Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
41(c) Outside Help
P
Beau VrolykNationality: United States
0
Two questions about 41(c) help in the form of information freely available to all boats;
First, it seems that some people interpret "...information freely available to all boats;" to mean the information is not only available to all but there is also no charge. While others interpret the same statement as available to all even if one has to pay for it. This ambiguity seems to be driving a wedge between different parts of the sport. There is a proposal from World Sailing to deal this with respect to inexpensive software, see example after the next point.
Second, rule 41(c) is widely abused and in many cases the abuser doesn't realize it. In an era where the wind and current GRIBs are just an option that one selects when running the weather forecasting tool they use every day on their phone, computer or pad, many sailors don't "get it" that this violates 41(c) under one of the two interpretations above. World Sailing has recognized this and has suggested the following wording in
OSR 2024-2026 Appendix M Optional Wording for OA’s NORs or SIs. 2(b):
Add to RRS 41:
However, in exception to rule 41(c), weather information that is available to all boats
for a fee may be received, but it shall not include specific weather or routing advice
customised for the boat or a group of boats.
I would be interested in the Forum member's thoughts on this addition to RRS 41.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
“Information freely available” in rule 41(c) is information that is available without monetary cost and that may be easily obtained by all boats in a race. Rule 41(c) is a rule that may be changed for an event provided that the procedure established in the rules is followed.
I guess there could be an interesting discussion if I accessed a weather report through my paywalled subscription to an on-line newspaper when the same weather report was also available from a government weather bureau free of charge.
My opinion is that using the tests in Case 120, that is information freely available, despite the fact that I happened to pay for it.
Note that information is not programming or analysis.
The rule does not prohibit me using Expedition, as long as the information (GRIBS etc) that goes into it is freely available.
Again, there might be discussion whether information that is integrally obtained by Expedition, but is also freely available directly is caught.
The OSR appendix M 2.b might be useful language if an OA wants to change 41 C for an event, but as a standard rule, I think it muddies the water with respect to what's fair and what isn't. On the other hand, perhaps it just recognizes the reality that competition at the highest level costs more, and isn't much different than a competitor who can afford exotic sails every year versus one that can't.
I'm not sure what approach is philosophically "pure". Whichever way 41c is dealt with in the rules regarding the issue of weather data, as long as the OA has the freedom to clearly define the degree of fairness in 41c for their race within the NOR, then it's fair for all who decide to enter.
John,
Thanks for your comments. I couldn't access Case 120 prior to this thread, and this discussion motivated me to become a Patron of this site. All good.
Case 120 is right on target. The distinctions made in the Case are most certainly not observed by many sailors who are used to buying a product like SailFlow, WeatherTrack, and PredictWind that include the free NOAA GRIBs for weather in the US, but also includes their vendor's "enhanced" GRIBs for wind or TideTech for current for a fee. As I read the case, the NOAA GRIBs are fine, regardless of the software used to display them, but paying for a GRIB behind a paywall (EG: TideTech) is "outside assistance".
Thus, the distinction appears to be: A tool that is used to retrieve and display freely available information is not "outside help". Using that tool to read purchased data (no matter how small the cost) is "outside help". Such a tool can be hardware or software.
Given the broad use of tools that can be used to provide "outside help" without it being obvious to the sailor where the data came from presents a serious challenge to competitors seeking to comply with RRS 40(c).
All of this was kicked off by a recent race in which a proprietary wind forecast predicted a massive hole along the course. Boats using that proprietary weather forecast sailed around the hole and those competitors who were sailing without this information. There were massive changes in the fleet across the top 10 finishers. While some would say: "That's sailboat racing." Those who had spent $$$$ to put together a top flight program and were following RRS 41(c) were incensed by those who clearly were not complying with 41(c). The difference quite literally inverted the podium and much further down the results.
It's a serious problem and tough for a skipper/navigator to self-police given the tool used to potentially violate 41(c) is a phone in the pocket of a sailor. This is made much worse because the sailor may have subscribed to an enhanced weather source years ago and has no idea that enhancements to the NOAA GRIBs have been made by the vendor over the years.
