David, they will eventually publish a "study version" that will show the redline changes as well as commentary and sometimes even the submissions which the change was based upon.

Study Version for 2017-2020

- Ang

Def, Start
Only hull counts as starting, not crew, nor equipment.
But unclear whether "entirely" on pre-start side means crew or equipment might cause OCS.

"Sail the Course" joins list of definitions. Was RRS 28.

Lots of re-numbering.

World Sailing regulation codes all dumped together for convenient reference throughout.

16.2 is different (P ducking S)

18 ends when mark room has been given (moved to 18.1 from 18.2)

NOR may require other means TO HAIL FOR ROOM TO TACK  [edit: NOT to signal protest]

Exoneration is immediate, penalty not required. Now 43.

Code flag V for radioed Search and Rescue monitoring

PFDs (technical change to 40)

Setting, sheeting sails, outriggers rules repositioned

Certain time limits for redress requests

Hearsay allowed in hearings

Standard of proof, PC chairman gets 2 votes to break tie.

Thanks!

The edit marks are in (Lines on the right margin) we'll have to wait for the study version for explanations

Craig: Oh, I didn't notice the lines. That's cool, thanks! 

Oh god, it's going to take me forever to update the test.

also,  RC may score a boat that does not complete the course as NSC (did not sail the course) without a hearing rather than protesting 

Exonerations (14(b), 21) will be consolidated under RRS 43.1

Removes the DSQ option for RRS 2, only penalty for that will be DNE.

Phil, the new version of 29.1 Individual Recall (which isn't marked as a change but is) seems to make it pretty clear that only the hull will count for OCS purposes.

Likewise for Rule 30, (I Z U and Black Flags).  Crew and equipment no longer in the rule, only the hull.
In rule 43, a boat with room or mark-room will no longer have to be compelled to touch a mark to be exonerated for touching it.  But touching a mark will have to be as a consequence of an incident with the boat required to give room.
Would this this mean boat B would be exonerated in TR call E8?
https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/supplement2019final-[24547].pdf

Murray: That rule 43 exoneration is a big change. Thanks for pointing it out!

I like that we will no longer have to say "well yeah they didn't give you room but you weren't *compelled* to hit that mark, you could have born away and missed it".

David:  I'd be interested in hearing how you think rule 43 changes the game, other than the "compelled" condition being deleted for exoneration on rule 31 breaches.  Rule 64.1(b), which contains an exoneration clause, technically only applies after a protest hearing, but competitors (and the authors of, for example, the Team Race Call Book) treat that rule as if it were an on-the-water call.  The exoneration in rule 14 is exactly the same as now.  So to my mind, rule 43 basically brings all exoneration issues together without changing much.

I think that's pretty much what I have in mind. Sorry, maybe I made a bigger deal of it than I should have! I just meant that it's a significant change that I'd missed (an improvement, I think), so appreciated Murray calling it out.

Maybe it's looming large to me for no good reason. I remember being on port a boat-length or so before the starboard layline to a windward mark when a boat leeward and ahead started talking. After they passed head to wind (but before they were close-hauled) we protested and tacked to avoid them. We touched the mark, but weren't compelled to (could have gone to the wrong side). We did a circle to exonerate.

I think that's the case where the rule exonerates us.

I know it appears in current 64.1(a) (which will be 43.1(a)) but is there really a "compelled" component in current RRS 21?

Other than the relocation (which I think is smart, putting all exonerations in one rule), the wording change is very subtle:

Current RRS 21: ...she shall be exonerated if, in an incident with a boat required to give her room or mark room...

New RRS 43.1(b): ...as a consequence of an incident with a boat required to give her that room or mark room...she is exonerated..."

So what's the difference between "in an incident" and "as a consequence of an incident"? I'll be interested to hear the drafter's thoughts on that.

Tim: I think the difference is mainly the "compelled" in (current) 21(b).

The new 43.1(b) doesn't require the boat to have been "compelled" to touch a mark. So I think now you can be exonerated even if you weren't compelled (e.g., if you could have gone to the wrong side of the mark instead).

Yup, I missed that. Thanks.

Although now that I think about it, the example in my post above doesn't seem right. In the case where that boat ahead/leeward is tacking and forced me to tack, that's not a "consequence of an incident with a boat required to give her that room or mark-room".

