Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Case 98 and RRS 78.1
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
With reference to the Class Rules/Turns thread. ( https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/2193-can-class-rules-establish-turns-penalties-for-breaking-on-the-water-crs ) I'm not at all sure about Case 98 and handicap rules in general. Here's some reviewing.
Equipment Rules of Sailing Definitions
C.2.1 Class Rules
The rules that specify:the boat and its use, certification and administration.
C.2.1 Class Rules
The rules that specify:the boat and its use, certification and administration.
the crew.
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.
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.
This only applies when ERS are in play of course, but it's safe to assume that it represents WS thinking on the role of Class Rules.
RRS 78.1 reads:
78 COMPLIANCE WITH CLASS RULES; CERTIFICATES
78.1 While a boat is racing, her owner and any other person in charge shall ensure that the boat is maintained to comply with her class rules and that her measurement or rating certificate, if any, remains valid. In addition, the boat shall also comply at other times specified in the class rules, the notice of race or the sailing instructions.
While Case 98 reads in part
Question 4
Buttercup, a J/24, raced in the handicap class. Did the J/24 Class Rules or the handicap system rules apply to her?
Answer 4
The rules of the handicap system applied to Buttercup (see paragraph (d) in the definition Rule). If her handicap was explicitly based on the assumption that she race in compliance with some, or all, of the J/24 class rules, then those J/24 class rules, or all the J/24 class rules, applied to her. However, if Buttercup's handicap was not based on such an assumption, then none of the J/24 class rules applied to her.
I'd like to add to the mix an opinion I got from the RYA a few years ago on RRS 78 and modified boats, which could be interpreted as:
"If a boat is modified out of class in breach of RRS78,1 it ceases to be a member of that class, there are no class rules and so RRS 78.1 no longer applies."
We can also note that International Class rules frequently have clauses that limit their scope. As an example see 49er rule "C3.2 membership:In all international events each crew member shall be a current member of the ICA." Membership is therefore not required at regional or local events.
OK, that's the background.
The RYA opinion tells us that a boat may be modified out of class, and Case 98 that it is legitimate to race such a craft, (there's also an RYA case that says the same). Case 98 also tells us that some or all class rules may be applicable if a boat is being raced in a handicap event under handicap rules *as a member of the class*. So far so good.
What worries me about this is the word explicit. In UK Portsmouth Yardstick, for example, we have no handicap rules. There is an implicit understanding that a boat must be raced in accordance with her class rules in all respects, or alternatively raced as a one off boat to be allocated an individual handicap by the RC. However this is implicit, not explicit. Round the world there are various other handicapping systems that are much less formal than the likes of PHRF and IRC, and similarly have few or no rules which might explicitly allow or deny the applicability of class rules. Then there's the business of defining these explicit rules. When one considers all the odd rules different one designs consider desirable can any general handicap rule explicitly consider every possible variation? Angelo lists helm position as being a rule that shouldn't be applied in handicap races, but my opinion would be that almost every class rule has some kind of performance implication. It seems to me that it would be much better if all class rules were applicable unless they are specifically excluded or the craft is not being raced as a member of a class. Thoughts?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Imagine 2 physically identical OD configured boats … same hulls, sails, rigs, etc. One is a legit J105 and the other is a no-name knock-off … but they are identical.
Now, imagine both boats apply for a handicap rating to a class admin. Is part of the application for a rating going to ask
As far as I know, these are not part of the inputs for a handicap rating.
As you say, if a OD boat changes something it’s a “one off”. At least in PHRF-Chesapeake the way that is done is they start with the OD rating and make an adjustment. For instance a J/105 that is rated to carry a 150% Genoa might take a 3sec or 6sec per nm rating-hit … but I’ve never heard that part of that formulation is if there are limits on where the driver can sit.
Would it inform our discussion to look at a PY rating application form for your area and see what information the handicapers ask/require?