There's another border line 41c issue: in shorter offshore races like Newport-Bermuda, or Marion-Bermuda, a well known weather routing service provides pre-race coaching, and a package of excellent hi-res gribs covering weather and particularly, Gulf stream current and eddy data. It's not a cheap package, but covers all the data needed to import into software like Expedition. The time series in the gribs will cover the typical duration of the race, but importantly, the first 2 or 3 days of the more accurate forecast data, should get you past the most challenging part of the race, namely the optimal routing past the Gulf stream.
Part 4 covers rules while racing and therefore 41c prohibits getting "fresh" paid for weather gribs after the Prep signal. It doesn't constrain using last-minute paid routing data obtained before the prep signal, that's accurate enough to cover the most significant part of the routing for the shorter races.
Some NOR'S have put a constraint on receiving this data within a time limit before the prep signal. Still, this kind of paid routing package received, even within a few days of the start, pushes the limit of the intent 41c and "while racing".
Writing the perfect rule on this subject is difficult as one size doesn't fit all events. I think fairness in this area is in the hands of the OA in deciding what kind of event they want, and who they want to attract to the game.
One approach an OA could pursue, and one that we arranged for a Vic-Maui in 2006, was to have the company offering a normally subscribed service, produce a sponsored bundle of hi-res gribs for the race entrants. Everyone in the race was on a level playing field in terms of getting the same data. Incidentally, the duration of the sponsorship covered the return deliveries roo.
Yes, I am aware of the issue with Newport-Bermuda and the problem is also found in the StFYC Rolex Big Boat Series as one can get quite accurate wind and current models prior to the first race that will last for at least the first 3 days of the 4 day regatta. I also agree that this is something each OA needs to address, as they are the ones who are closest to the fleet and the tactical situation involved in the race or regatta.
I like the concept of having a high quality forecast run for all competitors prior to the racing to level the playing field. If the cost were bundled into the entry fee, it could potentially be less expensive for the big$$ programs, would illustrate to competitors that they might have been breaking RRS 40(c) in the past, and could be used to warn competitors that the OA was watching this sort of thing. Thanks for that.
I can't see any substantial issue of fairness. Relating outside help to monetary cost is nothing but a cost control measure, like buttoning sails.
I note that electronic information seems to be a particularly American concern. US Sailing has been pushing strict interpretations of RRS 41 for a long time. I remember when we first introduced the tracker for the Sydney to Hobart Race, the Americans were horrified that boats could see where their competitors were. In fact I remember even further back, the American competitors were very worried about regular position skeds giving too much information to the competition.
To a degree it smacks of outright technophobia.
The Case 120 monetary test is an arbitrary interpretation of 'freely available'. It is equally possible to interpret 'freely available' as [readily] available to all competitors without restriction, without regard to monetary cost.
So the current application of Case 120 poses two problems:
1 is no different from employing an excellent coach, or rig trimmer before a race.
My preference would be to change Case 120 to take out the any monetary cost however small provision.
Otherwise, the SI wording quoted looks to me like a good solution.
If they were incensed, what was the outcome of the protest?
So far as I know there was no protest. As we all know, that doesn't tell us much about the happiness of the owners who talked to fellow sailors well after the race and discovered what had happened. In a more perfect world the skipper of the boats that had "accidentally" broken 41(c) would have withdrawn. Again, as we've often observed, there aren't many people who will self-police and show up at the OA to return the trophy.
But I want more info on this issue, info that would be found at a protest hearing:
Even if the answers to all of these questions clearly point to outside assistance, it highlights how difficult the issue is, and why it might not even always be so obvious to the person who ought to retire. This is only going to get more complex with AI. I can imagine boats carrying expensive computers onboard so they don't need outside assistance to calculate routing. That could be far more expensive and time-consuming than paying a few thousand for better routing software.
