Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Are all Notices to Competitors rules?
P
Roger WilsonNationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
- International Race Officer
- Regional Umpire
- National Judge
1
Are all "Notices to Competitors" rules under the definition of Rule (g) ?
An IJ has given me the opinion that unless Notices to Competitors are made rules in the NoR or SIs, then they are not rules and are not protestable. Is this the common interpretation?
Changes to the Sailing Instructions are rules, as they are rules under RRS 90.2(c) and definition of Rule (f). I always display Flag Lima when I post a Change to the Sailing Instructions. Does that mean that they are also a Notice to Competitors?
Looking forward to your comments with interest.
An IJ has given me the opinion that unless Notices to Competitors are made rules in the NoR or SIs, then they are not rules and are not protestable. Is this the common interpretation?
Changes to the Sailing Instructions are rules, as they are rules under RRS 90.2(c) and definition of Rule (f). I always display Flag Lima when I post a Change to the Sailing Instructions. Does that mean that they are also a Notice to Competitors?
Looking forward to your comments with interest.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
A backdoor for a serious issue (where the notice involved health or safety, for example) would be to include an NOR or SI requiring competitors and support persons to comply with reasonable requests of the OA (this seemed to become common during COVID). If someone didn't comply with a notice they could be protested under the NOR/SI, assuming the notice represented a "reasonable request".
For a post on the ONB to be a rule, it’d have to be in the form of a “document” and that document would have to contain something “governing”.
Does a simple post meet the standard of “a document”? (Not sure it meets the ordinary use test for undefined terms).
Another angle …
Let’s say the post on the ONB is changing an existing SI (so not relying upon def:rule(g)) .. well the existing SI is a rule already so the post on the ONB would have to follow rule 85.1 and 90.2(c), therefore the post must ..
The other place is in rule 61.1.(b). Here, the word notice is used to post the intention to protest a boat and the posting of such notice satisfies the requirement of the rule.
Both seem to indicate that 'posting a notice'...... is within the rules and constitutes valid means of communicating to the competitors.
I guess, one could say: it becomes a document that governs the event, which are rules.
It might help us if you explained why you are asking.
Is it something to do with flag L?
My initial comments below.
Roger Wilson
RRS J1.1(3) requires the NOR to include a list of any documents other than the rules as defined in The Racing Rules of Sailing that will govern the event.
There is some circularity between this requirement and Definition Rule (g), but it is clear that for a document other than those listed in Definition Rule (a) to (f) to be a rule it must be listed in the NOR in accordance with RRS J1.1(3).
I'd certainly agree with that.
Maybe that goes a little far as a generalisation.
Suppose the NOR/SI contained the standard provision
4 CODE OF CONDUCT
I wouldn't put it that way. RRS 90.2(c) doesn't actually say that.
The changed SI are the rules, not the notice describing the changes.
Well, yes. How can a document posted on the Official Notice Board be anything other than a notice?
But its because it's posted on the ONB, not because flag L is displayed.
The Oxford dictionary (online) defines document as ‘A piece of written, printed, or electronic matter ...
The word 'amendment' doesn't appear anywhere in the RRS.
RRS 90.2(c) requires that changes to SI be in writing and posted on the official notice board.
How can a document posted on the Official Notice Board be anything other than a notice?
So this reply to you is a “document” (as we would ordinarily use that word in a nautical or general use)?
Personally, I wouldn’t think of this post as meeting the threshold of a “document” as that word is used and thought of “generally”.
Of course not. Why do you think I would think that?
RRS 89.2(b) and RRS 90.2(c) expressly say they can be.
Yes.
You seem to be grasping for some sort of additional meaning like 'official document', but I don't know why.
Question: where is it written that Lima flag is mandatory ? I always seen it as a courtesy to boats.
If exposed, it has its meaning as per RRS, and better use it; but if not, the notice remains valid.
Am i wrong?
I wouldn't want to be a race officer who didn't displayed flag L when an amendment to SI was posted.
I have asked it as I have been asked to run a Championship and the OA use the RRS system as an official Notice Board.