Maybe I’m completely wrong and they are indeed basing their ratings on information/data that would be surprising me.
In all the dinghy regattas I run the SIs state that all boats will conform to their class rules unless there is a written exemption from the Race Officer, who is the final arbiter of assigned handicap ratings.
I think you're going to be surprised about this! I shall leave out a lot of detail, this isn't the place.
We (the management of UK PY at National level) don't have anything to do with competitors at all. The system is run (and funded out of general funds) as a service to clubs. There is no measurement at all.
Its varied over the years, but the way it works now is that the clubs upload their race results to a RYA database system. The system then takes roughly the top two thirds of each race and discards the other results - basically the long tail as race results are pretty much a skewed normal curve. Then it produces a number for each fleet that averages the actual performance of the included boats for each fleet.
Finally the numbers the system spits out go before an advisory committee for sanity checking, cross reference with class rule changes and so on and in the end they agree a number that's issued for the next season. So its strictly empirical, and you can see why adherence to class rules is so important.
You'll appreciate there is a limit point of data below which we simply can't issue a number with any conviction, and we certainly can't do one off boats. So when it comes to those the clubs basically have to invent a number, although there are some tools in the IT system to help. Its not as big a deal as one might think, basically because handicaps make far less difference than most people think. The spread of finish times in an Olympic Laser race is usually around 20%. In the face of that the odd percentage point here or there in handicaps is pretty much irrelevant.
If it’s a new J/boat for instance, the mfgr (J-boats) suggests a base rating for the new model based on their database of boats and their performance prediction programs during design.
If u think your boat has a bad rating, you submit race results (a lot of them) not boat data …. and make your case. It helps if it’s more than just your boat in the change-submission too.
This sorta goes to my point. Things like driver position, changing shrouds, pole in/out are not even a speck on the fly in the noise of the empirical data, because who is going to verify those items in that data set.
For some of the items above …
Said Created: Mon 20:28
https://www.rya.org.uk/racing/technical/handicap-systems/portsmouth-yardstick
(1) the prescriptions of the national authority
(2) the class rules
(3) rules in the notice of race
(4) rules in the sailing instructions
(5) other documents governing the event
- Class 2
- Class 3
- Class n
As far as returns are concerned... well. PY is a service to the clubs. If the clubs choose to include Not-Quite-a-Lasers" as Lasers in their PY returns, which I strongly suspect many do, then the number we spit out will reflect that.
It does reflect a bigger issue though, which is the problem of sanitising data. For an example which AFAICS has never actually come up, Is a "Flying Moth" a Moth on foils, or is it a survivor from an obscure class in the 60s which was somewhat akin to a Europe?
Anyway, I've referred the potential issue re Case 98 to the appropriate folks at the RYA, so if they see a problem the will deal with it in due course.
First thanks for that response … lots to consider.
In regards to my comments about helm position being inconsistent, I was attempting to make a finer point (which it appears I failed at making). As you point out, the j105 class has made helm-position a rule to keep the sameness of the boats as close as they can during OD racing.
In an OD class where quantitative predictions of performance differences are not required, it is sufficient to think there may be a qualitative difference, make a conformity rule and then record which bow crosses the finish before the other bow.
My point is that, in just my personal opinion, it is not “fair” in a handicap race to require an OD class boat to adhere to restrictions that are not even considered when assigning handicaps to other boats of the same general size and config. If driver position is not considered when deriving the rating a boat of similar specs, then it should not apply between them when they race against one another. Driver position and shroud adjustments are 2 such items as an example. This is just my opinion.
To my amazement, IRC actually contemplates exasperating these divergences. I was reviewing the IRC Race Management Guide while researching this topic and IRC actually has a sample NOR which removes crew weight limits in a race except for those boats that have CR crew limits.
My jaw dropped to the floor when I read that. How could that possibly produce a fair result for those OD-based boats racing against those that are not? The example NOR go on further to NOR examples with more equitable treatment … but it’s amazing to me that’s even in there.
