Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Being "compelled" to break an SI safety rule.
P
Angelo GuarinoCertifications:
- Regional Judge
- Fleet Measurer
0
An interesting question came up after a hearing that my panel members tossed around ... so I thought I'd open it up to the forum to get your thoughts.
Scenario:
The Winter Bowl is a winter's-long keelboat regatta in a region where freezing air and water temps are the norm. As a safety precaution, the SI's state that ...
"While racing, no crew can leave the cockpit of the boat."
During a race, there was a T-bone collision between 2 boats, where serious damage was obvious on the T-boned boat which could easily be seen from the cockpit. The boat that hit at the bow was concerned that they likewise incurred serious damage at her bow, but were unable to inspect without sending someone out of the cockpit.
Assuming the T-boned boat is found to have broken a rule which caused the collision ...
Q1: If the bow-hit boat sends a crew to inspect for damage that might effect the safely of her boat, is she exonerated for breaking the SI by RRS 43.1(a)?
Q2: What if crew were tossed overboard and she had crew leave the cockpit to effect a rescue?
Scenario:
The Winter Bowl is a winter's-long keelboat regatta in a region where freezing air and water temps are the norm. As a safety precaution, the SI's state that ...
"While racing, no crew can leave the cockpit of the boat."
During a race, there was a T-bone collision between 2 boats, where serious damage was obvious on the T-boned boat which could easily be seen from the cockpit. The boat that hit at the bow was concerned that they likewise incurred serious damage at her bow, but were unable to inspect without sending someone out of the cockpit.
Assuming the T-boned boat is found to have broken a rule which caused the collision ...
Q1: If the bow-hit boat sends a crew to inspect for damage that might effect the safely of her boat, is she exonerated for breaking the SI by RRS 43.1(a)?
Q2: What if crew were tossed overboard and she had crew leave the cockpit to effect a rescue?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
This should be DP for this problem
Mike
Rules such as this should be DP to allow a protest committee to apply common sense.
Hard to see how the RoW boat might not have broken rule 14 which, because there was damage, would preclude any exoneration.
Likewise, I have concerns about whether the SI is an effective prohibition at all.
It looks like a [possibly erroneous] simple statement of fact. It does not say what crew shall or shall not do.
If it is to be interpreted as an obligation rule, it seems to have some other problems: it says that crew may not leave the cockpit to go below, either to take shelter from the elements, or to inspect for internal damage or water ingress.
See Appendix LG 3.5: it should have the words 'except in an emergency'.
And it should be [NP][DP].
2. Q1: If the bow-hit boat sends a crew to inspect for damage that might effect the safely of her boat, is she exonerated for breaking the SI by RRS 43.1(a)?
Only if it is the T-boned boat that broke a rule compelling the bow-hit boat crew to leave the cockpit.
3. Q2: What if crew were tossed overboard and she had crew leave the cockpit to effect a rescue?
The crew is required to comply with RRS 1.1, Helping those in danger. Also they are required to comply with RRS 48.2. However, neither RRS 43.1(a) nor 62.1(c) apply so neither exoneration nor redress available.
John A: Correct ... crew can go below. It's a prohibition from being on deck/topsides other than the cockpit.
Let's assume the boat continued racing because the skipper believed they were exonerated under 43.1(a) .. and another boat saw the crew out of the cockpit and validly protested them.
You are on the panel in the hearing ...
As a general idea, would 43.1(a) be improved by adding RRS 1.1 as a condition?
Personally I would exonerate because it would be unseamanlike, and possibly dangerous, to continue sailing without knowing the nature of any damage. Therefore the only reasonable action of the boat was for a crew member to leave the cockpit to inspect the bow.
I know colleagues who would not exonerate on the basis that to compel means:
to cause (someone) by force (to be or do something), to obtain by force; or, to overpower or subdue
However, using this dictionary definition any exoneration under 43.1(a) would result from the use of force, which should be considered as misconduct. In other words, using the standard dictionary definition does not result in a workable rule.