The OA has told me that they do not issue "Changes to the Sailing Instructions" as I have bene used to but post a Notice to Competitors saying the SIs have been changed and replace the version of the SIs on the Documents section with a version where the changes have been incorporated in the text, sometimes highlighted, sometimes not.
As an an OA, that is easier, but as a competitor going through all the Notices on the website to see if any of them are important and quickly knowing what has been changed is much harder. Going to Event Documents and looking to see when the last SIs were posted and hopefully using a name to show which amendment they contain helps.
There is no section on the website for changes to SIs. You could post them as Event Documents otherwise they get lost in Notices to Competitors.
As I said an IJ then said that, in his opinion, Notices to Competitors are only rules if they have been made rules by the NoR/SIs or are properly posted Changes to SIs.
Does the habbit of just posting a Notice to say the SIs are changed and then a new version of the SIs incorporating the changes comply with RRS 85? I am not at all sure it does.
Seems like failure to use L ashore could open the OA to a redress situation. For example a change of schedule that resulted in one or more competitors missing races or being late for their starts.
Most of the regattas I do now hva an event messaging system, usually Telegram, sometimes WhatsApp. always set up as a broadcast group where all competitors are added by the OA but can't post. Only Admins can post: PC, RO, Event Admin etc. Would that cover informing the competitors (you can see if they have received and read the message)?
I put it into the NoR and SIs as a means of communicating, but still display flag L as I am old school. Often meaningless as boats come from a number of places and many can't see the Club Flagpole. Is it worth bothering?
Replacing the original NOR/SI on the electronic notice board with the amended copy of the NOR/SI and removing the original is good practice with electronic documents. This makes the electronic ONB the 'single source of truth'. You should include an 'Amendment History' block in the amended document and change the document name to say that it is 'including Amendments up to NN'.
You should, of course also put an 'Amendment NN to SI' Notice to Competitors on the ONB in the usual way.
I'll post a set of sample documents to demonstrate how this works later.
I'm off to run the Annual Australia Day Race to Botany Bay.
And Happy Independence Day India.
RRS J2.2(3) requires the Si to include 'procedures for changing the SI'.
Appendix LG Rule LG 2.1 provides model wording
Any change to the sailing instructions will be posted before 0900 on the day it will take effect, except that any change to the schedule of races will be posted by 2000 on the day before it will take effect. Change the times as needed.
So, for the SI, the SI will tell you the time.
RRS 89.2(b) provides
The notice of race may be changed provided adequate notice is given.
So, for the NOR, it's a bit of a moveable feast, but a good test is, working backwards from RRS 62..1, is there a 'claim or possibility that a boat’s score or place in a race or series has been or may be, through no fault of her own, made significantly worse by' the change?
Eachamendment is completely described in a Notice to Competitors Amendment N to the NOR, in the usual way.
The amended versions include (prominently) an Amendment Record. Track Changes is NOT used in the updated version: if anybody is all that curious they can run a File Compare, but the Amendment Notices completely describe each amendment.
As each amended version of the NOR was posted on the electronic ONB the previous version was removed, so that the 'NOR' shown on the ONB was always the up to date version.
Note the version number of the initial version is shown as ver 8. This was poor practice that arose because the initial 7 drafts didn't have a draft suffix in their file name. Once the final draft had been agreed it should have appeared as NOR ver 1.
Each subsequently amended version gets the next version number, 9, 10, 11.
The filename of each amended version contains the words '... up to Amendment N', to clearly which amendments have been included, so that any disparity between an earlier downloaded version and the current version will be immediately obvious.
Each Amendment is numbered as Amendment N. The Notices to Competitors aren't numbered. The RO can and should control the Amendment numbers to the NOR/SI. IMHO it's asking too much to try to keep control by serial number of all Notices to Competitors which may be posted by various stakeholders in the OA. Each Notice to Competitors has a date and time of authorisation in the footer (which is electronically generated in the MS Word template used to draft the Notices.
A massive pet hate is to see '_Final' in a file name!
It inevitably isn't. Then you need '_Final_Final'! I've even seen _Final_Final_Final!
