I've been teaching the RRS for some years now and whilst 10-17 are pretty good rules, but I find that 18, 19 and 20 are just too complex for casual sailors to comprehend off the water, let alone whilst racing.
Some clubs instead use colregs, but they are entirely unsuitable for contested marks. Ultimately we end up teaching simplifications like "just go round the outside". This is a safe simplification, but it's not ideal to have to tell the competitors that it is best to ignore the details of the rules!
So I'm wondering if it is possible to come up with a simplification of 18, 19 and 20 for club racing that would be broadly compatible with the normal RRS. Something that the majority of club racers could remember and apply on the water.
This is my attempt:
Simplified Racing Rules – 18S to 20S
These rules replace Rules 18–20 of the Racing Rules of Sailing for casual club racing.
All other rules, including Rules 10–17 on right-of-way and general limitations, remain unchanged.
18S. Marks
(a) Marks of the course, other than starting marks, are treated as obstructions, and Rule 19S applies.
(b) If within her zone, a boat becomes the right-of-way boat through her own actions, then she shall give the keep-clear boat room to pass the mark.
(c) If a boat establishes an inside overlap within her zone, and the outside boat is fetching the mark, then the outside boat must not be forced to alter course to avoid contact.
19S. Passing Obstructions
At an obstruction, an outside right-of-way boat will give an overlapped inside keep-clear boat room to pass the obstruction, unless it was not possible to do so from the moment the overlap was established.
20S. Tacking at an Obstruction
If a boat must tack to safely avoid an obstruction, she may hail other boat(s) for room to tack. The hailed boat(s) must respond as soon as reasonably possible by either tacking or hailing “you tack.” The hailing boat must then immediately tack.
The intention of these alternative rules is to let right of way do most of the work and only introduce an additional rule when a keep clear boat needs room. Late tacking at marks is discouraged by 18(b). Late overlaps at marks is discouraged by 18(c). Hailing for room to tack at a mark is discouraged by making it only for safely avoiding an obstruction.
Would these rules work? How different in practise to the real 18-20 are they? What are the problem cases? Would there be a problem if boats racing under these rules interacted with boats under the normal 18-20?
Why not use the DN right-of-way rules ?
They have been working SAFELY since almost a century and hold on a single page of paper...
https://www.dniceboat.org/dn-class-info/rules/
When I have been asked to explain 18 to a general gathering: Clear ahead at the zone, you go around first. Overlapped at the zone, inside goes around first. If in doubt, go outside.
Mostly correct - with the added statement, sailing is not a contact sport.
Just my thoughts.
A rule that competitors don't understand fully is useless at avoiding the complex situations it describes. A simpler just go round the outside rule is easy to understand and enforce.
It might not always be exactly fair, but that's a different matter.
I don't disagree that there are many erratic sailors who have insufficient knowledge of the rules. That's a general problem and I fully support (and participate) in efforts at club level to increase knowledge of the rules.
But I also think there are many fine sailors, with a good working knowledge of the rules but who still do not understand the complexities of 18, 19 and 20.
For example, two boats on starboard layline to a starboard upwind rounding: initially 18 will apply to them and 18.2(a) will give one of them mark room; one of them tacks to round the mark, now 18.2(a) is turned off by passing head to wind and all of 18 is turned off because boats are on opposite tacks; then the other boat tacks as well and 18 switches back on, but now 18.2(c) applies to determine which of them has mark room. This is a bizarrely complex change of rules switches that can happen in seconds or less. It mostly doesn't affect how sailors round the mark, because you can't react to such short transient rule switches.... except when it does because perhaps one of the boats under laid to mark, tacked onto port and thought they were protected by mark-room and that tacking was just rounding the mark. I have seen many rule-induced-collisions as a result of this kind of situation!
The goal was simplifying rule 18 while at the same time keeping the game the same as much as possible. I think they did a really good job with their proposal ... but that is all it was ... a proposal to WS. WS then made the adjustments they wanted to see.
I think it would cause more confusion than solve to have 2 sets of rules which are so different.