I believe that the word 'compel' is being used here in the sense of the boat being unavoidably obliged or required to break a rule against their own wishes, because of the action of the other boat. In this case the only reasonable, or seamanlike, action that the boat can make is to inspect for damage. If the need to inspect for damage was created by the other boat breaking a rule, then exoneration under RRS43.1(a) can be given.
I would argue that:
-- The SI establishes a "Rule" (don't leave the cockpit)
-- There is evidence that one or more boats required that crew leave the cockpit while racing to evaluate the danger, repair damage, or standby to render aid.
-- I'd argue that Rule 43.1.a exonerates everyone except the boat that is found to have caused the original problem. "Rule 42.1.1a When as a consequence of breaking a rule a boat has compelled another boat to break a rule, the other boat is exonerated for her breach." Every boat, that is inspecting for damage or standing by to render aid is "the other boat" mentioned in Rule 43.1.(a). (The rule could be made more readable by putting a "(s)" at the end of "boat" in the bit I just quoted, but it doesn't change the logic.)
-- I'd ague that Rule 62.1.c allows redress under the same logic.
What am I missing here?
This may all be somewhat academic. Depending on the actual situation (on a beat to windward, did port hit starboard or did starboard hit port?), there was at least a RoW rule broken and one (port hits stbd) or both boats (stbd hits port) broke RRS 14. Here we are either finding either the only rule that a boat broke or adding another rule to the list that a boat broke.
I think if I were on the jury, I would be inclined broadly interpret 'compelled' to include the necessary actions that are a direct result of the causal rule being broken to get to where I can apply exoneration under 43.1(a).
As far as changing the SI language, I would look at what is in 49.2 and, rather than the 'emergency' option, go with 'except briefly to perform a necessary task.' This allows for someone to go outside of the cockpit to fix a fouled sheet or other problem. Inspecting for damage would certainly be necessary.
That's an interesting approach I hadn't considered.
That was basically where we landed when we were talking about it ... that it would depend upon the panel and how adamant panel members were one way or the other on applying "compelled"
Re "If the facts found lead to the conclusion that it was the T-boned boat that broke a rule, that the T-boning boat could not avoid contact, that in view of the damage to the side of the T-boned boat, it was reasonable for the T- boning boat to believe that there was considerable damage to the bow that required immediate inspection to verify the safety of the boat, that the inspection could not be carried out from inside the boat (watertight compartment in the bows, for instance, then the jury could consider exoneration. "
Yes .. those were the facts I attempted to set out in the OP. I like your thoughts following that.
John C re: it's academic ... I can assure you that it isn't.
That's not what I said, I said the opposite: as written crew can NOT go below, but must remain in the cockpit.
There are numerous examples of the use of the word "Compel" and "Compelled" that do not involve force in use in English every day.
For example:
- I was compelled by affection to declare my love for you
- It was a compelling argument
In common use one is "compelled" by an argument, affection, force, coercion, belief in a religion, regulations, or the law. It would be quite correct to say that the known damage to the boat and the potential loss of life if the boat sunk compelled the crew to leave the cockpit and break the SI. I think your friends have a strangely restrictive view of how the word Compel is used in English.
from Webster's Dictionary:
compel
Hunger compelled him to eat.
The general was compelled to surrender.
Public opinion compelled her to sign the bill.
Right ... I was correcting myself not you. I didn't cut/paste the actual SI but attempted to write the scenario from scratch that gave the gist of the issue.
The actual SI allows crew down below.
I never characterized what "my friends" thought ... other than we collectively could imagine (as did Gordon imagine) that some judges might take a narrower view. Even on this thread some have expressed themselves along those lines.
As civil-discussion note from the forum moderator ... let's please refrain from characterizing other's POV as "strange". It doesn't benefit the discussion.
That aside your SI does not constitute a rule as it is merely an incorrect statement of capability.
Rescue efforts of any kind will override any other rule
Use common sense folks
BTW - in the winter series you are referring to, it is not uncommon to perform tasks from the cabin through the forward hatch, which is OK as long as one does not protrude through the hatch further than the waist - so clearly one can be in the cabin.