It starts looking stupid!
A simple (not the only) file naming system is:
_v0-1
_v0-2
_v1-2
Anything prior to _v1-0 is a DRAFT.
_v1-0 is the first published version.
After that each Amendment is a new version number.
_v2-0 = Next amendment
_v3-0 = Next amendment
(John, I must admit, I got a little confused with the v11 up to and including Amdt 2 system.)
Minor changes (which don't change meaning, such as spelling and gammer) can be interim publications numbered as the decimal of each amendment.
_v3-1
I agree the that the NTC can announce the change to the NoR/SI, and mention the new amendment number. The new document is posted and the old document can be removed.
======
The NTC is just an announcement tool. It is not a rule per se, but may refer to a change of the NOR/SI. Both of these can be changed, so long as adequate time is given (NoR) and before the time limit (SI).
An NTC can also tell people that they can't park their cars in front of the Clubhouse. That's not a rule.
I don't really see the point of designating NTC as 'rules' in the SI. Do that and you lose your general announcement system for non-event information.
Just my thoughts.
Thanks for the explanation.
So the question you are asking seems to be 'Does this method comply with the requirements of RRS 85.1 and RRS 90.2(c)?'
RRS 85.1 requires any change to a rule to 'state the change' and RRS 90.2(c) requires that 'the change is in writing and posted on the official notice board'.
I don't think that a Notice to Competitors just saying that the SI have been changed into a new version that is now posted meets this requirement. I think you need an Amendment to SI, drafted in the usual manner. The change is what has to be in writing.
But hey, who am I? Maybe that's a question you need to ask the Jury at the event.
Just because it's easy doesn't make it right.
RRS 90.2(c) says that the ONB is where changes to the SI shall be posted. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect competitors to diligently read the ONB, especially when the RO has displayed flag L.
You're not contemplating not displaying flag L for changes to the SI are you?
I'm not that familiar with the RRS.org structure, but ISTM that the way to go would be to post the Amendment to the SI document on the Notices to Competitors, and put the updated version with its Amendment Record (see my previous post), in the Event Documents.
I think we covered this in previous posts. An Amendment to the SI, posted on the ONB is a Notice to Competitors. It's not a rule in itself: the amended SI is the rule.
Neither am I.
I was still coming to grips with the naming convention.
That's not all that simple. A 2 digit number system is only useful if you have a strong convention about what the first and second digits are meant to mean. I don't think it's necessary for relatively ephemeral documents like NOR/SI. My preference is just for 'Version n'.
So I'd prefer just Version 1, Version 2 ....
Note that this is out of step with the Amendment Numbers by one, but so be it, unless you wanted to start with 'Version 0'.
See my comments above. I don't think this complication is necessary and it sort of invites disputes about what is 'minor' and what is 'substantive'. I think and amendment is and amendment is an amendment.
See my response to Roger above. I don't agree that a Notice to Competitors just saying that a NOR/SI has been changed meets the requirements. What's so damn hard about writing a proper Amendment notice?.
Yes
Where did that idea come from? I agree it's a really bad idea. If you want to make rules for an event put them in the NOR/SI (as an Amendment, if necessary).
1. The numbering system is one which I use for most of my personal documents too.. not just sailing documents. The 'minor' changes decimal part is optional. Using v1 as the first published document does create the mis-step between amendment and version - so forget the amendment number is what I say.
2. You said, " I don't agree that a Notice to Competitors just saying that a NOR/SI has been changed meets the requirements. What's so damn hard about writing a proper Amendment notice?."
My mistake. I should have been more clear when I said.. "and announce the change".
I meant this... Here are 3 NTCs. 2 refer to NOR/SI. Each time, the 'rules' changed are specifically referred to and the change is stated. RRS 85 is thus satisfied. (The NOR/SI both have extra requirements to meet in Rules 89 and 90). The latest amended document name is referenced in the NTC but posted in the 'Event Documents' section of the notice board.
NTC#2 is simply a notice to competitors, but not of any kind of regulatory purpose.
