Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
US Appx V1 and the sliding threshold of "significant advantage" and "applicable penalty"
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
US Appx V provides 2 "alternative penalties". Appx V1 reduces the # of turns from 2 to 1 in many circumstances and Appx V2 provides for a 30% post-race penalty aligned with Appx T's. Notably, V1 retains the RRS 44.1(b) exclusions.
The thought recently occurred to me that reducing turns from 2 to 1 necessarily increases the instances where a turns penalty is not applicable, due to 44.1(b)'s restrictions and that boats across the board (those who broke a rule, those fouled or others witnessing a breach by another boat) may not be assessing the applicability of only 1 turn.
In other words ....
Consider the universe of rule-breach scenarios where there is no injury, serious damage. "Significant advantage" is always measured against the effect of the penalty taken. Below is an attempt to illustrate the realm.
Each dot is meant to represent an incident. The higher the dot is on the Y axis, the greater the advantage a boat gains by the rule breach in time or place relative to competitors.
red dots are incidents where the advantage is significant vs 2 turns
green dots are incidents where the advantage is not significant vs both 1 and 2 turns
yellow dots are incidents where the advantage is significant vs 1 turn but not 2 turns
Many of the events I compete in and judge evoke Appx V1, sometimes alone or as a complete Appx V. One would expect that claims of inappropriateness of a turns-penalty would be higher when V1 is applied, but in my experience this is not the case.
It appears that the vast majority of racers are either unaware, don't understand or too busy to make the significant advantage calculation, as we should expect those claims to rise (on average) under V1.
Sitting around the table tossing this around, one judge pointed out how important having V2 available to a boat when V1 is applied. Her point being that doing only 1 turn actually exposes the turning-boat to a claim of significant advantage remnant. Therefore, the presence of a post-race scoring penalty of 30% is a remedy for them relative to being DSQ'd .. even though they "did their turn".
Also, V1 replaces the words in 44.1, changing 2 to 1. Therefore, a 2 turns penalty is no longer available to a boat, even if she is aware that a 1-turn penalty still left her with a significant advantage.
One of my take-aways from this discussion was the importance of evoking the entirety of Appx V because of the increased risk that 1 turn is insufficient.
Created: 24-Sep-15 12:16
Comments
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
I'm not comfortable with Ang's proposition that ' "Significant advantage" is always measured against the effect of the penalty taken'. I think this is telescoping two separate considerations.
RRS 43.1(b) refers to 'despite taking a penalty, gained a significant advantage'.
There are some rules breaches that gain no significant advantage at all.
There are some breaches that gain an advantage that is wholly removed by a turns penalty.
There are some breaches that gain an advantage that may be substantially removed by a turns penalty leaving no 'significant advantage'.
There are some breaches that gain an advantage that is not substantially removed by a turns penalty so that a 'significant advantage' remains.
It is this 'residual significant advantage' that Ang is discussing.
I can't speak for what was going through the mind of US Sailing when it wrote the global reduction from 2 turns to 1 turn into US Appendix V.
But as I understand it, the rationale for replacing 2 turns with 1 turn (which, other than in the USA is done with a SI) was as follows.
At elite level one design racing, at the top end of the fleet:
a 1 turn penalty, well executed, as it will be, will cost a competitor something like 3 to 5 places;
a second turn, performed when the boat is downspeed, is likely to cost another 5 to 10 places;
so a 2 turns penalty is likely to put a boat back in 10th to 15th place.
The higher up towards the front of the fleet, the harder it is to pass a boat in front and improve your place: at the top end of an elite level event, this level of difficulty is likely to extend at least as deep as the top 10 boats, so while a penalised boat might be able to climb back up 14th, 13th, 12th, 11th fairly easily, it then becomes progressively harder, and takes more time to catch succeeding boats and get back into contention for a place.
So the second turn, relative to the first turn has a disproportionate effect.