There are considerable differences between standard English and the version spoken in the USA. As an Irish judge, working here and in Europe, I would not use Webster's American dictionary as a guide to English usage. I refer to Oxford, Cambridge, Collins and occasionally Britannica.
The previous version of the WS Constitution was clear 'All official Federation English texts should be edited to comply with what is known as 'Plain English' in the United Kingdom'.
Unfortunately this useful clarification has disappeared from the most recent version. Pedants will rejoice at the prospect of endless arguments as to whether standard or dialectical English applies. Personally, I find it clearer to refer to the language spoken in the USA as 'American', a language that is still, at least in part, mutually comprehensible with English.
It would seem that in English the word compel implies a greater degree of force to oblige taking an action:
to cause (someone) by force (to be or do something), to obtain by force; or, to overpower or subdue.
I would accept that force may refer to mental or psychological as well as physical force.
However, even Webster uses 'irresistible' and 'overwhelming' in its definition. A mere good argument is not compelling, the argument has to be overwhelming or irresistible.
In the case under consideration a crew would be compelled to leave the cockpit if there was an irresistible or overwhelming need to do so.
Oxford v Webster
I am particularly interested in Gordon's post regarding the differences in 'English' and the meaning of 'Plain English' (and Ang's amusing Google search proof above. QED?). I think this leads to varied interpretations of the rules more than we think.
One of the beauties of the English language is its colour and variation across the globe, and even within a single region. But that does present a problem for the rule-makers.
For Ang's OP scenario, I think we are all agreeing that the inspection of the bow was necessary and should be allowed somehow. Whether through interpretation or redress.
I can't help but think of 14 CFR 91.3 from your US law books.
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
RRS1.3 The skipper is the final authority on the operation of the boat, and may deviate from any rule in an emergency."
Cheers.
Oxford v Webster
My version of 'Plain English I use when writing race documents, PC decisions and when explaining the rules. I make a conscious effort to keep the language simple. My preference is only to use wording that is found in the RRS. This means, for instance, that non-English speakers can refer to their translated copy.
One example, and a particular bug bear of mine is the the wording used when referring to a change in a rule or race document. At one time I collected a list of words used: amends, modifies, adds to, qualifies, varies, adjusts, substitutes, replaces...
For me- either a rule or document is changed or it is not.
In the same way why publish 'Amendments' when the document sets out a change to the NoR or SI ( for instance, RRS 90.2(b) refers to a change to the SIs, not an amendment).
PS The OED (and also Cambridge and Collins) is a dictionary that collects actual usage, without defining 'proper usage', Webster published a document intended to reform the language of the new USA and to separate America from Britain!
Some American usage seems to be creeping into RRS - for instance using the term 'trash' rather than 'rubbish'. Until recently, such usage was contrary to th WS Constitution;
I was hoping that someone would bring up redress in the discussion. Seems there are 4 possible scenarios for the SI-breaking boat.
(PS: 5th where she finished, assumed she was exonerated, said nothing and was not protested).
Obviously #4 needs no further action, but what redress avenues are possible with 1-3?
This to me has echo's of Case 140.
Removing damage from OP ...
A friend of mine, who is silently following this thread, sent me a video of his boat and another coming together slowly in layered sandwich at a mark ... with his boat and another ending up hooked/entangled somewhere forward (stanchions, lifelines, pulpit/sprit, etc..) such that someone had to go topsides/forward to separate the boats.
In the instance above, this is more of an ongoing danger to the boats that might incur possible future damage/injury.
PS: Here we have RRS 42.3(h) which allows action to separate the boats .. so thus a possible conflict between the RRS and such an SI.
So, in this instance, if she broke a rule of Part 2 in the incident (possibly RRS 14 if she was RoW) then no redress.
If she passes this hurdle:
On what grounds could she claim redress:
- I seen no improper action of the OA or RC
- there may be physical damage caused by the other boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2
- no member of the crew was giving help to another boat
- there is no mention of unfair sailing or misconduct
So redress may be available, but only if her score was made significantly worse by damage because of the action of a boat breaking a rule of Part 2
There is a fine point I think you are making ...
