Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Can an NOR, SI or CR add definition to undefined terms?
P
Angelo GuarinoCertifications:
- Regional Judge
- Fleet Measurer
0
As we all know .. the RRS do not allow changes to terms defined in Definitions .. and the Introduction states,
"Other words and terms are used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use."
Does this mean that a word and term that is not listed in Definitions can not be further defined?
For instance, "Sportsmanship" is not defined in the RRS. Without fully defining Sportsmanship, could a Prescription, NOR, SI, CR state that some specific action will be considered "unsportsmanlike"?
I think the above would be against the rules. That any attempt to define a term used in the RRS or add definition to a term not listed in Definitions is in effect changing Definitions (by adding a term to it) and thus not allowed under RRS 86.1.
Also, Introduction's contents are also rules listed in RRS 86.1 and therefore Introduction's, "Other words and terms .. " above is a rule that is prevented from change.
Thoughts?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
It seems that there are 3 category of 'words and terms' ..
"Serious Damage" is another good one .. by my organization above a Cat 2 term in that it is a term that is not in Definitions, but like "Sportsmanship" is used in the RRS. These words being royalty in the Cat 2, have Cases and Appeals which help focus our understanding .. but stop short of defining them.
For the sake of discussion, I'm making the argument that "Serious Damage" and "Sportsmanship", having been used in the RRS, can not be further defined by Prescription, NOR, SI or CR, as it would break rule 86.1 by changing a rule in "Introduction".
In some borrowed boat events penalties for Damage resulting from contact between boats Is often defined in the sailing instructions.
See Addendum E in the World Sailing Standard Match Racing Sailing Instructions.
https://www.sailing.org/raceofficials/internationalraceofficer/document_library.php
The question is whether or not it breaks a rule if an SI (for instance) were to refine what "Serious Damage" was or was not .. if it wasn't in conflict with Case 141. Same goes with Sportsmanship or any other word or term used, but not defined, in the RRS.
I am suggesting that such an SI would break 86.1, in that it would change Introduction's "Other words and terms are used .. " rule.
https://www.sailing.org/raceofficials/internationalraceofficer/document_library.php
So, maybe we could say that SI’s (prescriptions, NOR’s, CR’s) are free to refine and define non-Definition words and terms that are used in the RRS, as long as those refined definitions are consistent with …
Interesting you got me thinking when you mentioned Case 141. Case 141 actually goes out of its way not to define serious damage and just walks the reader through Introduction’s “…sense ordinarily understood ..”.
But even if 141 had sort’a defined it, sort’a definitions described in a Case are not excluded from change in 86.1.
So, I think we come back to Intro’s “sense ordinarily understood” measure … and as long as the refinement is consistent with that, it’s probably OK.
Also probably would need to check US Appeals and RYA Cases. Appeals and RYA Cases are not authoritative, but the people who wrote them hear the Appeal against your SI change!
For the purposes of rules 14 and 44.1, any contact between boats shall be considered serious
damage. This changes rule 44.1.
I agree with Charles, that how that rule is written is problematic because it goes against Introduction’s “…sense ordinarily understood ..”. (In contrast to the MR SI guidelines).
I think it also has the problem that it seems to change 43.1(c), which is not allowed. If any contact is “serious damage”, then any contact is “damage”. It changes 43.1(c) by effectively striking 43.1(c) because contact now equals damage… therefore there isn't any contact that can satisfy the "does not cause damage" condition in 43.1(c). No contact, no matter how slight, can be exonerated.
That said, RRS 44.1 is not limited from change so the authors could get to where they are going more directly and leave defining “serious damage” out of it and completely rewrite 44.1. But again, they would not be able to change 43.1(c).