Forum: Share your SI/NOR language.
Suspending racing, use of motor etc.
P
Greg WilkinsCertifications:
- Club Race Officer
- Club Judge
0
What is the simplest way to allow (in our SIs) for a boat to be able to suspend racing for various reasons ( e.g. using motor to avoid commercial vessel).
It has been suggested that we simply use RRS 62.1 and make the boat ask for redress. However RRS 62.1 is very specific about the circumstances for which redress can be requested.
That approach also doesn't give guidance for how to suspend racing (e.g. taking time; doing what you've got to do; returning to the point you suspended racing; doing a 360 if the motor was used; etc.)
Does anybody have some good examples of how this can be added to SIs?
It has been suggested that we simply use RRS 62.1 and make the boat ask for redress. However RRS 62.1 is very specific about the circumstances for which redress can be requested.
That approach also doesn't give guidance for how to suspend racing (e.g. taking time; doing what you've got to do; returning to the point you suspended racing; doing a 360 if the motor was used; etc.)
Does anybody have some good examples of how this can be added to SIs?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Thus we are thinking of adding the following two rules:
X.1 A boat may suspend and then resume racing for extraordinary or safety related reasons, provided:
a) the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race
b) the location and time of the suspension is logged.
c) an application made to the race committee after the for redress to avoid disqualification.
The race committee at its sole discretion will determine if the reason for suspending racing is valid. This alters RRS 62.1
a) the propulsion use is logged and declared in the application for redress
b) the boat performs a 360 degree turn under sail after disengaging the motor
This replaces RRS 42.3(i)
RRS 86.1(b) does not allow you to change rule 42 or replace RRS 42.3(i).
The rules allow you to accomplish what you want through RRS 42.3(i), sailing instructions may, in stated circumstances, permit propulsion using an engine or any other method, provided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.
I would use Greg Wilkin’s wording and modify to meet your requirements.
Interesting point about racing being a definition.
However, if a boat needs to assist with a search and rescue etc. then she should be not be considered racing and thus not under RRS whilst she is conducting that activity and potentially interacting with other boats that were racing and are also assisting. Surely, you would want the boat to be under colregs whilst doing whatever they need to do, and then for RRS to resume once they resume racing?
Even in the case of just using a motor to move away from commercial shipping, it would be strange for RRS to apply between them and another boat that was still sailing and racing. How would RRS even cope with that? Is a boat motor sailing on starboard still ROW over a boat sailing on port? Can she call for room to tack at an obstruction even though she is able to motor?
Would it be possible to have a rule that allows a boat to retire from racing and then to resume by giving herself a new preparatory signal? That way there is no doubt that she is under colregs, but the definition of racing is maintained.
thoughts?
The rules already accommodates that in rule 1.1 and 42.3(g). Afterwards, such a boat should request redress for her time spend under 63.1(c).
This is the process that should be followed such that these efforts have a record and others see any scoring accommodation as being justified and fairly applied.
PS: agree with Mark 100% ... you need to remove the "suspend racing" concept from the mix. If there is a big enough emergency the RC can abandon the race under 32.1(d) and put all hands on deck.
I note that the SIs for the Rolex Sydney to Hobart have "16. TEMPORARY DISCONTINUANCE FROM RACING". Isn't this just another way of saying "suspend racing"?
I think for major situations covered by RRS 1.1 there is not significant problem with 42 and 62. But I am concerned that 42.3(i) it doesn't define ROW rules for mundane situations like moving out of the way of commercial shipping.
How can a boat be both racing and under motor? what what ROW rules apply to her in that situation?
For our fleet, it is highly plausible that a boat avoiding a commercial vessel by motor sailing on starboard tack could encounter a group of boats still racing under sail on port tack, under light winds with little way or steerage.
Must those boats keep clear of the boat under motor? if not why not? Since under 42.3(i) she is still racing ??.
So how about the following, where a boat that has suspended racing is still racing, but Part 2 rules are turned off. All other rules still apply.
X. Temporary Suspension of Racing
A boat may temporarily suspend racing for extraordinary or safety reasons, provided:
a) The boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.
b) The location and time of the suspension are logged.
c) Any outside assistance received is logged.
d) An application is made to the race committee for redress under RRS 62.
The race committee, at its sole discretion, will determine if the reason for suspending racing is valid. This alters RRS 62.1.
