I have a question that came up from another competitor at the end of our 10 race spring series. The competitor (A) did not make the first two races and was scored DNC. Our SI’s state that “A boat that did not come to the starting area (DNC) shall be scored points for the finishing place one more than the number of boats entered in the series.”
Another competitor (B) registered just before race 9. Both race 9 and 10 were abandoned for weather, so she did not sail any races in the series.
Competitor A asserts that since B did not register until race 9, and did not sail any races in the series, A’s DNC’s in races 1-2 should be scored based on the number of boats excluding B. This would improve his place in the series by 1 position.
My read is that B met the conditions of entry, so although she did not compete in any races she counts as an entry. Rule A2.2 states that “If a boat has entered any race in a series, she shall be scored for the whole series”, which I take to mean that all DNC’s count as if she was there the whole time. Am I missing anything that would actually result in A being scored better?
At the time of the start of race 1, how many were entered? Then the same for race 2. If others enter later ... it should not change race 1 and 2 (that's how I would do it).
But ... JMO ... for a series that spreads over weeks ... where you have late entires and people not showing up for all the races ... it seems to me fairer to score DNC based on the number of starters or the number of finishers ... not the number of entries. Either one of those approaches handles that situation automatically.
I think the idea of our SI’s was to benefit a boat that gave a good effort to race and DNF’d because of dying evening wind, over a boat that didn’t show. But you’re right that it adds some other complications and issues of its own.
I contrast this with entries before an event when the boats do not turn up to sail when they should be discounted.
You are essentially going back and rescoring races 1-8 as a result of an entry in race #9 as directed by RRS A2.2 so that seems to be correct, even though it doesn't seem fair.
My club uses DNC = number of finisher plus 2. DNS = number of finishers plus 1.
NDC = No. of boats at start + 3
DNS = No of boats at start + 2
RET; DNF = No of boats at start + 1
If you consider a club series in which boats enter the series by signing on for a race then one might have to score 5 entries and no DNCs for race 1, 20 entries and 5 DNCs for race 10, and 5 entries and 25 DNCs for race 20, which with low point scoring would be ridiculous!
I think if a boat enters a series according to club rules/procedures then she must be scored DNC for all races even if she never actually launches. If the club wishes to say only give DNC scores to boats who have come to the starting area in at least one completed race then they need to write that into the SIs/NOR.
So seems to me the boat was correctly scored.
We have a spring and summer series, with one entry covering both. Sometimes late launchers will join late in the spring knowing they won’t score well there, with the intention of sailing more in the summer.
You really need to get them to change the NOR/SI's.
Here is the language ...
This helps prevent what I call "the game of chicken" .. when people feel the need to go out and compete when conditions might be on the edge. You have 20 boats signed up and it's predicted for 20g25 with rain ... let's say 5/20 boats decide to race that one .. then you have the weird scoring of 1,2,3,4,5, 21, 21 ... .
That puts pressure on peope to go out in conditions that they might otherwise not.
The above SI/NOR language IMO is MUCH more appropriate for 1/week series that stretch over a season.
I've also seen for those series a difference for DNC/DNS and TLE, DNF .. making TLE/DNF/NSC finishers+1 and DNC/DNS starters+1 or finishers+2 .. thus giving some benefit for coming out and starting vs those who never showed up.
I agree that DNC points should be the same for all boats - why should a boat that for any reason does not compete in Race 1 score fewer DNC points than another boat that did not compete in Race 8? However, I do agree that it seems unfair for a boat that did not compete at all should influence the results of boats that did, so we amend A2.2 by saying 'To be eligible for a series score, a boat must rank as a starter for at least 1 race in the series. This changes RRS A2.2.'
Angelo expressed concern about boats feeling obliged to go out in what they consider marginal conditions to avoid DNC points; however, that, and other very valid reasons for not competing in individual races (daughter's wedding, illness, etc) is addressed by allowing a reasonable (but not excessive) number of discards (x races to count). (We also specify that RRS A5.3 applies, so a boat concerned about competing in the conditions could play the rules by motoring to the starting area, lurking for long enough to rank as a starter, or cross the starting line and retiring, and score DNS of DNF points in preference to DNC points.)