This effect is much less present towards the statistical middle of a fleet, and at lower levels of competition, particularly in handicap racing. In those cases a 2 turns penalty is quite appropriate, and, indeed, as Ang argues, a 1 turn penalty may in a many cases be insufficient, and leave a penalised boat with a significant advantage.
Other than for highly competitive one-design racing, I would suggest that OAs would be better off switching on Appendix T rather than Appendix V.
Ang said
One would expect that claims of inappropriateness of a turns-penalty would be higher when V1 is applied, but in my experience this is not the case.
I've never seen a protest where a boat took a turns penalty and it was argued that she retained a significant advantage. Most of my experience is with club handicap races and non modification to RRS 43, but I've done a fair share of regattas with 1 turn penalties. This would seem to indicate that:
the incidence of significant advantage remaining after a 1 turn penalty is small, or
competitors don't notice the difference, or
both the above together.
Ang said
It appears that the vast majority of racers are either unaware, don't understand or too busy to make the significant advantage calculation, as we should expect those claims to rise (on average) under V1.
Could well be.
I don't think " too busy to make the significant advantage calculation, " is relevant.
Competitors don't make that decision on the water: USA Appeal US122 tells us that boats don't get 'thinking time' to observe whether a boat has taken a penalty or a sufficient penalty, but must hail and flag more or less immediately after the incident. I think in practice, competitors usually look at the results, including observing places at the finishing line, in order to decide whether to go ahead with a written protest: they don't need to make the calculation at the time of the incident.
Created: 24-Sep-16 08:41
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John re: "I'm not comfortable with Ang's proposition that ' "Significant advantage" is always measured against the effect of the penalty taken'.[...] RRS 43.1(b) refers to 'despite taking a penalty, gained a significant advantage'."
It appears to me that the plain reading of the phrase 'despite taking a penalty, gained a significant advantage' directly sets up this measurement and comparison. I don't see how one reads it any other way.
Competitors don't make that decision on the water: USA Appeal US122 tells us that boats don't get 'thinking time' to observe whether a boat has taken a penalty or a sufficient penalty, but must hail and flag more or less immediately after the incident.
I never suggested that a protesting boat can delay their OTW protest requirements to make this calculation. What I am suggesting is that, in the instance that a protester DOES the required OTW steps AND the protestee takes a penalty, that few boats consider or follow-up that the protestee still gained a significant advantage after [despite] taking a penalty (and bring that claim before an Arbitrator or PC).
PS: ... and that the possibility that a protestee did gain an sig advantage "despite" a penalty, logically increases as the penalty decreases.
Created: 24-Sep-16 11:41
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
I agree that having V2 available is nice if you also have V1, but I don't think it's critical. I just think the population of Yellow dots is very very small, except maybe at marks, where two turns is required anyway.
Firstly, for most penalties, the biggest issue is getting "well clear". And secondly, if it looks like you're going to gain a huge advantage, you can do your turn more slowly if you want. All of that is assuming anyone is paying attention at all. Most of the time a significant advantage is only gained near a mark, and especially when you shut the door on someone illegally.
Created: 24-Sep-20 18:06
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
2 things happened at a recent championship i judged that got me thinking about this.
First, at a pre-regatta skipper's meeting, a group of competitors were objecting to V1's 1-turn. They shared their concern that a skilled boat could use this strategically to their advantage. I remained a fly on the wall and reps for the OA tamped it down and V1 remained. At least in these sailors' minds, the set of yellow-dots increased in size (or maybe came into being) when 2-turns were replaced by 1-turn.
Second, as the PC sat around the table awaiting the fleet and RC's return from racing, a very experienced judge (who is also an umpire) took a similar position, that especially in skiffs and smaller non-displacement boats, the top boats can spin once so efficiently, that it is barely a hindrance.
I don't think judges or competitors often think about the "significant advantage" aspect of the rule. On the other hand, it is front of mind for our Umpires and maybe more obvious to them.
As I listened to the concerns at the skippers meeting, it struck me that these sailors were not aware that they could object to a boat taking only 1 turn if they felt it was insufficient (thru a valid protest and hearing for the original incident). They may be unaware of the sig-adv limitation ... or how to lodge their objection .. or both.
