The Racing Rules of Sailing
RRS 2025 Changes to Part 5 Protests etc - No Red Flag when out of hailing distance
I think I've found a significant change in the 2025 RRS Part 5
RRS 2021
61.1. Informing the Protestee said
RRS 2021
61.1. Informing the Protestee said
a. The protesting boat shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest will concern an incident in the racing area she shall hail ‘Protest’ and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However,
1. if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity;
That is to say, if the other boat was beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat was excused from hailing 'protest', BUT there was no exception for the red flag: A protesting boat was required to display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity regardless of hailing distance.
RRS 2025 now says
60.2 Intention to Protest
...
(b) ..., if
(1) the protestee is not within hailing distance at the time of the incident,
...
then the only requirement for the protestor is to inform the protestee of its intention to protest at the first reasonable opportunity.
That is to say, there is no requirement to display a red flag or have it displayed at the finishing line.
Which may be inconvenient for assembling on-call protest committees.
Created: 25-Aug-05 10:48
Comments
Format:
You must be signed in to add a comment.
1. Before 2021, this rule read: (a) A boat intending to protest shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest will concern an incident in the racing area that she was involved in or saw, she shall hail 'Protest' and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However, ..... The expression in bold above was removed for the 2021-2024 RRS because of the following problem: Suppose boat A breaks a class rule 3 say, she uses a spinnaker pole that is longer than her class rules allow. Boat B observes her racing but is unaware that the spinnaker pole violates class rules. After the boats come ashore, B has an opportunity to examine A's spinnaker pole more carefully, and she determines the pole violates class rules. So she tells A immediately that she is going to protest her. Under the pre-2021 rule, that protest could be found to be invalid because she observed the violation during the race but didn't hail and display a red flag at that time. Unfortunately, removing 'that she was involved in or saw' causes a new, unforeseen problem. Without those words, all protests by boats, including protests after racing is over, require a hail and a red flag. Suppose, to use the example above, A admits at the yacht club bar that she was sailing with an over-long spinnaker pole and B hears this admission and decides to protest. For the protest to be valid, she must hail 'Protest' and display a red flag 3 in the bar! The proposed words correct that absurdity without reinstating the original problem.
Under the 2025 rules she is no longer required to display a red flag at all.
So the race committee has no way of becoming aware that a boat intends to protest.
And old judges need to make sure that they don't declare a protest beyond hailing distance invalid for lack of red flag.
Secondly, why do the rc need to know of a protest, save for late scoring it is no their responsibility.
What I hate are the si that require the rc to be notified of potential protests.
If correctly worded they make a hearing invalid if they do not refer to the rule they just mean there has been an out of time rule breach.
I seek kids with there invalid protests get to the exit door crying and saying to their parents, "they would not even listen to me"
Why should the rc know and is this a reason to take people's rights away?
To me i see this bad practice has been enshrined in the board sailing rules.
Is this a correct direction of travel to help competitors?
Bravo! (That said, I have no problem with SI's that request that boats do so, as an optional courtesy).
Maybe at a major regatta with a full time jury in attendance early warning of protests isn't particularly useful , but at club and lower regional level where it may be necessary to assemble a protest committee to hear a protest, early warning from the race committee is useful. Even at a big event, as a Jury Secretary, I'd like to know what I'm in for in arranging panels, arbitrators etc. And I can readily understand that the race committee and OA might be anxious to know about protests pending and their possible effect on announcement of results.
I recall that there used to be a standard Race Management Form Race Committee Daily Report that did nothing other than record red flags displayed on finishing boats.
I'm sure that you are aware that requirements to advise the race committee on the water of intended protests are put there to deter PIP (Parent Initiated Protests), which, in the mythology of some youth classes were a problem. I can't say that I've ever experienced that as a problem myself, and I tend to agree with you that, to say the least, it's a bit heavy handed.
At to saving parent protests possibly (i know when i did optimists this was said) in the new world of hearing requests we do not dodge the more numerous redress requests.
