Case 103 references a "competent, but not expert, crew of the appropriate number.
I suspect that in practice, we shift this definition across events based on the average competition level. In each of the below examples, is that shift appropriate or inappropriate?
- age-restriced opti white fleet... is it a competent age-appropriate sailor, or a competent sailor?
- semi-restricted undergrad collegiate competition... is it a competent 20yo or a competent adult?
- in a multi-day PHRF race designated as a double-handed event?
- same multi-day event but an incident between a boat in the double-handed class, and a boat in a fully crewed class?
- at a community sailing center, racing designated as for beginner/intermediate racers in Rhodes 19's on a weeknight?
- at 470 Worlds (for example)?
- at a teams-racing national qualifier, where every competitor is effectively an expert in boat-handling?
Intrinsic to my question: in "open" (ie. not age/gender/crew-size/otherwise-restricted) competition, do we (and are we allowed to) hold a fleet of beginners to the same standard as a fleet of experts? Does the sailing expertise of the judges come into play here? What if the judges are made up of the same general populace as the racers (meaning their understanding of "competent" is skewed)?
-With the special question #4 of how to handle this when the crew # on one boat is restricted by the regatta.
I hope I haven't asked this hypothetical before.
Thus the competence determination does not change with the competition level.
"Competent but not expert.." is reference to both ends of the scale. It sets the minimum standard as 'competent' and stipulates that expert is beyond expectation.
To me, the interpretation of that minimum competency must be irrespective of age or level of competition.
There are a couple of reasons why I think this.
Competent? - Criterion, not norm.
There is one fixed standard to use. Safety.
1. The aim is to keep sailors safe. To be safe, a sailor must, when faced with boat on boat situations, have the ability to adequately perform basic manoeuvres with sufficient speed as would be necessary to keep a race safe.
That is the common standard regardless of age or level or type of competition.
(We do not say that in the beginner / club fun beer can race that all sailors must be able to tack, but it's OK if people cant' gybe or judge a duck yet. We don't allow double-handed sailors dispensations on Part 2 rules knowledge because they are double-handed. Case 103 specifically discounts the crew number as consideration for competency. These allowances would be unsafe.)
2. Is it safe to give a bunch of first-day-on-water adults, small keel boats and let them race? Of course not. They would not be competent enough to in basic manoeuvres, and rules knowledge to be safe. Can we give a bunch of the best 10 year olds a TP52?
What about the top end? Do we hold experts at a higher standard. This is interesting.
Technically, we should not. As I have mentioned, the standard of competency is not relative to the age or level. The rules require us in ALL races to apply the level of 'competent, but not expert'. We should resist the temptation to apply a higher standard in higher level events.
Imagine a pro expert taking part in a fun beer-can race. Does he/she have to perform at the expert level? We'll they are not getting paid...they may be feeling less prepared., under the weather. They may be simply enjoying the day and not getting 'expertly' engaged. You can't expect them to perform like an expert all the time.
What about at the class worlds? This gets tricky. Technically, we should not expect more. In reality, I think it is natural to do so.
Consider a ILCA national championships. Mid fleet, while not showing the superb boat handling of Robert Sheidt, or Brett Beyer, boats will consistently be making tactical crosses inside significantly less than half a metre, and reasonable apprehension will tend towards that level of skill.
Now think about a bunch of sailing school Fevas, and reasonable apprehension will be considerably broader.
The reasonableness test, at the end of the day, however we moderate and qualify it, depends on the judgement and opinions of the protest committee.
John, I agree with you about reasonable apprehension and skill level, but I think its a red herring in the context of Room and Case 103.
Maybe I can reword my answer to be a bit more convincing.
Note, 'reasonableness' is still there in the Case 103 headnote
Bear in mind, I'm talking about more or less subconscious mental processes on the part of judges.
Consider a ILCA national championships. Mid fleet, while not showing the superb boat handling of Robert Sheidt, or Brett Beyer, boats will consistently be making tactical crosses inside significantly less than half a metre, and observers may form a view that those close margins are reasonable, and not imprudent.
Now think about a bunch of sailing school Fevas bouncing around, and an observer would not reasonably think that boats within half a metre were not likely to collide.,.
The reasonableness test, at the end of the day, however we moderate and qualify it, depends on the judgement and opinions of the protest committee.
But i still think this does not transfer across to the definition of room. The definition has nothing to say about the actual competitors. If we turn it round, and consider elite competitors, if in a mark rounding outside gives inside so little room that only an expert could navigate without contact then they have not complied with the definition, surely we agree on this.
But lets look at it from another direction. If I am an elite competitor with a novice inside, what is required of me? I certainly have a reasonable apprehension of a collision if I only give as much room as a fully competent crew requires. And RRS14 means I must avoid that collision if reasonably possible, which certainly means giving more room than a competent crew would require. But does inside novice break RRS18 if she sails outside the room a competent crew would be able to stay within? To my mind case 21 suggests she does. It lists all sorts of factors that affect what is room, but doesnt list competence. Indeed, it goes some way in the other direction with the phrase reasonable efficiency. Although I suppose you could argue that what is reasonable efficiency depends on crew expertise, I suggest that is requiring too much knowledge about the other boat.
Experienced judges will be able to 'dial down' the skill level they consider reasonable.
We aim to provide a service for the sailors and, while we need to be consistent,it needs to be at the level of their experience.
TLDR: