Racing editor Mike Ingham delves into the intricacies of the Racing Rules of Sailing as they relate to rounding marks and how to get around clean.

The post Sailboat Racing Tips: Rules at the Mark appeared first on Sailing World.

The post Sailboat Racing Tips: Rules at the Start appeared first on Sailing World.

I missed one frostbite Sunday in early February while getting my snowbird dose of Florida at the Helly Hansen NOOD Regatta in St. Petersburg. While it was nice to be warm, I was itching to be back home racing. You know…that fear of missing out thing. So, the first thing I did on Sunday night after work was to peck my way to the results on Newport Yacht Club’s webpage to see who did what and how much damage the top guys did to me in the standings.

My jaw dropped when I saw the top-three sailors had each posted a “DNF” in race No. 37 of the series.

What the heck?

I thought maybe the three of them had had some sort of calamitous three-boat pile up at the weather mark, or maybe their rigs got so tangled they had to bring them back to the dock to unwind them. Did they hole each other and sink?

Three top boats DNF? Something wasn’t right.

An e-mail from our fleet secretary later came to my in-box, informing everyone that a protest committee would be convened the following Sunday, with three highly-regarded race officials of the Rhode Island sailing scene on hand to pass judgement. They would sit before anyone in the fleet who wanted to listen in and hear all sides of this story. What this story was about I still had no idea.

When I arrived at the club on the appointed day, I promptly asked around and learned it was not necessarily a protest hearing, but rather requests for redress. Apparently, a few of the fleet hot shots had sailed the wrong course in the first race of the day, were scored DNF, but wanted their points back.

So, here’s what happened, in sum, from what I could gather from their stories: Rick Nebiolo, a past champion and the current season leader, is very particular about having a proper racecourse, so he typically shows up early, fires up the race committee boat and sets the course while the rest of us are gabbing inside the club or rigging boats. Readers of this space might recall that the Turnabout Frostbite racecourse is usually a windward/leeward affair, all marks to port, with a finish line set off a dock in front of the club. When the wind blows from the south, this is the course of choice. When the wind is anything right of 270 degrees, the second weather mark is left to starboard, so as boats turn down on the run, they’re heading straight toward the finish, on either a short run or a shy reach.

Now, up until this day in question, given the northwesterly flow of our early winter, the second starboard rounding was the norm. “Port, port, starboard, finish.” Simple enough to remember, right? But Nebiolo went out and laid the course as a perfect port sausage, square to the breeze and set just right. In his mind, as he plopped the weather mark and its cement block, all marks would be left to port. That’s the way it should be, he reasoned, and that’s the way it’s been for all the years he’s sailed with the fleet.

With marks set, he returned to shore to rig for the first A-fleet race of the day. He was running a bit late, he told the protest panel, and was harried getting off the dock. So late was he that he failed to explain the desired course to the ad hoc race committee from B fleet, charged with running the race. While Nebiolo hustled to the starting line, the race committee communicated to most everyone in the starting area: “Port, port, starboard, finish.” Everyone got that?

Yes, most everyone, except for Nebiolo, FJ Ritt, and old Bob Morton, all of whom in their right minds would never ever round the last mark to starboard in a southerly. Why would they? That’s not how it’s been done for like…forever.

So, off they went, leading around the course, as they usually do, until that final fateful weather mark, which they left to port and happily carried on toward the finish. A few lemmings followed them off the cliff, before a couple of tail-enders started rounding to starboard. Sailors that eventually realized, or were told, the error of their ways turned back and re-wound their string.

General confusion followed, and naturally, the top guys lodged their redress.

The esteemed panel convened to hear their case in an open forum, set in front of the club’s fireplace: Dr. Robin Wallace, head of all things racing in Rhode Island, Dr. Charlie Shoemaker, a club legend and decorated one-design champion, and Nancy Parillo, the Newport YC’s PRO. As the sun set on another day of glorious winter racing (a story for another day) the threesome took their places at a round table and gathered facts from those in attendance: those who sailed the course properly, and those who did not.

Nebiolo explained in detail how he painstakingly set the marks, and then missed the race committee’s verbal announcement of the course to be sailed. Most everyone knew the course and acknowledged the on-water announcement to that effect. The enquiry took less than 12 minutes and while the committee then deliberated, attendees dispersed to bar for a quick beer. The protest committee’s judgement was hardly a surprise. Dr. Wallace succinctly reviewed the facts found: Most competitors heard the announcement by the race committee; Some thought starboard was an error and rounded the second mark to port; Some recognized their error and returned to leave the mark to starboard.

“Thus, redress is denied,” Wallace emphasized in his deep and articulate Old English tone. “We suggest that the race course always be displayed on the race committee boat, in addition to being announced verbally.”

Simple enough; that’s basic race committee protocol, right? Yes, but in a laid-back fleet such as this there was never really a need to be so formal and by the book. It was a good lesson for all, including the top guys and myself. We must never assume, because—as the old saying goes—it can indeed make an ass out of you and me. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve started a race blindly assuming it was the same as the last, but from now on, and until we post the course on a whiteboard or whatever means necessary, I’ll be checking in with race committee and confirming the dang course before every start. It’s a good thing I wasn’t there that day. I’m sure I would have followed them right off the cliff, too.

The post The Lemming Effect appeared first on Sailing World.

If you race near a major commercial port, you’ve probably encountered a Traffic Separation Scheme. A TSS is essentially a two-lane highway for maritime traffic. A TSS enhances safety and allows commercial shipping to function alongside recreational boating. A TSS is not delineated by buoys, but charts show its two lanes and the direction of travel within each. There is a separation zone, or sometimes just a ­separation line, between the lanes.

Most TSSs are administered by a Vessel Traffic Service. The VTS serves a role for the TSS similar to that of air traffic control for an airport. The U.S. Coast Guard is usually responsible for organizing and staffing the VTS in domestic waters and use an Automatic Information System, which enables all vessels are equipped with AIS to view the locations and motions of other vessels in the AIS on a digital chart.

