Case
89 is short and to the point .. but to be honest .. it's a case that I didn't take notice of until today.
Case 89 talks about attaching a drinking container to a crew's body. In my experience, it's pretty common for crew on larger boats with double lifelines on hot days to hang water bottles by a carabiner to a lifeline.
Reading this case, is that this is against the rules as well?
Comments?
There is no doubt that there is a point when a "water bottle" is no longer a water bottle and is being used as movable ballast (assuming being moved from one side of the boat to another), but a personal beverage I feel falls well short of that definition.
I'd think we'd want to encourage people to keep hydrated for safety.
Half the world won't know what you're on about!
RRS 51 is all that's needed here.
Therefore, Case 89, which is based on 50.1 (a) is irrelevant to boats with lifelines, so you can festoon them to your heart’s desire.
The offshore rules at 3.14 provide for specs of weight and construction of lifelines that make the weight of the functional amount of water you could attach by way of bottles pretty de minimis compared to the lifelines themselves, to be honest.
That is not correct. 50.2 states that 50.1(b) and (c) don't apply to boats with LL's.
Case 89 is about 50.1(a), which does apply.
However, 50.1 (a) is “wear or carry clothing or equipment for the purposes of increasing their weight”.
A bottle clipped to a lifeline is not worn; it is not carried; it is not clothing, and I don’t think it’s equipment; and it is not for the purposes of increasing their weight, that is, the weight of the person neither carrying nor wearing it.
So, how can 50.1 (a) apply, given a bottle clipped to a lifeline is outside what the rule covers? And, if 50.1 (a) doesn’t then apply, what is the issue with people having bottles?
Correct .. but did you read the Case 89?
This is the answer ..
Again .. this is the first time I've actually thought about Case 89. If the issue was not allowing crew to add weight to themselves, then simply put a volume-limit on it.
As it is written now .. there is no amount of water that is allowed.
Yea .. maybe .. probably .. but I don't think that's a reason to keep something just because it's so poorly constructed that people would be too embarrassed to enforce it.
Looks like the case is from 1996. In the past 30 years I think it's safe to say that we've put competitor health and safety much more at the forefront than we did back then.
I think this Case is ripe for a reexamination under those grounds.
I would note, though, as someone who once used a weight jacket back in the day as a handy way of transporting a six pack I’d won sailing, Rule 51 is phrased only in terms of water, and to adapt Merchant of Venice - the rule makes no mention of beer…
My point is that the issue at the heart of the case is a beverage container effectively moving with a crew member from side to side on the boat. One might use that case to conclude that this also applies to beverage containers carried from side-to-side with crew.
IMO, Case 89 could have said the following (with respect to Ben and the rest of the metric world) and made more sense and seemed more rational to me.
I suppose one could interpret it as "therefore its primary purpose [in the context of the RRS] must [, by the PC,] be considered..." ie that it must be considered as ballast for rule purposes no matter what the actual intent. Do you think assumed might be a better word than considered?
Case 89 was directed at camelbacks.
It's quite clear and applies only to what a competitor may wear or otherwise attach to his person. If anyone was bothered it would apply to a drink bottle in a waist pack, or indeed a pocket.
It does not apply to drink containers not worn or attached to a competitor's person, such as clipped to lifelines.'
As Ben said RRS 51 is the applicable rule. One or more normal sized water bottles would not be caught by RRS 51.
There was a notorious incident involving an Etchells which thought it necessary to carry sufficient drinking water which amounted to over 5 24 bottle packs of water, which sometimes miraculously moved from side to side in the cockpit. That was a breach of RRS 51.
I think you nailed it here without knowing it.
They don't want you to have 'any water' attached to you in any way.
They positively WANT you to use a detached bottle.They don't care (other rules handle) if you move a bottle from side to side or clip it here or there. 50.1 is about stopping people wearing weight.
It would be too easy to game the rule if a certain specified quantity (metric or not) was allowed. People would take their specified quantity and complain why not more on hot days or long races?
No. Bottles, free and not worn are
what they want people to use.Open for all to see and safe and easy, and covered in other rules about ballast issues.So let's just say any water worn in clothing or on clothing is cheating.
A blanket restriction for simplicity's sake.
The case seems fine if you look at it that way.
But I'm not at all sure you can extrapolate from that and say that they want crews carrying detached water bottles around.
I suggest that if a protest came up alleging that multiple water bottles, transferred between tacks, were being used as ballast, then one would start by looking at the word necessity in Case 89.
The case says to me that if there is no necessity for drinking water bottles to be transferred from side to side then it must be assumed/determined/considered to be being moved for trim and stability and as such be in breach of RRS51. And to me there is no necessity for storing water on the rail, it is simply convenience.
Was mainly trying to stress the difference between wearing water weight (not wanted) vs an alternate (don't care).
But you're right.. Case 89 isn't preferring any particular alternate method of carrying water.. Just not wearing on body or clothing.
However, I don't think Case 89 is relevant to water transferred from side to side, but not worn. Case 89 is specifically about weight on clothing or body. At least I wouldn't refer to it in a decision write-up.
Your protest is about Rule 51 and as of yet there is no referring Case.
Probably because Rule 51 is pretty simple in meaning and interpretation. (We don't need cases on everything...)
If you are looking at waterbottles that are not worn or otherwise attached to the person of a competitor, don't go anywhere near Case 89.
The test in RRS 51 is whether "water ... [is] moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability".
60 bottles of mineral water on an Etchells: Yes.
15 alloy drink bottles on the rail of a TP52: No
10 crew on the rail of a TP52, each clutching a 10l bulk water container in their arms: Yes.
Is it all that dificult?
I argue yes, it breaks 51.
I look at Case 89 because to me it sets out an example that when an action is unnecessary then the PC must consider it's breaking a rule. It seems to me they don't have to consider motive.
Carrying water bottles on the rail is unnecessary because they can be stowed in one place and passed up and back as needed. RRS 51 doesn't place any limits on how much trim change is illegal, it's absolutely prohibited.
What i'm suggesting is that a single 0.5L squeeze bottle (aka cycling bottle) tucked into an elastic mesh bottle holder (where the holder is intergrated into either PFD, or article of clothing) should be allowed by this Case. As i read it, it is not.
The rest stands. Case 89 clarifies that any water is not needed to be carried on body or in clothing (unless boards). It's limited to that topic.
Any other question of water being moved from side to side is covered by RRS 51 - simple and so no case needed.
Cheers!
We should be thinking about what the rules say boats and competitors shall or shall not do.
So when it comes to RRS51, the rule includes no minimum for trim change. If you say fifteen half litre bottles are OK, and fifteen ten litre bottles are not, at what point does it break the rule? If water bottles were attached randomly to the rail on both sides maybe that would be one thing, but to me, if they are consistently changed from side to side on every tack, that definitely raises questions.
I would agree that it probably should be allowed.
But RRS 50.1(a) and Case 89 says it is not.
As judges we should be looking at what the rules say, not what they should say.
i'm suggesting that the Case might be rewritten (as I posted here). It's 30yrs old without revision and as i mentioned in a previous comment, we have elevated concerns for the health and safety of competitors over those 3 decades.
Semantically <g> RRS 50.1(a) deals with purpose of increasing weight (mass), RRS 51 deals with purpose of changing trim or stability (righting moment).
The point that it breaks RRS 51, in my opinion is when it affects or is likely to affect trim or stability.