In a recent Lido 14 National Regatta, I was driving a chase boat. A competitor capsized near the windward mark. Under the existing conditions, they were not necessarily in any danger. I stayed close to see they required assistance. The team did call for assistance, which I provided. They decided to retire for the day and I towed them in.
My question involves my decision to wait. My assumption was that rendering help would require the team to retire from the race. I wanted to give them the opportunity to self rescue and stay in the race.
That's certainly how we operate in High-school sailing. After the regatta, the PRO stated that I could have provided assistance and the boat could have continued because they were "in danger." They could continue as long as they didn't gain any advantage from the assistance.
In the following weeks, I have read up on it a bit and cannot find anything that directly supports his assertion. Perhaps I've missed an obvious source.
Rule 41 says that assistance can be given in the case of injury, illness or danger. It makes not statement about whether the boat can then continue or any reference to gaining an advantage.
US Sailing prescription
2024-2 makes clear that the sailor need not "prove" that injury/illness or danger exists. If assistance is requested, it should provided.
Importantly, it concludes with the phrase:
"However, a boat seeking and receiving help when not ill, injured or in danger breaks rule 41(a) and should retire from the race.”
Again, there is no mention of gaining advantage.
Let's assume the boat that capsized was near the front of the fleet. They call for and receive assistance. If there really was no danger, the US Sailing prescription says they should retire. But perhaps a danger did exist while they were in the water but is no longer present once they back in the boat (I don't know--sharks or crocodiles in the water). They sail on and finish mid fleet.
It seems to me that a boat finishing behind them has a case for redress at least. Even if the danger criterion is met, one could argue that the actions of the RC gave an advantage to the boat that had capsized in that it recovered more quickly than it would have.
I'd be happy if someone pointed out some obvious thing I've missed. But at this point, I think the way we handle it at HS regatta makes sense. If you can self rescue and continue, good on you. If you request help, you get it, but retire from the race.
I've even had a team capsize near the finish and drift across the line in second place (sailors were still "in contact" with the boat and there is no requirement that the boat be upright when it finishes).
So, do I have it wrong?
-Tony
I usually expect this to be part of the safety boat briefing as to at what stage they *should* intervene, what the consequence for the sailor is etc.
Our default stance is that sailors should be put back on boats if separated. I guess they become endangered if separated. I'm not sure I've seen that happen and benefit a near the front of the pack sailor.
I've once seen a boat drift fast down wind with a tide. The safety boat were rushing to catch it. You might argue the sailor was advantaged by being rushed to it... They safety boat then spent a "fair" (pun entirely intended) amount of time getting the boat up, bailed and sorted out... Resulting in no real advantage.
But you can argue that a last place is better than a retirement/DNF. So any assistance is better than the guy who tried to fix it himself and times out.
This is something that has changed fairly recently. A boat is (of course) only required to retire if she has broken a rule. Under the current rules outside help for a person considered in danger doesn't break a rule, so there is no need for RRS41 to state that the boat may continue.
Redress is very strictly limited, and really only available if another party has broken a rule or RC acted improperly. It's quite often the case that one may be disadvantaged through no fault of one's own and be ineligible for redress. In this case helping a person in danger is the very opposite of an improper action!
"Question 1: If a boat that is racing receives outside help for a crew member who is in danger, has the boat broken rule 41?
Answer 1: No. Rule 41(a) specifically permits a boat to receive outside help from any outside source for a crew member who is ill, injured or in danger. Furthermore, rule 1.1 requires a boat, competitor
or support person to give all possible help to any person or vessel in danger. If a boat that is racing receives outside help for a crew member who is in danger, she does not break rule 41 and she may continue racing.
Question 2: Is there a special meaning of the phrase “in danger” when used in rule 1.1, rule 41(a), and in other rules in The Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS)?
Answer 2: No. The phrase “in danger” is not defined in the RRS. The Terminology section of the Introduction to the RRS states that “other words and terms are used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use.” As understood in general use, the phrase “in danger” means: “the possibility of something happening that may injure, harm or kill somebody.”
Question 3: Does the fact that a person is in the water, by itself, mean that the person is “in danger?”
Answer 3: When people are in the water, the possibility of injury, harm or death exists. Therefore, it should be considered that they are “in danger” until it is obvious that they are not. There are many reasons a person in the water may be in danger, including injury, fatigue, hypothermia, preexisting health conditions, physical disabilities, being tangled in the rigging, being separated from the boat, being in water where there are sharks, and other reasons.