I'm not trying to avoid game changers. I'm proposing rules that better match how the game is actually played on the water at the club level, whilst making the sailing much safer by having comprehensible rules. People have died in club racing collisions, and whilst I don't know if rules contributed to any particular fatality, I do know that rules confusion has caused many non-fatal collisions at club level.
With the current game, too often boats collide with both skippers convinced they are in the right and amazed that the other boat is acting as they do. Most skippers are aware of the zone and that your mark rounding rights are somewhat set as the zone is entered, but yet there are still late established overlaps at pretty much every twilight race I've been in. Sometimes they are from erratic idiots, but often it is just circumstances of big fleets and no brakes. With the current rules, they should not do it, but it happens. The outside boats get all agro about it and start yelling rather than reacting.... legs are between boats... it's a mess! The current rules do not prevent this even though we run regular training and stress these points.
I think my proposal is better in this regard as it treats marks as obstructions and doesn't care when an overlap is established. If somebody gets inside you, then go around the outside if you can. If this was considered the norm, then there would be less angst and yelling when an inside overlap is established. If you don't want them inside you, then don't open the door. There are issues with late established overlaps, but I think my clauses 18(b) and 18(c) resolve the safety issues of those, plus most of the fairness issues as well.
I had not seen Dave Perry's proposal before (https://www.ussailing.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-Test-Rule-18-Information.pdf), so I will have a read and consider...
Meanwhile, what is the most significant game changer you see in my proposal? Give me your worst scenario that my simplified rules would just not handle!
cheers
I've had a quick read of David Perry's proposal. I think it is primarily a cleanup and simplification of the wording, but fundamentally works the same way that the current rule 18 does. I.E. it is all about being "entitled to mark-room", which I think is a really bad psychology ! Once a person thinks they are "entitled" they start acting "entitled" and that normally is not good.
The RRS are minimally about who has ROW and mostly then about putting limitations on that ROW. My proposed 18, 19, 20 try to build on that good psychology. These rules are putting limits on the power of ROW, they are not entitling anybody. If skippers are thinking about sailing within their limitations rather than taking advantage of their entitlements, then things will go a lot better!
Ah .. I see where you are coming from (and where you are missing a key component).
Being entitled to "room" is part of what the RRS are "minimally about". Mark-room is fundamentally just "room" to do 3 things in relation to a mark.
Without "room", we don't have 15 or 16 (2 of the limits on ROW boats you reference as OK) ... or 19, the rule you based your new 18 on ... so the "entitlement" problem you cite as one of the problems is pervasive even in your concept.
I know that mark-room is just room, but the way the rules are written, both in language and style, inverts the vibe. Instead of a ROW boat being constrained, the feeling is more that a keep-clear boat can "win" the mark and be rewarded with an entitlement to mark-room. Yes it is two sides of the same coin, but the psychology of the game is important. As skippers approach a mark they should be thinking "who might I owe room to" rather than "from whom can I win an entitlement to mark-room".
Eitherway, I've seen some good ideas in David Perry's proposal and I'm working on an even simpler draft 2... this time with worked examples.
Stand by for more futile ponderings....
cheers
OK. Though I would like to suggest to you that you add examples of how your updated proposal does/does-not "change the game" (scenarios where rights/obligations between 2 boats stay the same and differ from the current RRS).
That would help anyone interested in considering your ideas and will demonstrate that you've thought through and weighed the impacts. - Ang
Here is my second draft. I have prepared a google presentation showing a few scenarios. You should be able to comment there case by case, or respond here as you like.
Club Racing Rules – C18 to C20
C18 Marks
C19 Passing an Obstruction
C20 Tacking at an Obstruction
But I realize now, that the definition of "zone" is based on multiple boats, so use "the zone" is probably more compatible with the definition.
My C18(a) excludes starts like the C preamble does (although with less detail), so preamble is not required and could be removed. Or it could be retained, but I never liked how such a significant thing was not in an explicit rule. Either way, that is a detail that would need to be resolved if I have a lot more success with this thought experiment than I'm anticipating!
