Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

Case 98 and RRS 78.1

Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
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.
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.
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? 

Created: 24-Jan-22 20:28

Comments

P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Jim I mentioned this in the middle of the other thread, but it got buried. 

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 

  1. where the helmsman sits?
  2. If crew will adjust the shrouds after the prep signal?
  3. If there will be advertising ink on the sail?

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. 
Created: 24-Jan-22 20:49
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Jim .. just had a thought while walking my dog. 

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. 
Created: 24-Jan-22 21:35
Graham Smith
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
0
In most systems, such as PHRF,  a boat gets a handicap based on a specific configuration.  If the configuration is changed, then the handicap is reassessed. One designs are slightly different in that the handicap is assigned based on a configuration defined by the class rules, but the variation principle still applies. If a boat varies from the class rules in any way, the handicap needs to be reassessed. It may well be that the handicapper decides the variation does not have a performance impact, but that is his decision to make, not the boat owners.

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.
Created: 24-Jan-22 21:45
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
> PY rating application form for your area
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.
Created: 24-Jan-22 22:57
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Yea … so PHRF works basically the same way.  It’s empirical as well.  When a new boat shows up, they take a very educated WAG (based on similarity to other boats) and then adjust. The bigger the set of alike boats, the more refined the rating.  

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. 
Created: 24-Jan-22 23:08
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Jim … I poked around in the IRC rating rules.  Under IRC you can have a 2nd separate certificate for a change in your configuration.  I post it as maybe informative as a starting place regarding “what really matters” when thinking about the necessary items to carry forward from OD specifications-CR’s (i.e. .. don’t allow at least the items below to vary .. because if u did in IRC at least it would change your rating).



For some of the items above …

Created: 24-Jan-25 14:12
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
I dunno. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea that some rules matter and others don't. It would be nice to think that CAs would not have anything in their rules they consider doesn't matter, or alternatively, like the CA membership rule in the 49er, they state when it applies.Also who decides which are the important rules. I think I had better bring this up with the RYA as superficially at least we seem to have an issue with this case and the lack of formal rules in UK Portsmouth yardstick.

Created: 24-Jan-25 17:04
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Jim Champ
Said Created: Mon 20:28

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.
…
OK, that's the background.

Here's a bit more background.

Jim has been wrestling with a particular problem with PY (that is UK PY) for about 20 years, that is how to deal with 'replica' sails on Lasers.  As we all know sails like that don’t comply with the Laser or ILCA Class rules.

DO CLASS RULES APPLY TO PY RACES? 

The PY system, unlike PHRF and measured rating systems like IRC or ORC, primarily, does not assign handicaps to individual boats.  It assigns handicaps to classes, and boats get a handicap by being a member of a class.

There are various different lists maintained by clubs and other organizing authorities assigning PY numbers to classes, and NOR/SI are required to specify which PY list is applicable to an event.

Boats that do not belong to any particular class, or which are known not to comply with the CR of any particular class, are taken to be in a class by their own and are assigned a 'trial' handicap at the discretion of the race committee.

The lists referred to are, generally, lists of classes, not of individual boats.

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).
 
I don't get how the RYA opinion or Case 98 say that, or say any more than stating the obvious.

Obviously, it is possible to modify a boat out of class.  As a generalisation, it is 'legitimate' for any sort of boat to race.  Problems may arise when compliance with [one set of] CR is required and A modified boat does not comply with those CR.

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.
 
No.  Case 98 never refers to 'member of the class'.  It does not use the word 'member' at all.

But, OK, Case 98 Q&A 4 relates to a boat that is not of a class identified in the NOR as a 'class to race', and thus not having her CR applicable to her by virtue of the NOR.  It contemplates such a boat's CR (in whole or in part), being roped in by the Handicap Rule.

What worries me about this is the word explicit.

I have a bit of difficulty with the idea of something being 'explicitly based' on an assumption, but I think that's just odd English.

But I don't think it's a problem for PY.

In UK Portsmouth Yardstick, for example, we have no handicap rules.

I disagree.  It is a Handicap System.

The content of that website is clearly a collection of rules.

It may well be that there are no rules there that a boat can break, but they are rules nevertheless.

 There is an implicit understanding that a boat must be raced in accordance with her class rules
 
I disagree.

The rules themselves require that.

