As chairman of a recent protest hearing between two cruising boats where thousands of dollars of damage was caused when such an anchor became entangled with another yacht, ripping stanchions out of the deck and breaking the life lines    I am in favour of banning all anchors that project forward of the bow, I believe this is the case at both the RSYS & CYCA in Sydney. 

We too (at RFBYC in Perth) have a requirement that boats shall not race with an anchor protruding over the bow. There may be some small inconvenience but they are a serious danger  in any collision.

It's an interesting idea, but moving anchors around on 40 footer is not trivial. I think this falls into a category of trying to do too much with the rules. Bow-on collisions do happen, sure, as noted in another post.  But it's surely not usual. I'd forget it.

I cannot recall ever having seen that requirement in any SI in the USA.

Seems to me the anchor didn't hit the other boat, the helmsman did. If the anchor wasn't there, would the bow sprit or the stem have made contact with the other boat? Sometimes we treat the symptoms but not the disease.

Greenwich Flying Squadron sailing Instructions:
"Bow mounted anchors that extend beyond the gunwale or extended gunwale are not permitted in GFS races. Anchors should be stowed in lockers or below decks where they can be deployed immediately."

Drummoyne Sailing Club sailing instructions:
The word anchor does not appear.

I am wondering how an anchor that is stowed below, presumably somewhere where it can't slide around and do damage, can be deployed immediately?  And in a collision, the anchor will not do the damage, the fixed roller will, with or without an anchor.

My understanding of the reason beyond this requirement is to prevent boats becoming entangled if they come in contact.  The primary driver was a number of incidents ~10 years ago at the start line. Usually inexperienced boats trying a "barging" type start which accentuates the problem of effectively having a "grappling hook" sticking out the front. The rule is still in place at our club but I note quite a number of boats not adhering and enforcement is non-existent.  The rule does make sense for crowded start lines like Wednesday nights and the annual Cock of the Bay - both types of event frequented by less experience/less skilled skippers.  At the other extreme, I don't think it adds much value in a pursuit race.  My thoughts on the disincentive aspect is that the requirement could be removed for pursuit races if you think that would encourage more participation.  I would be reluctant to remove it in fleet start events as it is the less frequent racer who is most likely to get the start wrong and then entangle their anchor in someone else's lifelines - then things just get a whole lot worse.

I am running a lot of events in Croatia (Adriatic Sea) with combines ownerboats but most charterboats (35 to 50 ft). There we have additionly the problem of unexperianced skippers...
In the SIs we force the crews to put the anchor in the ancer-locker (wich is a neerby place of use the ancer again and have the weight in an almost correct palce).
If the anchor doas not fit fit in the anchor-locker the anchor has to be stored in the cockpit-locker (to avoid to bring the anchor on the deepes point near the keel inside the boat - this is for safety reasons and olso not to damage the charterboats).

I would prefer the SIs to prohibit bow mounted anchors.
One point, if there is a collision in which boats become entangled because of the anchor a PC should ask if the contact could have been avoided if the anchor was not in place (RRS14). Also, when considering redress under 62.1, if boats become entangled because of a boat's anchor could it be argued that the through no fault of her own condition has not been met.

I understand, at umpteenth hand, that insurers of charter boats have advised the operators that not having bow mounted anchors, where this is the normal fitting, is, in their view, failing to provide prudent and effective means of anchoring in an emergency and may prejudice insurance coverage.

As a racer of a boat with a retractable bowsprit (extending 5’ beyond the bow), and with the advent of more boats with fixed sprits/stays, I think having the anchor secured to the bow is more important than its presence/absence. 

Sprits get tangled in lifelines, take out stanchions, gouge into hulls, just as anchors do/can.  

What about an anchor-roller that extends beyond the bow?

Requirements that the anchor be secured by bolt/shackle while racing (beyond just a taught chain) would seem reasonable.

I just feel this is another place that we need to stay out of it.  Anchors are for safety and they are on the front of the boat for a reason. Not all boats have anchor lockers.  and if so they may not hold anchors.  There is so much that you would have to put in any rule to make it make sense.  Some extra boat damage is a shame but I assume that boat damage would happen with or without anchors.  If a boat wants to have their anchor on the bow, let them do it.  If they cause damage, let them pay for it if at fault.  

Protruding outboard props are often and easily protected by a simple plastic bucket.
It seems to me that a similar protective device for a plow anchor could be safely rigged from the foredeck.
Such a device would also serve well while hanging from a mooring, just as the bucket does.
Get creative now before sailing season resumes.
Best looking device wins!
(Later we can figure whether it ranks as "hull.")   :)

Philip that’s a good suggestion. 

A simple sunbrella “outboard” cover comes to mind.  That are cheap, come in diff sizes and have a drawstring.  Something simple like that would help prevent things getting hung-up or tangled and also be very quick to remove if needed.