally to all in that class. Boats in different classes are not in the same race.
PS: if my J105 races in a PhRF event, the J105 CRs do not apply to me, the PHRF class rules do.
I don't know about PHRF, but under UK Portsmouth Yardstick the class rules definitely apply. The class rules are of course what defines the class, and a handicap figure is applied to members of the class. If a boat is not maintained according to class rules (say rigging changed), it ceases to be a member of the class and is not eligible to race as such. The changes must be reported to the RC so they can allocate an individual handicap to what is now a one-off boat. If they were not reported that would definitely be misconduct.
So the prospect of different penalties in the same race would apply in the UK and I presume Australia for PY racing. I have no useful knowledge of how other handicap systems are administered, but suspect the same would be true for any event in which handicaps are allocated by class, not individual boat.
I didn't mean to be hurtful.
John
The CRs do not apply, but they are referenced for their data values.
The way this works in PHRF (and PY) is that a boat submits its physical characteristics and sail inventory and gets a rating. If a boat is an OD boat, they can submit in their OD configuration which means the physical attributes and sails will be as defined in their OD CRs. They then attest that their boat will comply with those standards.
Other items not pertaining to the rating system calculation do not apply. For instance, crew compliment, driver restrictions; OD Class membership and operational restrictions which are not part of the handicap systems calculations do not apply.
There are many boat owners of OD boats that spend all of their time competing in handicap events (lacking a local OD fleet). These owners do no need to be a member of the OD Class for instance (99% a CR in OD classes) to race their boats in IRC or PHRF. They would however declare in their rating-system application that their boat and sails comply with the OD rules regarding the hull, boat-weight, sails, rigging and appendages as a direct way to getting a rating.
The OD CR's are only rules at OD events (has an OD fleet start). If it's not an OD event, the OD boat races under the handicap-class rule they are entered. If her handicap rating is based upon her maintaining an OD boat/sail configuration, then the handicap-class rules are referencing those specific CR's for the specs of that configuration.
It's a subtle but important distinction. - Ang
This Case states is differently than I was .. but I think I'm still saying the same thing. To the extent the handicap system bases its rating on a CR, the boat must comply with it. However, most handicap systems do not "explicitly base" their rating on driver categorization for instance, class membership and the like. OD Crew weight and limitations are also usually out the window when getting a handicap rating .. where the handicap-class rating will impose its own limits on those items.
For instance, a J/105 racing in PHRF-Chesapeake in OD-rating can have up to the limit of crew allowed for a boat of her length under PHRF-rules (based on her 35' hull length, a J/105 can have up to 10 crew in PHRF-Ches), which is more than the OD crew limits (most 105's race with 6). But that same 105 can't fly an oversized spin or genoa because the OD PHRF-rating is "explicitly based" upon her largest jib and spin (which would be sails complying with OD specs).
PS: Advertising on sails is another example. The J/105 CR's forbid advertising on sails. A handicap-rating system would not typically explicitly base the rating for a boat based upon whether or not advertising is on the boat or sails. Therefore a J/105 sailing in PHRF may have ads on her sails if she wishes (to the extent the PHRF or other handicap CR's allow it).
22.4 Crew Number/Weight
22.4.1 Boats rated as one-designs, as noted on the boat’s certificate, shall conform with
their one-design class rules in respect of crew number/weight limitations unless
freed from this requirement by notice of race. See also Rule 13.7
It may be that there are certain class rules that are tacitly ignored, but class membership requirements, for instance, in most cases at least, only apply to major class events.
Upon request an owner can be rated in OD, IRC or ORR configuration (often an owner will request this as a second certificate). In that case ALL class rules apply when the boat is entered in a PHRF race under that certificate.
See below for the relevant language:
There are several class rules that prescribe Personal Equipment, however the penalty for non-compliance is not stated in the class rules.