A ROW boat that breaks 14 is exonerated for doing so if there was no damage or injury. Implied in the above statement is that it was reasonably possible for this ROW boat to avoid the contact, but did not.
If it was not reasonably possible for the ROW boat to avoid the contact, she did not break 14 in the first place.
The reasonable possibility to avoid the contact means she can't satisfy "no fault of her own".
1. Although I agree that the bow inspection was a very necessary action of seamanship and leadership, I don't think there is a technical way to say the rule was not broken, in the rule's current form. Neither by literal interpretation or by redress.
I just noted that people will try their very best to find a way to allow it, no matter how cunning or curious. Because we sympathise and empathise with the boat and want to allow her breach.
I personally can't get that word 'compelled' into this situation. The crew wasn't 'compelled' as I understand the word in this context (e.g. compelled = left, by someone's actions, with no other option).
Yet, I understand different meanings/uses of the word 'compelled' and can see how others may find it applicable. Last few weeks, we have highlighted, in various discussions, the subtle differences of English language use across regions. In future, I'll be less inclined to persist with dispute where there can be more than one use/understanding of meaning. Instead wait for official interpretations, and in their absence lean towards better (tried and tested) methods of statutory interpretation, rather than literal interpretations which don't work when there are multiple meanings.
2. I don't think the SI conflicts with Rule 1.1 and so doesn't become invalid per rule 86 as Rick Meyers proposes.
I just think it is a poorly written rule which needs fixing to allow it to work in some obvious circumstances. A number of fixes could be applied.
a) Make it [DP]. Yes, the rule was broken, but surely a protest committee will be forgiving in this case.
b) Write into the rule, "Except in an emergency or to prevent damage or injury..."
c) Write another rule to switch off the rule when meeting critical safety needs.
OP's question was what would we do if that landed on our protest desk? Well, dare I say it, I may have let sympathy and empathy get the better of me, and tried to find a curious and cunning explanation to forgive the bow inspection. Hmm.. I don't know.
This discussion of the Defence of Necessity might help a bit.
https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/necessity.html
[The] act must have been done in order to avoid certain consequences which would have inflicted irreparable evil upon the accused or upon others whom he or she was bound to protect;
Thanks for sharing that. Very interesting to add to the discussion. - Ang
I don't think I opined on whether there was a conflict or not with RRS 1. I did say in the case of 2 boats being entangled forward, RRS 42.3(h) specifically allows crew to use their force to serparate them .. so to the extent my hypothetical SI disallows that .. then maybe there is a conflict there.
Now, if you are asking me if I think there is a conflict between my hypo-SI and RRS 1.1, then let's look at that rule (I hadn't worked through it, so let's see where we end up together).
RRS 1.1 is very specific about the condition of "in danger" and I would agree if a situation presents itself where a boat believes the in-danger threshold is met, then yes, there would be a conflict between my hypo-SI and RRS 1.1 if the limits presented by the SI limits "the help" that is "given".
Also, RRS 1.1 applies that in-danger test (emphasis added) "to ANY person or vessel..". I would argue that "any" includes all persons and vessels, which would include one's own boat and one's own crew.
In my OP, the skipper didn't know if his boat was in danger or not. We are talking here about assessing the possibility of damage, or serious damage. There can be a broad distance in a keel-boat between damage, serious damage and the vessel being "in danger". In my J105 unfortunately, I've been T-boned twice while I was ROW/STB (John S, in both cases I was found to not have broken any rule, including RRS 14). Both times it left a considerable open hole thru my hull at the toe-rail and once took my stern-rail completely off (so no anchor for my lifelines on that side).
Was my boat or crew in danger after the collision? No. In the one incident, we lashed and tensioned the LL's terminals to a stern cleat and in both we duct taped the hull and competed the race.
Before we go further, there may be a distinction worth exploring between an SI being in conflict with the RRS and a claim that an SI improperly changes an RRS. A conflict can be situational, where an improper change is intrinsic.
