Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
RRS 21
Aldo Balelli
0
Hi Guys; rehearsening the rules, finding old notes and strange quiz.
Here a couple of interesting issues:
Exoneration from RRS 21.
So, if a boat is forced to touch a mark, or break a rule section A or 15 or 16, she do not need to protest, right? She just keep going; if somebody protest, she'll have to prove that she's been forced to break that rule.
Often I hear fellow judges saying that the boat should have either protest or penalize; no protest, no exoneration. I believe that is wrong.
RRS 22, 23 and 24.1
A boat OCS returning to pre-start in order to start, have to keep clear from other boats that started correctly. It means that if the returning boat is starboard, crossing a boat on port regularly started, the port boat is not obliged to RRS 10 (preamble of part D)
But if the starboard boat is a boat no more racing (she finished, or retired), , crossing a port boat, the port boat is obliged to RRS 10, and can be protested, save his right to protest in return the starboard boat for breaking RRS 24.2.
If the racing port boat do not keep separated (because she know the other boat is no more racing), she can be penalized under RRS 10, and the non racing starboard boat also be penalized for RRS 24.1
So different reactions to similar situation: how can a boat can tell that the boat going reverse is retiring (accident, injury, wife phone call = rule 10 is on) or returning to "start" (rule 10 is off)?
Thank for your assistance
Here a couple of interesting issues:
Exoneration from RRS 21.
So, if a boat is forced to touch a mark, or break a rule section A or 15 or 16, she do not need to protest, right? She just keep going; if somebody protest, she'll have to prove that she's been forced to break that rule.
Often I hear fellow judges saying that the boat should have either protest or penalize; no protest, no exoneration. I believe that is wrong.
RRS 22, 23 and 24.1
A boat OCS returning to pre-start in order to start, have to keep clear from other boats that started correctly. It means that if the returning boat is starboard, crossing a boat on port regularly started, the port boat is not obliged to RRS 10 (preamble of part D)
But if the starboard boat is a boat no more racing (she finished, or retired), , crossing a port boat, the port boat is obliged to RRS 10, and can be protested, save his right to protest in return the starboard boat for breaking RRS 24.2.
If the racing port boat do not keep separated (because she know the other boat is no more racing), she can be penalized under RRS 10, and the non racing starboard boat also be penalized for RRS 24.1
So different reactions to similar situation: how can a boat can tell that the boat going reverse is retiring (accident, injury, wife phone call = rule 10 is on) or returning to "start" (rule 10 is off)?
Thank for your assistance
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
If a boat is compelled to break a rule by another boat, she cannot just sail on with disregard to the infringement. If she feels that she was compelled to break the rule by the improper actions of another boat, then she must protest that boat, which includes a hail as required by the rules. Even when a boat protests and does not take a penalty, if the protest committee finds that she broke a rule and was not compelled to break a rule by another boat, then she will be penalised.
There are differing opinions about exoneration. Murray has expressed one view, that exoneration is only done by a protest committee. I agree with Aldo in the other view: the exoneration is 'done' by the rules themselves (at the time of the incident). I think there is a submission in the pipeline to change the RRS in 2021 to make this clear (in favour of the rules doing the exonerating).
I think Aldo has quite correctly identified an inconsistency between the way rule 21 (OCS boat returning shall keep clear and Section A rules do not apply to boats starting correctly) and rule 24.1 (Boat not racing shall avoid, but Section A rules still apply).
Using Aldo's example of a port tack boat starting correctly (P) and a boat on starboard sailing back towards the starting line (S):
If boat A hits a mark and knows she has broken a rule, but sails on without taking a penalty, then she also breaks rule 2. If, however, boat A feels she was compelled to hit the mark by boat B breaking a rule, then she knows she broke a rule but chooses not to take a penalty because, in her opinion, B broke a rule which compelled her to hit the mark, and rule 21 exonerates her. Without a protest, how does one know that boat B actually broke a rule and that infringement actually did compel A to hit the mark?
I think that, in the absence of boat B acknowledging infringement by taking a penalty, then boat A would need to lodge a valid protest in order to claim exoneration under rule 21.
Murray,
On rule 21 exoneration, the Protest Committee makes the decision if a boat is exonerated or not. One of the factors is determining if a boat breaking a rule has compelled another boat to break a rule.
Rule 64.1 Penalties and Exoneration. It explains what a Protest Committee does.
