It does leave some ambiguity. Suppose the CR says a 1 turn penalty for breaking the sprit extension rule , and the SI's say 2 turns for breaking a rule in the zone... which rule takes precedence?

My concern is that .. let's say that the CR's have a series of penalties defined that are less than DSQ.   Here is a simple one.

Now, let's say a boat is 300 lbs light of her weight certificate .. in a 3,000 lb boat.

The boat is protested and it comes to a hearing.  The weight deficit is verified. 

So the penalty for being underweight is now limited to 10%??? ...  because ".. a rule provides that the penalty for a breach of a class rule may be less than disqualification"?

This doesn't make sense to me.  I'm not sure what they were trying to say here.

It's interesting in the light of the opinion I got from the RYA some years ago, that a boat that does not measure as an XX is de facto no longer an XX and not subject to class rules (but also may no longer be eligible to compete in the race). Things that are actions, like your crew and pole position examples, may be broken multiple times in a race and require a separate penalty for each breach, and the boat still measures. But if, for example, one sails with too many or too few crew, is a single turn taken at the finishing line correct? 

I think your weight deficit example would be a clear RRS2 breach, and 78.1 would be beside the point, and I suspect many more major class rule breaches would reach the same bar. There's also 44.1b in the mix. Would that be enough to protect competition do you think? 

Ang,

It looks fine to me., but I can see how a confusion may happen.

You are saying that, according to the wording, because CR says 1-turn for extending the pole early, then a breach of any other class rule (78.1) is also 1-turn?

I don't think so.

Ben ... but that's not what the new 78.1 says.  

It says what it says ... and it says if there is a  less than DSQ for breaking "a" class rule, then that penalty will be applied to "this" rule .. which is a rule requiring a boat to abide  by the her "measurement certificate". 

I think the wording is VERY confusing. 

Class rules may change only racing rules 42, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 78.2.

Which rule is extending a bowsprit too early changing?

Mark re: "Which rule is extending a bowsprit too early changing?"

It's not changing a rule.  Your response has me thinking that one of us may be missing the point.  I'll write my response assuming that it's you ... and maybe you can do me a favor on the flip-side and write a response that assumes that it is I who is missing it.

My concern is the new language added to 78.1. 

I'll repeat it here for convenience.  The new sentence is bolded for added emphasis.

"This rule" in the new sentence is rule 78.1, which states the owner shall ensure the boat is in compliance with her CR's, measurements and/or rating cert.

The new sentence states that if "a rule" (CR's are "a rule") provides the penalty for a breach of "a class rule" may be less than disqualification, then the same penalty applies to breaking 78.1.

In my CR example, I show a rule (the CR)  providing for less than DSQ for breaking "a class rule". Following the new wording in 78.1, that then defines the penalty for breaking 78.1 ("this rule"). 

Ang,

I first apologise for my previous post.

Mark's comment got me thinking about this differently - not sure if this is what he means, but it helped me see this more clearly.

What about this?

=======================
When a rule (such as an NOR or SI but not the class rule being discussed) provides that the penalty for a breach of a class rule may be less than the standard 60.5(c) penalty of disqualification (for example by marking that class rule as [DP]), the same penalty that is given to a boat as provided for will also apply if necessary to a breach of this rule (which would automatically be the case if the class rule broken is a rule concerning maintenance to comply with her class rules or the validity of her measurement or rating certificate).
=======================

(The additions of course are for explanatory purpose around the original wording, rather than trying to be minimalist rule-speak.)

I think the above incorporates the original wording verbatim and also grammatically and logically.

So, it does just needs to be read with the correct perspective when reading that word 'a' and a little context as provided by Submission 035-23.

It makes sense to me now.

Hope that helps.

How often do RRS78 penalties come up in practice, especially in isolation? It seems to me the intent of the change is that if the CR offers a lesser penalty for a breach then the boat should not be DSQ under 78, which is reasonable.

 Angelo, am I right in thinking you're considering the reverse situation, where if a boat breaks a CR that does not have a lesser penalty, this wording of 78 suggests that because there is a lesser penalty for some CR breaches, the lesser penalty applies whenever a class rule is broken? 