Any time taken under RRS 1.1 (Helping Those in Danger) may be considered for the purposes of RRS 62 (Redress).
A boat may use her engine or other propulsion in accordance with RRS 42.3(i), provided that:
a) The boat has suspended racing in accordance with X.1
b) The propulsion use is logged and declared in the application for redress.
c) The boat performs a 360-degree turn under sail after disengaging the propulsion.
We just want to avoid the restrictive language of 62.1 and turn on 42.3(I) whilst being clear about ROW and procedures for doing so.
I think the observation that you can't turn off racing is good, else you have a rule that turns off all rules including itself. So I hope this formulation of just turning off Part 2, but keeping racing is workable?
The last part of RRS 42.3(I) states “… provided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.“ How would a boat motoring on starboard not be gaining an advantage over a port tack boat not motoring?
The "not racing for the purposes of Part 2" is not from the Sydney to Hobart SIs, but is my proposal to resolve the dilemma of who has ROW when a boat is motoring whilst racing under 42.3(i).
The preamble of Part 2 also says:
So is that not explicitly allowing the replacement that I'm doing in my proposed X.1 rule?
The S2H SIs simply allow a boat to temporarily discontinue racing and don't deal with the issue of the definition of racing (italics)
> The last part of RRS 42.3(I) states “… provided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.“ How would a boat motoring on starboard not be gaining an advantage over a port tack boat not motoring?
There are a lot more differences between RRS and Colregs that don't come down to gaining and advantage or not. If the interaction is under colregs, then the give way boat needs to take early and substantial action. Under colregs. it is not OK to duck a transom at the last moment. If the motoring boat clearly knows that it is under colregs, then it should not put the port sailing boats in a position where they need to think about the rules.
Since Part 2 explicitly allows for SIs to say a boat is under colregs, then what is the problem in having SIs say that applies when a boat is motoring under 42.3(i)?
IMO, you can't get around def: racing. Anything you do to add a suspension of racing will change the definition as def: racing is very clear on when racing starts and ends.
IMO, "suspend" is just another way to say "stop and recommence". Using the word "suspend" doesn't change the fact that it's changing def:racing.
I think you can do this with wording something like this in the NOR, not the SI:
With respect to a boat using an engine for propulsion in accordance with NOR/SI NN:
Exactly. My commodore has tasked me with a) allowing suspended racing with a more permissive set of reasons for asking for redress; b) clarification of how propulsion should be used in accordance with 42.3(i).
I like your phrasing of "replaced by the right-of-way rules" rather than mine of "not racing", as it more directly goes to the preamble of part 2 and avoids the racing-but-not-racing contradiction. However, we'd like that to apply to any boat that has suspended racing, not just when using their motor.
For example, a boat that is having a spinnaker snafu might be forced to sail out-of-bounds (e.g. through the moorings). The desire is that even if they break some rules whilst recovering their kite, so long as they have given way to boats that are racing that they can make an application for redress to avoid DSQ.
I have also reduced the use of the phrase "Suspended Racing" in favour of just "Suspended" to further avoid the racing-but-not-racing contradiction as much as possible
So currently, with good feedback, I have:
X. Temporary Suspension
A boat may temporarily suspend racing for extraordinary or safety reasons, provided:
a) The boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.
b) The location and time of the suspension are logged.
c) Any outside assistance received is logged.
d) An application is made to the sailing committee for redress under RRS 62. This alters RRS 62.1.
With respect to a boat that has suspended in accordance with X.1:
a) The rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS in accordance with the Part 2 Preamble.
b) The boat is still considered racing with respect to all rules defined by the Sailing Instructions other than the rules of Part 2.
c) If reasonably possible, she shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.
For the purposes of RRS 62 (Redress), the sailing committee, at its sole discretion:
a) Will determine if the reasons for suspending under X.1 are valid.
b) May consider alternate penalties other than disqualification for any rules broken while a boat has suspended racing. The alternate penalty may be no penalty.
c) May consider all or part of any time taken under RRS 1.1 (Helping Those in Danger) to be excluded from a boat's elapsed time for the purposes of scoring.
A boat may use her engine or other propulsion in accordance with RRS 42.3(i), provided that:
a) The boat has suspended in accordance with X.1.
b) The propulsion use is logged and declared in the application for redress.
c) The boat performs a 360-degree turn under sail after disengaging the propulsion.