64 DECISIONS
64.1 Penalties and Exoneration
When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing has broken a rule and is not exonerated, it shall disqualify her unless some other penalty applies. A penalty shall be imposed whether or not the applicable rule was mentioned in the protest. If a boat has broken a rule when not racing, her penalty shall apply to the race sailed nearest in time to that of the incident. However,
(a) when as a consequence of breaking a rule a boat has compelled another boat to break a rule, the other boat shall be exonerated.
(b) if a boat has taken an applicable penalty, she shall not be further penalized under this rule unless the penalty for a rule she broke is a disqualification that is not excludable from her series score.
(c) if the race is restarted or resailed, rule 36 applies.
Thank you for interesting section D questions.
RRS 22, 23 and 24.1
As for the start situation, rule 22.1 makes P in your example the right of way boat whose rights are limited by the rule 24.1 (before preparatory signal) and 24.2 (before start signal) to not to interfere with a boat racing/acting under rrs 22.1 if reasonably possible.
So in case on an incident Protest committee would need to find out if S kept clear and if for P it was reasonably possible not to interfere with S. I’d say these should be analysed separately so it means both boats may be penalized. 21 does not apply as there is no room defined in 22.1 and 24 (unless there have been manoeuvres by P that might fall under rrs 16.1). P might be exonerated for breaking rule 14 under 14(b).
The only situation when S will have right of way under rrs 10 would be when P is also returning to prestast area under 22.1 and has not reached the area fully yet.
Given the possibility of different interpretations, I would find it very hard to conclude that a boat, relying on what she thought was an entitlement to exoneration at the time of the incident, broke rule 2.
Ekaterina,
Thanks for your analysis. I agree. Aldo and I were wrong: Just because a boat is no longer racing, does not mean that rule 22.1 does not apply to her, thus, a boat, initially OCS, then having Retired, but sailing towards the pre-start side, is subject to BOTH rule 22.1 and rule 24.1, and because of rule 21.1 and the preamble to Section D, a port tack boat starting correctly is not required to keep clear of her.
Edited: Aldo was right, Rule 22.1 only applies to a boat sailing towards the pre-start side to start or to comply with rule 30.1. A boat that is no longer racing cannot be returning to start and rule 22.1 will not apply to her, so we are back to where we started.
In Aldo's scenario, I think rule 24.2 only has limited application to P, because if rule 22.1 applies then the incident must have been after the starting signal, and P is most likely to be sailing her proper courses.
In 64.1(A) I think it is more complex. The exoneration shall be given by a protest committee. The problem is that the boat has to prove the other boat broke a rile and the compulsion, so it is more subjective. Only really a hearing can establish all this. Then check our Appendix c c8.1(b) here it says the rule is changed so umpires may apply exoneration without a protest. This seems to indicate therefore that usually a protest is required to be sure of this type of exoneration.
I strongly hold that boat A that touched the mark should protest boat B. That way the offending boat may take an R44 penalty.
If Boat A does not protest, then Boat C witnessing the incident may protest Boat A for not taking a penalty for the breach of R 31.
Boat C may not realise that Boat B caused the incident and may not have included B in her protest.
Now we have a messy protest hearing including making the decision to call Boat B as a party - and that boat B may be guilty but was not given the opportunity to exonerate herself under R 44 at the time of the incident.
John
For rule 21 to be considered applicable, we know that a boat (boat A) has broken one or more rules while sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled, and that an incident with a boat required to give her that room or mark-room (boat B) has occurred. If A breaks a rule of Section A, or rule 15 or 16. in an incident with B, is she exonerated if B has not broken any rule? If not, and B does not acknowledge she has broken a rule by taking a penalty, then how can A claim exoneration with only an allegation and not a determination that B has broken a rule? Determination of a rule breach by B could only be established during a valid protest hearing.
If A breaks one of these rules and B does not break any rule, Is A still sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled?
I think that on course exoneration for A is intended by R 21, but it needs the protest hail by A and acknowledgement by B, demonstrated by B taking a penalty, or in the absence of the penalty turn, then by the Protest Hearing.
I agree with you that If B did not break any rule, and A hit the mark, then A broke R 31 all on her own and no exoneration from R 21.
John
I think the assumption of rule 21 is that B, the boat required to give room or mark-room, has failed to do so.