Case 20 states “A boat in a position to help another that may be in danger is required by rule 1.1 to do so.” A boat, competitor or support person will likely have no knowledge as to the circumstances that led to a person being in the water, or the condition of the person, until they are close by and have had the chance to assess the situation, which will, if practicable, usually include discussing the situation with the person.
Assumed Facts for Question 4: A boat in a race has capsized and at least one of the crew is in the water. A support boat lifts the mast of the capsized boat and holds the boat while the crew climbs back aboard. The boat continues in the race.
Question 4: Has the racing boat broken rule 41?
Answer 4: It depends. Rule 41(a) permits a boat to receive help from any source if a crew member is “in danger.” If any of the crew were “in danger” (see Answer 2), and if they would remain in danger until the boat is righted and the crew is back on board, then the boat has not broken rule 41(a). Furthermore, if the crew is unable to right the boat without outside help, then the crew is “in danger” and the boat has not broken rule 41(a)."
As long as the boat and crew remain in the same area. I believe it used to have to be reported and a penalty considered but this is not in the rule now.
This makes sense as we do not want our safety fleet waiting by one boat in case there is a problem.. We need the problem resolving to free the safety boat for the next incident.
In the 2009 RRS this exception was deleted in accordance with Submission 07-202. If anybody has a copy of that old submission, I'd love to see it.
In 2013, very rightly, that exception was put back into RRS 41.
USA Appeal US127 describes the process:
Explanation of rule 41(a).
I think that, since 2009, there have been too many changes for too many different reasons to make historical analysis of the changes worth while.
USA Appeal US127 was published in January 2024 and said, among other things
Q&A 2024-002 was published in May 2024 and said
Turning to Anthony's specific OP scenario.
Another boat nearby would have had no obligation to give help under RRS 1.
Until requested to do so, Anthony was quite right not to give help to the boat unless asked.
Once they asked for help, Anthony, was, again, quite right in giving it.
If they had thought that while capsized they were in danger, and, once righted, with Anthony's help, they had continued to race, any other boat that thought that they had broken a rule could have protested them, and, in a protest hearing, the protest committee would have to conclude (hopefully considering all the criteria in Q&A 2024-002) whether they were in danger or not.
There is now absolutely no consideration about whether the boat gained any advantage or not. That concept was very deliberately removed from RRS 41 in 2021.
If another boat had requested redress, no redress should be given.
The Q&A demonstrates that the action of the race committee in giving help that has been asked for is absolutely a proper action.
If the boat behind them is aggreived they can protest. If they don't protest they shouldn't expect race officials to do their dirty work for them.
The grounds of the protest is simply breach of RRS 41.
The possibility of protest from another racer relies on the last sentence of US Sailing 2024-02. Basically, if you were not really in any danger and receive help, you broke rule 41 and should retire from the race. If you don't, another racer could protest you. I think it's interesting that they use the word "should."
One comment on background: I work largely in Mission Bay in San Diego and capsizing a dinghy there would rarely be considered dangerous. That may explain my predilection to wait nearby to provide assistance as needed.
Basically, the bolded from Appeal 127 as quoted above (and emphasized by me):
The general advice taught to all judges is:
The general idea behind all of this is:
If touching a person would lead to a DSQ based on RRS 41(a), no one would ask for help, even if it were sensible and necessary. This avoidance by sailors could put them in real danger.
Nevertheless, we still have to consider the Basic Principles: If six boats capzise in a gust, you count heads and wait who needs your help the deerest. The one boat (of the six) receiving help should usually not be the first one at the next mark just because it was lucky enough to receive help...
Fortunately, we don't have crocodiles in our waters, thus we do not consider all capzised boats in danger if there is no special situation leading to a special danger.
Perhaps these examples of national guidelines might help you to negotiate solutions for your country.
Kind regards,
Frank
You have to decide for your own area.
But I get that's not always the case, and especially as boats get bigger, or water gets colder. When we sail in the winter, we feel differently of course! And there are scary things that have happened since my coaching days to kids who capsized in otherwise routine and "comfortable" conditions that have changed the equipment and emergency procedures to account for entanglement. This is a good wake-up call to those of us on the water, but also to those of us who have out-dated or sheltered experiences.
That comes back in via RRS 48.2.
If a person is separated from the boat, and in danger, help to that person does not break RRS 41, but if the boat 'resumes sailing the boat to the next mark' after the person leaves the boat, the boat breaks RRS 48.2.