Under what circumstances will a boat permitted to use an engine for propulsion under 42.3(i) meet a boat not using an engine.
A boat meeting another boat that was using their engine for propulsion would need to know if the boat was using their engine as permitted by rule 42.3(g) or rule 42.3(i) to know if the have to avoid the vessel under rule 22, or are the stand on vessel under IRPCAS.
The rules I'm proposing are intended to be applicable to both significant safety events and more mundane everyday events, like moving out of the way of a commercial vessel. In the later case, there is often more a risk of fine than any actual danger and 42.3(g) doesn't help because that is for danger to another boat.
> Under what circumstances will a boat permitted to use an engine for propulsion under 42.3(i) meet a boat not using an engine.
Consider a light wind race day. A boat needs to move out of the way of commercial shipping, so she starts her motor and motor sails on starboard tack out of the path of the commercial vessel, perpendicular to the commercial channel. There are other boats racing on port tack that are already giving way to the commercial vessel by sailing parallel to the commercial channel. The boat motor sailing on starboard perpendicular to the channel can easily interact with those boats on port.
> Replacing the rules of Part 2 by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way rules when a boat uses her engine when permitted by rule 42.3(i) would appear to create uncertainty as to what rules apply. Part 2 when engine is running but not in gear, IRPCAS when you put it in gear, part 2 rules again when the boat disengages the engine.
The rules I'm proposing do not change part 2 only whilst using the motor. They change part 2 whilst a boat is suspended. Thus from the moment they decide they are no longer trying to get to the next mark, through starting and stopping their motor, doing a 360 and until the moment they log starting racing again, they would be under colregs. Thus they would be the give way vessel when using their motor. Even when sailing whilst , their behaviour under colregs will be different than under RRS as they would be required to take early and substantial action (not ducking transoms). I've also added X2(c) s that even if they are ROW under colregs, then they should attempt not to interfere, but if they have no other option then they may still be the stand on vessel and the racing boats will need to give way.
> A boat meeting another boat that was using their engine for propulsion would need to know if the boat was using their engine as permitted by rule 42.3(g) or rule 42.3(i) to know if the have to avoid the vessel under rule 22, or are the stand on vessel under IRPCAS.
You write that they can suspend racing (which means to stop with the intention of reengaging and continuing later). Then you state they are "considered racing" for everything except Part 2, replacing with other govt ROW rules.
Why not simply mimic the wording in rule 23.1? ...
It's basically what John suggested without the IRPCAS.
Exact same language and format as 23.1 ... I think folk will understand it easily.
So the suspension is indeed not required just for motoring. However, once we have the concept of suspending racing and seeking redress for that, it made sense to me to use that first clarifying the use of the motor.
So I agree, 42.3(I) could be switched on without suspension, but I've been specifically asked to provide a suspension mechanism regardless of motoring. So it's not there just for motoring.
Consider the other example I gave, if a boat with a spinnaker snafu needing to sail through an out of bounds area to do that recovery. Currently they would then need to retire from the race due to the broken boundary rule. I was asked to loosen up rrs62 so they could seek redress for that broken rule and continue racing.
P.S. With regards to the example of the Annapolis race, those boats have finished, so they are not under motor and racing at the same time.
You can change RRS 62. Add an (e).
"SI #.# RRS 62 is changed with the addition of 62.1(e)) as follows: 62.1(e) Notwithstanding 62.1 and 62.1(a)-(c), a boat may request redress for A, B, C, etc. "
PS ... or maybe less wordy....
"SI #.# Notwithstanding 62.1 and 62.1(a)-(d), a boat may request redress for Examples A, B, C, etc." This changes RRS 62."
The point is the standard of "if reasonably possible ... a boat shall not interfere."
The RRS uses that same language between boats that are racing in 23.2 for specific situations. By applying this same language and concept used in both 23.1 and 23.1 you leverage the language and behaviors already mandated in the RRS, without introducing new concepts and frameworks.
OK, let's try it your way:
X.1 Redress
Notwithstanding RRS 62.1(a)-(c), a boat may request redress for the breach of any rule, other than one of Part 2, for extraordinary or safety reasons, provided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race. The sailing committee will, at its sole discretion, determine if the reason for seeking redress is valid and may consider all or part of any time taken under RRS 1.1 (Helping Those in Danger) to be excluded from a boat's elapsed time for the purposes of scoring. An alternative penalty may be applied for any broken rules, which may be no penalty. This alters RRS 62.
