RRS Definition of Finish Exception (a) says that a boat has not finished if, after crossing the finishing line, she takes a penalty under Rule 44.2.
The Scenario
Boat A crossed the finishing line from the course side. The Race Committee recorded her finish time. Someone on the committee boat thought they saw Boat A touch the mark as she crossed the line. After crossing, Boat A promptly made a single tack. Boat A did not cross the finishing line again. After a few minutes, Boat A sailed away from the finishing area. No hail or communication was received from Boat A. The RC did not protest Boat A. No other boat protested Boat A.
1. Is a single tack (or single gybe) promptly after crossing the line enough to show that Boat A “takes a penalty,” so that Boat A should be scored DNF?
2. !!Alternate Facts!! After crossing the finishing line, Boat A completed both the required tack and gybe for a penalty turn, but did not cross the finishing line again. Would Exception (a) apply, and should Boat A be scored DNF?
3. Would the conclusions be different if the Race Officer was sure Boat A touched a mark?
Rule A5.1 None of situations (a), (b) or (c) are fullfilled, so : Only the protest committee may take other scoring actions that worsen a boat's score. The only possible action of the race committee is to protest boat A.
Finish is part of Sail the Course. A boat that has not finished has not sailed the course. It's A5.1(a).
Sail the Course A boat sails the course when
(a)she starts;
(b)a string representing her track until she finishes, when drawn taut, (1)passes each mark of the course for the race on the required side and in the correct order (including the starting marks), (2)touches each mark designated in the sailing instructions to be a rounding mark, and (3)passes between the marks of a gate from the direction of the course from the previous mark; and then
You bypassed all the discussion I'd hoped for and got straight to it with the black and white of A5.1.
(I was hoping for a philosophical discussion on the logic of it all to arrive at the same conclusion...!)
Anyway, the reason for presenting this question is that I am not sure Finish(a) is that well understood by ROs and some competitors. At least I have seen similar scenarios which have resulted in DNF scores being applied by ROs.. Some of these are never get caught because even competitors can also be a little unsure to question it when it happens.
The bottom line here..
...There should not be a case when a RO can apply Finish(a) themselves.
The key point in scenario 2 is that the boat did not return to finish. If she had the RC would score her in her finishing position the second time around. In scenario 1, the boat has finished, there is no protest against her, so she should be scored in her finishing position.
Agree in scenario A, the boat would need to be scored in her finishing position.
In your alternate facts, the boat takes a penalty under 44.2. Since her hull does not return completely to the course side of the line before she finishes, she has not finished per 44.2 and Finish definition (a). Thus she has not sailed the course (Sail the Course definition part (c)) and the RC can score her NSC under A5.1(a)
The more common situation I see is boats sailing through the line again. A good RC will ask each boat that does this if she is re-finishing. That's a lot of work though, and not always possible.
Am I even correct that the RC/finish boat is allowed to give the competitor the lower of the two scores there? Does the competitor NEED to report that re-finishing in order to receive it? How much of that is on the RC / finish boat?
Though we are trained to do so, RCs may not be justified in recording/scoring a second crossing. A boat is no longer racing after she clears the line and marks. Hence the finish line no longer exists for her.
When a boat crosses the finishing line from the course side twice, her second crossing constitutes her finish if, at all times between her first and second crossing, her actions are consistent with continuing ‘to sail the course’.
Finish is part of Sailg the Course. A boat that has not finished has not sailed the course. It's A5.1(a).
Ang,
In the scenario described, the Race Committee thinks or is sure boat A touched the finishing mark.
The RC doesn't have time or capacity or ability to think about the situation. It HAS TO score boat A to its finishing order.
If the RC writes this finishing order twice, it HAS TO score boat A at its second crossing, proper penalty taken or not.
If RC score boat A at its first finish, no other choice than prostesting, or, If RC, according to RRS 90.3.c consider it has made a mistake, it has to change the finishing order to the second crossing (only if proper penalty). Then wait for a request of redress from a boat.
If RC protest, the PC could decide an improper action of RC and re-install boat A to its first finishing order, then open a new protest (according RRS 63.2.b) from RC against boat A and decide its score has to be changed to the second crossing (or to DNF if no proprer penalty).
A lot of writing, papers, stress, and wasting time. But that's the job ?!!!
In sailing, (if not always in american life now), facts are facts.
Loïc .. I'm not disagreeing that the correct thing in this situation is for the RC to score the boat in her finish-place and protest the boat if she thinks she touched the mark.