I've always understood the intention of this was 2 fold -
1. It stops those ashore from being able to cajole someone into protesting.
2. It means that although there is a protest time limit, you don't need to be bound by it. If you set your Protest time limit to 60mins after the last finish, to allow time to sail ashore get a form etc. but that might be based on a finish line 40 minutes from shore... Then if you are waiting for the protest time limit people don't know when prize giving and home will be. If RC knows no protests are notified you can get cracking sooner with prize giving and home. Especially if the finish happens to be 4 minutes from shore because the wind behaved..
1 is a double edged sword though. Because you can get a very valid protest that a beginner sailor isn't sure about kicked out because the correct steps were not followed.
Out of curiosity - what stops me just flying a red flag all the time?
It is amazing how much extra spaceyou seemed to get on starting lines .
The difficult one is on a second protest you do not appear to have to fly an additional flag. This appears to throw the reason for flags out of the window.
I have really lost confidence in the hail of protest. Why, generally the other boat denies hearing it, so the reason for it, to allow turns is passed.
I think we should move to notify ASAP or inside the time limit, and with such as rrs virtual why not by the protest form if committees can do it why is it not good enough for the competitors?
We need embrace now, and move on from the past
At my last event of 10 hearings for one or another of these reasons the hearings were held invalid or withdrawal was requested.
Traditionally, for the ~4 decades I've been racing, it's assumed to be acoustic hailing distance. But technology has advanced over the years, and I've seen NORs and SIs stating that the race committee may hail boats over a radio, e.g., for OCS. So it's unclear to me if hail means just acoustic/voice or includes radio.
Any cases or clarifications on this one?
Probably better to keep that specific topic on that thread.
We are behind the times but rrs does not require vhf or other which is why it is an si matter
I have never seen you can hail protest by vhf.
I don't think the requirements are that onerous.
At the first reasonable opportuity is now draconian,
No my mistake the rule says hail protest, it may be the flag at the first reasonable opportunity.
I believed if you hailed "do your turns" then protest your hail was not at the first reasonable opportunity so invalid.
No time now but will have to check for a wording change.
I don't think that's correct.
The requirements for notifying a boat's intention to protest in RRS 60.2 (or a similar SI with respect to the race committee) are completely separate from the requirements to deliver the written protest within the protest time limit in RRS 60.3(b) .
The protest committee can extend the protest time limit if there is a good reason RRS 60.3 (b) stem), but it cannot extend the time specified for intention to protest in RRS 60.2 .
I mean, if no protests were notified to the finish boat (or whatever the arrangement in the SI is), then you don't need to sit around waiting for an hour to see if someone protests... Which means if the protest time limit was generous enough for a long distance from shore finish, but the RO has been kind and finished the race close to shore, you aren't waiting for something that won't happen (a protest) to move of with proceedings
So a protest committee should 'sit around' until the protest time limit expires.
If the OA thinks that a requirement to notify the race committee at the finish of an intention to protest reduces the risk that a non-notified protest will significantly disturb the event results, they can go ahead with announcements and presentations before the protest time limit, and take the risk that they will have to unwind it all later if there is a successful protest, but that's their decision.
What does at the first reasonable opportunity mean? If not defined in the SIs, what is the default? Who decides it - the protest commitee?
RYA has RYA 1999/1 where Q/A-1 states .. (RYA Casebook)
USS has Appeal US124 which contemplates and accepts the idea that the flag is stowed someplace that might take time to get, but doesn't allow delay fetching and displaying it when a crew is not otherwise occupied. This "not otherwise occupied" concept comes from reading US124 together with US67 and US82.
So RYA 1999/1, USA124, 67 & 82 taken together can provide a nice framework.
First, thanks for the detailed answer, much better than mine.
I don't really agree that the difference is significant.
The condition in US Appeal 124 is 10–15 seconds after an incident
That's about how long it takes to get the flag out of the tidy bag and get it up.
It doesn't allow the traditional go below and rummage around the chart table, or the mythical 60 second rule.
Of more significance, but not a significant difference from the RYA is USA Appeal US82
A boat is not obligated to give priority to displaying a protest flag at the cost of the crew failing to act to keep the boat under control or delaying a spinnaker set.