Optimist
The Optimist class rules specify equipment that must be carried on the boat or skipper. The penalties for breaches of these rules is specified in the Graded Penalty System that is included as an Addendum to the sailing instructions, because they can't be class rules.
https://d282wvk2qi4wzk.cloudfront.net/CRmnAnBDev_doc_1627216956499
29er Class
C.3 PERSONAL EQUIPMENT
C.3.1 MANDATORY
(a) The boat shall be equipped with personal flotation devices (PFD) for each crew member to the minimum standard EN393 or ISO 12402-5 Level 50 or the Notice of Race may prescribe alternatives.
(b) Each competitor shall carry at all times a SOLAS approved whistle.
(c) The use of inflatable buoyancy vests is not permitted while racing.
Would a boat actually get a less favorable rating if they submitted their boat as configured as for OD racing (same boat weight, sail size limits etc) but not ask to be rated as an OD racer?. In other words .. they enter the class non-overlapping jib, class main, class spin and have made no mods to the boat?
I think different PHRF boards may have different wordings about compliance with class rules.
Tim's cite from the Southern California PHRF rules is quite clear. Relevant boats shall comply with their class rules.
So in SoCal the different penalties for different boats in the same race would happen with class specific penalties.
The UK PY system is based on assigning a PY number to a class. Under the UK PY system:
USA Portsmouth Yardstick system may be different.
First, it's clear by the language of the handicap systems provided, that these systems are "explicitly basing" and requiring 100% CR adherence. That is what it is ..
That said, I'm not sure those systems, that are doing it wholesale like that, are fully considering the rules they are requiring of a boat racing in a non-OD event (and potential effect on competitiveness). Such as ...
The above seems really odd to me honestly in the context of non-OD handicap racing.
One of the reasons we have handicap racing is so boats that don't have access to OD racing for their boat can go out and have a fun day sailing and competing with others. Why would one want to put these added burdens and competitive limitations on an owner of a boat that doesn't have OD racing opportunities? The above could put a OD-rated boat, sailing against other handicap system boats not so restricted, at a significant competitive disadvantage.
I think it is more likely that people are either unaware of these issues (don't know those CR's exist or apply), think that these non-physical/dimensional CR's don't apply .. or are willfully looking the other way (which puts those caught-up by this in a rule 2 conundrum). Can you just imagine a Cal-PHRF boat protests a competitor racing a J/30 and that J/30 being DSQ'd because they were not a member of the J/30 class at the time of the handicap race?
But again .. the examples provided are crystal clear and ALL CR's apply. Thank you Tim and Jim for providing them .. it was really an eye-opener for me.
Second (and circling back to the OP question), I "think" we came to a general consensus that without a modification to RRS 44.1 or a Case/Appeal guiding otherwise, CR 10 is invalid (a CR that describes turns/scoring penalties for breaches of designated CR's).
Assuming for a moment that it would be desirable to allow CR's to define OTW penalties (acknowledging many of you don't think that is desirable at all), we considered 2 approaches to unambiguously allow that .. a change to RRS 44.1 and an RRS interpretation.
Lastly .. regarding different penalties for different boats in the same handicap-class when a OD CR obligated boat is racing in a handicap event.
Honestly I see this as a bit of a red-herring and highly unlikely. When I think about this prospect, I am considering the competing interests and the likelihood of occurrence.
What do I mean by competing interests?
On the one hand, we have the OD class and what it's trying to accomplish. Many of these OD classes have rules which are important to them for competitiveness and maybe safety (the bowsprit extension example .. or in the J/70 the no-hiking rule). If the penalty for breaking such a rule is seemingly draconian (DSQ), boats on the water are less likely to protest based on them (the social stigma hurdle) and the lack of enforcement can erode the rule over time. Therefore, it's in the OD Class' interest to match the penalty with the breach.