I could argue both sides, which as you know, I often do to foster discussion, of whether my hyoo-SI improperly changes RRS 1.1 or that a situational-conflict can exist that does not represent an improper intrinsic change.
-----
Argument FOR: Hypothetical-SI improperly changes RRS 1.1
The RRS uses the concept of "possible" throughout, sometimes modified with "reasonably", but here it is not. Here it modifies it as "all possible". We differentiate the possible and reasonably possible all the time when analyzing RRS 14. So "all possible" arguably includes both the reasonable and unreasonable.
Seems we have concentric universes of actions/help (big to small nested sets).
(This legality question might be a question in a competitor's mind for instance if entry to into a security or exclusion zone would be required to render help).
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that RRS 1.1's "all possible" is implied to mean #3 above and not #2 (though they use "all").
RRS 85.1 states that " A change to a rule includes an addition to it or deletion of all or part of it.". RRS 86.1(a) disallows changes to RRS 1 without special permission of WS.
Therefore, the hypo-SI limits the actions/help a crew can give, by modifying RRS 1.1's "all possible help" from #3 to [something less than "all possible help"] in #5, and thus breaks RRS 86.1(a) and is invalid.
------
Argument AGAINST: Hypothetical-SI does not change RRS 1.1
The hypo-SI limits the movement of crew while racing to remaining in the cockpit (and below). RRS 1.1 requires a boat to "give all possible help" to those "in danger". The help that a boat gives may or may not necessitate crew leaving the cockpit or cabin. The hypo-SI does not change RRS 1.1, but rather may be in conflict with it, when the "in danger" threshold is met and the help given requires the crew to leave the cockpit limits.
RRS 63.7 Conflict between rules, only applies to conflicts between the NOR, SI and "other documents" under def: rule (g). I cannot find a rule, case or appeal (US/RYA) which states that when there is a conflict between an RRS and an SI, that the RRS takes precedent (please correct me if I missed something).
Given RRS 63.7's limited scope to resolve conflicts and RRS 86, one could argue that it is clear the RRS takes precedent situationally when the scope of the help to a person/vessel "in danger" exceeds the SI limitations imposed, or when "applied force" is used in compliance of RRS 42.3(h).
When these conditions above are not met, the SI does not change and is not in conflict with the RRS.
--------
OK ... above is my best stab at both sides. Which is the stronger position?
When it is possible that a boat is in danger, another boat that gives help is
entitled to redress, even if her help was not asked for or if it is later found that
there was no danger.
For what my opinion is worth, I would say that in both your incidents the danger threshold was reached. The watertight integrity of the craft was compromised.
That was not part of my OP. I specifically stated that the skipper could not tell the extent of damage to his own boat ... thus the sending someone topsides to look. I also never said the T-boned boat was in danger.
Someone being in the water is another issue. If they were dingy sailors in dry suits ... well that's expected. Keelboat weekend warriors in foulies ... that person is certainly in danger.
What Ang said plus...
"Thou shall stay in the boat cockpit."
and
"Thou shall help people in danger."
1. The first rule remains valid.
Staying in the cockpit does not inherently prevent you from helping others. Assistance can often be provided effectively from the cockpit, such as by using safety equipment (e.g., life rings or ropes), maneuvering the vessel, or calling for help—all while maintaining personal safety.
2. Staying in the cockpit is a safety rule designed to reduce personal risk.
The first step in helping others is not to endanger yourself. Therefore, the cockpit rule may still apply unless staying there creates greater risk or prevents effective assistance. In emergencies, actions must balance safety and the need to help.
3. The two rules differ in nature and purpose.
The first rule is an absolute safety instruction, intended to ensure personal safety and stability.
The second rule is a moral obligation, which varies depending on the situation and requires judgment to determine how help can be provided safely and effectively.
--------
Not about rule conflict, but about the redress or forgiving them...
4. In OPs case, the crew was not 'helping someone in danger'. They were doing a safety inspection to prevent/check possible danger. Therefore the SI rule was broken but not in the name of rule 1.1.