Traffic schemes are established in international waters by the International Maritime Organization. In the International Regulations for Prevention of Collision at Sea, Rule 10, Traffic Separation Schemes, sets requirements that apply to any vessel within or near a TSS adopted by the IMO. For a TSS in the inland waters of the United States, Rule 10 in the Inland Rules applies. Rule 10 in the Inland Rules is identical to Rule 10 in the IRPCAS, which requires a sailboat using a TSS to proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of traffic flow for that lane; to keep clear of a separation line or zone; when joining or leaving a lane, to normally do so at as small an angle to the direction of flow as practicable; when obliged to cross a lane, to do so as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of ­traffic flow in the lane; when not using the TSS, to avoid it by as wide a margin as is practicable; and, most importantly, not to impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic lane.

The Coast Guard and local law ­enforcement agencies enforce the IRPCAS and the Inland Rules. By law, any sailboat, racing or not, is subject to Rule 10. In The Racing Rules of Sailing, Rule 48.2 requires a boat that is racing to comply with IRPCAS Rule 10 and, for that reason, a boat racing can be disqualified for breaking that rule.

The preamble to Part 2 of the racing rules states that, when a boat sailing under the racing rules meets a vessel that is not governed by the racing rules, she shall comply with the IRPCAS or government right-of-way rules. Given that, you might ask why we need both the preamble to Part 2 and Rule 48.2.

The answer is simple: only the sixth requirement in IRPCAS Rule 10 (listed above) applies when a boat sailing under the racing rules meets a vessel that is not. All of the other five requirements apply to a single boat in or near a TSS whether there are other vessels near her or not.

Why does any of this matter? Traffic Separation Schemes serve an important safety function that everyone on the water in any boat should recognize and applaud. However, the presence of a TSS that boats racing must, or might, pass through during a race can create safety issues for large, difficult-to-maneuver vessels using the TSS lanes that must contend with a fleet of boats. The Coast Guard requires any organization hosting sailboat races to obtain permits to conduct such races. If boats in a yacht club race create unsafe situations for large commercial or naval vessels in a TSS, the host club, or maybe all clubs in the area, might have trouble securing permits to run future races. For this reason alone, and for the obvious reason of safety, it’s important the leaders of our sport take great care to deal prudently and cooperatively with the authorities involved in enforcing IRPCAS Rule 10 or the identical Inland Rule 10.

Also, Rule 10 presents a few knotty issues of interpretation for protest committees. If you study Rule 10’s requirements listed above, you will see several imprecise or “fuzzy” terms, including “practicable,” “general direction” and “normally.” These terms make it difficult for protest committees to make consistent decisions regarding Rule 10.

Rule 10 is not a rule that any of us involved in sailboat races can simply change. Changing it would require an international agreement negotiated between governments. Race officials, therefore, can’t just rewrite Rule 10 with a sailing instruction to make it clearer. However, IRPCAS Rule 1(b) does permit local authorities to make “special rules” and such rules could modify Rule 10. One club, the St. Francis YC, has negotiated with the local VTS to use a special sailing instruction for races held right off their clubhouse on San Francisco Bay just east of the Golden Gate Bridge. St. Francis has a challenging situation for its racecourse. Any race it might conduct in front of its clubhouse would most likely require boats to sail across a narrow stretch of water frequently used by larger ­commercial vessels.

The following two paragraphs summarize the St. Francis YC’s sailing instruction:

Commercial Traffic: The race ­committee may deploy boats on the racecourse equipped with signal flag V. If a race committee member in one of these boats signals a racing boat to change course—by making a sound with a horn or whistle and pointing flag V at her—that boat shall promptly comply unless compliance would create an unsafe condition. If the boat fails to comply, the race committee shall protest her. The protest committee shall assume that the course change would not have created an unsafe condition, and the protested boat shall have the burden of proving otherwise.

Also, if a commercial vessel makes five short, rapid blasts on its whistle (a danger signal, see IRPCAS Rule 34(d)) at a boat that is racing, and/or the vessel or the Coast Guard is subsequently able to identify the offending boat, that boat may be protested; if so, the protest committee shall assume that she has impeded the commercial vessel’s passage or otherwise violated Rule 10, and the protested boat shall have the burden of proving otherwise. If the protest is upheld, the boat shall be scored DNE: disqualification that is not excludable. St. Francis YC shall cooperate with and provide relevant information to the Coast Guard or other governmental authority regarding investigations of boats impeding ship traffic or violating the Inland Rules.

Other organizations have adopted a much simpler way of dealing with a TSS in or near the racing area. For example, the sailing instructions for the Fastnet Race simply designate several TSSs as obstructions—as permitted by the definition Obstruction—and state that boats shall not enter areas designated as obstructions. Of course, this approach is feasible only if it is possible for boats to sail the course without entering any of the separation schemes.

There are now more than 100 TSSs and the racecourses for most ocean races pass through or near one TSS—or, sometimes several. For this reason, World Sailing has established a committee to make a proposal for dealing more comprehensively with TSSs in The Racing Rules of Sailing. The committee is chaired by Stan Honey, Chairman of the World Sailing Oceanic and Offshore Committee, and, in writing this article, I have benefited from research that Stan has done on TSSs.

E-mail for Dick Rose may be sent to rules@sailingworld.com.

The post Rules for Boats in Traffic Separation Schemes appeared first on Sailing World.

Leg 7 from Auckland to Itajai, day 03 on board Sun Hung Kai/Scallywag. Libby Greenhalgh at the nav station planning the next move. 20 March, 2018.

Late in the afternoon on January 6, 2018, the Volvo Ocean Race fleet was charging northward at more than 15 knots across the Coral Sea, sailing a leg of the race from Melbourne, Australia, to Hong Kong. The Volvo Ocean 65s were many miles from the nearest port. SHK Scallywag, in last place on the position reports, was crossing over the vast Lansdowne Bank. On the north end of the bank, there is an area called Nereus Reef, where the water depth is only 12 feet deep in some places. Scallywag drew just over 15 feet. Every boat in the fleet was being tracked electronically, and Rick Tomlinson, the official observer on duty in the event’s race-control office, was monitoring their tracks. According to the international jury serving as the protest committee for the race, Tomlinson was “an employee of Volvo Ocean Race who, as a member of race control, has a responsibility for the safety of all competitors.”

Tomlinson noticed that Scallywag was on a collision course with Nereus Reef, so he emailed the boat’s navigator. “Just so I can relax a bit here in race control,” he wrote, “tell me you are happy with your course in relation to Nereus Reef on Lansdowne Bank.”

It’s interesting to watch the gyrations in Scallywag‘s track immediately after the boat received the message. Before receiving the email, it had been heading just east of north at 16 knots. At about 0800 UTC it bore off to the east and slowed to around 7 knots. An hour later, it had turned through south to a westerly course, and at 1120, it was back on its original course and speed. The race committee estimated that Scallywag lost 50 miles on the rest of the fleet during the time it was off course and sailing at reduced speed while working out a way around Nereus Reef.

The race committee was aware that when Scallywag acted in response to the committee’s email the committee was an outside source, and that it had provided assistance. Rule 41 (see box) prohibits a boat from receiving such help unless one of the four exceptions in rules 41(a), (b), (c) or (d) applies. An international jury had been appointed for the Volvo Ocean Race. Rule N2.1, which applies when there is an international jury for a race, states, “When asked by the organizing authority or the race committee, [the IJ] shall advise and assist them on any matter directly affecting the fairness of the competition.” The race committee took advantage of this rule to ask the jury, “[Did our email to Scallywag] constitute outside assistance under RRS 41 as the crew were in danger? Please would you consider and advise.” The international jury answered as follows:

“The jury advises that race control’s action did not result in a breach of Rule 41 by SHK Scallywag. SHK Scallywag did receive help from an outside source, in this case the race control. However, the help given is permitted under Rule 41(d). The information was not requested by SHK Scallywag, so it was unsolicited information. The source, in this case a member of the race control, was a disinterested source for the purposes of Rule 41 because he had no personal or other interest in the position of SHK Scallywag relative to other boats in the race. Nor would he gain or lose in any way as a result of the position of SHK Scallywag in the race.

“The source was an employee of Volvo Ocean Race who, as a member of race control, has a responsibility for the safety of all competitors. Asking the question he did was therefore a proper action for him to take.”

There were never any protests or requests for redress as a result of the help given to Scallywag. However, there was discussion among judges and online pundits. Everyone seemed to agree with the jury statements about Rule 41(d), but many were puzzled that the jury did not discuss Rule 41(a). The race committee had said in its request for advice that the crew of Scallywag was “in danger.” Rule 41(a) says that a boat may receive help “for a crewmember who is … in danger.” Therefore, the exception in Rule 41(a), as well as the exception in Rule 41(d), applied to Scallywag, but the jury only mentioned Rule 41(d). If exception 41(a) applied, then the last sentence of Rule 41 also applied. That last sentence allowed any boat, or the race committee or the protest committee, to protest Scallywag if it received “a significant advantage in the race from help received under Rule 41(a).”

Rule 41 Outside Help

A boat shall not receive help from any outside source, except

• (a) help for a crewmember who is ill, injured or in danger;
• (b) after a collision, help from the crew of the other vessel to get clear;
• (c) help in the form of ­information freely available to all boats;
• (d) unsolicited information from a disinterested source, which may be another boat in the same race.

However, a boat that gains a significant advantage in the race from help received under rule 41(a) may be protested and penalized; any penalty may be less than disqualification.

If a protest had been made, then the jury might have faced a very difficult task, with no precedent to my knowledge, determining what penalty “less than disqualification” to assess.

Let’s step away from the Scallywag incident for a moment and discuss how the words “or in danger” came to be included in Rule 41(a). For decades before 2013, the words “or in danger” were not in the rules about outside help.

This wording was added in 2013, and the story behind the rule change is an interesting one.

For decades, it had been permissible for a boat to receive outside help under Rule 41(a) for a member of the crew who is ill or injured. In 2013, that rule was expanded to also permit outside help for a crewmember “in danger.” The change came about following an incident several years ago at a world championship for Cadet class dinghies near Perth, Australia. A week before the first race, a swimmer was attacked and mauled by a great white shark in the waters where the championship was to be held. Rather than cancel the event, organizers arranged for additional safety boats to patrol the course and changed Rule 41(a) with a sailing ­instruction that permitted competitors to receive outside help when they were in danger. The kids were told that if they capsized or fell overboard, they would immediately receive help getting their boats up and themselves back in the boat, and they would then be permitted to continue in the race. Ultimately, there was never a need, but when World Sailing leadership found out about the rule change made at the event in Perth, it strongly supported including it in the 2013 rule book.

Not many of us will ever be in danger of shark attacks or running onto Nereus Reef in the Coral Sea, but we’ve probably all seen situations where a crewmember of a boat is in some danger, perhaps because he or she became separated from the boat, and then is helped out of danger by another boat in the race, an official boat or even a boat that just happens by and has no connection at all to the race. Before 2013, any boat that received help for a crewmember in danger broke the outside-help rule and was expected to retire from the race. That part of the outside-help rule often led to clashes between competitors and rescuers. When rescuers offered help, competitors, not wishing to have to retire from the race, would refuse to accept the help and try to get back aboard their boat ­unassisted and continue racing.

Since 2013, a crewmember in danger that is helped does not break Rule 41 and may continue in the race. The last sentence of current Rule 41 was also added in 2013. It was added because of concern that a situation like the one I will describe now would occur: Going into the last race of a series for Optimists, Abel and Cain are tied for first place. Whoever finishes ahead of the other will win the series. On the last leg, Abel and Cain are overlapped and battling each other when a squall hits the fleet, capsizing many boats, including Abel and Cain, who become separated from their Optis. They are “in danger” because the water is cold and hypothermia is a risk. Immediately after the squall passes, safety boats hurry to place sailors back in contact with their dinghies. Abel is helped a couple of minutes before Cain, so Abel finishes ahead of Cain and wins the series. This seems unfair, and it is for just such an incident. Thus, the last sentence of current Rule 41. It permits Cain to protest Abel and enables the protest committee to penalize Abel just enough to make the outcome fair, which in this case would mean creating a tie between Cain and Abel.