That's why said "diverge a bit". I think RYA 1999/1's statement is "a bit" divergent. ...
The analysis of whether or not there was a closer place to stow it available isn't part of USS's discussion framework.
Flags in bags that can be hung on a backstay are readily available. Using that approach, any boat with backstay or shroud in reach of skipper and crew would have to explain why they didn't use one of those and store it there.
I think that divergence meet the "a bit" standard.
I think in the uk perhaps europe we expect the flag taped and rolledon the beckstay. One crew releases it swiftly, anything else risks being found as too late.
P claims that when an on-the-water ... penalty is available, protested boats should have immediate ... notification of a boat’s intention to protest. ... [R]ue 44.2,
[does] not provide time for a boat to wait until she hears the word “Protest” and/or sees a red flag displayed before taking her penalty.
I would quite like to see the construct of RRS 44 changed so that time for a boat to take an on-water penalty ran from the hail of 'protest'.
So if there is a prompt hail of 'protest' a boat can/must take an on-water penalty, and if she doesn't a protest will be valid.
If there is no hail of 'protest' a boat is not required to take an on-water penalty and any protest will be invalid.
That would do away with all this unproveable stuff about 'if a boat knows she has broken a rule she must take a penalty'.
If a boat hails protest and the protested boat confirms they heard the hail, but the red flag was not displayed for a full 45 seconds, the jury would try to determine if 45 seconds was the first reasonable opportunity. I suspect some juries would find the protest valid and others invalid, which is a problem.
At first reading, I was nodding in support, but then thought how difficult it is now to convey the idea that a fouled boat can't tell another boat that broke an unexonerated-rule "don't worry about it" .. or worse .. "you owe me one".
We also have boats who don't take the rules seriously and never hail protest .. and others maybe because of social pressures or their perceived status on the water.
I'm afraid that the 2 points above will be a viscous cycle even more so than now.
If a boat knows it broke a rule and does not do turns because of the absence of a hail or flag it is a rule 2 offence,
If detected ( by conversation with a boat once the hearing has been closed) the pc bring a hearing request themselves.
No one should knowingly break the rules.
I received a written complaint for my actions to the club commodore.
There was an offshore race, two boats approached for a regular port starboard. When close the starboard crash tacked.
A protest was lodged.
Seemed to me a case 50 and I had this in mind at the hearing.
As chair I asked the boat if he did anything, he replied no, is asked did you hail he said no I was tacking.
There was no flag either.
The pc which contained another ij said the protest was invalid.
The third pc member an ex chair of the class told the boat he did not understand why the judges would not listen to him, hence the complaint.
It gets worse. After closing the hearing, I asked the other boat if he knew he broke a rule but there was no hail. [See previous post] he said he thought he was well clear. So no action.
In the complaint was that I spoke to the other boat but would not hear him. I suppose you cannot win.
I decided that in offshore races, with over 10 kts with the boats slightly separated, it would not be possible to hear a hail. They always say they never heard it. So I just look for the other boat being notified.
Tentatively, the change would be to replace 'the incident' in RRS 44.2 and 44.3 with 'the hail of "protest" and, if required, the display of a red flag'
What I had in mind (with some trepidation) was moving towards a 'No Flag No Foul' approach.
If there is no hail of 'protest' and if required display of red flag at the first reasonable opportunity, I am proposing that the there should be no obligation on a boat to take a RRS 44 penalty.
If there is no If there is no hail of 'protest' and if required display of red flag at the first reasonable opportunity there can be no valid protest and no hearing.
I think it is fair and just to say that a boat should not be required to voluntarily take a penalty when there is no power to give an involuntary penalty.
Maybe an interpretation of 'promptly take an appropriate penalty' would be needed as follows:
A boat may promptly take an appropriate penalty by:
I'll run this in a separate post.
Meanwhile
Why would you want to convey that idea to a boat?
Fouled boats do that all the time by refraining from hailing 'protest' and displaying the red flag.
I don't feel too concerned about slangy converastions between boats on the water.
I'm not good at hydraulic engineering, but do you by any chance mean 'vicious circle'?
What is it that you think if particularly vicious?