So 43.1(a) would apply if we were compelled to hit the mark (we weren't), but it doesn't seem like 43.1(b) would apply in that case.

Also the line in 18 (that Rob foreshadowed) turning off 18 between the boats once mark room has been given .. that cleans up a couple scenarios we played with here. 

Tim

I'm not the drafter, but my thoughts are...
Consider boats A, B and C, overlapped on the same tack.  A is windward, C is leeward and B between them.  C luffs B suddenly and breaks rule 16.1.  B luffs in response to C's luff and breaks rule 16.1 with regards A.  In the incident  with A and B, A is not required to give B room and therefore B is not exonerated.  The incident between A and B is a consequence of an incident between B and C.

Ultimately, B will be exonerated for breaking 16.1 because she is sailing within the room entitled from C.  The new wording just makes that a lot clearer.
  
David

Rule 18 would apply as soon as you passed head to wind and were on the same tack.  From that moment, you are entitled to mark-room  (assuming both boats tacked inside the zone).

Paul,

That comparison is an absolute doozy.

Thank you very much

Rob Overton,

New rule 43 (and insertion of reference to exoneration in Basic Principles Sportsmanship and the Rules) only changes the game in the view of those rule 2 enthusiasts who have been insisting that a boat that has broken a rule when the conditions for her exoneration apply, nevertheless breaks rule 2 of she does not take a penalty or win exoneration in a protest hearing.

The significant change in rule 43 is the substitution of 'is exonerated' for 'shall be exonerated', and the removal of the 'when a boat is compelled' provision out from under the chapeau of rule 64.1, which was taken to mean that exoneration for that cause was only available 'When a protest committee decides ...'

It is now crystal clear that exoneration occurs at the time of the incident, and boats acting in the belief that they are exonerated are not breaking rule 2.

rule 42 changes to unlimited pumping downwind for foiling (not surfing or planing)

“rule 42 changes to unlimited pumping downwind for foiling“

I can just imagine the butterflies now ....

Aldo,
42.3(c)(2) doesn't allow unlimited pumping downwind.  But it does allow any number of pumps until a boat is foiling, and not only when sailing downwind.  Once a boat is foiling, foiling has been initiated and pumping must cease.

The change to rule 42.3(c)(2) permits, when foiling is possible, multiple pumps to initiate foiling. This is similar rule 42.3(c)(1), which, when surfing or planing is possible, allows a single pump to initiate surfing or planing. If foiling, surfing or planing conditions don't exist, warm up the yellow flag.

“when foiling is possible, multiple pumps to initiate and maintain foiling.”

Would the visual cue for this from an umpire/judge POV be a drop of height above the water?  would nearly continuous pumps be allowed across the fleet if conditions are recognizably marginal?  

Mark,
The words "except on a beat to windward" are removed from 42.3(c).  42.3(c(2) only allows pumping to initiate foiling, not to maintain foiling.  Once a boat is foiling and until she is no longer foiling, then pumping would not be allowed.

My bad... I looked at submission 162-18 for the rational behind the change, but that submission was superseded by 162-19. You are correct the final version of 42.3(c) removed on a beat to windward, and maintain foiling.

The change to rule 42.3(c)(2) permits, when foiling is possible, multiple pumps to initiate foiling. This is similar rule 42.3(c)(1), which, when surfing or planing is possible, allows a single pump to initiate surfing or planing. If foiling, surfing or planing conditions don't exist, warm up the yellow flag.

The other change was that on a beat to windward rule 42.3(c)(2) now permits, when surfing or planing is possible, a single pump to initiate surfing or planing.

ok, noted the pumping to be stopped once foiling, thanks.
But  "down the front of a wave" could be also upwind? Or "down the front of a wave" is referred  to surfing only, while planing or foiling it doesn't matter?

To summarize the differences between the 2017-2020 exoneration rules (14, 21 and 64.1) and the 2021-2024 rule 43, combine the comments above from John Allen and Murray Cummings.  The three important changes are:  (1) Removal of 'compelled' as a condition for exoneration for breaking rule 31 when taking room or mark-room; (2) Change from "shall be exonerated" to "is exonerated"; and (3) Change from "in an incident with" to "as a result of an incident with".  