Yes, the OD Class can work to get those written into the SI's .. and absolutely that's simple when the event is focused on just their class or a small number of classes. However, it's a huge and often unsuccessful hurdle to do when the regatta is hosting many fleets and when the class races in many, many mix-fleet events per year. I know, as I've been the person locally who has had to chase-down the OA/RC and beg to get changes to the race docs. Like I said, just my Fleet/Class has 24 individual mixed-fleet events with a J/105 start just in 2024.
On the other hand, we have the OA/RC who is worried that different penalties will apply to different boats in the same handicap class. Let's look at how likely that is and if it is a problem at all.
First, the type of CR's that are likely to be eligible are like I've said .. J/70 no-hiking, J/105 driver torso forward of the traveler. So now, this J/70 and J/105 are racing in GB under PY or in SoCal under Cal-PHRF, and another handicap boat sees someone hike on the J/70 and protests them. It's blowing and the other Cal-PHRF boat doesn't have this no-hiking restriction .. they have 7 people on the rail bending hard over the lower lifeline .. but they protest this J/70. The J/70 does a 1-turn penalty.
This is the same thing if the torso of a J/105 driver was forward of the traveler. The same rule does not apply to the non-105 and the other handicap boat .. therefore it's not different penalties for the same rule breach. The same CR's which add this unique restriction provide a unique penalty for its breach.
When I look at the balance of likelihood of the occurrence, the balance of interests and the importance to the OD class, seems to me there is a good argument to allow Classes to define OTW penalties for breaches of certain of their class rules.
With regard to your second point, I don't think that we agreed that CR 10 was invalid. It did not modify rule 44.2, merely used it as a description for the penalty to take if CR 9 was violated.
OK Clark .. fair enough .. but nobody said it changed RRS 44.2. It's RRS 44.1 we are worried about modifying.
Can we agree it's unclear and ambiguous?
Do you have an rule interpretation significantly different than what I wrote to support that view .. or are you thinking what I wrote represents how you are thinking about it?
I'm sure that that is the case.
It could be easily fixed by using language such as '... Class Rules with respect to measurements, dimensions and materials ...'.
There may still be issues with crew weight and numbers, particularly for dinghy classes. I understand that some CR about extending prods are partially justified on safety grounds: that would be a concern for PHRF/OA.
What chance do you think you have of getting all the PHRF Boards to agree to that?
Doesn't this issue deserve s separate thread? Maybe a run in a broader US Centric forum like Sailing Anarchy?
"If a class rule prohibits or limits what a boat may do on the water (for example, restricting when a boat may have a retractable bowsprit extended) and the class rule specifies a one-turn or two-turns penalty "as described in rule 44.2" does this class rule constitute a change (addition) to rule 44.1? Is such a class rule permissible or is it invalid as rule 86.1(c) does not allow class rules to change rule 44?"
Seems like that would clear up the ambiguity.
Geeze .. and here I thought we were friends! LOL
I think as far as it was a major objection to the interpretation/allowance of the topic of the OP .. I think the discussion has been appropriate here.
If the CR described a turns penalty in words that were the same words used in 44.2 but didn’t include the rule number reference would that be ok? Or are we saying that penalties at the time of an incident can only be allowed via rule 44 and through no other mechanism?
In my opinion the a CR providing for an on water penalty for a breach of a CR deals with the same subject matter as RRS 44.1, that is PENALTIES AT THE TIME OF AN INCIDENT. Within that rule its scope is said to be 'one or more rules of Part 2 ... [and]...rule 31'. The CR adds to that scope by prescribing a penalty at the time of the incident for a breach of CR about pole extension.
The CR purports to add to RRS 44.1, which according to RRS 85.1 is a change to that rule. CR can't change RRS 44.1.
I think an argument can readily be made by extension and analogy from Case 85 to support this.
It's not the express references to RRS 44 that are problematic, it's the substance of the proposal.
The issue i had in mind was the pros, cons, and pitfalls of having CR prescribe penalties, particularly in the context of PHRF.