Luckily it's a hypothetical case and we've discussed how things could be improved.
I think point 4 fails in the light of case 20. I submit that in the light of case 20 it is not necessary to establish actual danger. If the possibility of danger is enough to justify redress, then it should also be enough to justify inspections. After all we would hardly wish for a situation where a crew felt it desirable to omit a safety check solely because of a resulting requirement to take a penalty.
But perhaps too we need to consider the status of the fundamental rules. Fundamental: more important than anything else; forming the base, from which everything else develops. (Cambridge dictionary online). Although all rules apply all the time, Case 45 surely suggests there is a hierarchy in which SIs cannot override the RRS and be valid, and I submit RRS would not use the word fundamental unless those rules were indeed more important than anything else. RRS1 would neatly fit into the category other requirements while racing, and the fact that it is not there surely confirms an exalted status above (or below!) other rules.
1. You may be over-reading Case 45.
New RRS 86.1(b) list the rules that may not be changed by the NoR or SIs. It does not establish a hierarchy between rules in the RRS. Rule 1 is a rule that may not be changed.
2. If the SIs change a rule of RRS that may be changed, and the change is published correctly, then that rule, as changed, that applies.
The SI in question was ' "While racing, no crew can leave the cockpit of the boat."
Does this change a rule: I am not convinced that this SI changes either RRS 48.2 or RRS 49. If it does, then the SI does not meet the requirements of RRS 85.1
However, if I let my pedantry loose the rule is poorly drafted. Unless all members of the crew have mobility issues they obviously can, as in are able to, leave the cockpit.
I believe that the intention of the SI is to prohibit crew members from leaving the cockpit, in which case the SI should read:
' While racing, no crew shall leave the cockpit of the boat.'
If there is conflict there is a procedure for resolving it not based on where in the book the rule is. Mike b
I thought the same until I considered more closely how RRS 63.7 is written (emphasis added)
To me, above is stating that it's only the rules in the SI, NOR, and other-documents which are to be treated with equal standing and resolved for ".. the fairest result for all boats".
I'm suggesting that the above logically implies that where there are conflicts other than that, there are only 3 possible resolutions:
This goes to the long FOR/AGAINST argument I wrote above. One could take the stance of a 3rd option ...
3. Any conflict between rules which are outside of the scope of RRS 63.7, necessarily indicate an improper change of a rule, and thus is invalid.
I am not sure that there can be a conflict between RRS and the NoR or SIs. Either the race document correctly changes a rule of RRS or it does not. Until the rule has been correctly changed, then the RRS rule applies.
The class rules are on the bottom and only applies if specified in the NOR or SI and can be modified by the NOR/SI
And parts of RRS/Codes can likewise be modified NOR/SI - in fact could even be set aside for a completely different set of rules. Thus, the NOR/SI is actually at the top
You should review the definition of "rule" in the RRS.
3) Any conflict between rules which are outside of the scope of RRS 63.7, necessarily indicate an improper change of a rule, and thus [one of the conflicting rules] is invalid [based upon RRS 86].
We could of course divert into a philological discussion. I contend that immutable is in fact correct since the NOR has no power to change a single word of the RRS, even though it may make certain permitted changes to it's operation. But I'm not sure that would advance us very much and perhaps I'd better shut up!
1 - class rules may be modified or not used at all - e.g. you can race your J105 but J105 rules are not a part of "imaginary race" - in fact many races using PHRF, ORC, IRC or other rating rules often have no OD class rules governing anything
2 - That is only true if some OD class rule is used
3 - there are races that do not use the RRS at all - e.g. some races have adopted some simplified version of the RRS or even a completely homegrown set of rules
4. Yes if the RRS are used
The NOR/SI (or whatever name a club/organizing group chooses to call it) is entirely up to that entity
You should review the definition of "rule" in the RRS.
However, if the RRS govern the race, and you have a Class OD start, then the Class OD rules apply. Rule 87 states that CR's can only be changed as allowed in the CR itself or by permission of the Class, which is done through what we call a "Rule 87 Letter".
