Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Old Rule 89.2 b, new Rule 89.2 c.
Luiso Ferrandiz
Nationality: Spain
Certifications:
- National Judge
- International Judge
- National Umpire
- National Race Officer
0
Hi all,
I have two different questions for you.
First; If a National Authority prescribes about the Racing Rules of Sailing 2013-2016, and after 1st January 2017 these prescriptions are not changed. Can you apply the old prescriptions to the new rules?
Second; In case that previus answer is affirmative. Can a Judge apply a prescription to 2013-2016 Rule 89.2 b to the new 2017-2020 Rule 89.2 c assuming that this is the rule intended to be prescribed.
Thanks for your answer
I have two different questions for you.
First; If a National Authority prescribes about the Racing Rules of Sailing 2013-2016, and after 1st January 2017 these prescriptions are not changed. Can you apply the old prescriptions to the new rules?
Second; In case that previus answer is affirmative. Can a Judge apply a prescription to 2013-2016 Rule 89.2 b to the new 2017-2020 Rule 89.2 c assuming that this is the rule intended to be prescribed.
Thanks for your answer
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
First: I may say yes, providing it's the same rule and the prescriptions of the NA have been approved by WS (doubt?).
Second: RRS 89.2(b) & (c) are rules of part 7 and the NA cannot change a rule of part 7 in accordance with RRS 86.1(a).
So for a judge, it would be a difficult issue to apply a NA prescription which is in conflict with the RRS!..
E.g. look at the Case Book 2013 - 2016, gone, invalid.
I agree with your answer to "Second" and go one step further: it is not only difficult, it is impossible. However we should not forget that some rules in Part 7 allow a NA to publish prescriptions to rules of part 7, but RRS 89 is not among them.
It is not a change of a Rule, It is a Prescription of Rule 89.2 c.
I will try to rewrite the question. If after 1st of january we haven´t a new set of prescriptions, Can we use the Prescriptons to RRS 2013-2016?
I think NO, see my answer "FIRST" above. But the next question will be: "Is a prescription to a rule a change of a rule in light of RRS 85.1 2nd sentence? Isn´t it an "addition"?
National prescriptions to the RRS 2013-2016 applied over the same period that those rules applied, i.e. January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016. If your MMA did not write a new prescription to the 2017-2020 rule 89.2, then there is no prescription. If this were not true, MNAs could never remove prescriptions!
However, unlike the RRS itself, prescriptions can be changed at any time. So your MMA could write a new prescription to rule 89.2 (c) just like the old prescription to rule 89.2 (b) and cause it to come into effect, say, January 1, 2018. Of course, there are always problems of informing everyone that the change has been made, especially if your MMA produces their own rule book.
But now you've made me curious. What possible prescription could there be to rule 89.2 (c)?
I think the only "authority" are the RRS, e.g. RRS 3.5, 86.1, 88
Second I would say NO for a Judge.
Rendering a decision based on either action would surley be appealed and overturned. There are times I do not 100% agree with "cases" but I follow that guidence in decisions. Racers deserve consistancy in race operations.
The RRS is issued by WS, therefore only WS can modify it. Nevertheless, in order to make it flexible, WS "delegates" his authority to ammend some racing rules to MNA's (86.1(a)), Classes (86.1(c)), or OA's and RC's (86.1(b)). So I think Willii is right, MNA's are legitimated to ammend racing rules, provided they respect the limits and conditions established in rule 86.1. A prescription issued by an MNA that does not respect those limits, is void.
Prescriptions are effective from the moment they are issued by an MNA. A later approaval by WS is not required to give them effectivity or validity except in one case. Prescriptions to Rule 88.2 are the only one that need to be approved by WS, otherwise OA's and RC's can modify any MNA prescription through the NOR or SI.
As I said before, Prescriptions are valid and effective from the moment they are issued (provided they do not exced the limits of 86.1) with no WS approaval required. The approaval referred in rule 88.2 has for only purpose to prevent SI or NOR to modify MNA's prescriptions. When this approaval is missing, the prescriptions are still valid and effective, but subject to modifications.
I know very well this problem because I faced it several times this year... and it is not really easy for a judge to decide a case when you don't know which are the rules that apply. E.g. When a protest may be invalid or not depending on a prescription that requires the protestor to make an economic deposit when lodging his protest. To know if this prescription applies or not can change completely the decision.
My opinion is that when the prescriptions refer to a specific "rule book", they only apply to that "specific" rule book. Therefore since the question is concerning a prescription related to a specific rule, my answer is no, such prescription does not apply to 2017-2020.
Since my answer to Q1 is no, answer to question 2 does not apply. Nevertheless I would like to make some comments: