In a recent match race regatta, an interesting (I think) question came up.
In the NOR, there was a provision that states:
"When a boat in a match fails to sail the course, she will be disqualified without a hearing and scored zero points unless both boats in the match have sailed the same course, in which case the boats will be scored as if they had sailed the course."
That language is not unusual.
Often there are two different windward marks in the water of different colors. A change mark (Green or "G") that may have been put in place for the next pair to start the upwind while the original mark (Red or "R") is still in use by the pair currently on the leg. Appropriate signals are made at the start or leeward mark to tell the boats which mark they are rounding, of course. But teams sometimes miss the change.
When our pair is supposed to round mark G, mark R is not a mark of the course for them nor is it an obstruction.
But if both boats round the wrong mark, R, the race is to be scored as if they had sailed the course--that is, "as if" it is a mark of the course.
The question is, as an umpire, do we treat the mark as if it is a mark of the course on the water for their rounding? Most importantly, does rule 18 apply?
(For those who don't do much match racing, marks are rounded to S and rule 18 does apply to boats on opposite tacks on a beat. Also, a starhoard inside boat does have to tack if her proper course requires it).
I was working with an International Umpire and we discussed it quite a bit on the tow in. It was then discussed in debrief with two National Umpires.
One NU said she would umpire it as though they are rounding a mark of the course. As soon as it became obvious that they were both treating it as a mark and knowing that it would be scored as such, she would apply rule 18.
The IU (and I) thought that the boats cannot make it a mark of the course by their mistaken action. The scoring decision is an after-the-fact designation. As such it does not make R a mark of the course either. He would call it without applying rule 18.
Things could be really complicated if the incorrect mark is left-most and one (or both) of the boats then goes on to round the correct mark (perhaps realizing their mistake). Obviously I would apply 18 to the correct mark. But now its application to the incorrect rounding could set up some really messy redress issues. I don't even really want to start cataloging the various scenarios. In most of them, I would rather explain to the competitors later that they were not entitled to mark room at that "mark" than explain why I gave an inside boat an advantage to which they were not entitled.
Since two highly experienced umpires couldn't agree, I thought it would be an interesting one to put out here. Again, for those who don't do match racing, make sure you look at appendix C for the rules that would apply.
Wouldn't it be unusual for a mark to be so small as to not qualify as an obstruction, or am I missing something?
(a) an object that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially, if she were sailing directly towards it and one of her hull lengths from it;
(b) an object that can be safely passed on only one side; or
(c) an object, area or line that is so designated in a rule;
I don't think the mark that is not part of the course qualifies as an obstruction. Say it is a 4-foot inflatable and the boats are J22s. Aiming straight at it from 33 feet away would only require less than a 5-7 degree course change, it can be safely passed on either side, it is not designated as such in the SIs.
I am increasingly concerned about situations in which a strict legalistic reading of the rules is applied that is contrary to the way the majority of sailors read the rule: RRS 20 and the disappearing hail for room to tack being an example. In this instance if both boats are sailing to round a mark thath they both believe is mark of the course they will both assume that RRS 18 applies.
Some are offering variations on: "if both competitors think it is a mark..."
two questions:
One might be fairly certain the mark is the wrong one, but based on your actions and that of the other boat, they go along. If so, your assumptions about their state of mind have materially influenced the match.
Here's a scenario:
Yellow and Blue approaching the wrong windward mark on Starboard. Blue hits the "zone" of this false mark clear ahead and to leeward. Blue cannot tack and cross. You are following.
Suppose Yellow initially thought it was the wrong mark. They didn't give mark room to Blue because it's not a mark. They thought they would sail to the correct lay line and lead Blue to the correct mark. But seeing all that's going on, they start to doubt it. They don't deserve any foul. But now if they "go along" with what they are seeing as Blue rounds behind them, they (Yellow) come out with a penalty, maybe a double.
Your assumption that they also thought this was the mark has resulted in them being taken out of the match.
Or maybe Yellow really does know it is the wrong mark. But you give them a double. They sail out of the "zone," then jibe, come up to close hauled and continue on Starboard to the correct lay line. Now what? Yellow already killed a penalty they didn't deserve. Now that you know they were not treating it as a mark, do you take down the remaining yellow and put up a flag for Blue?
What's the downside of calling like it is? Blue had no right to room to tack and round the mark. The fact that they thought they were entitled to mark room is irrelevant. I shouldn't try to read minds.
By tacking, they broke rule 10 and 13. Penalize Blue. No matter what happens after that, you applied the rules. Maybe Blue figures out it's not the mark. Both boats sail on to the correct mark and Blue has a penalty as they should.
Maybe they both round the wrong mark and are confused by your call.
You can explain to Blue later that it was not a mark so rule 18 didn't apply.
That's a lot easier than explaining to Yellow that you assumed you knew what they were thinking and penalized them with a double for a foul they didn't commit because you thought they thought they were rounding and therefore committed a foul.
-Tony
But bearing in mind we are there to facilitate the racing I would be rather uncomfortable about leaving competitors in such a compromised situation rule wise.
If this is such a frequent occurrence as to be worth noting in multiple NORs, might it be better if there were a provision that the umpires may inform both competitors if they are apparently sailing for the wrong mark? OK that takes away the advantage if one competitor is aware and is bluffing for advantage, but ultimately it would make for a better sporting contest.
Been waiting for someone to drill on that point. A NSC error does not occur until the boat crosses the FL and finishes. The NOR only relates to scoring (which is clearly and easily changeable in NOR/SI under 86.1).