I have never heard a protest where a boat claimed another boat gained a sig-adv despite taking the prescribed penalty.
Created: Sat 11:13
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Interesting. I honestly almost can't think of a situation when this applies. What kind of fouls are these people getting in to? Most of my fouls that aren't at marks are P/S, and are usually upwind not crossing by a couple of feet, or downwind staying on P too long before gybing. I honestly feel like I almost never get into a foul with people beyond that except at marks...
Now at marks, I think significant advantage can come up all the time. Someone fouls you at the W mark but doesn't spin until after the offset (which for some reason our frostbiting fleet thinks is appropriate) and meanwhile they're sitting on you the whole way, they avoided ducking like a 7 boat starboard layline, or whatever, and get off with a tiny little penalty, while continuing to hurt you for the entire offset leg just before the entire fleet sits on you. I've actually brought this penalty to the room, but I've always argued the issue was spinning too late, not the sig advantage part.
I guess I that leads to a question... significant advantage vs. what? Where she would have been anyway? Or vs. the other boat? If she disadvantaged a ROW boat, is that relevant?
Created: Sat 18:56
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Niko,
Significant advantage. When considering redress we usually say that losing just one place is a significant worsening. Extending that, to the significant advantage case, we could say that if a boat taking a penalty doesn't come out behind the protesting boat, or which gains or maintains control or advantage over another nearby boat she gains a significant advantage.
In your example about the offset mark, normally, a boat that delays taking a penalty for an incident at the first mark until after the offset hasn't complied with the 'as soon after the incident as possible' requirement of RRS 44.2, and thus has not taken a penalty. Sometimes a boat will get locked in among other boats on the offset leg, but she'd better damn well spear off at the offset and take her turns.
Created: Sat 21:24
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Nice add John. Interesting to consider the fundamental difference between "significant" in RRS 62.1 and 44.1(b). In 62.1, 'the proof is in the pudding' as we are looking for a significantly worse score or place in a race or series. So one must use quantitative evidence (recorded results) in redress.
So, could we say that the significant advantage in 44.1(b) is something determined at the time immediately following the penalty-taken, so even if the advantaged boat looses grip of that advantage latter by the superior boat speed and decisions of its competitors, that doesn't "erase" the advantage they gained at the time? (I am interested in others' thoughts on that question)
Also, in 44.1(b), the advantage doesn't necessarily need to be vs the boat that was fouled or any "fouled boat" for that matter.
For instance consider breaking RRS 31 when a boat simply misjudged the adverse current at the windward mark where no other boats effected her course, but there is a long line of competitors behind her. By hitting the mark and barreling thru (instead of bailing, turning back, tacking and making a 2nd attempt at the back of the line) this boat gains a huge advantage by only taking 1-turn.
Or consider Boat A must beat Boat F in the race to win the regatta. Boat B thru F are on the starboard lay line for the windward mark with no gaps large enough for Boat A to pass. Boat A on port breaks RRS 10 vs Boat B outside the zone, does her Appx V1 1-turn and ends up between Boat D and Boat E. Had she not broken 10, she would have had to duck the line of boats and tacked behind Boat F.
In the above case, Boat A fouls Boat B, but does not gain an advantage vs B (the boat she fouled), but does gain one vs Boats E and F.
Created: Sun 12:16
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Ang, 'Strategic Advantage' and Competiors being award of the significant advantage condition
I think I explained where 1 Turn Penalty was appropriate (high level competitive fleet) reasonably well above. I thought it was obvious and it didn't occur to me to say that this would only apply in one design racing (or conceivably a handicap race with a very closely matched division).
I would suggest that switching in a 1 Turn Penalty by Appendix V or a SI is not appropriate for mixed fleet handicap racing at club level.
I've never seen a protest that depended, or even mentioned significant advantage either.