You can find more context for the lesson here:https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vT9cmCL7vqDhWvRCMGz0K_Pq7DvhqOYAxJ2hCpWPzHYPl5I9f7h4FUG90s5cxBWOWYpygZbk84_08Z_/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000#slide=id.g2c0223c6449_0_1
My personal opinion is that between this class (optional) and a rules test (required), we end up with a group with a much higher rules-knowledge base-line than any other group I've raced against anywhere else in the world. It's pretty great to avoid some of the common frustrations from the newer racers in most fleets.
I'll add that my overarching point is that RRS 18 is absolutely NOT too complex for the average racer, especially the new version. 98% of cases are covered by these two flow-chart questions, plus the "And" you're referencing. You are welcome to borrow ideas, lesson flow, etc. from my presentation, or even share it as is. If anyone needs something specific in editable format, please reach out and I'll handle that on a case-by-case.
i agree with that assessment.
So here are some complexities that I don't think an average sailor should need to deal with when sailing towards a mark/obstruction:
I maintain that very few skippers are running the whole of 18 and 19 in their heads on the water. Good skippers will have a simplified model of those rules in their heads that they apply to get around marks/obstructions safely and fairly. So this thought experiment is really about can such a simple model be codified in words so it is approachable by more skippers.
Club Racing Rules – C18 to C20
C18 At Marks
C19 Passing an Obstruction
C20 Tacking at an Obstruction
We had an entire thread about the confusion around the verb "to tack/tacking" .. so that is built-in. Beyond that, It's not clear what "establishing an overlap ...by tacking" means.
Do you want the test-condition to be when an inside overlap exists at the moment a boat reaches a close-hauled course after passing HTW inside the zone?
PS: Since you'd need a special test-rule anyway ... toss in a def: "to tack/tacking" as 'Turning a boat through HTW and continuing that turn until reaching a close-hauled course" (or something similar).
Then you can shortcut it as 'established the overlap while tacking inside the zone'.
Making it "the overlap" instead of "an overlap" will make sure that the overlap still must exist when the tack is complete ... as a temporary overlap will usually occur in the middle of the tack, even if the tacking boat is clear ahead when they reach close-hauled.
If so, it's not in your new 19 above. Also, how does that relate to marks that are now obstructions .. where marks have a required side?
+ Additionally, if within the zone, a boat gains right-of-way by establishing an overlap from astern or by passing through head to wind ...
+ Additionally, if within the zone, a boat gains right-of-way by establishing an overlap other than from clear ahead ...
I think it is sufficient to say that room must be given to a keep-clear boat with an inside overlap. All other details follow from that and just restating them causes confusion as readers would have to think why wouldn't that be the case.
Specifically there are two outcomes:
So if a late overlap is established, then one boat or the other is going to break a rule. Neither outcome is good for the inside boat, so they will be strongly discouraged from doing so. But the outside boat is also constrained to act safely and allow the rounding (if possible) if she wants to have the late overlapper penalized under C18(b).
Section C rules do not apply between boats when the mark or obstruction referred to in those rules is a mark surrounded by navigable water or its anchor line, from the time the boats are approaching it to start until they have finished.
If you are the inside right-of-way boat, nothing changes.
No more confusion about rule 18.
One would assume that Greg would send a submission to his MNA rules comm in the form of a test-rule under 86.3.
That's really the only way this could ever actually happen ITRW.
I don't think not applying 18 to start marks is the confusing part. I'm pretty sure most skippers are aware of what barging is and the fleet is pretty good at calling out the bargers.
As I said to Ang, the confusion I see come from:
My expectations for this thought experiment are low, as I understand the hurdles are high. However, if all I (we) get out of it is a better understanding of why 18/19/20 are written as they are, then that would be worthwhile.
Ok, so I guess you are sailing on Sydney Harbour where there are a few clubs who are not affilliated with Australian Sailing (our MNA) and therefore not allowed to use the RRS (under copyright, or whatever). So, that means that interactions between you and them fall under the ColRegs!
Happy sailing and don't find yourself unexpectedly called to the Coroner's Court.