I'm just making the point that, IF the RC determines (from their own information and records) a boat did not finish, she has the ability to score the boat NSC without a hearing under A5.1(a) as the boat did not sail the course.
I'm not suggesting that they should do that at all ... but you made the statement that A5.1 precluded the RC. The text of A5.1(a) and def: sail the course would suggest otherwise. - Ang
Angelo, Not quite sure. In the described scenario 1, boat A crosses the line from the course side. None of (a), (b), or (c) in the definition of Finish applies, as she only tacked which is not a penalty under 44.2, so (for the RC) she fullfilled the definition and finished, and could (should) be protested by RC In scenario 2, if boat A tacks and gybes, then doesn't cross the line, ok, she didn't finish (as her hull shall be completely on the course side before she finishes 44.2 last sentence). But I still think the RC committee should score her at her finishing order and protest (unless boat A is far ahead or far behind, RC has more to do than only deal with one boat). Finishing order is the main goal of RC (with all about fair sailing) Loïc
In each scenario, current and light winds made it difficult for Boat A to return to the course side. (See diagrams.)
I realise that my original description was not totally clear. Apologies if this changes what anyone had in mind, but it's best we all have the same picture.
As I see it, Scenario 1 should be easy. She finished. Score her and protest.
Scenario 2 is not so different. She sailed the course, including 'finished'. Score her and protest.
I don't think the RC can score her NSC in this case. The pathway to NSC runs through a required determination that Boat A's tack and gybe were actually a penalty - e.g. that she broke r31, and met the requirements of 44.2 - and then failed to 'finish' meaning that she didn't sail the course. No. The RC is not in the business of determining rule breaches or exonerations.
This is different to NSC based on a mark being passed on the wrong side (a determination the RC may make).
If the boat actually did cross the finish the 2nd time, isn't the RC doing exactly that?
They'd see the mark-hit, see the turns, see the 2nd crossing from the course-side and determine that the boat took a penalty (thus did not finish the first time) and finished the 2nd time ... recording her 2nd crossing as her finish?
A boat taking a turns penalty doesn't have to have broken a rule. They may take the penalty when they may have.
The re-crossed scenario 2 effectively already satisfies a very high evidentiary standard — the boat’s clear penalty turn and recrossing leave little room for doubt that she treated the first crossing as not counting.
The no-recross scenario 1 requires a similarly high level of confidence before the RC could rely on the boat’s conduct as “taking a penalty,” but the evidence is much weaker and more ambiguous and open, so the determination is much harder to justify.
So yes, you could say there is a 'determination' to be made in both scenarios. However, Scenario 2 is so highly supported by undisputable actions - first crossing + tack and gybe per 44.2 + second crossing, that it is closer to being an objective observation, rather than a decision.
Most of the critical scoring determinations RC is required or empowered to make are generally ones supported by absolute fact. OCS,, start penalties, retired or scoring penalty are all pretty black and white decisions to make. Even a regular NSC - did the boat pass the marks on the correct side or not is quite clear cut.
(Case 148 Q1-Last Paragraph represents one of the few instances I can find where the RC must judge a boat's intent critically to determine her score. Here, the RC must decide whether the boat's pause was consistent with sailing the course or not. I am a little irked by that, since I think the general principal of keeping RC decisions as objective as possible is safer for RRS.)
None of situations (a), (b) or (c) are fullfilled, so :
Only the protest committee may take other scoring actions that worsen a boat's score.
The only possible action of the race committee is to protest boat A.
Loïc
Finish is part of Sail the Course. A boat that has not finished has not sailed the course. It's A5.1(a).
You bypassed all the discussion I'd hoped for and got straight to it with the black and white of A5.1.
(I was hoping for a philosophical discussion on the logic of it all to arrive at the same conclusion...!)
Anyway, the reason for presenting this question is that I am not sure Finish(a) is that well understood by ROs and some competitors. At least I have seen similar scenarios which have resulted in DNF scores being applied by ROs.. Some of these are never get caught because even competitors can also be a little unsure to question it when it happens.
The bottom line here..
...There should not be a case when a RO can apply Finish(a) themselves.
It just isn't permitted by A5.1.
Apologies.
As I said, I think some ROs belive that Finish (a) is there for their use, requiring them to adjudge the boat's intent and score a boat DNF.
This is a breakdown in the RO training... Is be interested to see how this rule is trained to budding ROs.
Thanks.