If competitors don't understand the significant advantage condition, then that would be just one of the many rules in the RRS that many competitors don't understand. I don't think it's a matter of concern.
Created: Sun 22:28
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo Guarino said Created: Today 12:16 about fundamental difference between "significant" in RRS 62.1 and 44.1(b).
Nice add John. Interesting to consider the fundamental difference between "significant" in RRS 62.1 and 44.1(b). In 62.1, 'the proof is in the pudding' as we are looking for a significantly worse score or place in a race or series. So one must use quantitative evidence (recorded results) in redress.
Good point.
I was referring to RRS 62.1 as a benchmark for the size of the advantage (one or more places), rather than considering the enduring effect.
So, could we say that the significant advantage in 44.1(b) is something determined at the time immediately following the penalty-taken, so even if the advantaged boat looses grip of that advantage latter by the superior boat speed and decisions of its competitors, that doesn't "erase" the advantage they gained at the time? (I am interested in others' thoughts on that question)
I think the first step is to consider how a protesting boat would see it.
If the protesting boat beats the protestee hands down in the race, I normally would not expect her to spend her time with a protest, unless, perhaps there was a pointscore advantage in play.
An exception might be where the protesting boat thought that the protestee deliberately broke a rule to gain an advantage, but possibly thought that they couldn't make RRS 2 stick.
On the other hand, where the protestee does beat the protesting boat that is evidence, to some degree of advantage.
Also, in 44.1(b), the advantage doesn't necessarily need to be vs the boat that was fouled or any "fouled boat" for that matter.
Yes, see my post in reply to Niko referring to gain or maintain control or advantage.
For instance consider breaking RRS 31 when a boat simply misjudged the adverse current at the windward mark where no other boats effected her course, but there is a long line of competitors behind her. By hitting the mark and barreling thru (instead of bailing, turning back, tacking and making a 2nd attempt at the back of the line) this boat gains a huge advantage by only taking 1-turn.
Yes, so what? 1 Turn is what she is required to take by RRS 44.1.
I could also argue that she did not gain any advantage 'by her breach': a couple of inches either way around the mark wouldn't have changed her place relative to boats coming in behind her.
Or consider Boat A must beat Boat F in the race to win the regatta. Boat B thru F are on the starboard lay line for the windward mark with no gaps large enough for Boat A to pass. Boat A on port breaks RRS 10 vs Boat B outside the zone, does her Appx V1 1-turn and ends up between Boat D and Boat E. Had she not broken 10, she would have had to duck the line of boats and tacked behind Boat F.
In the above case, Boat A fouls Boat B, but does not gain an advantage vs B (the boat she fouled), but does gain one vs Boats E and F.
I think, if that was clearly laid out with good evidence in a hearing it would hold water, but the consequence is almost 'too remote', and I'm not sure that most competitors could put a clear enough case together. Once again this smacks of RRS 2, but might not quite get there.
Created: Sun 22:46
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John re: "If competitors don't understand the significant advantage condition, then that would be just one of the many rules in the RRS that many competitors don't understand. I don't think it's a matter of concern."
"Concern" would not be the word I'd use either. I'm just noticing and thinking about it .. spurred by my recent experience. I find it interesting to consider.
To state the obvious, injury and serious damage are more clear (usually accompanied by a loud BANG!! CRASH!! to get and keep one's attention) and it has been my experience that sailors understand well and apply that limitation in real-time. They make no attempt to do turns and retire if they are confident of their fault.
We have a couple cases discussing damage/serious-damage that help too .. but no cases which guide what constitutes "significant advantage". Being so opaque, it's no wonder boats are seemingly not paying attention to it.
RRS 43.1(b) refers to 'despite taking a penalty, gained a significant advantage'.
There are some rules breaches that gain no significant advantage at all.
There are some breaches that gain an advantage that is wholly removed by a turns penalty.
There are some breaches that gain an advantage that may be substantially removed by a turns penalty leaving no 'significant advantage'.
There are some breaches that gain an advantage that is not substantially removed by a turns penalty so that a 'significant advantage' remains.
It is this 'residual significant advantage' that Ang is discussing.
I can't speak for what was going through the mind of US Sailing when it wrote the global reduction from 2 turns to 1 turn into US Appendix V.
But as I understand it, the rationale for replacing 2 turns with 1 turn (which, other than in the USA is done with a SI) was as follows.
At elite level one design racing, at the top end of the fleet:
Other than for highly competitive one-design racing, I would suggest that OAs would be better off switching on Appendix T rather than Appendix V.
Ang said
I've never seen a protest where a boat took a turns penalty and it was argued that she retained a significant advantage. Most of my experience is with club handicap races and non modification to RRS 43, but I've done a fair share of regattas with 1 turn penalties. This would seem to indicate that:
Ang said
Could well be.
I don't think " too busy to make the significant advantage calculation, " is relevant.
Competitors don't make that decision on the water: USA Appeal US122 tells us that boats don't get 'thinking time' to observe whether a boat has taken a penalty or a sufficient penalty, but must hail and flag more or less immediately after the incident. I think in practice, competitors usually look at the results, including observing places at the finishing line, in order to decide whether to go ahead with a written protest: they don't need to make the calculation at the time of the incident.
It appears to me that the plain reading of the phrase 'despite taking a penalty, gained a significant advantage' directly sets up this measurement and comparison. I don't see how one reads it any other way.
I never suggested that a protesting boat can delay their OTW protest requirements to make this calculation. What I am suggesting is that, in the instance that a protester DOES the required OTW steps AND the protestee takes a penalty, that few boats consider or follow-up that the protestee still gained a significant advantage
after[despite] taking a penalty (and bring that claim before an Arbitrator or PC).PS: ... and that the possibility that a protestee did gain an sig advantage "despite" a penalty, logically increases as the penalty decreases.
Firstly, for most penalties, the biggest issue is getting "well clear". And secondly, if it looks like you're going to gain a huge advantage, you can do your turn more slowly if you want. All of that is assuming anyone is paying attention at all. Most of the time a significant advantage is only gained near a mark, and especially when you shut the door on someone illegally.
First, at a pre-regatta skipper's meeting, a group of competitors were objecting to V1's 1-turn. They shared their concern that a skilled boat could use this strategically to their advantage. I remained a fly on the wall and reps for the OA tamped it down and V1 remained. At least in these sailors' minds, the set of yellow-dots increased in size (or maybe came into being) when 2-turns were replaced by 1-turn.
Second, as the PC sat around the table awaiting the fleet and RC's return from racing, a very experienced judge (who is also an umpire) took a similar position, that especially in skiffs and smaller non-displacement boats, the top boats can spin once so efficiently, that it is barely a hindrance.
I don't think judges or competitors often think about the "significant advantage" aspect of the rule. On the other hand, it is front of mind for our Umpires and maybe more obvious to them.
As I listened to the concerns at the skippers meeting, it struck me that these sailors were not aware that they could object to a boat taking only 1 turn if they felt it was insufficient (thru a valid protest and hearing for the original incident). They may be unaware of the sig-adv limitation ... or how to lodge their objection .. or both.
I have never heard a protest where a boat claimed another boat gained a sig-adv despite taking the prescribed penalty.
Now at marks, I think significant advantage can come up all the time. Someone fouls you at the W mark but doesn't spin until after the offset (which for some reason our frostbiting fleet thinks is appropriate) and meanwhile they're sitting on you the whole way, they avoided ducking like a 7 boat starboard layline, or whatever, and get off with a tiny little penalty, while continuing to hurt you for the entire offset leg just before the entire fleet sits on you. I've actually brought this penalty to the room, but I've always argued the issue was spinning too late, not the sig advantage part.
I guess I that leads to a question... significant advantage vs. what? Where she would have been anyway? Or vs. the other boat? If she disadvantaged a ROW boat, is that relevant?
