Assume that in a hearing there are facts found to support the conclusion that Boat A intentionally broke RRS 23.1 to better her position in a series.
Q: Can a boat be found to have broken RRS 2 and be penalized for it, while breaking RRS 23.1? (let's please ignore the RRS 69 route for this discussion).
RRS 2 uses "compete" and RRS 23.1 uses "racing". How do those 2 terms relate to each other?
In team racing, an umpire, can penalise, without a flag unsporting conduct
If we see a boat finish, then remain on the line sails flapping to slow another boat we penalise it.
This seems very similar.
Penalize it for 23.1 or both 23.1 and 2? A boat which breaks 23.1 is no longer racing.
This is a bit of a nit but isn’t the boat that you’re penalizing still racing as she has not cleared the finish line?
I agree, we can penalize for RRS 2.
I’m trying to think of a circumstance where I’ve penalized a boat while not racing for a breach of Parts 1-4.
Perhaps in an event where boats are rotated between teams and a team has been found to do something to the boat they are about to rotate out of that would make it difficult for the next team?
When she abandons the attempt to sail the course, she may be considered to have retired, and if she then manoeuvres in the racing area against another boat, she breaks rule 23.1 for interfering, when not racing, with a boat that is racing. As she has omitted a mark in order to get to and harry the other boat, she is not sailing a proper course, and as she and the other boat are on different legs of the course, she also breaks rule 23.2. A deliberate breach of rule 23.2 is a clear violation of good sportsmanship and fair play, which breaks rule 2.
"A deliberate breach of rule 23.2 [and rule 23.1] is a clear violation of good sportsmanship and fair play, which breaks rule 2.
Wonder if that was just an oversight or purposeful?
And current version does refer to RRS 23.1
"Compete" is not in the definitions, so it has the meaning it usually has in everyday usage. For example, according to the Oxford Dictionary:
strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others.
• be able to rival another or others
• take part in a contest.
For me it's the more general term. Two boats compete for the same title. This starts even before both are registered for the event. If, for example, one boat were to successfully prevent the other from registering a valid entry, that would still fall under RRS 2 for me, even if ultimately only one of the boats participates in the competition.
"Racing" on the other hand is a clearly defined time period within a competition.
I think this is the nub of his OP question.
In answer, I'd say that a boat that intentionally interferes with another boat in breach of RRS 23.1 to better her position in a series is acting so as to better her position in the competition and is thus competing. Her actions affect the fairness of the competition: that's what gets it out if RRS 69 into RRS 2 territory.
So, I think what we are talking about is 2 different time-spaces ...
Maybe something like this in time and space?
A boat doesn't have to be in the racing area to be racing. Consider RRS 45..
Once we've satisfied ourselves that a boat doesn't have to be racing to be competing, i don't think we need to go on with much more analysis.
Can you explain why you think RRS 45 makes your point? It's not obvious to me.
A boat is racing from her preparatory signal.
A boat breaks RRS 45 If she is not afloat or not off her moorings at her preparatory signal.
A launching beach, handstand or moorings is probably not in the racing area.
1. strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others.
2. take part in a contest.
I think the word is used loosely and interchangeably between those two meanings in the RRS. That causes problems when people are not able to interchange with the context.
If used as #1 (striving, wrestling, jockeying) then it would be a subset of RRS 'racing' (notwithstanding the mixing of Venn types). People generally struggle with seeing this meaning. But consider this... : illegal propulsion is only useful when you're on the water 'striving/wrestling/jockeying'. Before your prep signal (but still while you are 'taking part') any propulsion is ok. IMO, It should be after you have finished too - - but that's another interesting topic.
On the other hand, most people seem fixed on #2 (taking part in a competition). If used like this then it would become the universal set which everything is part of. Bad acts which affect the fairness of the competition can happen anytime, not just while striving on the water. Thus, as John Allen says, you compete without necessarily being racing.
---------------------------
In Rule 2 we have meaning #2. The broad meaning of 'taking part'.
In RRS 42.1 I would argue that meaning #1 fits best.
RRS 60.5 and 70.3 probably meaning #1 ("compete in races"), though meaning #2 aligns with the later RRS use ("compete at later stages", as seen in Appendix B).
One thing we know is that 'compete' and RRS-'racing' are not synonymous. People need to break that link first. It would be much more useful if RRS used a totally connotation-less term instead of 'racing' which doesn't invoke general-use images of a boat doing their best to be first.
RRS-'racing' is based on time and location - that's all. So something like: Active Competition Period (ACP)
Active Competition Period (ACP) means the time from a boat’s preparatory signal until she finishes and clears the finishing line and marks, or retires, or until the race committee signals a general recall, postponement, or abandonment.
Usage example: While a boat is in the ACP, propulsion is limited to wind and water (Rule 42).
Wouldn't this reduce the subconscious link to the general use 'racing' which frankly means nothing?
---------------------------
Can a boat break R2 when not racing?
Yes, using meaning #2.
Though, I would prefer alignment with R42 so that R2 was applied only when on the water.
Good chat... Merry Xmas folks!
Its the business of judges to interpret the language of the rules purposivel taking their context into account.
I don't think we need to go any further than the firs sentence of the headnote to Case 138.
... an action by a competitor that directly affects the fairness of the competition ...should be considered under rule 2
If an incident is so serious that a penalty greater than DNE may be appropriate the protest committee can always escalate to RRS 69.
Ang's question wasn't really so much about whether a breach was an action of fairness to the competition or not. His question was more investigating the use of the word 'compete' in Rule 2 and throughout the RRS.
If I may share some history to the question - - some time ago, I mused with Ang, whether a boat who had finished was allowed to motor clear of the line - relevant to the word 'compete'. I mused that the boat was not 'competing' once finished -- - no boat on boat or tactical striving could be done to better their score once they had crossed the line. People I adked struggled with applying the 'striving' meaning to RRS 42.1, so I dropped it as a post.
Ang recognised a similar question of whether the word 'compete' in rule 2 was similarly applied.
We all agree (I hope) that some actions can affect fairness at any time, off or on the water. We must also agree that propulsion doesn't help off the water. So that word 'compete' may be being used interchangeably. At least this is the interesting issue to me.
As a Moderator of the forum, I'd like to (again) discourage everyone from using those terms in replies to others.
There is no reason to characterize someone else's post or thought process as an over/under amount of thought. If you disagree and want to make a counterpoint, make it directly.
The person characterizing others as such risks insulting the recipient of the characterization and that risks stifling participation on the forum.
Part 4's preamble already limits its rules to while a boat is racing. Therefore, 42.1 seems perfectly fine without "compete" as ...
I'm fine with def:racing as it's defined.
In regards to my OP question, IMO, a boat is always in an assumed-state of "competing" while they are racing. The open-end in that "assumed-state" is when does a boat "retire"? (and how do others know as there is no defined method/signal/indicator in the RRS).
We've had other threads on that question, and the use of that term, as it would be cleaner if "retire" was only used when a boat takes a penalty (since the RRS specifically refers to RET as a penalty a boat can take). For instance, boats might call to the RC and say they are retiring when the race goes dead-calm ... but many RC's will score that as DNF or TLE (if TLE is added in SI's) and not RET.