Most organising authorities and boats accept that DNC points will increase during a series. However, in the past I've seen an OA get round that by thinking of a number bigger than the likely number of competitors and pre-specifying that as the DNC points, but that seems a big penalty to those boats that need to count DNC points. I have also seen OAs just put 'DNC' in the individual race results and only assign points at the end of the series, when they know what they will be.
Here's some language that we use:
Edit to add: I race in another area series where A5.2 and A5.3 are modified such that a DNC is the same as a DNS. I'm not a fan personally, as if you miss a week of that series, the actual penalty is based on who actually showed up vs the number of entrants.
The same is used in the Frostbite Series which is 2 series of 6 race days with 2 races/day during the late Fall & Winter (24 races scheduled)
It works out really, really well.
Basing it on # finishers is a lot more straight forward.
This is a rabbit hole that I can dive in even deeper.
Scoring a Long Series - US Sailing
Appendix A2.2 says:.....she shall be scored for the whole series. What the A2.2 does not say is, what the score for the missed race shall be. It is up to the RC to write into the SI's the method in which such score will be determined/calculated. Here is the omission on the part of the RC that will work in favor of boat A.
Consider the fairness doctrine emphasized in the rules. How could adding points post completed race be considered fair based on accepting an entry in long series in the later stages of the series?
In any case the task for a redress hearing is to make as fair a result as possible for all boats affected. It would take me about a second to conclude that giving all DNC boats in the series the same points score would be the fairest result.
Assuming that the NOR/SI switched on RRS A5.3.
OA, of course are at liberty to adjust the scoring system in Appendix A as they wish (RRS 90.3(a)), in order to achieve any objectives that they desire.
Ang: Why are you advocating panelbeating RRS A5.2 when this is obvioiusly a long series where A5.3 is appropriate?
'Panelbeating' = changing, modifying.
I just said
OA, of course are at liberty to adjust the scoring system in Appendix A as they wish (RRS 90.3(a)), in order to achieve any objectives that they desire.
My question was why you or AYC would choose to use RRS A5.2 rather than 5.3?
Scoring a Long Series - US Sailing
Scoring a series is usually specified in the NOR so any responsibility lies with the OA not the race committee.
Nothing in the rules requires an OA to specify RRS 5.3 for a long series, or, as currently written, is 'long series' mentioned at all.
Nothing in the US Sailing Alternative Scoring Systems for Long Series document Kym has linked to looks anything like a rule imposing a requirement on an OA or a race committee.
I don't think there's anything like an improper action there.
I like Angelo's NOR/SI change to A5.2 (although I am not a fan of TLE). The reason is A5.3 places an onus on the race committee to count the number of boats that come to the starting area. First race of the day RC can use check-in to count the boats. Then they can subtract any boats who notify RC they are leaving the course for the remaining races. I think the number of finishers plus 1 makes it easier for RC and competitors.
For a long series, not every boat will make every race. If they do not come to race (DNC) they, by default, are scored one more than the number of boats entered in the series. 123 boats entered, DNC is 124 even if only 112 boats show-up to race which seems harsh to me. Perhaps the reason is to motivate people to come race to avoid the DNC score?
Another long series rule I like is that in order to qualify to be scored for the series, boats must race in xx% (90% for example) of the races. When boats reach 90%, to encourage them to keep racing, only their best 90% of scores will count. So if a boat had a bad race, they can improve that score by replacing it with a better score. No DNC score.
Like I said, these SI's have been like this as long as I can remember (and I'm not on the AYC Regatta Comm or the AYC RC Comm .. but do sometimes review docs being part of AYC's PC bench).
That said, it makes sense to me because A5.2 is the default. A5.3 only applies if the SI/NOR so state. So why implement A5.3 and then change it from #boats-in-the-starting-area to #finishers .. when you can just change A5.2 directly?
I think AYC's approach is clean .. just replace the default A5.2.
PS: Also see my comment here about the number of boats each Wed night that race. It's just too much to have boats check-in each week. Finishers are much easier.