Significant advantage. When considering redress we usually say that losing just one place is a significant worsening. Extending that, to the significant advantage case, we could say that if a boat taking a penalty doesn't come out behind the protesting boat, or which gains or maintains control or advantage over another nearby boat she gains a significant advantage.
In your example about the offset mark, normally, a boat that delays taking a penalty for an incident at the first mark until after the offset hasn't complied with the 'as soon after the incident as possible' requirement of RRS 44.2, and thus has not taken a penalty. Sometimes a boat will get locked in among other boats on the offset leg, but she'd better damn well spear off at the offset and take her turns.
So, could we say that the significant advantage in 44.1(b) is something determined at the time immediately following the penalty-taken, so even if the advantaged boat looses grip of that advantage latter by the superior boat speed and decisions of its competitors, that doesn't "erase" the advantage they gained at the time? (I am interested in others' thoughts on that question)
Also, in 44.1(b), the advantage doesn't necessarily need to be vs the boat that was fouled or any "fouled boat" for that matter.
For instance consider breaking RRS 31 when a boat simply misjudged the adverse current at the windward mark where no other boats effected her course, but there is a long line of competitors behind her. By hitting the mark and barreling thru (instead of bailing, turning back, tacking and making a 2nd attempt at the back of the line) this boat gains a huge advantage by only taking 1-turn.
Or consider Boat A must beat Boat F in the race to win the regatta. Boat B thru F are on the starboard lay line for the windward mark with no gaps large enough for Boat A to pass. Boat A on port breaks RRS 10 vs Boat B outside the zone, does her Appx V1 1-turn and ends up between Boat D and Boat E. Had she not broken 10, she would have had to duck the line of boats and tacked behind Boat F.
In the above case, Boat A fouls Boat B, but does not gain an advantage vs B (the boat she fouled), but does gain one vs Boats E and F.
I think I explained where 1 Turn Penalty was appropriate (high level competitive fleet) reasonably well above. I thought it was obvious and it didn't occur to me to say that this would only apply in one design racing (or conceivably a handicap race with a very closely matched division).
I would suggest that switching in a 1 Turn Penalty by Appendix V or a SI is not appropriate for mixed fleet handicap racing at club level.
I've never seen a protest that depended, or even mentioned significant advantage either.
If competitors don't understand the significant advantage condition, then that would be just one of the many rules in the RRS that many competitors don't understand. I don't think it's a matter of concern.
Good point.
I was referring to RRS 62.1 as a benchmark for the size of the advantage (one or more places), rather than considering the enduring effect.
I think the first step is to consider how a protesting boat would see it.
If the protesting boat beats the protestee hands down in the race, I normally would not expect her to spend her time with a protest, unless, perhaps there was a pointscore advantage in play.
An exception might be where the protesting boat thought that the protestee deliberately broke a rule to gain an advantage, but possibly thought that they couldn't make RRS 2 stick.
On the other hand, where the protestee does beat the protesting boat that is evidence, to some degree of advantage.
Yes, see my post in reply to Niko referring to gain or maintain control or advantage.
Yes, so what? 1 Turn is what she is required to take by RRS 44.1.
I could also argue that she did not gain any advantage 'by her breach': a couple of inches either way around the mark wouldn't have changed her place relative to boats coming in behind her.
I think, if that was clearly laid out with good evidence in a hearing it would hold water, but the consequence is almost 'too remote', and I'm not sure that most competitors could put a clear enough case together. Once again this smacks of RRS 2, but might not quite get there.
"Concern" would not be the word I'd use either. I'm just noticing and thinking about it .. spurred by my recent experience. I find it interesting to consider.
To state the obvious, injury and serious damage are more clear (usually accompanied by a loud BANG!! CRASH!! to get and keep one's attention) and it has been my experience that sailors understand well and apply that limitation in real-time. They make no attempt to do turns and retire if they are confident of their fault.
We have a couple cases discussing damage/serious-damage that help too .. but no cases which guide what constitutes "significant advantage". Being so opaque, it's no wonder boats are seemingly not paying attention to it.