Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Rounding Marks?
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
- Umpire In Training
- Regional Judge
0
SI's contain the following statements:
- Under MARKS, "The Rounding Marks are described in [reference document]" The reference document is not specific to the race so it doesn't describe sequence or required sides, just describes the position and characteristics of permanent marks for the racing area. The reference document also refers to all marks as "common marks" or "permanent marks", not as rounding marks)
- Under COURSES, "All Marks will be rounded to port."
Does this make all of the marks on the race course chart rounding marks? Or does the SI have to designate specific marks as rounding marks?
Does it make a difference if, due to the geometry of the course, some of them would have to be looped in order to meet the string rule? Considering this diagram in the context of the SIs, does the orange track for course A-B-C-D-A (which I think is the course intended by the RC) comply with Rule 28? Does the green track? Or only the blue track that loops mark B?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
... and US103
I don't think that's what the RC intended to do but arguably that's what they did.
I'd like to see the "reference document" before finalising my comclusion, but from your description it seems possible that the marks identified in the said document are all "rounding" marks and rounding (not passing) is meant to apply to all courses using any of those marks. What do you think?
The SI’s are just poorly formatted (or even lazy).
Based on what you presented, they are all rounding marks.
I had SI’s in the past that had “all marks are rounding marks” type of language, but we also had predefined courses that were checked for string-rule-sanity. That’s pretty nuts.
Just think of what happens when the boats tack midway thru with others coming.
If everyone sailed the same course, no problem. If some sailed blue and some green, then we have a pickle.
The SI’s seem clear to me. They state “round” 2x. in “rounding marks” and “rounded to port”. B is a rounding mark, therefore blue is the proper course.
It’s the RC’s apparent error and they could abandon the race based on the “safety and fairness of the competition”, but I think that would depend on the % of boats on each course. Same goes with the PC.
I agree that as long as all boats interpret the course the same way it's not a problem, but as soon as one boat loops and others don't the RC has a dilemma. I saw a case somewhere, can't find it at the moment, that said if all boats make the same error in sailing the course due to an ambiguity, the appropriate redress is to award finishing places to all boats.
The only references to "rounding marks" are the two statements in my original post. The external document doesn't refer to the marks as rounding marks, just as marks.
As far as everybody sailing the same course and letting the race stand, I think that from the RC POV that is fine, but better I think that the RC could file a redress on behalf of the entire fleet, knowing that they had made an error that could have effected the fairness (as the RC isn't setup to take information from the competitors in a fair and open way).
In the PC-redress hearing, the PC could take testimony to see if any boats sailed a longer course because they doubled-back or over-stood due to the confusion and thus were disadvantaged and decide from there what if anything to do.
If the RRS Basic Principal of “Sportsmanship” and Rule 2 taken together mean that a sailor who knows they’ve broken a rule must take a penalty, what obligations are upon the RC if they know they made an error that could have effected the fairness of the competition?
Should the RC stay mum and see if anyone complains or requests redress (leave it up to the sailors to bring up the issue in a lean-back posture) or is there an ethical obligation for the RC to lean-forward into the issue and request redress for boats or the fleet?
The trouble is when correcting the error to make the results more fair for some boats results in unfairness (or perceived unfairness) for others. You potentially wind up with a cascading series of requests for redress from the previous decision. In that case it's probably best left alone.
US Sailing appeal 103 says that if the SIs don't identify which marks are rounding marks (which is required by J2.1(5)) then none of them are rounding marks. But my problem with the SIs I cited is they might be interpreted to identify all of the marks as rounding marks. I'm not sure if that was the RC's intent or if it's just sloppy language (suspect the latter).
This discussion actually relates to an event I'll be competing in soon. I sent a note to the regatta chair pointing out the issue and suggesting some minor amendments to the SIs would fix it. Hopefully they'll do that.
Seemed like a better course of action than keeping it in my pocket and using it to DSQ a bunch of fellow competitors... ;-)
RYA Case RYA2000-05
CAN Appeal CAN74
Rule J2.1 does not require rounding marks to be listed, provided that the geometry of a course diagram or the charted positions of marks 'identifies' rounding marks.
The race committee certainly has a problem. it has included a dumb, unnecessary stock paragraph in it's SI.