However, not everybody manages without 18 at the start. The majority of our club races are twilights with pursuit starts. The fear of a contested start is one of the primary factors stopping our twilight boats from joining our weekend pointscore series. If every mark became a similar contest to a scratch start, then some would be fine, but many others would be turned off.
Another approach might be to make these alternate rules a true superset of the current rules, in that it would be fine for boat to race together with some boats sailing by the real 18, 19 & 20 and others choosing to sail by the simpler more relaxed C18, C19 & C20. This would only work if somebody sailing in the C rules would not inadvertently infringe on the real rules. I'll have to think that one through. I would expect a boat sailing under the real 18-20 might be able to take some advantage of a boat sailing under C18-C20, as they would just give room sometimes when it is not due. But perhaps worth it for a simpler life ?
The case where both skippers think they have room already happens frequently now because too often one or both skippers do not fully understand 18.
But yeah, making a true superset is probably tough or even impossible to formalize, even though it is really what happens in practice now as each skipper has their own simplification/summary of 18 in their head.
I don't think I've seen much discussion of which parts of Rrs18 tend to be poorly understood. There was just the one post about the rules switching on and off mid manover. In general it's hard to fix things if you don't know exactly what you are trying to fix.
I think there's a lot to be said for steadiy working through the case book with a revised rule set to see how it applies in those well detailed scenarios.
I'm not saying that the current RRS18 is not generally understood, especially by rule nerds and those that work through the case book. What I am saying is that RRS18 is not well understood by many sailors whilst on the water.
It is one thing to understand the rule when sitting at a desk, working through the detailed text, definitions and cases. It is an entirely different thing to compute a solution in the heat of an actual complex rounding. When I teach the rule in detail, a common response I receive is that they understand what I've explained but that there is no way they will remember it on the water. The aspects that they find difficult to remember include:
So rather than each sailor developing their own mental approximation of 18, 19 & 20, wouldn't it be better to have these rules were written with a simplified conceptual model. This is what I'm attempting to do with these rules. The simplification is that marks and obstructions are treated the same: row boats outside must give room to inside overlapped boats. Then there is a little extra protection in C18 where a boat gaining rights in the zone has to let other boat sail her proper course around the mark. Finally you can ask to tack! 3 simple concepts, codified in one page of text, that can easily be remembered, conceptualized and applied on the water.
I changed yacht clubs 3 years A ago to a club that is all volunteer and more relaxed and give a rules talk over the winter. THEY ALL KNOW about rule 10 and 18.3(a) but many think an upwind boat has rights over a downwind boats irregardless what tack they are on.
I always struggle with the leeward mark and agree that it is confusing. I teach that if you are approaching a leeward mark to be left to port on a port jibe that most of the boats approaching on the starboard jibe will be entitled to mark room and they are ROW boat as well. So look around and anticipate what may occur in the zone and adjust.
As 18 is confusing and even the college educated cannot get it right, before coming up with a revised rule should include some data collection in real time and address the problems that exist.
What the people in this forum see may not mirror what the sailors who are less versed in the rules see. We may find that the problem has a different solution
There's a lot of incentive to throw it in as a port boat there, because the alternative may be to duck a significant portion of the fleet that you feel you're not "behind" -- maybe even more-so in college, where racing on short courses with relatively close competition. My take is that the complexity of 18.3 is largely in order to dissuade this type of behavior, however, we might consider course design* to help with this problem, much the way modern road designs help "calm" traffic where speeding fines have largely failed to do so.
*Examples of course design that could help with reducing 18.3 infractions are large marks, shaped like sausages that would make it physically impossible to come in on the port layline, or possibly upwind gates. Maybe there's some other solution as well.
I think that is definitely part of the problem. And some needless verbosity in the rules do not help:
It may be that there is a simplification that describes a true superset of the actual rules, that sailors can take as a conceptual model in their heads on the water, and the full details of the rules might only be for juries.
I need to find the time to go through the case book and see what different outcomes there would be (if any) for these simplified rules.
I don't think many try to teach these rules verbatim to club sailors. Many have said in this discussion that they use simplifications.... but wouldn't it be grand if there was a common simplification we could all agree on?!?!?
