Hi Jim...

I am always interested in SI which remove a boat's right to hearing or redress.  Personally, I don't like it.  (Especially one's where there may be subjectivity - is the boat above a beam reach, is the sprit at the mark...)  Additionally, you are relying on RC to be at that mark.  That's ok if your course configuration normally has a CB there.  But it does put weight on RC, beyond their normal role.

So, removing hearing or redress here, seems like a 'threat' (scare-mongering), rather than a practical implementation.  I'm not sure that's wise.

Anyway....

A number of classes have rules which aim to achieve the same outcome.

Here's an extract from J80 class rules.

Does it help?

At times when this has landed on my protest desk, I use the halyard movement as a training guide.

(OK - purists will say that's not what the rule requires, and I agree.  Technically, no time gap between sprit movement and halyard.)
Nevertheless, it may be simpler to use the wheel already invented.

B

Thanks Benjamin, I appreciate the suggestion. Ironically, I ran across this same rule earlier. I'll incorporate it.

In general I agree about removing the hearing, but this has become a serious safety issue. People have been struck by bowsprits from boats astern while approaching marks and/or by boats rounding marks and misjudging where their bowsprit ends. I feel I need to come down hard on offenders. 

Quite often I see this:

”
B5.1     Having the bowsprit extended, except when in the process of setting, flying or taking down the gennaker is prohibited. The bowsprit shall be fully retracted at the first reasonable opportunity after taking down the gennaker. A boat that does not retract the bowsprit fully may be warned and given an opportunity to correct the error.

 

B5.2     Extending the bowsprit before getting on the new leg of the course, after entering the zone of a rounding mark without a gennaker set is prohibited.

”

Ok, often it’s umpired fleet, but perhaps the second part could be useful to you.

J105 CR 7.2 is below.  It works perfectly fine. 

I agree with Ben, nix the penalty w/o hearing stuff. Also, I don't think you want to define sail limits for a boat based on their point of sail (your "beam reach" language). 

The bottom line is that you don't want people sailing around with their pole out unless they are going to fly a sail on it. 

The language below handles it nicely. 

The protest committee can come down hard on offenders. That's what they're for.

the Melges 24 class has the following rules:
C.11 BOAT HANDLING RULES
C.11.1. The bowsprit shall be fully retracted at all times except when the boat shall be in the process of a continuous hoist, flying or dropping the spinnaker.
C.11.2. The bowsprit shall be retracted at the first reasonable opportunity after the retrieval or dropping of the spinnaker.

I like the J109 class rule:

6.3 The bowsprit shall be retracted when not in the process of setting, flying, or taking down the spinnaker. When approaching a windward mark without the spinnaker set, the bowsprit shall not be extended until the bow of the boat passes the mark. The penalty for failure to comply with this rule shall be one 360 degree turn taken before the finish of the race.

"I need to come down hard on offenders" is dangerous language. Consider that your over-arching goal is to promote safe and fun sailing, in that order. 

This sounds like a fleet of varied boats. Having raced in and judged in multiple fleets, I think the Melges 24 rule is the best balance. That said, some boats aren't rigged in a way that you can reasonably wait until the halyard is going up to extend the pole. It may be against one-design class rules to set up the rigging to be able to change the order. 

I would start with a conversation with the fleet. First, I would explain the problem and the danger. I would acknowledge this might not be a one-size fits all solution. Show video of Melges 24 hoists where we pre-feed the tack to a mark, then at the hoist, we're extending the pole. Discuss that some boats have rigging that joins the tack line to pole out. Ask the sailors if one of those two methods could work for them. When someone objects, ask if someone great at boat handling and rigging might come aboard for a practice to try some options.

In the end, I think you can get to the Melges 24 rule, but if you told me I had to do that on my A Scow by the next race day, I would push back HARD. Some boats have linked the tack line to pole out, but most have taken that back to separate controls because the friction added slows the hoist dramatically. The geometry of the boat doesn't allow a pre-feed so you can extend the pole second. The spinnaker would shrimp. Re-rigging to the joined system means cutting holes in the boat and working in a small bow area. That's possible, but not easily executed in a week when the whole crew has day jobs and we're all an hour away from the boat and commute in to race.

The ability to implement any rule around this is nuanced as every boat and crew is different. When the boat's systems weren't set up to accomplish your goal, it isn't reasonable to institute boat handling rules not possible on some boats. Penalization without right to a hearing is a great way to make people down on the sport. Have a hearing. That's enough. Honestly, I'd put a [DP] on this rule and write guidance that for a first offense, if there's no contact or reckless behavior, the penalty is 30%. With repeat, contact, or reckless behavior, DSQ and consider rule 2.  

With regard to the original question: For easier reading, I would invert the sentence
from this
"No boat ....shall extend her bowsprit" 
to this
"A boat ... shall not extend her bowsprit"

John P re: "That said, some boats aren't rigged in a way that you can reasonably wait until the halyard is going up to extend the pole. "


What do you mean by that?

Ang, if you hoist on your J/80 before extending your pole, will you ever get it out? I raced those for years and we always did pole first. In breeze, it was near impossible to adjust the pole once we had hoisted (even if the kite wasn't full).

Ditto at the other end. If you released the pole before the sail was 50+% down, it would SLAM into the boat and likely break something expensive. 

Niko, on Wed Nights .. it seems that 1/2 the starts are downwind. We also do many races where there is no offset mark. 

On roundings/hoist at a mark w/o offset, we have a mark on the tack line so it can be preset such that it does not impede the pole.  As soon as the bow reaches the mark, the pole goes out (even before turning).   Usually the spin's tack has been fed to the bow.  The hoist starts a moment later as we turn (2+ sec) .  The spin takes several seconds to fully hoist .. and the pole is out long before the spin fills.  

In DW starts, the pole can go out first under the J105 wording (and others) as long as the process of raising the spin quickly follows ... so in a DW start you can do pole ... tack ... hoist. 

John P re: "That said, some boats aren't rigged in a way that you can reasonably wait until the halyard is going up to extend the pole. "


What do you mean by that?

Ang - The A Scow I race on can't tolerate a pre-feed on the spinnaker tack. The kite would go in the water and shrimp. I could re-rig it so pole out is linked to tackline, but that's a project I can't do quickly and it has downsides of lots of friction, losing speed when speed in the hoist. With a big kite, a 1:1 pull on the pole may not be enough with a pre-feed that wouldn't shrimp. A Melges 24 is 2:1, and maybe that would work on the A Scow (bigger kite so might need more than 2:1), but executing on that by next week would be impossible for me.