Case 98 Q&A 1 (not Q&A 4) explains how class rules are invoked for an event by the NOR.  It says:

Question 1
 
Did any of the following apply?
(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

Answer 1

Rule J1.1(2) requires that the notice of race inform competitors ‘that the event will be governed by the rules as defined in The Racing Rules of Sailing.’ If the notice of race includes such a statement, then the following all apply: the prescriptions of the national authority, the class rules, rules in the notice of race and the sailing instructions, as well as the World Sailing Regulations that have been designated by World Sailing as having the status of a rule and are published on the World Sailing website. These apply because they are all defined to be rules (see the definition Rule).

In this case the notice of race for the Spring Tune-Up did not comply with rule J1.1(2). It stated only that ‘The Racing Rules of Sailing would apply.’ Nevertheless, documents 1, 2, 3 and 4 all applied.

This should not be interpreted as sweepingly as it looks.

Obviously not every set of Class Rules ever written applies in every race.

'Class rules' needs to be read down as 'class rules of the classes to race', where 'classes to race' has been stated in the NOR in accordance with RRS J1.1(4).

Now consider the sample NOR used to invoke the PY system, here.

Note particularly:

HANDICAP ENTRIES 1. 
 a. Handicap racing is open to the following classes; - Class 1 
- Class 2 
- Class 3 
- Class n 
OR 
a. Mixed handicap racing is open to all Dinghy/Keelboat/Multihulls. 
 OR 
 a. Mixed handicap racing is open to all Dinghy/Keelboat/Multihull with a PN on the RYA National PN list/ PN on the RYA National PN list with PN higher than [insert]/ or lower than [insert]. 
 b. Handicap racing for the class(s) in 1.a shall be run using the RYA Portsmouth Yardstick Scheme. 
 2. 
 a. From the current RYA National Portsmouth Number list. This list is available from the RYA’s website: https://www.rya.org.uk/racing/technical/handicap-systems/portsmouth-yardstick 
 OR 
 a. From the event list which will be made available from the [insert] on the [insert date XX/XX/XXXX] 
 OR 
 a. The handicaps to be used shall be taken from the event list available in appendix A of this NOR. 
 The OA should publish the list if not the National list either with the NOR or state when and where they shall be available. 
 If the OA is using the National List and wish to allow classes that are not on the national list, the following should be included: 
 a. Where the class is not listed on the PN list the OA shall assign the class a trial number based on known performances to similar fleets. 
 OR 
 a. Where the class is not listed on the PN list the OA shall assign the class a trial number based on [Insert] the method prescribed in the NOR. 
 
The lists referred to are, generally, lists of classes, not of individual boats.

These NOR paragraphs thus either expressly list 'classes to race' or refer to lists of classes which are the classes to race, as required by RRS RRS J1.1(4)., and, those classes to race having been specified in the NOR, their CR apply.

However this is implicit, not explicit.

There's nothing 'implicit' about it.  It’s a straightforward application of the Definition of Rules, and RRS J1.1(4).

Looking at the language used on the sample NOR above, it is clear that PY sees a one-off boat as belonging to a class of its own, albeit that that 'class' may have no class rules.

So, while the PY system itself doesn't explicitly invoke the CR, once you use anything like the sample NOR, the NOR does.

HOW DO CLASS RULES APPLY TO HANDICAP SYSTEMS OTHER THAN PY?

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.

As we have seen, some systems specifically apply the CR as a whole (like Tim's example of the Southern California PHRF rules):  that is to say there is an applicable rule (of the Handicap System) that says that the CR apply.   Others, like the Chesapeake PHRF rules refer to CR 'measurement' rules and in that case the pathway to application of those rules is Case 98 Q&A 4.

ISTM that there's an even money chance that incorporating CR as a whole by reference in the Handicap System rules is poor drafting, rather than a considered step, but note that there are some factors, like crew weight and positioning, owner driver rules and so on that are not 'measurement' rules, but which will affect empirical performance (Note PHRF doesn't much care about empirical performance: it's based on imputed performance)

When one considers all the odd rules different one designs consider desirable can any general handicap rule explicitly consider every possible variation?
 
Yes it can if it's diligent enough, but bear in mind that most handicap systems have only a limited scope of boats:  PHRF is focused on keelboats, many of which don't belong to classes having CR:  it would hardly be concerned with the CR for Lasers, or 49ers.  Likewise UK PY doesn't have anything like the sample size necessary to deal validly with keelboats.