The discussion stimulated by the Scallywag incident has uncovered many ambiguities in Rule 41(a) and Rule 41’s last sentence. Here is a list: Did Scallywag “gain a significant advantage” from the help it received? The answer isn’t obvious. It was in last place when the email arrived, and the rest of the fleet advanced 50 miles before Scallywag was back on course. No advantage there. It would not have finished at all, however, if it had piled onto the reef and torn open its hull. That’s a significant ­disadvantage, for sure.

Suppose someone wanted to protest Scallywag. A protest is an allegation that a boat has broken a rule, and Rule 61.2 requires a protestor to identify that rule in writing. Scallywag did not break Rule 41 by receiving outside help because all of its crew were in danger. So what rule did Scallywag break? Rules under which protests are made state, or clearly imply (see, for example, Rule 42.2), that a boat “shall” or “shall not” do something. Rule 41’s last sentence does not make such a statement. So, a boat that receives help permitted by Rule 41(a) does not break Rule 41 or any other rule that I know of.

Rule 64.1 permits the protest committee to penalize only a boat that “has broken a rule and is not exonerated.” Scallywag, therefore, cannot be penalized even if the penalty the protest committee wanted to give was substantially less than disqualification. In the Abel and Cain ­incident, if Abel realized that by accepting help, he might be penalized, he would probably have refused to accept the help. The words “or in danger” were added to Rule 41(a) in order to avoid competitors refusing to accept help. So, the last sentence of Rule 41 works against the intent of the words that were added to Rule 41(a).

The bottom line: Rule 41 has several logical and practical problems. What should World Sailing do? I have discussed these issues with several experienced judges and sailors, and the consensus seems to be that the last sentence of Rule 41 should be deleted. This would mean that if an incident like the Abel and Cain one ever occurred, an unfair result would occur. But lots of “stuff” can happen to make the result of a sailboat race seem random or unfair. Until I learned of the Scallywag incident, I had never heard of the last sentence of Rule 41 ever being applied, so its deletion would be unlikely to result in many, if any, unfair outcomes.

Email if you know of a penalty that was given under Rule 41’s last sentence. I would be interested to hear your views on whether you think deleting Rule 41’s last sentence is a good idea.

The post Sailing Rules: When Outside Help Is Allowed appeared first on Sailing World.

Luffing in the Prestart

Before the start, while ­starboard-tack boats are stalled, with sails luffing just below the line, boats that come into that lineup from clear astern with speed don’t seem to understand their rights and obligations. While they are clear astern, they are required by Rule 12 to keep clear of a “parked” boat ahead. Immediately after a leeward overlap begins, the new leeward boats become the right-of-way boats under Rule 11, but they also have two obligations. Under Rule 15, they must initially give the windward boat room to fulfill its new obligation to keep clear, and under Rule 16.1, if they change course, they must give the windward boat room to keep clear.

In the first diagram, just after Bob becomes overlapped with Alice, he holds his course and hails “Go up!” to Alice. But she is not required to go up. Her only obligation is to keep clear, and Bob must give her room to do so.

Fran luffs right after she establishes her overlap on Ed and hails “Go up!” To keep clear, Ed will have to luff, but if he does, his stern will swing into Fran’s bow. If he doesn’t luff, or if he bears away, Fran will have to take avoiding action to keep from having her bow hit Ed’s starboard side. Thus, there’s no way that Ed can keep clear after Fran luffs. Fran’s luff, therefore, breaks Rule 16.1 because when she luffs she does not give Ed room to keep clear. Because she luffs immediately after gaining right of way, she also breaks Rule 15.

A boat’s hull pivots about its centerboard when it turns. Therefore, if a leeward boat luffs before it is bow even with the windward boat, there is likely to be contact. However, if the two boats are bow even or if the leeward boat is bow out, then the windward boat will be able to luff to keep clear. Lou handles this starting-line situation appropriately. Because he delays his luff until he is bow even with Ken, Ken can easily luff and keep clear, so Lou does not break either Rule 15 or 16.1.

Tacking in the Zone

Almost all dinghy races these days begin with a beat to windward to a mark to be left to port. That windward mark is another place where rule violations often occur. In the second diagram, Pete enters the zone on port tack and tacks to leeward of Sal who has been fetching the mark on starboard tack for several lengths. Every boat must eventually tack from port to starboard into a position from which it can fetch the mark. What newcomers to racing don’t appreciate is how easy it is to break a rule if you make that final tack inside the zone.

When Pete tacks, he must comply with three rules. (1) While he and Sal are on opposite tacks, he is on port tack and required by Rule 10 to keep clear. (2) After Pete passes head to wind during his tack, Rule 13 requires him to keep clear of Sal until he is on a closehauled course on starboard, and (3) if he causes Sal to sail above closehauled, he will break Rule 18.3. After Pete completes his tack, he is fetching the mark, but to do so he must luff above closehauled and “shoot” the mark. That luff will cause Sal to sail above closehauled. There is simply no way that Pete could tack where he did and then round the mark without breaking Rule 18.3.

Now let’s see how the rules treat Paul, who tacked onto starboard to leeward of Stan, but did so outside the zone. Rules 10 and 13 apply to Paul just as they did to Pete. But because Paul passes head to wind outside the zone, Rule 18.3 does not apply to him. After Paul tacks, he may luff to shoot the mark even if he causes Stan to sail above closehauled.

There is one additional advantage to making your final tack from port to starboard outside the zone. When boats tack onto starboard more than three lengths from the mark, most of them are overstood. This means that, if you tack close to leeward of one of them, you will probably fetch the mark yourself. If, however, you make that tack in the zone, odds are the boat you tack under will have already cracked its sheets and will no longer be overstanding the mark.

Keeping Clear

On downwind legs, Nelson reports that boats frequently break Rule 15 and then Rule 16.1. This occurs when two port-tack boats are overlapped and close to each other. The windward port-tack boat breaks Rule 15 by jibing onto starboard so close to the leeward port-tack boat that there isn’t room for the port-tack boat to keep clear. What’s more, the jibing boat often makes things worse by immediately luffing and, thereby, breaking Rule 16.1.