Also, these rules notations and changes in rules shall be done in the NOR (RRS 87 and Appx J1.1 (1)-(4))
Some Class CR's have within them the ability to turn on/off some of their rules depending upon the level of the event, and that level needs to be established in the NOR for the event (typically).
Since you are familiar with Annapolis racing, so I can give you some examples in the J105 Class.
Within the J105 CR is the ability to set the level of the event by A,B,C and 1,2,3. The number specifies who can drive. The letter who can crew. So a 1A event is most restrictive and 3C least restrictive. Our local Fleet 3 has our own set of rules for which we have a Rule 87 letter, which allows us to evoke our local rules for local-only events.
In Annapolis, each event NOR we participate in, the NOR states the level of the event and states if our local rules apply.
For instance: (Fleet3 Schedule w/levels)
You made a comment on non-OD Class starts. That's not what I was talking about, but since you brought up handicap systems, we had a thread where we discovered that it seems most handicap systems embed to some extent the Class OD CR's into their certificate if the boat chooses to be rated in its OD configuration (not true if the boat is rated "from scratch" in ORC).
This is true for PYS, ORC and PHRF to varying extent. Those handicap systems require the boat to adhere to all or some class rules when their ratings are based upon the OD config. Here in PHRF Chesapeake, if you have a J105-OD PHRF rating, you have to adhere to the OD crew limits which is 1105lbs (6 @ 184 avg), but PHRF would allow 10 crew of any weight. (Big difference!!!). ORC rule 302 details "One Design Certificates".
PS: as the forum moderator, I ask you to please make your future points without characterizing forum members' POV.
PS2: In the middle of a long thread, the topic of CR's in handicap ratings/systems came up and we really started to hone in on it starting with Jim's comment here. I had assumed that most OD CR's did not carry forward into the handicap system (except for hull and sail limits), but as you will read, they often do. (I was amazed by this myself).
One might frivolously classify 78.1 as a rule one cannot break, since as soon as a boat ceases to be legal as an XYZ it ceases to be an XYZ full stop, and 78.1 no longer applies as it has no class rules!
From there the SIs become a key document. If the SIs specify XYZ class then one may not enter a not-quite-XYZ. This is just as true of the smallest club race as the most prestigious championship. Of course some clubs choose to allow not-quites, and why not. So long as everyone knows the situation, and hopefully the NOR makes it clear.
When it comes to handicap races it's even more complicated. If a boat is entered as an XYZ it needs to measure as an XYZ, end of. If it doesn't then that is, put bluntly, cheating. As we know, and with the very occasional exception, clubs can't go changing class rules. But again the not-quite principle comes into play. So long as the club knows it's a not-quite, and has the information to allocate an appropriate handicap then that's fine. And if the club wants to make a list of which class rules they expect the not-quite to abide by and which not, that's also OK. But they shouldn't be calling their not-quite event a class event.
Your statements are made with a lot of assumptions that may or may not be the case in some random race somewhere. You are certainly correct within a slice of racing given the list of assumptions you are putting up are in play. My point is that your viewpoint is a bit narrow/selective as there are many racing situations where that is not the case.
Having raced under a fair amount of different handicap systems and as well as a number of different OD and box rules and racing authorities across the globe I do have a bit broader view of this topic at hand - hence my post with a bit broader view of sailboat racing
All that said, that's not what the RRS states... and that's what most of us are here to discuss. As judges and RO's we are governed by the rules by RRS 5.
Christian, in the definition of rule it states:
(d) the class rules (for a boat racing under a handicap or rating system, the rules of that system are ‘class rules’);
The handicap or box rules you refer to are considered as 'class' rules for the purpose of the RRS.
I do not see this discussion applying only to OD racing.
Sorry John et'al. I certainly contributed to letting the thread get off topic. Your post is concise and effective.
Christian .. if you would like to discuss this topic further, it deserves its own thread.
Au contraire: if a race document makes a permitted change to the RRS, then, for that event, the changed wording is the wording of that rule.
Older readers will relace ILCA by Laser!