In scenario 1, the boat has finished, there is no protest against her, so she should be scored in her finishing position.
In your alternate facts, the boat takes a penalty under 44.2. Since her hull does not return completely to the course side of the line before she finishes, she has not finished per 44.2 and Finish definition (a). Thus she has not sailed the course (Sail the Course definition part (c)) and the RC can score her NSC under A5.1(a)
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/5473-finish-definition-exception-a#comment_21564
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/5473-finish-definition-exception-a#comment_21564
Am I even correct that the RC/finish boat is allowed to give the competitor the lower of the two scores there? Does the competitor NEED to report that re-finishing in order to receive it? How much of that is on the RC / finish boat?
A boat is no longer racing after she clears the line and marks. Hence the finish line no longer exists for her.
Case 148
if, at all times between her first and second crossing, her actions are consistent with continuing ‘to sail the course’.
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/5473-finish-definition-exception-a#comment_21564
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/5473-finish-definition-exception-a#comment_21564
Finish is part of Sailg the Course. A boat that has not finished has not sailed the course. It's A5.1(a).
Ang,
I'm just making the point that, IF the RC determines (from their own information and records) a boat did not finish, she has the ability to score the boat NSC without a hearing under A5.1(a) as the boat did not sail the course.
I'm not suggesting that they should do that at all ... but you made the statement that A5.1 precluded the RC. The text of A5.1(a) and def: sail the course would suggest otherwise. - Ang
Not quite sure.
In the described scenario 1, boat A crosses the line from the course side. None of (a), (b), or (c) in the definition of Finish applies, as she only tacked which is not a penalty under 44.2, so (for the RC) she fullfilled the definition and finished, and could (should) be protested by RC
In scenario 2, if boat A tacks and gybes, then doesn't cross the line, ok, she didn't finish (as her hull shall be completely on the course side before she finishes 44.2 last sentence). But I still think the RC committee should score her at her finishing order and protest (unless boat A is far ahead or far behind, RC has more to do than only deal with one boat). Finishing order is the main goal of RC (with all about fair sailing)
Loïc
In each scenario, current and light winds made it difficult for Boat A to return to the course side. (See diagrams.)
I realise that my original description was not totally clear. Apologies if this changes what anyone had in mind, but it's best we all have the same picture.
Scenario 2 is not so different. She sailed the course, including 'finished'. Score her and protest.
I don't think the RC can score her NSC in this case. The pathway to NSC runs through a required determination that Boat A's tack and gybe were actually a penalty - e.g. that she broke r31, and met the requirements of 44.2 - and then failed to 'finish' meaning that she didn't sail the course. No. The RC is not in the business of determining rule breaches or exonerations.
This is different to NSC based on a mark being passed on the wrong side (a determination the RC may make).
If the boat actually did cross the finish the 2nd time, isn't the RC doing exactly that?
They'd see the mark-hit, see the turns, see the 2nd crossing from the course-side and determine that the boat took a penalty (thus did not finish the first time) and finished the 2nd time ... recording her 2nd crossing as her finish?
A boat taking a turns penalty doesn't have to have broken a rule. They may take the penalty when they may have.
I think there is a difference.
The re-crossed scenario 2 effectively already satisfies a very high evidentiary standard — the boat’s clear penalty turn and recrossing leave little room for doubt that she treated the first crossing as not counting.
The no-recross scenario 1 requires a similarly high level of confidence before the RC could rely on the boat’s conduct as “taking a penalty,” but the evidence is much weaker and more ambiguous and open, so the determination is much harder to justify.
So yes, you could say there is a 'determination' to be made in both scenarios. However, Scenario 2 is so highly supported by undisputable actions - first crossing + tack and gybe per 44.2 + second crossing, that it is closer to being an objective observation, rather than a decision.
Most of the critical scoring determinations RC is required or empowered to make are generally ones supported by absolute fact. OCS,, start penalties, retired or scoring penalty are all pretty black and white decisions to make. Even a regular NSC - did the boat pass the marks on the correct side or not is quite clear cut.
(Case 148 Q1-Last Paragraph represents one of the few instances I can find where the RC must judge a boat's intent critically to determine her score. Here, the RC must decide whether the boat's pause was consistent with sailing the course or not. I am a little irked by that, since I think the general principal of keeping RC decisions as objective as possible is safer for RRS.)
It might say ...
But yes, from a practical point of view, its the action of crossing the 2nd time which confidently negates the first crossing.