FWIW, PHRF is also imperially based, though each boat gets their own PHRF-cert. PHRF-US compiles base-ratings from different regions. Also, PHRF ratings are issued in increments of 3sec/nm (for TOD ratings), so there is a courseness in the ratings by design. PHRF-US (kept by US Sailing) is a HUGE database that might be useful to any handicapping system to get an idea of comparative performance between boats as it reports the ratings by PHRF-region and u can see how the ratings vary across the US. It also reports the number of boats in that class in each region, so you can see the sample sizes.
For instance, the Chesapeake Bay is known for lighter winds in the summer … so the ratings for boats here may be different than a region that experiences medium to strong winds more consistently.
US PHRF base ratings for OD keel boats that use non-overlapping jibs will usually have 2 ratings … base ratings assuming PHRF size-limits for sails (155% Genoa and 180% spin) and then an “OD Sails” configuration.
Since we have ratings being empirically derived we are in a bit of a chicken-n-egg situation.
IMO and by my experience, OD-boat handicap racers in PHRF are more likely than not actually operating in a mixed-requirement mode …. complying with the boat-equipment and sail inventory based on their OD based rating, but not necessarily following CR requirements that wouldn’t apply to other like sized/rated non-OD boats in their handicap class.
So, the performance of these boats (and the rules they are functionally operating under) are feeding the empirical data-set thus the ratings under which they operate.
"it is not “fair” in a handicap race to require an OD class boat to adhere to restrictions that are not even considered when assigning handicaps to other boats of the same general size and config."
IMHO, what isn't fair is a boat claiming a handicap based on a certain set of circumstances (=CR) and then sailing with a different set that could give an unfair advantage. Smaller keelboats and dinghies are sensitive to helm position, and being able to adjust shrouds also affects performance. If they are in the class rules, then adhere to them or get the handicapper to assign an appropriate adjustment (if any), but don't insist a laser should be able to fly a spinnaker just because a 420 does.
Membership and financial relations between owners, helms, and crew and the CA,
I think it was pretty obvious that was not what I was suggesting or talking about.
In my personal opinion, a rating system that is going to rely upon and restrict a boat based on the boats CR’s (a Class organization the boat might not even belong to) … that rating system should read those class rules, understand what they are including in their rating and be selective.
My personal preference would be for rating systems to list the specific CR’s that they are relying upon in determining the boats rating in their system … and bind only those CR’s to the boat’s handicap.
John: Simply put:
Agree
From my background it seems to me that if you enter as a member of a class, all class rules, which as the boat entrant you should be familiar with, should apply all the time. Trying to determine, formally or otherwise, which should and which shouldn't, seems impractical. If a class thinks it's OTT applying certain rules to events that aren't top level then it should say so in the rules, and this already happens.
I can see though that if you are coming from a measurement based rule where most boats are individual, and one design rules are only really used to provide a convenient way of filling in the certificate, that many class rules would seem pointless or even detrimental.
To my mind RRS78.1 inclines to my first concept, and Case 98 to the second, so seems to me there's a bit of tension. Case 98 is clearly from the left side of the pond. The IRC rule is of course the other side. I would be happier if Case 98 were altered to the effect that it's up to the measurement rule to state something like 'only class rules affecting dimension as per ERS sections D, E, and F apply' , but otherwise the default is all class rules apply as written.
I like it!!
I would add G and change dimensions to “measurements”
It’s not perfect, but I think it’s a MUCH better “default” in service of the spirit of handicap racing than “all CR’s apply”.
Said Created: Sun 15:13
I agree 100%. Hopefully my comments were read consistently that we as judges (and competitors) have to apply the rules as they are written (and potentially explicitly relied upon).
This is the POV and spirit of all my "fairness" comments and suggestions for improvement. Who knows .. we might have 1 or 2 people who have a hand in these handicap-systems following along and maybe we provided some food for thought.