I take your point: simplicity.
I was just wondering whether you/AYC had detected some systemic problem with RRS A5.3 that you were avoiding.
As to not counting starters: I understand the practical problem, but I'm uneasy about a RO not knowing how many boats were on his or her race course. I think that's pretty much RO core business.
The USSA under the heading:
Alternative Scoring Systems for Long Series, gives examples of the different possible scoring systems that can be used.
The suggested wording that can be used is:
Sailing Instructions to Implement Each System
Sailing Instructions that may be used to implement these systems are shown below. Make sure that the notice of race or sailing instructions contains a description or list of races in the series. Select the preferred option if a choice or option is shown in [square brackets]. Fill in the required information in the spaces where <angled brackets> appear.
As you see, the language can be in either document. The NoR or the SI's. Preferably the NoR.
You are reading too much into the USSA Long Series document. I never said that it imposes a requirement. The requirement comes in rule A 2.2. ...'she shall be scored'. The rule itself does not impose any type of a system to be used. It just has to be something. That something could be one of the suggested systems on the USSA page, or home brewed one, and let the boats know what it is.
The improper action/omission is the absence of identifying the scoring system that was going to be used for the Long Series.
As the US Sailing Note on scoring a Long Series says (page 58), the scoring system in Appendix A (the whole Appendix !??) may be inappropriate for a Long Series........
One more item: If you want to stick to Appendix A, then: The RRS A 1 requires the NoR or the SI to say: The number of races scheduled and the number required to be scored to constitute a series shall be stated in the notice of race or sailing instructions; see rule 90.3(a).
Did the document(s) for the series in question addressed this? If not, there is another omission on the part of the AO and possibly the RC.
Still want to deny Redress to boat A?
Kim
It is not strictly necessary for the NOR/SI, beyond the requirement Kym identified to state the number of races scheduled and required for a series in RRS A1, to designate or describe the scoring system: that is accomplished by a series of defaults in the RRS.
RRS 90.3(a) says
The race committee shall score a race or series as provided in Appendix A, unless the notice of race or sailing instructions specify some other system.
RRS A2.2 says
RRS A4 says
This Low Point System will apply unless the sailing instructions specify another system;
RRS A5.2, as a default, describes scores determined by the race committee
RRS A5.3 provides for the NOR/SI to change RRS A5.2 to the system described in RRS A5.3.
So, if the NOR/SI are silent the scoring system defaults to Low Points, with RRS 5.2.
Kym said
See David's posts.
The SI identified the scoring system as the Low Point System of Appendix A, and then, as provided for in RRS 90.3(a) changed that system to provide scores for DNC.
It should say: As the US Sailing Note on scoring a Long Series says (page 58), the scoring system in Appendix A (the Appendix A4) may be inappropriate for a Long Series........
Sorry.
Kim
Normally though scoring systems make little difference. I recall contriving what I thought would be a superb scoring system, combining the best of low point and high point. Wanting to present it to my club, I spent a weekend writing a custom spreadsheet solution for calculating and publishing results, the ran a couple of past series through to demonstrate it's superiority. And the result - a few swapped places in mid fleet, and no obvious evidence that one result was better than the other. My new scoring system died there!
I know the RC works hard to try to jot down the boats they see in the starting area .. but there is no required check-in .. and there's a lot of boats coming from all over the place. There are 6 rolling starts .. so some folk are just arriving in the starting area while the RC is in the middle of starting other fleets. All that said, people are pretty good about comm to the RC when they retire or have issues .. and with all these boats around .. we look out for each other. It's worked just fine as long as I've been down here sailing WNR.
(We have 20-25 boats in a typical night, so I'm not trying to say what works for us is feasible for a club like AYC with 120+ weekly boats.)
Re: Jim C - Yes we'd definitely need to test any changes. You make a good point and we might run into the same problem of varying participation.
For large fleets, Hamilton Island Race Week and Magnetic Island Race Week use SMS check in very successfully. The proprietary scoring system TopYacht has been developed to support this.
I think we've really reached the stage of the 21st Century when its not unreasonable to expect every competitor to have and use a mobile phone.