Although there are a few thoughtful and knowledgeable posters on SA, and others who may provide useful insights into the PHRF aspects, I'm not sure the amusement of seeing SA discussion of the rules aspects we have discussed here would be worth the nonsense and the noise.
On the one hand there are organisational difficulties in writing SIs that contain multiple class specific insertions, or in reminding OAs to include CA recommended text in SIs and on the other hand, in events where different classes race against each other, there is potential for inconsistency as some competitors might be penalised for things that are permitted to other competitors.
There's a sub thread relating to case 98 and RRS 78, but perhaps we should consider that separately. That one worries me, and I probably should start a separate thread.
Close.
I would say that the root of the discussion is whether or not CR’s ARE NOW able to write OTW penalties for breaking certain of their CR’s with the RRS and Cases as currently written. There was not a consensus. Warren, Tim and I wrote arguments (mine in the form of a QA) on the side that it is currently allowed. I also wrote a change to 44.1 to make it clear.
As it stands the consensus we arrived at was that it’s ambiguous.
The concern that boats might potentially be subject to different rules and penalties in handicap racing is a bit misplaced because that is occurring now, as evidenced by what you and Tim shared. Some handicap classes/fleets are requiring boats to comply with all CR’s (the J/70 can’t hike, the J/105 driver can’t sit forward of traveler or have ads on her sails … etc). Without CR’s or SI/NOR providing lesser penalties for breaches of those CR’s, they face DSQ for rules their competitors do not have to follow.
In the meantime, events could add an SI establishing that breaches of certain CR’s by handicap-racers be at the discretion of the PC. Borrowing a thought from one of John A’s posts, maybe something along the lines of … (modify to suit needs)
Adding something like above, the RC’s wouldn’t have to dig thru all the OD rules of all the possible fleets adding special penalties in their SI’s …. and if something came up, the PC can dig into it when needed and do something reasonable.
You could avoid this problem by confining the applicability of reduced penalties for breaches of class rules to OD races only for that class.
Starting the CR as follows might make it less worrisome for people outside the class:
'For one design races for the XXXX Class the penalty .... '
Note that by making it DP, you are significantly changing the mechanism: Ang originally proposed that CR should prescribe on on-water Turns Penalty (and hopefully, then allowing also an Appendix T PRP): This would allow the incident to be disposed of on the water with a consistent penalty less than DSQ.
Making it DP at the discretion of the protest committee gets the incident back into the protest process and introduces inconsistency, because, while a protest committee can see the CR defining the obligation, they can't be aware of the what and why for the CR or the what and why for any relaxation.
Personally, I'm not keen on reduced penalties outside of existing RRS 44 and Appendix T.
However, I appreciate the notion that Class Associations should be able to control their own destiny. My opinion is that the WS writing about CR, and RRS 86.1(c) place appropriate limitations on this, but that shouldn't stop Angelo and his CA from giving it the old college try.
We have DP and SP, usually for breaches of 'administrative' SI/NOR which are included for the benefit of the OA/RC and which have minimal effect on the fairness of the competition. OK, maybe DP/SP would be appropriate for breaches of similar CR, like CA membership,
What CR are we talking about? Examples mentioned have been:
Some of these obviously have potential to affect the performance of the boat, and hence the fairness of the competition, others are of an administrative nature.
Extendable prods is an interesting issue. It affects boats becoming overlapped. It is ostensibly about preventing a boat establishing or breaking an overlap by extending or retracting her prod. It may also address a safety issue by preventing boats without spinnakers from sailing on upwind legs with long prods extended. The CR attempt to remove disputes about 'normal position', and provide consistent restrictions. It would seem to have little or no effect on performance.
In the absence of a CR about prods, boats can extend or retract their prods anywhere, and whether this affected an overlap would be determined in a protest hearing.
