Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Standard Penalties [SP] in RRS 2025
Stefan Kunstmann
Certifications:
- International Race Officer
0
Hi everyone,
I'm writing NoRs for next year and am thinking about Standard Penalties. On many long distance races, you could be penalised for things like entering obstructions, not obeying a particular request to do something etc - the detail isn't that important.
With the 2021 Rules, you could change 63.1 and A5
The concept of requirement for a hearing is no longer present and has been restructured in RRS Part 5. There's now a provision in 60.5(b)(3):
I'm writing NoRs for next year and am thinking about Standard Penalties. On many long distance races, you could be penalised for things like entering obstructions, not obeying a particular request to do something etc - the detail isn't that important.
With the 2021 Rules, you could change 63.1 and A5
The concept of requirement for a hearing is no longer present and has been restructured in RRS Part 5. There's now a provision in 60.5(b)(3):
60.5 Protest Decisions
(a) The protest committee shall conduct a hearing as required by rule 63 to decide a protest.
(b) A boat shall only be penalized
(1) at a protest hearing to which she is a party,
(2) under rule 62.4, 64 or 69, or
(3) under a rule which expressly states that a penalty may be
applied without a hearing.
Now this is sort of great, if not the headline of the parent rule was "Protest Decisions", or worse the top level being just "Protests", which could arguably influence or at least spark interpretation on how it may be used.
Would you suggest different language to this?
The notation ‘[SP]’ in a rule in the NoR means that for a breach of this rule a standard penalty may be applied by the Race Committee without a hearing in accordance with RRS 60.5(b)(3).
Question is if it would require "This changes RRS 60.5(b)(3) and A5.", either of those or none. A5 still doesn't mention penalties derived from 60.5(b)(3), so I suppose that changing A5 is still needed. Any insights would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Stefan
Thanks,
Stefan
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
2025 RRS 60.5(b) is now a 'SI otherwise prescribe' rule.
When your SI prescribe a standard penalty without a hearing, you are not changing the rule, you are doing something that the rule prescribes that you may do.
You don't need the magic words, and, I think you don't strictly need 'without a hearing'.
I don't see how imposing standard penalties for boats breaking rules on the race course changes anything in RRS A5. RRS A5 only deals with DNS/NSC/DNF, OCS/ZFP/UFD/BFD, DNC, SCP (under RRS 44.3(a)).
Also the inheritance of the titles of RRS 60 and 60.5 (Protests; Protest decisions) make me wonder if different panels interpret it differently.
90.3 requires the RC to score the race as per App A. It can only change scores based on its own records. Other than that, only the Protest Committee may direct changes to scores, with the exception of those explicitly listed in A5.1, further reinforced by "Only the protest committee may take other scoring actions that worsen a boat’s score."
A consequential change would have been the inclusion of 60.5(3)(b) in the list in A5.1. I'm inclined to mention a change to A5.1 to that effect, to ensure the RC is allowed to actually apply penalties marked in the NoR/SI without a hearing.
I'd be interested to learn how others read this, too.
"(3) under a rule which expressly states that a penalty may be
applied without a hearing."
So .., these penalties w/o a hearing can be defined in any rule?
We had a discussion about CR's defining penalties ... and had quite a discussion about that.
Don't know about 'drive a truck through'. Maybe it's a feature not a loophole.
So what stopped CR setting penalties other than DSQ was the fact that under RRS 86.1, CR couldn't change RRS 63.1 or 64.2.
NOR/SI have always been able to change these rules so as to impose SP, DP, and provide for penalty without a hearing, all it needed was the magic words.
So, in 2025, CR are rules and they can provide that that a penalty may be applied without a hearing.
EDIT: no they can't: to do that requires a change to RRS A5.1, and CR aren't permitted to change that rule.
I'm just personally more comfortable having those special rule-breaches so designated being defined in the SI or NOR, where it may be more visible and evident to competitors I guess.
In the new rules 60.5.(b)(3) now allows a boat to be penalised without a hearing for an SP specified elsewhere in the rules but A 5 has not been changed.
The Racing Rules Committe is aware of this discrepancy but whether this meets the requirements for an urgent change remains to be seen.
IMO it would be wise to say 'This changes RRS A5in SI's where SP's are specified.until A5 catches up with Part 5.
So we're talking about RRS A5.1 last sentence
Only the protest committee may take other scoring actions that worsen a boat’s score.
I think that's a pretty big deal and a very strong principle.
I previously said
which is true as far as SP/DP goes, but it does not address the RRS A5.1 limitation on 'without a hearing' stated above.
I agree that anywhere you want to impose a penalty without a hearing, you need magic words saying 'this changes RRS A5.1'.
RRS A5.1 specifies penalties without a hearing for matters which are within the peculiar knowledge or direct observation of the race committee: the breaches are black and white and the evidence is directly visible to the race committee. An exception is NSC, other than DNS/OCS or DNF, where the race committee has no express responsibility to be observing boats for compliance, We had considerable discussion about NSC in 2021 when it was introduced.
I have great reservations about penalties being imposed without a hearing by the race committee or technical committee where the breach depends on facts that are not directly and completely observed by the committee. Committees other than protest committees:
So to take Stefan's examples
I think that these examples are the very sorts of things that may require some considerable fact finding, and are best left to a protest committee.
So, circling around to Ang's concerns
It has always been possible to specify a penalty less than disqualification in all sorts of rules.
But to get it without a hearing requires a power to change RRS A5, which, according to RRA 86.1 rests only in:
RRS 86.1(c) still prevents CR from changing RRS A5.1 and there are no other documents that are permitted to change RRS.
@John Allan: Although I somewhat agree with your principle, there are Race Committees and Officers out there who know what they are doing. I'm not best guessing an infringement on an obstruction, but use tried and tested technology including appropriate margins for accuracy. Fastnet, Middle Sea etc use YB's Polyfence system - with the correct application of the feature, it's possible to police infringements of such a nature.
What nobody wants is the RC being required to protest a significant percentage of the fleet in order to enforce rules that allow almost direct observation. In any case, Redress is an open road for competitors that feel that the RC made an error in application of an SP. For me, the onus is correct that way, if they might be able to present exonerating evidence or sway the PC's mind for any reason.
Enforcement of the rules is the competitors job first and foremost; the RC can do its part to level the playing field, and should do that.
The PC is there to weigh additional factors that require acquisition of evidence from a number of parties - we can't have a lengthy procedure for things that are obvious. So I strongly disagree with
At the same time, it is hard to generalise, as every event has its own character, culture and specialities.
For instance ... a separate SP doc or CR could list a series of penalties for non-RRS rules defined within and define the penalties for those rules. For an event, the NOR/SI would still need to reference those rules, that the penalties can be applied without a hearing, and state that this changes A5.
That at least gives sailors notice of that significant change in the forward facing event docs.
Here's an old example used by Australia Sailing