Also, if a person separated from a boat is in danger and the boat does not give al possible help, that is, by if possible, sailing towards the person to recover them, the boat breaks RRS 1.1 .
Clearly i believe the rescued crew needs to be placed on the boat in the vavinity of there they fell off it.
I still however believe they can have asistance to right the boat, after capsize.
Yes wwe all have obligations under rule one to assist crew in the water.
The question is with the two rules you quote, who is likley to protest? As the pass do they have to hail protest or it is invalid?
Some may be academic breaches but how often could the successful y come to the room?
I was boat number 30, the guy who capsized was but number 3.
You assist him and he starts sailing again, in 24th place. Too far ahead for my call of protest to be heard by anyone. My protest may say without the assistance, he might have self recovered and come 30th, and me 29th. And so I gave been disadvantaged?
Or let's assume I am boat number 2 (miracles can happen!) and he was number 3. We both go over in the same gust. There is only one RIB and he is nearer #3 so goes to him first. Helps him up and he sails off. Now he comes to me, and but I have self recovered by now and also sail off.. but I get last place and #3 beats me... Who do I protest to on the water? The RIB? Any RIB? The RC? Or the sailor who is 500m ahead of me thanks to the advantage of RIB assistance...
Would I be protesting (saying the other guy should have retired), or asking for redress(saying the actions of the RC have disadvantaged me?).
If not in hailing distance you have to inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity.
If you do not the protest is invalid. The disadvantage is not a jury problem.
I belive helping a capsized boat is allowed si no act or ommission and no redress.
Also there is an interpretation of the current rules that says that if you were not involved in the incident but saw it your protest is currently invalid. This may be clarified or changed by ws.
I might not even know the other sailor doesn't retire in until I'm ashore.
If no-one can protest if they weren't directly involved, who can protest someone using a motor (or even being towed by a RIB) if they weren't directly involved other than watching the boat powering off into the distance? If my result is lower down the table as a result, maybe I am involved
Could you expand on this a little please.
AFAICS RRS 60.4(a)(2) is the only rule referring to 'was not involved or did not see' and it only applies to rules of Part 2 or RRS 31.
Rule 60.4 Protest Validity Issue: There are still some unintended consequences with the 2025-2028 Rules. One issue is with Rule 60.4(a)(2), which applies to protests when you see an incident but are not involved in it. The current rule makes that protest invalid. Currently, rule 60.4(a)(2) prohibits “third-party protests,” which is contrary to what the rules have permitted for a long time, and contrary to the Basic Principle: Sportsmanship and the Rules, which tells competitors they are expected to enforce the rules.
The US Sailing Racing Rules Committee proposes a change that may take effect on January 1, 2026. However, you can use that language now in your Notice of Race or Sailing Instructions to restore sailors’ ability to protest a “third party” issue.
60.4 Protest Validity in the 2025 Rules:
(a) A protest is invalid
(2) if it is from a boat that alleges a breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31, but she was not involved in it, or did not see the incident, or
The logic of 60.4(a) is complex and contains double negatives that are hard to interpret. A careful read of rule 60.4(a)(2) says that a protest is “invalid” if the boat “was not involved in it” OR “did not see the incident.” So, if either one of those criteria is true, then the protest is invalid. This means that if a boat is not involved in an incident, her protest should be found invalid, whether or not she saw the incident. This is a significant and unintentional change in protest validity.
For example, Boat A touches a mark and does not take a penalty. There is no related Part 2 incident. A couple of boat lengths behind A, Boat B sees A hit the mark and files a protest. Even if boat B’s protest complies with the requirements of 60.4(a)(1), the current wording of 60.4(a)(2) means that this protest should be found invalid because, even though B saw the incident, she was not involved in it. The problem is that many protests valid under the 2021- 2024 Racing Rules will no longer be valid under the 2025-2028 Racing Rules. We feel strongly that this is a MAJOR PROBLEM. We recommend implementing this change immediately. To remedy this, include the following in your Notice of Race or Sailing Instructions:
1.x - Rule 60.4(a)(2) is changed as follows: (2) if it alleges a breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 and is from a boat that was not involved in, and did not see, the incident, or
As noted, this is the same language the US Sailing Rules Committee is submitting to World Sailing to fix in 2026. However, you are encouraged to use it in 2025.
By Wayne Balsiger, Chair, Judges’ Committee; Dave Perry, Chair, Appeals Committee; Peter Wilson, Chair, Rules Committee; and Mark Townsend, Chair of the Judges Training and Testing Subcommittee