One [potentially informative] exercise might be to ask ...
Without changing a rule that is forbidden by 86.1 ... I'd imagine it's going to be much more complicated ... if it's even possible at all.
PS: In other words ... I'm not sure what those NOR/SI's would be, but it is certainly more than the OP NOR.
Jim et al. We use UHF for umpires, which most sailors won't have. We don't want them monitoring the umpire channel (in fact, I would think that should be prohibited).
As Angelo and I both pointed out, whether to score NSC or not occurs after the race is finished.
The NOR said nothing about making the mark an official mark of the course on the fly. I personally don't think it should be judged on the fly as if it is one.
My main reasoning for this is I cannot know what the racers are thinking. All I know is what they are doing. They are passing an object that is not a mark for them and are not entitled to rule 18 restrictions. I've put a long-winded example in another post.
The problem is more than just what happens within the zone of the mark and whether or not rule 18 applies. What about penalties? What leg are the boats on after they round the wrong mark and start to head downwind? If a boat has an outstanding penalty should the umpires be tweeting off a penalty after every gybe when the boat does not then come to a close hauled course? While rare, suppose this happened at the first rounding of W instead of the second? There are venues where an array of marks is laid out and each match could have a different windward mark and the pair goes to the wrong one because they didn't catch the color at the start.
The argument for this change is that if both boats sail the wrong course then this is still a fair competition between them so the results should stand and a point awarded to the winner. However, I think this is not fair to the other competitors in the event. They are disadvantaged because a boat that should have been scored as not sailing the course was given a point just because the other boat also made the same mistake and lost the mach. I don't think this is the fairest outcome for all boats in the event and I am not a fan of this change.
With all that said, to me, it is clear that rule 18 does not apply at the "wrong" mark (the umpires should be absolutely sure it is the wrong mark) and the umpires should call it that way. No mark room, no 18.3, etc. The flags (green or otherwise) may confuse the competitors at first but it may also clue them in to the fact that this is not the correct mark. Once both boats have rounded the mark and it is clear to the umpires (last point of certainty and all) that both boats are sailing as if they are on a downwind leg then the umpires should call it as if they are. Penalties would then be the downwind version (tack and bear off). I know this is a little inconsistent but I think it is the right way to approach it. It might be worth a MR Rapid Response question to clarify.
The problem lies in the brevity of the NOR as it stays in the clear lane that it can change (scoring) and seems to sweep under the rug the rest by avoiding addressing the obvious issues.
Like I suggested in the previous post ... it would be instructive to actually try to write an NOR/SI combo that buttoned up all the issues (for those who want to apply 18/31 to the apparent-marks) ... just to see what's actually being assumed through omission.
I also agree that this is something that should be worked out prior to going out on the water and made clear to the participants. Kim K and I were working together when the question came up and we discussed it fairly thoroughly. We are basically on the same page as you. Others disagreed.
I also agree that once they have both rounded and are sailing downwind, we can assume they are sailing as if they are on the next leg. Of course, one of them could figure it out and go back upwind to the correct mark. I think up until that point I would treat them as if they were on the downwind leg and call penalty kills and other fouls accordingly. I haven't thought as thoroughly through that one, though. If anyone asked me (which isn't likely) I would recommend taking out the provision to award a point if both boats sailed the wrong course.
-Tony
MR Call N10 was written in 2017, and refers to a protest by the race committee (which according to MR Race Management Policies s11, should never have happened: what should have happened is in RRS C8.4). It has not bee updated to reflect the introduction of NSC by the race committee introduced in 2021. Unlike Appendices B and F, Appendix C does not switch off or amend Appendix A, although it expressly provides different procedures to those in RRS A for DNS and DNF. The requirement for the race committee to score a boat NSC if she does not sail the course remains.
Appendix C should probably switch off Appendix A, meanwhile, MR Call N10 should probably cover the case where the race committee, rather than protesting the boat, scores her NSC.
Is that specifically necessary with 90.3(a)? Appx C defines "some other system" so when that's invoked in the NOR .. doesn't that just cover it?
What are those little coloured clothes pegs on the windscreen of your U Boat for?
With respect to what leg a boat is on, it really hasn’t been confusing in my experience. Everyone has known what they think they are doing correctly and it plays fine.
The only circumstance I could imagine where it would be a challenge is if one boat knows they have sailed correctly and the other does not and they are on different legs. We have adequate rules for how to sort that out.
We also have Case 126. Though the case specifically limits its application to the interpretation to when RRS 23.2 applies, maybe the general principle is useful here too. RRS 23.2 is not changed by Appx C.
But rounding the wrong mark breaks no rule until boats finish. It's not Y flaggable, and it's not one of the rules for umpire initiated penalties in RRS C8.2 or C8.3. So, it's a red flag protest by a boat or RRS C8.4
I don't go along with your concern about 'fairness'.
The approach taken in MR Call N10 is similar to what we do considering redress for half the fleet rounds the wrong mark in fleet racing. Once all boats that do sail the course correctly are scored, boats that rounded the wrong mark have had a fair race among themselves and should be granted redress of their finishing order, starting after the last of the boats that did sail the course correcxtly.
The boats have had a fair race against one another: that's the essence of match racing, and that's what MR Call N10 tells us.
RRS C7.2(c) also tells us when a boat has completed a leg, but it refers to 'the mark she is rounding', without saying whether she is required to round it or not.
So the commonsense approach of Case 126 still works.