All the violations discussed so far suggest coaches and instructors should spend more time on two definitions — “keep clear” and “room,” on the limitations imposed by Rules 15 and 16.1, and on the risks of tacking from port to starboard inside the zone at a windward mark.

Taking Penalties

Nelson reports that collisions resulting in damaged boats are uncommon, indicating that new sailors seem to understand Rule 14’s requirement that boats avoid contact. He also sees quite a few boats making two penalty turns, each including a tack and a jibe, after they are involved in an incident in which a rule of Part 2 may have been broken. However, the turns they take frequently do not meet two requirements of Rule 44.2 — that before beginning to spin, a boat must sail “well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible” and then make the two turns “promptly.” When asked why they delay their turns, new sailors often report that they were waiting for the perfect time to spin or that they thought it was OK to delay spinning provided they completed their penalty turns on the same leg they were on when the incident occurred.

The late spinners don’t seem to realize that late turns simply don’t count. If they were protested, they would be disqualified by the protest committee even though they had spun. This suggests that coaches should teach the details of Rule 44.2 and run drills to practice taking a two-turns penalty as quickly as possible.

Another common misunderstanding of penalties taken on the water is this: Sailors who take a two-turns penalty as required by Rule 44.2 often report that they did so because they didn’t know they’d broken a rule. They didn’t realize that in that case they had a get-out-of-jail-free card. That is, they could protest the other boat without risk of disqualification and then learn in the hearing how the rules applied to the incident. If the protest committee found they’d broken a rule, they would not be disqualified because they’d taken the appropriate penalty on the water.

Email for Dick Rose may be sent to rules@­sailingworld.com.

The post Young sailors are not alone in breaking these essential racing rules. appeared first on Sailing World.

The new case, Case 143, got its start from a routine protest following a race at a sailing club in Canada. In the incident, two competitors, Abel and Cain, tangled near a mark. Abel consequently protested Cain. Abel thought he had a strong case, but to his surprise, the protest committee disqualified him and did not penalize Cain. The notice of race and the sailing instructions each stated that the race would be governed by the rules as defined in The Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS).

Abel thought that the protest committee’s decision was not correct so, as apparently permitted by Rule 70.1(a), he wrote up an appeal of the decision and promptly sent it to Sail Canada, the national authority for all sailboat races in Canada. Then the fun began.

It turns out the club that had organized the race previously declined to join Sail Canada and had no connection to or affiliation with Sail Canada. When the appeal arrived in the mail, officials at Sail Canada questioned whether they had any obligation to consider an appeal from a club that was not a member of the organization.

Their attempt to decide this question led them to parts of the rulebook rarely needed or studied. They found their answer in Rules 70.3, 84 and 89.1. Rule 70.3’s first sentence states: “An appeal under rule 70.1 … shall be sent to the national authority with which the organizing authority is associated under rule 89.1.”

Rule 89.1 does not permit any old club to organize a race. In fact, Rule 89.1 lists eight types of organizations that are permitted to organize a race: “World Sailing; a member national authority of World Sailing; an affiliated club; an affiliated organization other than a club, and if so prescribed by the national authority, with the approval of the national authority or in conjunction with an affiliated club; an unaffiliated class association, either with the approval of the national authority or in conjunction with the affiliated club; two or more of the above organizations; an unaffiliated body in conjunction with unaffiliated club where the body is owned and controlled by the club. The national authority of the club may prescribe that its approval is required for such an event; or if approved by World sailing and the national authority of the club, and unaffiliated body in conjunction with an affiliated club where the body is not owned and controlled by the club.”

Because the club was located in Canada, Sail Canada was “the national authority of the venue.” Since the club was not in any way affiliated with Sail Canada, the decisions made by the protest committee for a race at that club were not eligible under Rule 70 to be appealed to Sail ­Canada or, indeed, to any national authority. For these ­reasons, Sail Canada declined to consider Abel’s appeal.

Sail Canada thought their ­decision was interesting and that it deserved to be a World Sailing case. Proposing a case based on their decision had an extra benefit for Sail Canada — it could, effectively, determine whether World Sailing agreed with its decision. The World ­Sailing ­Racing Rules Committee did indeed agree. It upheld Sail Canada’s decision to decline to consider Abel’s appeal, and World Sailing’s view of that decision is now described in detail in new Case 143.

In that case, World Sailing goes beyond Sail Canada’s decision on Abel’s appeal to discuss Rule 75, Entering a Race. This rule has two parts. Rule 75.1 puts limitations on the boats that can be entered in a race, and Rule 75.2 requires competitors to comply with World Sailing Regulation 19, Eligibility Code. I’ll bet you’ve never taken any notice of Rule 75 or the World Sailing Eligibility Code.

Rule 75.1 requires the person who enters a boat in a race to be “a member of a club or other organization affiliated to a World ­Sailing member national authority” or a member of a national authority. This means that in order to enter your boat in any race in the United States, you must be a member of a club or organization affiliated to US ­Sailing or you yourself must be a member of US Sailing. Most clubs in the United States are members of an regional sailing association (such as the Yacht Racing Association of Long Island Sound) and all RSAs I know of are members of US Sailing.

Beware, however, because some organizations that organize races in the United States have no affiliation whatsoever with US Sailing. In my experience, these are informal so-called beer-can races, organized by a group of sailors or a commercial organization like a restaurant, marina or dealership. Those informal races sometimes use the RRS, but not always. There is one in ­Seattle where there are only a handful of vague, simple rules, one of which is: “Never make a duck change its course.”

Rule 75.2 requires every ­competitor in every race, no matter how small or ­inconsequential, to comply with the World Sailing Eligibility Code. Rule 84 requires organizing authorities to follow the rules, and one of the rules is Rule 89.1. If the organizing authority for a race is not one of the permitted organizations listed in Rule 89.1, then, according to Regulation 19.20 in World Sailing’s Eligibility Code, that race is a “­prohibited” race. That sounds ominous. Let’s explore what it means.

Suppose you are a competitor who hopes someday to compete in the Olympics, the Pan-Am Games, or a world or continental championship of one of the World Sailing Classes (classes that have achieved World Sailing class ­status include the Olympic classes as well as most popular one-designs). The ­Eligibility Code contains three rules worthy of your attention.

First, you must have “World Sailing ­Eligibility” to compete in the events listed above. Anyone in the world can easily obtain World Sailing Eligibility, and few ever lose that status. That status can, however, be suspended or revoked if 1) you break Rule 69.1(a) by committing misconduct and part of your penalty is suspension of your eligibility by US Sailing or World ­Sailing (see Rule 69.3); 2) you break Rule 5, the Anti-Doping Rule; or 3) you compete in a race that you “knew or should reasonably have known was prohibited” (see ­Regulation 19.19 in the Eligibility Code). That code lists six types of events that are Prohibited Events; one of those six is an event that “does not conform to the requirements of Rule 89.1.”

Therefore, each of the competitors who sailed in the aforementioned race in ­Canada who knew, or should reasonably have known, that the club that organized it was not affiliated with Sail Canada could have been penalized by suspension for a year or more, or permanent revocation of their World ­Sailing Eligibility. Suspension or revocation of World Sailing Eligibility is exceedingly rare, but it is a possibility and, if it happened to an aspiring Olympian, it would be devastating.

Here’s one more problem that can occur in informal racing that does not use the RRS. In such a race, you expose yourself to added financial risk. Suppose you or your crew were injured or your boat was ­seriously damaged in a casual or informal race that did not use the RRS. When the RRS do not apply, the International Regulations for ­Preventing ­Collisions at Sea govern the race. If you have studied the IRPCAS at all, you know that the rights and obligations of boats under the ­IRPCAS are vastly different from the rights and obligations under the RRS. What seems like the simplest of maneuvers, like tacking from port to ­starboard, might violate the IRPCAS, even when the maneuver was carried out in full compliance with the RRS. This means, if there is injury or damage during a race, responsibility for the costs of that injury or damage will be based on fault as determined by application of the IRPCAS and not the RRS.

A few years ago, in an incident between two keelboats, there was damage that cost several thousand dollars to repair. The boats were on opposite tacks, racing under the IRPCAS and not the RRS, and there was no protest committee. An insurance ­company for one of the boats asked me to apply the IRPCAS to the incident.

Under the racing rules, there would have been no doubt that the port-tack boat would have broken Rule 10 and been responsible for all, or almost all, of the costs of repair. But, applying the IRPCAS, I found that the ­starboard-tack boat was at fault. The lesson from this is clear: Sail with great care in any race that does not use the ­Racing Rules of Sailing.

E-mail for Dick Rose may be sent to rules@sailingworld.com.

The post The Hidden Dangers of Casual-Race Rules appeared first on Sailing World.

World Sailing held its annual conference in Mexico in November 2017 with a week of meetings involving several hundred delegates from all prominent sailing countries. There were many proposals to modify the racing rules discussed and voted upon, and for the most part, proposals that were accepted will not take effect until January 1, 2021, when the next revision of The Racing Rules of Sailing is published. However, there is a process for making “urgent” changes effective at an earlier date, and this year that process resulted in urgent changes to one definition and three rules. All of these changes become effective January 1, 2018.

The primary reason for the changes was to provide a fair method for handling incidents in which a coach, parent or other support person breaks a rule. Rule 64.4(b), which came into effect in January 2017, permitted the protest committee to penalize a boat — without a hearing — when the boat’s support person broke a rule. Many sailors and race officials argued that penalizing a boat without a hearing was not acceptable. U.S. Sailing wrote to all U.S. Sailing judges strongly urging them to never penalize a boat under Rule 64.4(b) for a rules breach by her support person and, later, supported proposals to World Sailing to change the rules that permitted such a penalty.

Four changes for 2018 clearly fix the problem U.S. Sailing identified. The changes also establish a clear process to be followed whenever the protest committee receives a report alleging a support person has broken a rule. Here’s a summary of the four changes World Sailing made:

■ A new rule, Rule 63.9, has been added, which specifies a process the protest committee must follow when it receives, under Rule 60.3(d), a report alleging that a support person has broken a rule. The committee must first decide whether the report is sufficiently convincing that a hearing should be called. If so, the committee must conduct the hearing following the procedures specified in Rules 63.2, 63.3, 63.4 and 63.6. This is the same procedure that is followed in a protest or redress hearing, but with one difference. For a hearing involving a support person, the protest committee may appoint a “prosecutor” — a person who will present the case against the support person. In the case of a protest or a request for redress, the role of prosecutor is played by the protestor or the boat requesting redress.

■ Section (e) of the definition Party has been expanded. For any hearing involving a support person, the parties to the hearing are: the support person alleged to have broken a rule, any boat that support person supports, and the prosecutor. This change means that if a hearing is held because a coach, a parent or any other support person may have broken a rule, every boat that that person supports is entitled to be represented during the hearing, and will have all the rights a protestee would have in a protest hearing. Boats can no longer be penalized without having the chance to defend themselves. The change to the definition Party addresses U.S. Sailing’s primary complaint that under the previous rule a boat could be penalized without a hearing if her support person broke a rule.

■ Previously, Rule 64.4(b) referred to a penalty given to a competitor as a result of a breach of a rule by a support person. That did not make sense. A regatta is a contest between boats, and each boat entered is scored and can be penalized. When a competitor breaks a rule, his or her boat receives the penalty. Rule 64.4(b) has been reworded so that only boats, and not competitors, receive penalized. In addition, revised Rule 64.4(b)(2) states that the warning described in that rule must be given in writing.

■ There are now four types of hearings: protest hearings, redress hearings, hearings following reports under Rule 69 alleging misconduct, and hearings following a report under Rule 60.3(d) alleging that a support person has broken a rule. Because protest hearings and hearings under rule 60.3(d) are not the same, a technical change was necessary — Rule 64.4(b) was added to the list of rules in Rule 63.1.

The full text of these changes to the racing rules is available now on the World Sailing website.