(1)  allows a boat to attempt to take mark-room to which she is entitled even when it's not clear the other boat will give it to her.  The whole point of rule 21 is to tell boats to take room to which they're entitled, subject to rule 14.  Change (3) also removes the current preference for hitting an outside boat as opposed to hitting the mark -- under the 2017-2020 RRS, if the boat outside you doesn't give you mark-room to which you're entitled, and you have a choice between hitting her and hitting the inflatable mark, you should hit the other boat because then there's no "compelled" criterion to meet.  That's crazy.

(2) is subtle, but as John points out, important to the process.  The 2017-2020 rules on exoneration could be read to mean that only a protest committee can exonerate a boat (under 64.1 explicitly, but also 14 and 21 because they say "shall be exonerated").  Starting in 2021, it will be clear that exoneration happens on the water, as a result of the circumstances.  Note that this does not in any way keep a boat from protesting and arguing that the other boat was not exonerated because the necessary conditions for exoneration did not exist.

(3) is maybe the biggest change.  See Murray's scenario above for a perfect example.  Hoping Murray won't object, I'm adding an additional hypothetical fact:  When C luffs B, B could have ignored her luff, with sure damage to herself or to C, whereas when she luffs to avoid C she hits A but causes no damage.  It's possible that a protest committee would consider the situation as two different incidents -- first, between B and C, and second, between A and B (or as a single incident involving all three boats, in which case it's not "an incident between [B] and a boat required to give her room").  If they were to do that, then B is not exonerated under the current rule because she wasn't compelled to hit A:  she could have hit C instead.  Under the 2021-2024 RRS 43, she is exonerated.

Another example was given by the US RRC in its submission for change (3).  Suppose PL and PW are overlapped on port tack on a beat to windward and they meet S, on starboard.  PL bears off to duck S but doesn't give PW quite enough room to go between her and S.  PW realizes she'll cause damage if she bears off onto PL and forces her way into the gap between PL and S, so she does a crash tack and eventually hits S, side to side with no damage.  Let's say PW breaks rule 15.  Under current rule 21 she will not be exonerated for doing so because the incident was between PW and S.  In contrast, under the 2021-2024 RRS PW will be exonerated because the breach occurred as a result of the incident with PL, in which PL broke rule 19.  Note that, as shown in this incident, "as a result of" is much weaker than "compelled by".  

I'm curious about the language in new Rule 20.4(a), adding the provision that "when conditions are such that a hail may not be heard, the boat shall also make a signal that clearly indicates her need for room to tack or her response."  

This seems like a highly subjective test:  when is it that a hail "may not be heard?" I certainly understand the desire for further clarity in situations where room to tack is at issue, but are we concerned that this new rule adds a new layer of complexity to an already complex situation? Or, is this just a common sense addition to eliminate the problem of verbal hails being ineffective?

I think it's just a backup for safety in case the hail is not heard. Nothing prohibits the hailing boat from also making a signal if she has any doubt at all whether her hail will be heard, and making the signal doesn't relieve the hailing boat from also making the required verbal hail.

I'm assuming that the signal required by 20.4(a) has the same force as a hail (as in "hailed boat shall respond"...). Logic being that if the hailed boat sees the signal, she should assume that a hail has also been made but not heard.

I can see where there might be an issue if the "hailing" boat were to testify in a hearing that they made the signal but did not make the hail (because they knew the other boat wouldn't hear it)

Flag page  and signal meaning changed:
When a visual signal is displayed over a class flag, fleet flag, event flag or race area flag, the signal applies only to that class, fleet, event or race area.
Added Flag V (Monitor communication channel for safety instructions (see rule 37).

Flag page  and signal meaning changed:
When a visual signal is displayed over a class flag, fleet flag, event flag or race area flag, the signal applies only to that class, fleet, event or race area.
Added Flag V (Monitor communication channel for safety instructions (see rule 37).

And also changed Orange and Blue !!!!

Philip Hubbell

said Created: Thu 19:27

Phil,

Where did you find this?  I can't see it.

All of the protest procedures in Part 5 Sections A and B (except rule 63.4 Conflict of Interest) have always been able to be changed by SI, and since 2017 by NOR (rule 86.1(b)).

NOR may require other means TO HAIL FOR ROOM TO TACK  [edit: NOT to signal protest]  20.4
Sorry for error.

Thank you Phil