• Team scoring under a fleet racing format
  14 Comments
  Matthew Blake Tue 04:14
• Two port boats duck a starboard boat
  8 Comments
  Ken Jarrad Sun 20:51
• Time limit in Handicap Racing
  26 Comments
  Martin Fraser 26-Jan-19 20:47
• Three CV's on a long starting line
  11 Comments
  John Standley 26-Jan-19 12:58
• Pondering Rule 3 - Are Race Officers and Organizing Authorities Over-Reaching?
  64 Comments
  Beau Vrolyk 26-Jan-19 10:33

• Mark-Room and Room to Pass an Obstruction who wins.
  John,
  
  The rules are generally written in the negative (ie. "thou shalt not XXX") as opposed to the positive language of 'rights'. So, where a single 'obligation' is involved the 'right' is generally obvious, but when there are multiple obligations the average punter loses the plot!
  
  It is interesting to hear you say:

  I am intrigued by the notion of the rules needing to be ‘fair’.  There is nothing in the rules about being fair.  The purpose of the rules is not to promote fairness.

  I refer you to rule #2. Sure, it applies primarily to competitors but I think we would all agree that the rules are there to ensure fairness, equity, etc.
  
  Regarding 'determinism': You are probably right in concluding that neither boat can go through the gap without breaking a rule for which they would not be exonerated. This is the point at which common sense (and fairness) flys out the window!

  • Deterministic? Yes!
  • Easily understandable? No :-(
  • Fair? No!
  • Stupid? Absolutely!

  
  If the rules lead us to an inappropriate outcome then the rules need to be fixed!
  
  How about we add 19.1(c) as follows:

  • "or (c) the obstruction is surrounded by navigable water"

  
  This would mirror what happens at a start mark. Aligning these issues and their interpretations would make life simpler for everyone.
  
  It seems like a very simple (and fair) resolution to our conundrum.
  David Taylor Today 05:31
• Why is the "red flag" needed?
  I'm a month late to the party but wanted to add my own endorsement of this idea, for whatever that might be worth. 
  
  I agree with the numerous posters that have opined that the current ruleset and culture of strict validity requirements is harmful to the sport. I'm also aware that I am - and presumably many participants in this forum are - radically pro-protest in comparison to the average racer. There is a pervasive attitude amongst racers that protesting is itself unsportsmanlike. The strict validity requirements are often interpreted as intended specifically to reduce the number of "full" protest hearings, which just feeds into the anti-protest mentality. 
  
  I'm absolutely in favor of reducing the validity requirements in situations where it should be clear to the protestee that either (a) they are being protested, or (b) a rule was broken (e.x. contact occurred) and they may be at fault. 
  Matt Johns Yesterday 20:14
• Team scoring under a fleet racing format
  I want to thank everyone for the comments and suggestions.  For anyone faced with a similar situation, please note John Allan's reply (buried in the middle of the thread) with suggested SI language for this format that hopefully will minimize competitor confusion regarding the meaning and applicability of case 78, RRS 2, and RRS 41 in this format. 
  Matthew Blake Yesterday 16:06
• Judges walking the Dock
  Hey Matt ... hope you are well. Regarding ...
  
  

  "I've watched a protest be thrown out because the fouled boat was already two boats lengths from the mark when they hoisted their protest flag for an incident that happened at the mark. "

  
  If in the US, that may have been overturned in an appeal. Please see US124. 
  
  

  I personally had a protest committee invalidate my protest because they failed to post the notice of hearing properly.  Their mistake.  They could have fixed it by delaying and giving the protestee more time to prepare. 

  
  Again, if that's truly what happened, that decision would have very likely been overturned on appeal.   If your filing ID'd the protestor, protestee and the incident ... and was in writing and delivered to the race office timely ... and you did what was required on the water, it's hard for me to imagine a circumstance where a PC would "invalidate your protest".  
  
  Now, they might decide to invalidate their initial hearing ... but in doing so the likely proper action would be to start over with a new hearing after correcting the RC/PC procedural faults. 
  
  In realtime ... you could have requested a reopen ... it wouldn't be a request for redress.   If they told you to request for redress, that was incorrect (and improper by the PC) as you can't R4R a PC decision in which you were a party to the hearing. 
  Angelo Guarino Tue 18:51
• Two port boats duck a starboard boat
  We use the term ‘elect to pass’. The leeward right of way boat, in this situation, could choose to pass the obstruction on either side. If she chooses to tack then she must make the call early enough to allow the windward boat to also tack. If she chooses to pass the obstruction by bearing away she is required to do that early enough and with enough space to allow the windward boat to also bear away to clear the obstruction in a seamanlike way.
  Ewan McEwan Mon 04:50

Forums Leader Board

This Month