The World Sailing Racing Rules Committee publishes The Case Book, which contains authoritative interpretations of the racing rules. Every year new cases are added to it, and occasionally an old case is revised. During 2017 meetings in Mexico, World Sailing made changes in an old case, Case 78, which will affect the tactics that can be used in major races for Olympic classes, as well as in some local races.

Case 78 concerns tactics, usually applied near the end of a series, in which one boat, without breaking any rule of Part 2, closely covers another for an extended period of time in order to drive the other boat well back in the fleet. The case addresses the question: When are such tactics “in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play” and, therefore, consistent with Rule 2, Fair Sailing?

From 2013 to 2017, Case 78 stated that such tactics do not break Rule 2 provided “there is a sporting reason” for using them. At recent major regattas for Olympic classes, that test has caused problems. For example, some national authorities use their sailors’ scores at a continental championship to select members of their national team or to select a boat that will qualify to represent their nation at a future event. Often, the details of such a selection procedure are confidential, and as a result, it is not possible for the protest committee at the continental championship to decide whether a boat that used close covering tactics had a sporting reason for doing so.

Another problematic situation happened at a recent event in which Boat A had clinched first place before the last race of the series. After the start of the final race, Boat A drove Boat B, at the time second in the standings, way back in the fleet, with the result that B ended up in fourth after the last race. Boat B then protested A for breaking Rule 2, and the helmsman of A gave as his sporting reason for using the tactics: “I wanted to practice those tactics.” The protest committee accepted A’s reason as a sporting reason and did not find that A broke Rule 2, but many people thought A’s tactics were not fair play.

Because of these issues, World Sailing has changed the criterion for deciding whether extended close covering violates Rule 2. Effective January 1, 2018, the criterion will be whether the covering tactics “benefit [the boat’s] final ranking in the event.” Clearly, Boat A’s close covering of Boat B in the example above would break Rule 2 because there was nothing she could have done in the last race to benefit or improve her final ranking in the event. Also, boats will no longer be able to point to procedures for national team selection or qualification for a future event to justify extended interference with another boat.

This could affect you in your local sailing series. Many clubs combine the standings of boats in several weekend events to create a season or to pick a seasonal club champion. The implication of the change in Case 78 will be that a boat sailing in a particular weekend event may use extended close covering only when it will benefit her standing in that weekend event. Extended close covering that does not benefit her standing in the weekend event can no longer be justified on the grounds that it improves her standing in the season series.

The full text of revised Case 78 is, or will soon be, available on the World Sailing website.

E-mail for Dick Rose may be sent to rules@sailingworld.com

The post Rule Changes for Support and Fairness appeared first on Sailing World.

Pinwheel Avoidance

This one’s a classic: If you’re the outside boat of a group approaching the leeward mark and blindly carry on with pace, you’ll sail extra distance in bad air, carry wide around the mark, and then exit in a terrible lane. This is one of the rare times when it pays to slow down and let other boats move ahead.

To kill speed, take your ­spinnaker down early and steer a little extra distance. If you’re slightly advanced on the group and they barely have room, you can slow down a lot by steering hard, swerving back and forth, and swinging wide to slow your boat and kill time.

Once you’ve slowed, let the pinwheel unfold, and watch as the boats swinging around the outside become pinned and stuck in bad air. These boats had room on you, but because they are now pinned wide from the mark, they can no longer make a tight ­rounding and close you out.

When you can round the mark tightly without fouling those boats (because you don’t have room), sail toward the mark, ideally reaching a little bit before rounding so you have speed. You will now be on the inside track going upwind, no doubt passing a boat or two. More important, you’re setting yourself up on the inside track for a nice beat.

One cautionary note: When slowing down and waiting for your opportunity to round inside, there might be boats coming up from behind with no room who want to speed into the gap you’re ­shooting for. They might not slow down and wait their turn, so be sure to communicate to them that they have no rights, thus saving yourself the drama of an ugly foul and big pileup.

Overstand Recovery

Overstanding a mark is a big no-no, but we still end up doing it from time to time. The key to recovery is to start hauling butt, getting to the mark as quickly as possible. Upwind, you need to put the bow down, but in medium and heavy air, cracking off causes too much heel, so depower the rig — traveler down, backstay on, hike hard, and scoot back about a foot on the rail. The goal is to reduce helm and let it rip. Always keep a little money in the bank by sailing a touch high of the mark, just in case you get headed or a boat tacks on you. Constantly gauge your bearing to the mark by comparing it to the land behind, especially if you’re sailing in current. The worst ­situation is to have to tack again.

Downwind, if the lane is clear, sail high and fast toward the leeward mark. If sailing higher puts you in the dirty air from boats ahead, sail low to keep your air clear as long as possible, then heat it up late near the mark. With symmetric spinnakers, ease the pole forward and lower the topping lift, tighten the foreguy so the pole is stable, trim your main in, and hike hard to keep the boat flat. With an asymmetric ­spinnaker, head up, trim all sails to your new angle, and hike. When reaching, remember the vang is your throttle: on for more power and off to reduce power. Don’t let the boat heel or you’ll go sideways.

Ducking another boat

The goal when ducking another boat is to minimize loss, and if done well, possibly even pass them on the next crossing. To duck well, generate extra speed by bearing off and then taking advantage of the small lift as you cross close to the other boat’s transom. It all hinges upon making as small a course change as possible.

If it’s going to be a big duck, bear away early to set up a small turn as you are ducking. When bearing away, ease the main and jib, and hike hard to generate speed. If it’s breezy, ease the vang. Again, the goal is to bear away early, sail straight, tight reaching, for a few seconds to build speed, then head up as you approach the other boat’s stern, avoiding a big turn. As you cross behind with speed, you can smoothly return to ­closehauled trim.

Since you are going faster than upwind sailing speed during and after the duck, and you get a small lift from the other boat’s sails, you can burn some of that speed by pinching slightly after heading up, giving you a little more gain to windward. This will last for only a few seconds. Make the front of the jib bubble just a touch. As the boat slows, bear away to a normal angle and speed. If you do this well, when ducking on port tack, you might be able to get a piece of the boat next time you come together with starboard-tack advantage. This is especially powerful at the top of the course a few lengths under starboard tack-layline.