Angelo lists helm position as being a rule that shouldn't be applied in handicap races,

I think Angelo's being a bit inconsistent there:  on one hand he says the J105 class has the helm position rule to standardise the helm position between wheel and tiller steering, which, surely can have no other reason that it affects performance, then he says he thinks it doesn't affect performance.

And I really can't see the rationale for a One Turn Penalty for breaking the helm position CR.

but my opinion would be that almost every class rule has some kind of performance implication.

CA membership?  Advertising? Certificates?  Payment of fees?

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?

 I think it probably depends on the handicapping concept.  PY is an empirical system based on actual performance.  PHRF is an imputed system, based on theoretical potential performance.  IOW, PY is a 'true' performance system, PHRF is closer to a measurement system.

 I don't think it's beyond the wit of man to come up with suitable words appropriate to the system.  We've seen several word-sets in these threads that will come close.

PY, probably needs nearly all the CR to apply so as to fit boats into the statistical base of the system.  PY can allow boats that knowingly don't comply with CR to enter with 'trial' PY, so I don't think PY has any problems with having all CR apply, through means of the NOR as at present.

I think PHRF would be wise to NOT apply all CR.  Forms of words like Angelo used would probably work.  While helm position may affect performance, it's open to a PHRF Board to take the view that this is marginal and to discount it.  Likewise other factors that would affect the statistical measure of a class's speed, like an owner driver rule don't affect the hypothetical performance of the boat based on a finite set of measurements.
Created: 24-Jan-28 11:29
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
The "not quite a Laser" problem is largely under control in the UK. Most open events are sanctioned under the UKLA (or is it UKILCAA) now? If an Open event is going to be sanctioned by UKLA with the advantages of publicity, regional series inclusion etc then its is required that the event is only open to International Lasers/ILCA, and replica sails, unplaqued PS hulls etc are not eligible. At club level many clubs open their club series to "Not-quite-a-Lasers" in NOR or equivalent, either implicitly or with a blind eye, which they are quite entitled to do.  
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. 
Created: 24-Jan-28 14:50
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John re: helm position, PHRF, etc.

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. 
Created: 24-Jan-28 15:13
Graham Smith
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
0
Angelo:
"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.
Created: 24-Jan-28 21:13
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
HANDICAP SYSTEMS

There are (at least) 3 different types of handicap systems:
  • Measurement Rating stems like IMS, IRC, ORR based on applying formulas based on the laws of physics and engineering to boats' measurements.
  • What we might call 'Empirical' Rating Systems, like PHRF, based on empirically derived (rather than based on laws of physics) adjustments being made to estimates of boats' speeds, to produce an 'imputed' speed index, that is, an index of how the handicap owners believe a boat should perform, These can then be further adjusted by reference to boat's actual performance.
  • Actual Performance Based Systems like UK PY, Echo or Australian PHS which are based on statistical analysis of boats' actual performance, without regard to measurement or configuration.

Some Measurement or Empirical Rating Systems provide 'Class Ratings' for common classes, based on dimension limits or dimensions contained in CR or provided by manufacturers specifications.  For a Class Rating to apply to a boat it is necessary for her to comply with at least the relevant parts of the CR.  Different systems enact this requirement in different ways.  For example:
  • IRC, at a boat's request, will apply the Class Rating data in calculating a boat's IRC Certificate, thereafter, any departure from those dimensions is a departure from the certified dimensions and is protestable under RRS 78, and various conformity requirements of the IRC rule, without further reference to the CR.
  • Southern California PHRF rules expressly required that a boat 'shall comply with all its One-Design, IRC or ORR class rules'.
  • Chesapeake Bay PHRF requires only that boat and sails comply with the OD rules regarding the hull, boat-weight, sails, rigging and appendages.

PY, as discussed in my previous post, is based on data from races where boats are presumed to have raced in complete conformity with their CR, thus depends on complete conformity with CR, and through it's sample NOR and the definition of rules requires this.

Both Measurement Rating Systems and Empirical Rating Systems depend on the designers or 'owners' of the system to identify and measure all factors that significantly affect performance on a sliding scale of significance of their choice.

Compare, for example, CHS/IRC, which was avowedly designed to be cheap and easy, measurable by owners with a tape measure and square, with IMS/ORCi which is much more comprehensive, and controlled, and expensive to measure.