Again, I don't in fact have experience with the orders of magnitude here, so maybe I'm way off.
The team here educated me that World Sailing Case 120 does a great job of defining "freely available". I'd strongly recommend reviewing is. (It's available here on this site once you join.)
As to your questions:
Q1: As I read Case 120 the expense is not relevant. Any expense makes information not freely available. This payment can be a single purchase or a subscription fee. In the case I was talking about in the Original Post the cost was quite small, about 10 USD per month, and one only needs to buy one month. Again, the amount isn't relevant.
Q2: The service was available for _purchase_ to all, not developed by the sailors on the boat. _My_Opinion_ (as I read RRS 40(c)) is that one can build whatever sorts of interpretive tools one wants and use them, you just can't buy them. But this was not discussed in the thread. EG: If a meteorologist had built a personal weather forecasting system to run on their own computer, I believe they would be allowed to use it so long as no money was paid for the raw weather data.
Q3: If the weather was processed ashore during or just before a race, and then only available to some people it would be a violation of RRS 40(c). If it was _available_at_no_cost_ to everyone early enough that sailors could find, receive, and think about it before the race, it would not violate RRS 40(c). (This is in Case 120). There is no restriction on the cost or use of expensive equipment aboard the boat provided nothing has been paid for the information being received by the equipment.
I have found it much more useful to think of the words: "readily available at no cost" as opposed to "freely available" as even native English speakers would understand that you can not pay anything for the information. Regarding your comment about "AI":
This is my opinion: Yes, this will get massively more difficult as AI is applied to all sorts of things. It's a field I'm acquainted with and some AI computing one needs to do ashore today will eventually migrate to being performed locally to get better response times and lower costs. If sailors were to purchase an AI Enhanced Weather Router, which most certainly will be available sometime, then sailors could use it aboard the boat and the AI software could even learn about the performance characteristics of the boat (EG: read its polars and observe its actual performance). So long as the _information_ fed into the AI Weather Router software was readily available at no cost to everyone it would be ok under RRS 40(c). Technical innovations that have lowered the cost of rapid internet access while sailing could put more pressure on RRS 40(c) as rapid rerouting will be available for a very small amount of money, but it will be expensive for a while.
I can only assume that most off-shore races allow some types of software to be used, right? My understanding from speaking with boats that sail Mackinac, Halifax and Bermuda races (among many others) is that they use software during the races to interpret incoming wind data. The data might be free but the software obviously costs money initially. Are all of these boats breaking rules? What about people using a paid weather.com account in between weekend buoy-races? It seems like the answer is yes, and that surprises me (not least because it's impossible to enforce).
Anyway, I was trying to set up a difference between a route-plotting service that is transmitted in real time vs. a data service, where the route-plotting is done on board. I had thought the latter would be legal, but it seems I may be wrong if the data also costs a small fee.
Thanks for the explanation (and patience with me for not doing my homework first).
There are two different processes involved:
Key to this discussion is this sentence
Information for which a fee has been paid (even if that fee is very small) ... is not ‘freely available'.
RRS 41 says 'A boat shall not receive help from any outside source', but this only applies while boats are racing (Preamble to Part 4).
A boat can buy and take delivery of any sort of software or data download, or expert advice like a personalised routing plan, before a race, while she is not racing. That's no different from buying the laptop, or buying a book of astronomical tables. She can then use this during a race.
What she can't do is, while racing receive any:
Yes, but she can also use proprietary, paid for, software as long as it is received before she is racing.
I think the problem with AI is that an AI engine on a local device will collect data over the internet from diverse, nor readily identifiable sources, in a seamless, but non-transparent way.
Regarding:
First, I did a typo saying RRS 40(c) should have been 41(c)
Second, I was working from the Answer 1 in Case 120 that says:
"In addition to the above considerations, information is not “freely available” if it becomes available so close to the start of a race that competitors do not have a reasonable period of time to find it and familiarize themselves with it. This prevents one competitor from arranging for data to be posted just before a race, with other competitors not having the time to find it and familiarize themselves with it."