Consider the folowing:
John B beat me to the punch with his A,B,C boat scenario. Yes, if Boat C witnesses the mark-hit but not the compelling action, they are in their rights to protest A and A to defend herself in a hearing. If C’s protest is valid, the PC can protest B and work it out.
Rule 2, Basic Principals, and boats’ obligations to both protest and take penalties without being protested when they break a rule .. has been a bit of a soapbox of mine. After a lot of dialog (with help from John and Mike here on this forum), I’ve come to the conclusion that failing to protest another boat OTW is not a rule 2 violation, but not taking a penalty when knowingly breaking a rule, is. That though both “.. follow and enforce [the rules]” are both in Basic Principles, only not taking a penalty is singled out as a fundamental to sportsmanship, which thus clearly ties to Rule 2.
In this scenario, IMO the boat that is exposed to Rule 2 is Boat B (the compelling boat) for breaking a rule, possibly knowing they did, and not taking a penalty due to Boat A’s lack of protest, not Boat A for not protesting.
Now, all that said, SHOULD Boat A protest Boat B? Yes, both to help establish her actions after hitting the mark and improve her position if protested ... and importantly (back on my soapbox) .. to enforce the rules on Boat B for the benefit of fair sailing and competition relative to the rest of the fleet. Boat B, by not being penalized, gains an advantage on all the other boats in the race. That said, there is a lot of space between “should” and “must”.
I agree with John Ball that A should hail protest. If B acknowledges the infringement and takes a penalty, then A need not take further action, If B does not take a penalty or later retire, then A should proceed with filing a protest.
> I think there is a submission in the pipeline to change the RRS in 2021 to make this clear (in favour of the rules doing the exonerating).
This thread includes one relevant expected change: https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/315-exoneration-and-sportmanship-and-the-rules. (I don't know if there are others.) It says the new "Sportsmanship and the Rules" will read:
That doesn't explicitly say that the rules do the exonerating, but John Allan explains why it makes things pretty clear:
> It would not be possible for a boat to apply the test of whether she was exonerated, in deciding whether to take a penalty, if she was not exonerated by the rules at the time of the incident. The new wording will not work if it is necessary to await a protest decision before a boat is exonerated.
I think that, along with the expected change cited above, maybe rule 20 should have a clause added, something as :
20.1 A boat claiming exoneration under this rule shall protest the boat required to give room or mark-room.
Rule 22.1 apply (I presume: only) if the boat return to the pre start or extensions in order "to start" or to comply with rule 30.1. I
A retired boat going against the flow is going home, not going "to start".
that's how i read it
What I meant in my comment was that if P is also returning to prestast area under 22.1 (that it to start or to comply with 30.1).
John, I don't think that boat retiring and heading out of the racing area through the starting line is subject to 22.1, since the requirements in sentence 1 of 22.1 (to start or to comply with 30.1) aren't met.
Did you mean 24.1? I think the " .. or retires" in racing's def [emphasis added] precludes 22.1. - Ang
PS: Never mind. 22.1 is a rule of Part 2 and thus applies to boats that .. " .. have been racing". So, yes she is "... subject to RRS 22.1", but she can not be penalized for breaking it.
See Aldo and Ekaterina's posts above, with which I agree (and have amended my previous post).
Rule 22.1 does NOT apply to a boat that has retired or is otherwise not racing because she cannot possibly be sailing towards the pre-start side to start or or to comply with rule 30.1, which is the condition built in to rule 22.1.
Huh .. that's an interesting thought that hasn't ever occurred to me. Maybe a waving a white-flag would be easily understood? :-)
This hypothetical scenario seems to be one example where it is not 'pretty obvious', but I would suggest it should still be 'fairly obvious'
As I said previously I suggest that the situation will be pretty unusual: it would usually posit that S retired withiin the first few minutes of the starting signal, while not unknown this is rare. I'm not all that sympathetic with P not being able to tell the difference: if P, right on the starting line is not aware of the actions of nearby boats, that inattention is not something that the rules should try to deal with.
MIke B, back in the day when flag etiquette was something people thought important the principle was that boats, while racing did not fly national ensigns or club burgees, (at least as to national colours, I think there was a justification about windage and getting tangled in running rigging or interfering with sails) and the implication was that a boat flying a national ensign or burgee was not racing.
Up to 2016, US Sailing was very clear about it
US Sailing deleted that prescription in 2017.