The race committee does NOT have a problem 'as soon as one boat loops and others don't'.
Leave the racing to the racers. The race committee is never required to protest any boat
Case 39
Neither does a race committee have a 'proactive duty' to request redress for boats. Rule 60.2b says a race committee may request redress for a boat.
For the race committee to abandon the race would be a really bad solution. It would deprive boats that did sail the correct course of their well-earned results and it would deprive the boats that sailed the other version of the course of their 'order of merit' among themselves.
In the first place don't flounder around with what the race committee intended, or what competitors thought the race committee meant. First of all, in the warm dry protest room, decide what is the course specified in the SI. Only if the SI are completely ambiguous and unable to be construed to specify a single course, should the race be abandoned.
Second, make sure that you deal with protests against boats for not sailing the course first: until these boat's are disqualified, they cannot be given redress for any 'confusion' arising from the SI because their recorded place or score has not been made significantly worse. In other words, starting with a request for redress, without any protests can cause more harm than good.
Steps for the protest committee might be:
That's a good suggestion. On your steps #5 and #6, I get that you are temporarily splitting them into 2 groups and order them, but you are loosing me on how one would properly fold them back into the mix to a fair unified result. Can you elaborate?
Disqualify all boats that didn't sail the course correctly (as determined by the PC)
Boats that did sail the course correctly are scored in their finishing places (discounting DSQ boats)
If the PC determines that the SIs were ambiguous, grant redress to DSQ boats. Redress to be scored finishing places after the last boat to sail the course correctly in order of finish.
So if 10 boats sail the correct course and 5 do not, boats that sailed correctly place 1-10. Those that didn't are 11-15, in their order of finish amongst the five.
Not a super clean solution but better than abandoning I think.
Except remember that the protest committee can only disqualify boats that have been validly protested.
ambiguous • \am-BIG-yuh-wus\ • adjective. 1 a : doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness b : incapable of being explained, interpreted, or accounted for : inexplicable 2 : capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways.
Paul and I are talking about truly, or completely ambiguous, (sense b or c above) in which case I previously said
... only if the SI are completely ambiguous and unable to be construed to specify a single course, should the race be abandoned.
Tim is loosely using the word in the first sense (sense a), which I would prefer to call 'confusing'.
As I said above, if the protest committee, in the warm dry protest room, can decide what is the course specified in the SI, then they can disqualify validly protested boats and possibly give redreess.
If the protest committee cannot decide what the 'right' course was, no matter how hard they try, then they can abandon the race, or just possibly, if there were two possible iterpretations, and one set of boats sailed each possible course, then the protest committee might, just might, give each set of boats places 1, 2, 3, etc according to their finishing sequence among the set of boats that sailed each course.
Note that in this case, it is unnecessary to disqualify any boats, because, arguably every boat except the first place boat has had her score made worse.
As this thread has demonstrated, using the term "round" in a casual way referring to all marks without explicitly identifying any specific marks as "rounding marks" can be interpreted as all marks being rounding marks, no marks being rounding marks, or only those marks that are clearly identifiable as rounding marks from the course diagram are rounding marks.
Better I think to make the SIs unambiguous before the race so this discussion doesn't keep the PC from their cocktails.
RYA 1985/4
A race committee is not entitled to score a boat DNF because it believes she did not correctly sail the course; instead it must protest her under rule 28.
When a race committee intends a mark to be looped, the mark must be identified as a rounding mark. When the sailing instructions do not do so, or when they are
The race committee’s intention was that D was to be looped, but Deva sailed directly from mark B to the finishing line. In doing so she left marks C and D to port. The sailing instructions did not identify D or any mark as a rounding mark. The race committee scored Deva DNF, as she had not rounded D, which it intended to be the last mark, Deva sought redress. The protest committee refused redress on the grounds that Deva had not sailed the course, and referred its decision to the RYA.
DECISION
Deva finished, as defined, because she crossed the finishing line from the course side. The race committee acted improperly in scoring her DNF (see rule A5) and the protest committee should have re-instated her in her finishing position.
The only method of validly seeking to deprive Deva of her finishing place would have been for her to be protested under rule 28.2. However, any such protest should not have succeeded in this case.
When a race committee intends that a mark is to be looped, so that a boat continuing from that mark will cross her own track, the sailing instructions must either clearly say that the mark is a rounding mark, or must state how a mark shown on a course board is to be identified as a rounding mark.
When a mark is not properly identified as a rounding mark, a boat is entitled to sail a course such that the string representing her track, when drawn taut, does not touch the mark, provided that she leaves it on the correct side and in the correct sequence. The identification of a mark as a rounding mark must be unambiguous. For instance, to state that a mark is to be left to port (or starboard) gives a boat the option not to round it.
Request for Redress by Deva, Island SC
I agree with Michael's cited case, but the key in that case is "The sailing instructions did not identify D or any mark as a rounding mark." My issue in asking this question is that I felt the original SIs for this event "kind of, sort of" might have been interpreted to identify all marks as rounding marks, or they might not have, and the intent of the RC was not clear from the original text of the SIs. Better to clarify before the event rather than after when somebody is bound to wind up unhappy with the decision.
They amended the SIs to remove reference to "rounding marks", saying instead that all marks were to be passed to port.
RYA 1985/4 (above)
US 103
RYA 2000/5
CAN 74
In the USA, the RC did not intend the mark to be looped, but also did not ID any of the marks as rounding marks.
In the RYA, "The race committee’s intention was that D was to be looped", but did not ID any of the marks as rounding marks.
In the CAN, they make the comment that 'looping marks' should never be set (in contrast to the RYA Appeal in which the loop was intentional).
The cases are definitive that unless designated as such, marks with a side indicated are not rounding marks. The RYA 1985/4 is more applicable to Tim's scenario, as it contemplates the possibility that a looped course could actually be the intended course. The CAN appeal would lend a competitor to see a loop as an error and likely unintentional.
RC's are lucky when all boats do the same thing. That said, even if they do, there is still a chance that some boats are disadvantaged by justifiably sailing the rhumb-line to the next mark, when the leg in question is a reach and thus maybe letting boats slip by to leeward .. and just by sailing a longer course. This could easily happen when the distances are long and the boats are sailing on mark bearings or GPS at the beginning of the leg.
As long as competitors know for sure which marks are rounding marks and which aren't, they have no excuse for sailing a wrong course.
I'm also not sure it's necessary to identify any marks as rounding marks unless the RC intends for them to be looped. Otherwise course geometry will dictate whether a competitor's string touches a mark or not.
Tim, I can't fully agree with either of your statements. "Marks are to be rounded to port/starboard" is plenty clear and very, very common. Even the RYA 2000/5 uses that same language.
On your point above, the reason to designate rounding marks is that those marks define the shortest distance rhumb-lines and thus the "shape" and distance of the course. Passing/boundry marks do not do that.
Likewise 'as long as the competitors know ...' isn't good enough. What 'everyone knows' isn't good enough. What is required is clear SI.
It IS necessary to identify all marks that are rounding marks in the SI (rule 2.1(5)).
If it is clear from the course diagrams (or charted positions of marks and course descriptions in the SI) which marks are rounding marks, it is not necessary to expressly list rounding marks as such in the SI (Note to rule L9.2).
Language such as 'Marks are to be rounded ... ' or 'All marks are to be rounded ...' is clear and makes all marks into rounding marks, including looping marks as necessary. It is a really bad form of words for SI. Better wording is 'left'. That's the word used in rule 28.1. Then list rounding marks or rely on the geometry.
It is necessary for rounding marks to be identified for the application of:
But this is a case (and I suspect there are many others) where it was not clear to the authors of the SIs. They did not intend for any marks to be looped, and almost certainly would not have protested any boat that sailed the orange or green tracks in my diagram. They didn't recognize the implications of using "rounded" rather than "passed".
With most windward/leeward or triangle courses this isn't an issue. But for random leg or point-to-point races it's something the RC needs to pay attention to.
"It IS necessary to identify all marks that are rounding marks in the SI (rule 2.1(5))"
I can't find the rule to which you referred.
Thanks
Therefore if a mark is a rounding mark, it shall be identified as such.
My apologies.
rule J2.1(5)
See Angelo post above