Advertising on sails is also interesting. It would seem to be intended to protect the good reputation of the class. I don't see how it could affect performance. Boats of a class sailing outside OD events remain identifiable as boats of that class, the CA, if it is a matter of concern, still have a legitimate interest in protecting their reputation. I'd remind people that sails of different sorts was a red hot issue in the Laser class, and type, material and manufacture of sails could well get mixed up with the advertising issue.
Maybe it would help us understand the issues better if, specifically with reference to the prodder rule you started out with, you explained the circumstances in which you think a reduced penalty should apply.
Isn't extending or retracting a prod to gain or break an overlap very close to cheating?
My SI was only a framework in the absence of the handicap-systems being more particular in which CR’s they rely upon.
This isn’t an issue in J/105 OD events. These 1-turn penalties are written into our CR’s and boats are very, very rarely protested for breaking these CR’s and the validity of this CR isn’t questioned. In OD, we are all under the same rules and penalties.
The 3 CR’s that have a 1-turn ability are:
Extending pole before windward mark & quickly retracting it
This is to stop a boat using the pole extension to create an overlap and to stop a starboard tracker from using it to block a port tracker from crossing.
Adjusting shrouds after prep
This goes to ease of use, which is part of the goal in the J/105 CR’s in our OD racing.
Driver’s Torso
Some J/105’s have wheels and some tillers. This keeps the driver’s weight behind the same line in either config.
The above rules makes sense in CR context because they apply evenly to all boats in our OD class. If other likewise handicap sprit-boats in the same handicap-class are not similarly limited, a DSQ does not really seem appropriate (to me).
Also, in my experience protests based on these CR’s are very, very rare even in OD events. The idea that multiple handicap boats will be protested on the same/similar embedded-CR technicality in the same event and would then receive uneven treatment would be exceedingly rare I’d have to imagine.
NOR 1.X states …
Fleet-#’s rules include the exact wording of CR10 …
So this is a different question than before because the local rules are not CR’s. Therefore, in this case it’s not the CR possibly changing RRS 44.1, rather it’s a rule in a “document” under def: rule(g) ‘other documents that govern the race’.
Isn’t it fairly common to note documents/addendums which contain penalties in NOR/SI section 1?
PS: Phrased directly ..
“Can a def: rule(g) document sited in the NOR/SI define turns/scoring penalties?”
I think your Fleet Rule expressly referenced in the NOR technically overcomes the RRS 86.1(c) problem.
But I think:
IMHO, if you think it's a good rule and an appropriate penalty, then the better way to go about it is to put the rule itself up to the OA for inclusion in the NOR so it applies to everyone.
Thanks for your thoughts.
It’s very common for local fleets to invoke their rules in the NOR. We have a rule 87 letter from the 105 Class allowing our local CR changes in our local events.
The idea that it’s putting burdens on other boats to read the CR’s to comply with rule 2 is a bit of a straw man I think. Following that logic, that issue exists whether or not there are lesser penalties for CR rule breaches. Also this seems more of an issue when OD boats are racing handicap … and I wasn’t on that notion … just OD boats racing against themselves. (I think that’s a bit of a distraction as following that trail one could conclude that no handicap system should ever referenced an OD CR … as it puts too much burden on their competitors to enforce under rule 2).
Sorry, I thought you were talking about mixed fleet racing under PHRF or whatever.
I think for OD class racing, if you are in doubt about the validity of the CR in permitting Turns Penalties, you should put the question to the relevant governing authority. As I understand it, the J105 class is a US Sailing National Class; US Sailing has a procedure to submit Questions to the National Appeals Committee, which are answered in the form of Appeals in the Appeals book. I think that would be the way to go. I would suggest that the questions should simply be:
Until you get an authoritative answer, I think you can reasonably safely go ahead relying on your CR without doing anything else for class racing.
BTW, I have never suggested that any failure to live up to the 'expectation' in RRS Basic Principles Sportsmanship and the Rules can constitute a breach of RRS 2 or any othe rule.