A boat may use her engine or other propulsion in accordance with RRS 42.3(i), provided that an application for redress is made in accordance with X.1 and that the boat performs a 360-degree turn under sail after disengaging the propulsion. While under propulsion, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS. If reasonably possible, she shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.
I tried to find a way to invoke/alter RRS21/23, but ultimately it was simpler just to add the "shall not interfere" language to X.2
Thanks for persisting with your feedback!
Following are sailing instruction examples:
I have most definitely received some good advice here, and hope I'm following as much of it as I can within my brief. Thanks all, you have been very patient with me!
I'm fully on board with the critique of "suspending" racing. The concept is gone from my drafts.
I too share some of your concerns that X.1 on redress is too permissive and we may expose ourselves to a range of ambit claims by competitors who think they had good reason to break a rule or who might try it on for a breach that was of no significant consequence. I can see that using the DP approach would at least limit the rules that a competitor might seek a discretionary penalty on. However, my brief is to allow for unforeseen circumstances and to mark a rule with DP will mean that we would have foreseen some potential problem. The other issue I have with the DP approach is that there will still need to be a submission or declaration to the committee asking for the discretion to be applied, so we will need extra rules describing the application and time limits etc etc. By piggybacking on the redress mechanism, I'm using an existing mechanism to put a question in front of the Committee.
Ultimately, I see the main issue of redress approach is that our committee might be asked to say "No" too often, with the risk there being that a given committee might be unwise in their use of discretion when they are not guided by more specific rules.
However, unless a fundamental flaw is found, I think that it is a risk we are going to take. I see three possible outcomes:
With regards to the X.2 Propulsion rule, I think it is broadly in line with the article Mark sent.
Thanks all for the help on this one. The result might not be perfect, but it is certainly far better for the input from you all.
The final form that our SC has accepted is:
7.19 PROTESTS, ARBITRATION AND REDRESS
...
7.20 USE OF PROPULSION
Question. So how did you run aground?
Some more reading for you from the RYA regarding racing under the IRPCAS.
dang! you're right. Adding a clause to 62.1 does not turn off the no-fault-of-there-own part of the rule.
I'm beginning to agree with the wisdom of John that the best way to do that is a DP style annotation.
Thus what about the following:
The editor of our handbook is going to kill me when I need to revise lots of NORs/SIs with this. But hopefully most of these will be in our general conditions of racing.
I think we still want to activate 42.3(i) but will go with a declaration rather than redress:
7.20 USE OF PROPULSION
IMO there is a big hole in the rules regarding grounding and redress and I actually put in a submission to change that (which was not accepted).
Here is the issue as I see it ...
A hard grounding is akin to "serious damage" IMO if a boat cannot extract themselves in a short period of time without an engine, in that it seriously impacts the ability of the boat to continue in the race.
To further complicate the issue, boats can not see the shallow water with their eyes and different boats may have different drafts. Therefore a 6' depth might be an obstruction for one boat, but not another in handicap racing or when multiple fleets converge along the same shoreline.
An inside boat at the shoreline not given room and run hard-aground can not ask for redress even if the outside boat is penalized by a PC for breaking rule 19. You can also imagine a starboard boat being forced to tack to avoid a bad collision with a port boat as well. I see this as a huge mismatch of consequences.
Also, any damage may take the expense of a diver to discover ... and even if it's just paint, the cost of repair will include a haulout .. adding up quickly to >$500 expense.
My submission, in a nutshell, added being grounded alongside physical damage in 62.1(b).
This is all to say that I like the addition of grounding ... but with the caveat that it's as a result of another boat breaking a rule that she is not exonerated for.
That's why, in my SI, I specifically listed 62.1 by itself. - Ang
7.20 USE OF PROPULSION
in accordance with RRS 42.3(i)(a)
to get to the starting area[to get to within a distance of 50m to the starting line up until 1 minute before her starting signal] or(b) in accordance with RRS 42.3(i) for safety or [other] extraordinary reasons
, provided that the boat performs a 360-degree turn under sail after disengaging the propulsion.
[This changes rule 42.]should[shall] detail the reason, location, time, and duration of the propulsion.7.20.4[DP] While under propulsion, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS.54 [DP] If reasonably possible, a boat using propulsion shall not interfere with a boat that is racing [and not likewise using propulsion].Clean ...