===================================
NTC # 1 - Change of Notice of Race - National Prescriptions
The Notice of Race Section 8 - Rules is changed as follows:
NOR 8.1 (e) - No National Prescriptions shall apply.
Please refer to the document 2039-FastboatRegatta-Notice Of Race v2.pdf available on the ONB.
-----------------------------------------------------------
NTC #2 - Boatyard Tidiness
All competitors are informed that trolleys should be stored at the western end of the boat yard.
-----------------------------------------------------------
NTC #3. - Change of Sailing Instructions - Marks
The Sailing Instructions are changed as follows:
SI 13. Marks: Mark B shall be an orange inflatable buoy.
Please refer to the document 2039-FastboatRegatta-Sailing Instructions v2-2.pdf available on the ONB.
===================================
I think 1 & 3 are what you mean by 'proper amendment notices'.
3. OP mentioned the NTCs being designated as rules in the first post.
So, I think we're pretty much there.
Yes?
In the 2017 RRS the note to RRS L2 Notices to Competitors stated 'If notices are online state how and where they may be found'. This for the first time in the RRS expressly contemplated the use of an electronic ONB.
So, since 2017, the RRS, in effect, have said that it is reasonable to expect competitors to have access to a device capable of interacting with the internet, and to make use of that device.
So competitors need a device and a web browser. Web browsers are numerous, typically free, and may be accessed anonymously.
I think it is further, reasonable to expect competitors to have an email address and be organised to at least receive email. I also think that it is reasonable, if we are going this far, to expect competitors to have access to SMS on a mobile phone. I acknowledge that this is different from having internet and email, but the vast majority of competitors will have a mobile phone, and, in fact, will use a mobile phone to access email and an ONB on the internet.
I think that to effectively require competitors to make use of a proprietary messaging system like WhatsApp or Telegram is going a step too far.
The way I like to use WhatsApp is:
For bigger events you might want to be more restrictive.
I'm pretty familiar with events with multiple launching sites. I'm also familiar with the perils of coordinating multiple official flag poles. You've got to have an official flag pole (RRS J2.2(6)). Normally you would expect the official flag pole to be adjacent to the race office and the race office to be near where most of the competitors are.
I don't think that the time has yet come to dispense with flag signals ashore.
IMHO, the use of flag L is optional. It's just that in certain circumstances failure to use it is really bad practice.
I agree we are pretty much in agreement. Hopefully we have persuaded others. We've at least provided some options of reasonably well structured systems.
FWIW, I used to get paid to maintain quite complex and valuable suites of documents, and we didn't use either version numbers or amendment numbers. But we had a very well developed QA system and a well practiced convention of referring to documents and parts of documents without using numbers. Using numbers, despite some dinosaur lawyers regarding them as the tools of the devil make everything easier.
I think I would prefer to word your NTC as follows:
Delete NOR/SI nn
Insert
'nn new text new text new text ,,,;'
Seems to me the requirements in section J.2.2 are things that the SI “… shall include … that will apply”. Therefore if you do not plan on signals ashore, it does not apply and is not required.
That crossed my mind.
As I sort of said, I don't think the time is ripe to do away with flag signals yet.
As an example, I'd be really uneasy about 'AP ashore removed' being replaced by WhatsApp messages.
I think we all agree that NtC are not, in themselves, rules unless made rules by the NoR and that NtCs making changes to the NoR and SIs need to conform to RRS 85, 89 & 90.2(c)
Wishing you all good sailing, fair winds and sunshine!
I must say that upon raising this question with some fellow judges, there seems to be a trend of totally separating 'Amendments' to NOR/SI from NTC. (The idea being that an Amendment will stand out more, if the two are separate.)
I'm not personally sure that this is absolutely necessary or even ideal. I just wanted to share that to this thread though.
Hope that helps.
If anyone wants the NOR/Notices to Competitors in MS Word Template form, with Auto Numbering etc, email me.
I think the 'sectionalisation' of the ONB comes from the Race Management Manual: do a word search in the RMM for 'notice board'. I agree with Ben that, unless you're going for an IRO assessment at a very large event, this can be needlessly complicated.