What am I missing? It appears that Case 120 sets some "reasonable period of time" criteria before competitors are racing during which time there isn't time to "familiarize themselves with it".
What about the case where the service is paid for before racing, and then some information is received during racing.
For example, if someone paid a while ago for the Windy app, and is now getting forecasts that are not available in the free version, it seems like a strict reading of Case 120 wouldn't allow that. Do you agree?
Ditto a Navionics map that is regularly updated via a paid subscription.
BTW, if indeed this last one is not allowed, I think that Case 120 is going to have to be re-thought.
RRS 41 prohibits a boat from receiving help from an outside source while racing.
RRS 41 (a) to (d) are exceptions to that prohibition.
In my opinion any consideration of whether or not information is freely available is irrelevant unless the information is received while racing.
Case 120, Answer 1 says
Information for which a fee has been paid ... is not ‘freely available’.
Note the use of the past tense.
Yes, I agree that Navionics will break the rule if it gets updates while racing, which is becoming more likely now that there are improved satellite devices that can enable the internet on a boat to run continuously.
Windy gets and displays observations continuously: to the extent that those observations are freely available from other sources (meteorological bureau), I think that's 'freely available', but Windy also interpolates and displays observations between observation stations. I think that's done on the server side, not on the client app, so that's new information, available only from Windy. Windy also graphically displays forecasts: to the extent that those forecasts are simply displays of the models, without further intervention by Windy, that's 'freely available', but if Windy is processing and re-interpreting that data, that's new information not freely available.
FWIW, I have a hazy recollection that Expedition has an option to turn off updates and downloads while racing, just to enable compliance with RRS 41. I don't know if Navionics has a similar option.
Again, if this becomes an even more difficult area to define or interpret as technology improves and becomes more integrated/packaged, the OA can ensure fair racing by being more specific in how they want to ensure a level playing field
It's somewhat like classes setting other parameters for what are acceptable kinetics for that class in certain conditions under Rule 42. e.g. in certain conditions, and classes, sailing the boat in higher wind speeds and sea states makes it extremely difficult to both sail the boat without possibly running foul of the literal R42, and difficult for a judge to be fair and consistent in seeing what has crossed the line.
As weather data providers are bundling functions like routing (e.g. Predict Wind), then the OA can easily change the parameters for their event and specifically permit certain data / information provides where it's too difficult to unbundle what's "outside assistance" and what pieces of the pie are freely available. Case 120 is still a good guide as to the spirit and intent.
EDIT: we also need to be sure that we don't overstep what's prohibited while racing if there are laws that require doing an update while racing: e.g. the earlier comment made about Navionics updates. If that update is an update for a chart subscription (not free to all) and that update contains government issued notices to mariners, we are required to take that Navionics update. If the manner that we apply those notices is via a Navionics update, then we can't include it in a 41c prohibition. E.g.
"Mariners are responsible to apply the complete Notices to Mariners publications (Section 1 - 5) in accordance with the Canada Shipping Act, Navigation Safety Regulations, 2020."
Tim --
My purpose in bringing this topic to this group was to get a better understanding of how to express limitations on what's allowed so our OAs can make rational choices. (We face an analogous situation with items like powered winches, backwinding winches, wireless controls, and many other items.) It's becoming more and more difficult to determine what is boat-specific information created ashore and what is the same information generated aboard the racing yacht. This will only get worse, as the power of laptops today is approximately equal to mainframe computers back in the '80s.
Within a few years, I'm relatively certain we'll see AI applied to tactical choices on the race course based on AIS information about where the competitors are, how they are ranked in the series, and what the current and wind conditions are across the race course. We are already seeing hourly HRRR weather information delivered without charge, AIS is obviously freely available, the handicap of all the fellow competitors is freely available, so it's only a matter of time until this is all integrated into something that tells the crew to "Tack & Cover Boat X" or "Push Boat Y Back So They Sit On Boat X".