7.20 USE OF PROPULSION
(a) to get to within a distance of 50m to the starting line, up until 1 minute before her starting signal or
(b) for safety or other extraordinary reasons, in accordance with RRS 42.3(i).
7.20.2 A boat using propulsion under SI 7.20.1 shall
perform[take] a 1-turn penalty as described in rule 44.2 after [waiting a minimum of 10 seconds after] disengaging the propulsion. A propulsion declaration must be provided to the Race Committee within the protest time limit. This declaration shall detail the reason, location, time, and duration of the propulsion.FWIW ... I'm not a fan of putting this into the hands of the RC .. and out of the hands of the PC in a redress .. but that's JMO.
thanks for the further refinements. But why alter 42? 42.3(i) allows the SIs to give additional reasons and my 7.20.1 is doing exactly that. So what does your form actually change in 42?
I'm still going with IRPCAS, because if a boat under motor cannot reasonably avoid interfering with racing boats, then I don't like that the ROW is just not defined by RRS. The preambles of part 2 allows such a substitution and I like that ROW is fully deterministic in all circumstances.
We don't want a declaration if propulsion used during pre-start. This is a frequent occurrence and with your modifications to not allow it in the last minute, I think there is no need for the paperwork.
Perhaps amending 62.1 is workable as you say, but would probably be worthwhile actually saying something like "even at their own fault". But I've already gone through entire handbook draft with [DP][NP] annotations and I do like that a lot more as it doesn't excuse any rule break, only specific ones.
Latest version:
7.20 USE OF PROPULSION
7.20.1 A boat that is racing may use her engine or other propulsion in accordance with RRS 42.3(i):
(a) to get to within a distance of 50m to the starting line, up until 1 minute before her starting signal or
(b) for safety or other extraordinary reasons.
7.20.2 A boat using propulsion under SI 7.20.1 shall take a 1-turn penalty as described in rule 44.2 after disengaging the propulsion.
7.20.3 A boat using propulsion under SI 7.20.1(b) shall provide a propulsion declaration to the Race Committee within the protest time limit. This declaration shall detail the reason, location, time, and duration of the propulsion.
7.20.4 The Protest Committee, at its sole discretion, may impose a time or scoring penalty for use of propulsion under 7.20.1(b). This changes rule A5.1
7.20.5 While under propulsion, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS.
7.20.6 [DP] If reasonably possible, a boat using propulsion shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.
Rule J2.2 (8) requires you to include in the sailing instructions when and under what circumstances propulsion is permitted under rule 42.3(i);
Greg, the above answers your question as well. Sorry for that.
Ang
It only changes A5.1 if the RC applies the penalty without a hearing. If you want the PC to get involved, you'll have to define a process. At this point, the report is only being filed with the RC .. so procedurally it never gets to the PC as there is no hearing request.
So, you can change your 7.20.4 back to RC (and keep the note about changing A5.1) ... or you need to go back to a PC procedure like leveraging the existing redress framework.
Maybe word as follows
(a) provided a boat is not late for their start, to get to within a distance of 50m to the starting line, up until 1 minute before her starting signal, or
Suggest using:
There may be some doubt about if the engine is in gear, but doubt is nothing new in the rules. There is often doubt about if overlap exists, if a zone has been entered, if a boat has gone through head to wind, if another boat is racing, etc. Ultimately there is a reality and even if it can't be known, somebody can establish facts found and determine which boat is ROW in that probable reality.
What if it's not possible to avoid another boat? If both boats are under part 2, then there is no answer. Facts can be found and no matter how close to reality they are, there may still be no answer to who was right of way.
The benefit of IRPCAS is that the boat putting their engine into gear knows that at that instance they need to be well away from there other boats in a way that is well defined by rules, precedents and centuries of experience. Engines go into and out of gear all the time under IRPCAS, changing ROW instantly, but the rules deal with it by not letting boats get close enough in the first place for it to be a problem.
On the other hand, what does "avoid" mean. Centimetres? Meters? Boat lengths?
A technique I use often use for such things is to imagine giving testimony to a hypothetical coroner after a hypothetical fatal accident. So I'd have to explain why I thought that asking a boat to only "avoid" another boat was better than asking then to respect the well established rules for the prevention of collisions at sea!
Uhhh .. let me see here .. now where did I stow that stink'n inverted cone day signal? :-)