It seems to me, though, given your example, the boat has broken CR, for which there is no lesser penalty, and RRS78, for which there is a lesser penalty. I can see a reading of 78 saying that her turn is sufficient for the breach of 78, but I don't see that means it covers breaking the CR. It seems to me the turn is not an applicable penalty for the CR breach, even if it's considered to cover RRS78. 

here are my two cents,

To clarify, Angelo suggests that if a Class Rule (CR) specifies a penalty for a breach that is less severe than disqualification (DSQ)—for instance, in the J105 class where an early bowsprit extension incurs a one-turn penalty—then violating RRS 78.1 due to non-compliance with the measurement certificate should also result in a one-turn penalty.  [@Angelo please let me know if I understood you correctly]

If this interpretation of the new rule is accurate then YES we have a problem.

Ok everyone ... I think I understand the what this last sentence is trying to say ... and it's along the lines of Ben's interpretation.

Big picture, I think the last sentence is trying stop a boat from being penalized twice for a single CR breach .. once for breaking the CR and the 2nd for breaking 78.1. 

A prescription, NOR or SI may change 78.1, but a Class Rule cannot.   So if the CR provides less than DSQ for breaking specific CR's, it can't reach into the RRS and change 78.1 to correspond.  So a boat who accepts say a 10% penalty for an early sprit can still be found to break 78.1 and be DSQ'd.


A more apt example would be for a boat found out of spec.  A CR may have some remedy, penalty or system in place to handle spec issues, but 78.1 is still standing there. 

That said, if that is the intent it should maybe just say that.  Something like ... 

Logically, I'm not sure that last part in [italics] about rule 2/69 is necessary .. but it makes the context clear by stating it. 

Ang,

I think we are getting there. Say, 95% there!

However, perhaps put aside CRs which modify rule 44.  I don't think these apply to our conversation or this rule.  We can discuss those later.

Instead, let's reset minds and focus on regular class rules, particularly ones which are concerned with maintenance to comply with class rules or the validity of measurement or rating certificates.

I will use Vende Globe as an example (the documents are easily available and the topics are pertinent) and I'll work through the discussion fully.

Hope it helps.
---------------------------------
Vende Globe Sailing Instructions state:

-Rules will include IMOCA Class Rules
-Penalties for breaking rules will be Discretionary Penalties according to Annexe 6-PENALTY GUIDE VENDEE GLOBE 2024
--where discretionary penalties for 'Other breaches to class rules' can range from 0 hrs to DSQ.

IMOCA Class Rules state:

-AG.3 FINISHING AND PAINTING for the hull shell and the hull appendages. (c) The working deck and all areas where a crewmember may need to work while underway shall have a nonskid finish.   
---------------------------------
Considerations:

The Sailing Instructions have stipulated that penalties for breaking a rule may be less than DSQ.  This changes RRS 60.5(c).

So the scene is set for our discussion..

The Scenario

Race Committee protests XYZ after noticing that her non-skid finish of her working deck is old and worn making it slippery.  In the hearing, the protest committee upholds the protest and decides to penalise the boat with a 2 hour penalty.

Conclusions and decisions may look something like this:

Discussion

Since CR AG3(c) is a rule concerning maintenance to comply with class rules, in breaking that CR, XYZ also broke RRS 78.1 which required that boats comply with maintenance class rules.

The SIs are rules which correctly provide for a penalty less than DSQ for breaking CR AG3(c).  The last sentence of RRS 78.1 prescribes that the penalty shall be the same as the penalty the SIs provide for.

Without that last sentence, the PC would have to DSQ the boat for RRS78.1 per RRS 60.5(c) (on top of her 2 hour penalty for breaking the class rule).

Now, with the last sentence, the overall penalty for the boat remains as the SIs intended (with i s and t s dotted and crossed)

What d'ya think?

That seems to me exactly how the clause is intended to operate - intended consequences one might say. I like the example of a range of discretionary penalties.

Angelo, how does this sit with your concerns about unintended consequences? It seems to me in your example of an underweight boat the PC might say
XYZ broke class rule n, minimum weight. 
There is no alternative or discretionary penalty in class rules or SIs for breaking class rule n, so XYZ is scored DSQ. 
XYZ also broke RRS78.1 and is scored DSQ under that rule but is not further penalised. 

Jim, I think that's right.  There is only an issue to solve when there is a penalty in a rule (NOR/SI/CR/"other documents") less than DSQ (without that new last-sentence). 

An NOR/SI that defined this penalty could have simultaneously written the gist of the last sentence at the same time, but that would require the AO/RC to be aware of the potential trap (which I'd imagine many would miss). 

Ang/Jim,

Is this case closed now with respect to 'regular' class rules? As per my previous post. 

Is the sentence deemed to be OK, or have any more niggles? 

Ben, I don't like the sentence ... I think it can be misinterpreted ... but the likelihood is pretty low probably.