Welcome to Sailing 101 - it's your first lesson. Good to see you all dressed appropriately for sailing. But we will start with a rules chat... Perhaps later we may get out on the water if we have time...
By the end of today, you will know and remember:
Enjoy the day!
----------------------
I hope this is not how anyone introduces Rule 18!
I think Jim nails it in his post . Perhaps we need to work on how we teach it.
If we present Rule 18 as being complex, it will come over as complex!!!
(To summarise my view on the previous 48 posts, I think how we teach this is crucial - I don't think we should be changing basic principals of the rules for different levels of sailing. Fundamentals should stay the same. I also think that any rule set will end up about the same - just like all the medium range airliners look the same now. Evolution due to necessity will yield similar results. Current rules are all there because something didn't work in the past. So trying to change the rules is largely futile IMO.
I don't believe certain disciplines of sailing should be exempt from rules. 'It's just Beer can fun racing' and 'they are just kids' isn't acceptable to me.
However, I do think a layered and progressive approach to the full game is appropriate. That's something I've mentioned before - we don't have a progressive beginner form of the game. Greg, is this perhaps what you're alluding to.)
That's all from me. Back to lurking!
Are you referring to RRS 75? That to be entered in an event, a boat has to pass thru RRS 75 and 75(a),(b) and (c) all require some affiliation to WS, either directly or through an MNA or WS/MNA affiliated club?
No affiliations .. no entries. No entires ... no regatta based on RRS?
Or was there some other statement in the RRS or WS Regs which state it more plainly that you are referring to?
That said, I suspect there may also be some copyright issues with the unauthorised use of a protected work.
Copyright generally deals with, as the name says, copying or reproducing copyright material
It does not, generally prohibit using copyright material.
Performing a copyrighted work without authorisation is a breach of copyright.
I think you will find that using the rules defined in a copyrighted work falls in to the same category.
And thus, in accordance with IRRS ntroduction Terminology 'boat', won't be a boat at all?
Not too happy about that.
I think if the unaffiliated entity invokes the RRS in NOR, they, and their members are agreeing to comply with the RRS.
RRS 89.1 requires that an event shall be organised by an organising authority which shall, in certain ways, be affiliated with WS, usually by affiliation with a MNA.
Suppose one of the boats involved in the incident delivered a protest to her club, and in accordance with RRS 63.2(e) the two clubs agreed to the appointment of a protest committee, the unaffiliated entity is representing that, in their view the RRS apply. I think that the protest hearing should go ahead, and be based on the RRS being applicable to both boats. If there was an appeal, it would be up to the MNA to deal with it: if the Appeal was by the boat from the properly affiliated club I would expect the MNA to consider it.
If the unaffiliated entity did not agree to a protest committee, then the whole business would get quite a bit messier, and there may be a dispute about whether the incident is governed by RRS or IRPCAS.
Note that if an incident is decided under IRPCAS usually results in substantial fault being attributed to both sides
More over, the unaffiliated club is racing around the same Australian sailing marks that we use. They say they are under colregs, but I have no idea how you can contest a mark under colregs.
Anyway, my point was that I definitely don't intend to run unsanctioned rules. My expectations are that this thread will just be a thought experiment that helps us (me e) understand 18, 19 & 20 better.... but perhaps something more could come from it.
Nice one John.
AIUI if World sailing wanted to restrict use to affiliated clubs they would have to introduce some kind of contract which had to be agreed before purchasing/downloading.
I looked up Woody Point YC, which I believe may be a unaffiliated Sydney club, and their website points their members at various non World Sailing RRS resources, but there doesn't appear to be any NOR or SI stating what rules should be used. If their membership haven't made a contractual type agreement as per Santanita then I imagine lawyers could get rich arguing over what rules apply to their races.
And when they say you have 'racing' cover then under what set of rules does this apply?
Firstly there is the issue of RRS vs IRPCAS if the unaffiliated entity quoted the RRS in their NOR
Then there is IRPCAS:
Uh, huh