If a PHRF Board or other system owner doesn't comprehend some factor in its rule and measurement declaration, then that implies that the PHRF Board doesn't consider it significant, and if any stakeholder doesn't like that they can use the Appeal and review mechanisms provided.

It is thus possible for a Handicap System, either by intention or inadvertently, to simultaneously:
  • Identify measurements or other conditions in CR that are significant, and either expressly or by implication identify those that are not considered significant;  and
  • In some cases, expressly require with CR as a whole.

CLASS RULES NOT AFFECTING PERFORMANCE\

CR often contain requirements that have no effect on boats' performance such as:
Membership and financial relations between owners, helms, and crew and the CA,
  • Detailed requirements for certificates, or
  • Advertising.

Other CR may contain restrictions or relaxations of the RRS that may have a marginal effect on performance, but which will not apply to other boats racing under the Handicap System.  For example:
  • Crew co-ed or age restrictions,
  • Prodder extension restrictions
  • Weight limits.
  • In Lasers, finicky rules about boom vang setup,
  • In Lasers the anti-pumping rule about where the main sheet may be held.

Simply put:
  • If the Handicap System rules have expressly made the CR as a whole applicable, these CR apply, and may be protested.
  • If the Handicap System rules only requires compliance with some CR then these CR that are not listed, will not apply

Created: 24-Jan-28 23:02
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Graham re: Lasers flying a spin. 

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:
  • If the Handicap System rules have expressly made the CR as a whole applicable, these CR apply, and may be protested.
  • If the Handicap System rules only requires compliance with some CR then these CR that are not listed, will not apply

Agree 
Created: 24-Jan-29 02:03
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
1
Interesting the different viewpoints. 

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. 
Created: 24-Jan-29 03:01
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
2
Jim re: “only class rules affecting dimension as per ERS sections D, E, and F apply”

I like it!! 

I would add G and change dimensions to “measurements”

only class rules affecting measurements as per ERS sections D, E, F & G apply unless otherwise stated. 

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”. 
Created: 24-Jan-29 13:59
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON CLASS AND HANDICAP SYSTEM RULES

Jim Champ
Said Created: Mon 22:57
… 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.
 Angelo Guarino
Said Created: Mon 23:08
… 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,
Angelo Guarino
Said Created: Yesterday 14:12
[Maybe we need] a starting place regarding “what really matters” when thinking about the necessary items to carry forward from OD specifications-CR’s … .
Jim Champ
Said Created: Yesterday 17:04
I dunno. I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea that some rules matter and others don't. It would be nice to think that CAs would not have anything in their rules they consider doesn't matter, or alternatively, like the CA membership rule in the 49er, they state when it applies.Also who decides which are the important rules. 
Angelo Guarino
Said  Created: Sun 15:13
…
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.

Thanks to the insightful post from Angelo, we can identify a number of different perspectives on the importance or significance of rules:

  • As a judge, hearing a protest or otherwise applying the rules to a rules problem:  All rules are created equal, no rule is more important or more significant than any other rule (until [DP] is prescribed).
  • As an objective observer, taking an interest in the effect, rationale, drafting quality, enforceability, possible loopholes and so on, of the rules.
  • As a CA drafting CR to control as many variables affecting performance, large and small, as the class membership demands.
  • As a Handicap System owner of a Measurement Handicap System, or Emipirical Handicap System, drafting Handicap System rules with certain mathematical limitations on workable number of variables, variability of those variables, measurability of those variables, ability to mathematically adjust for those variables, in other words the 'granularity' of the system, and also the appetite of stakeholders for go/no go bans or obligations.

So the key thing is, it's perfectly legitimate for a CA to impose or relax restrictions in it's CR that a Handicaps System would overlook, and it's well arguable that these things should be 'switched off' when boats of that class race under a Handicap System.

The ability of a CA to relax restrictions in the CR by prescribing lesser penalties such as Turns or Scoring Penalties is limited by RRS 86.1(c), which limits the CA's prerogatives in changing the RRS.
Created: 24-Jan-30 20:49
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John re: judges vs [interested] objective observer

As a judge, hearing a protest or otherwise applying the rules to a rules problem:  All rules are created equal, no rule is more important or more significant than any other rule (until [DP] is prescribed).

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).

As an objective observer, taking an interest in the effect, rationale, drafting quality, enforceability, possible loopholes and so on, of the rules.

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.
Created: 24-Jan-31 14:27
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more