What if it appears the other boat will leebow you and you want to continue? If you’re in a lightweight boat with good maneuverability, try a late duck, which will keep from giving away your intentions and possibly freeze them. The rules prevent them from tacking too close, so when you duck at the last minute, hail “Don’t tack!” This might freeze the starboard tacker enough to give you a bow-out ­position after the meeting.

On heavier and bigger boats, bear away early and generate as much speed as possible. If they tack to leebow and you have tons of speed, you can head up firmly and smoothly, gliding above closehauled for a while and creating a lateral gap. Your momentum will carry you to weather of them, with enough of a gap to hold your lane.

The post Staying Out of Trouble appeared first on Sailing World.

This is the sixth and final installment in a series of articles outlining important changes in the new rules. We’ll cover three changes that make the rules governing the race and protest committee more competitor friendly. We’ll also discuss inconsistencies that have been identified in one of the new rules and the unusual advisory statement issued that US Sailing has issued as a result.

Rule 30.3 As many of you who have read this column over the years know, I am firmly opposed to use of the Black Flag Rule to keep an overeager fleet behind the line in the final countdown to a start. My preference is to see the Black Flag Rule removed from the rulebook. However, this year a new rule has been added that, while similar to the Black Flag Rule, is much fairer to competitors and far simpler for race committees. What’s more, many tests indicate that it will usually control a fleet just as effectively as the Black Flag Rule. The new rule is Rule 30.3, the U Flag Rule.

Rule 30.3, U Flag Rule reads as follows: If flag U has been displayed, no part of a boat’s hull, crew or equipment shall be in the triangle formed by the ends of the starting line and the first mark during the last minute before her starting signal. If a boat breaks this rule and is identified, she shall be disqualified without a hearing, but not if the race is restarted or resailed.

The U Flag Rule differs from the Black Flag Rule in two important respects. Unlike the Black Flag Rule, a boat that breaks the U Flag Rule is not disqualified if there is a general recall or if the race is postponed or abandoned either before or at any time after the starting signal. This will mean that far fewer DSQs will be handed out under the U Flag Rule than would be the case under the Black Flag Rule. Also, the U Flag Rule simplifies life for the race committee because when flag U is used there is no need to post numbers on the race committee starting line vessel and never a need to score boats DNE.

From 2013-2016, the U Flag Rule was included in Appendix L, the Sailing Instructions Guide, as an optional sailing instruction. This led to its being extensively tested over the past four years, The U Flag Rule was almost always as effective in controlling the fleet as the Black Flag Rule, and it gained acceptance among competitors and race officials.

I hope to see the Black Flag Rule removed from the rulebook when the rules are next revised in 2021. However, in the meantime, you can help to make sure that it is not used by encouraging your club to schedule a party during which the featured event will be a ceremonial burning of the black flag. If you succeed, send me a photo of the ceremony and I will encourage Sailing World to publish it.

Rule 33(a) Clear race committee signals are always helpful. To signal a change in the next leg of the course, the race committee must always display flag C with repeated short sound signals. Last year, when the committee signaled a change in the direction of the next leg of the course, Rule 33(a) permitted the display, along with flag C, of either the new compass bearing of the next leg or a green triangle for a change to starboard or a red rectangle for a change to port. Now, a change in Rule 33(a) gives the committee the option to display both of these signals.

The signals for a change in the length of the next leg have not been changed. They are still flag C with repetitive sounds and a placard with a “+” if the length is increased or a “-” if the length is decreased.

Rule 61.2 A competitor-friendly change in Rule 61.2 is intended to reduce the chances that a protest will be declared invalid because the information on the protest form is inaccurate. Last year, the protestor was required to identify in the written protest “the incident including where and when it occurred,” and, if there was an error in what the protestor wrote on the protest form about where and when the incident occurred, that error could not be corrected. It’s always easy to remember the incident, but protestors often make an error about where and when the incident occurred. When the course is twice around, they may state that the incident occurred during the first lap, when it actually occurred during the second; or, when there are several races in a day, they may state that it occurred in the second race when it actually happened in the third. Rule 61.2 still requires the protestor to “identify the incident” on the written form, but she can supply or correct the information about “when and where” the incident occurred either before or during the hearing.

Rule 64.4(b) There is one more, quite unusual, feature of the new rules that I want to bring to your attention. An inconsistency between Rules 63.1 and 64.4(b) exists, and Rule 64.4(b) has undesirable consequences. Let me explain.

There are several new rules involving support persons. A hearing can be held under Rule 60.3(d) to consider whether a support person has broken a rule, and a hearing can be held under Rule 69 to consider whether a support person has committed an act of misconduct. The only party to such a hearing is the support person. If the protest committee decides that the support person has broken a rule, then Rule 64.4 describes the actions that the committee may take.

A support person does not have a score, so the usual penalty of disqualification would not make sense. Instead, Rule 64.4(a)(1) allows the committee to warn the support person or to penalize the support person with one of the punitive actions listed in Rules 64.4(a)(2) or (3). So far so good.

The troublesome part of Rule 64.4 is 64.4(b), which permits the protest committee to penalize the boat associated with the support person for the breach of a rule by the support person by changing the boat’s score in a single race, up to and including DSQ. But, if you read Rules 63.1 and the first sentence of Rule 64.1, you find that a boat cannot be penalized unless (1) she is a party to a protest hearing, or (2) the rule under which she is penalized is in the list of rules in Rule 63.1. A hearing under either Rule 60.3(d) or Rule 69 is not a “protest hearing,” and Rule 64.4(b) is not in the list of rules in Rule 63.1. So, despite what Rule 64.4(b) states, the rules do not permit a boat or competitor to be penalized under Rule 64.4(b).

Rule 63.1 is a rule that can be changed by the notice of race or the sailing instructions. So it would be easy to change Rule 63.1 by adding Rule 64.4(b) to the list of rules in Rule 63.1. However, a fire storm of opposition has arisen in the United States to Rule 64.4(b), and the US Sailing Race Administration Committee has issued the following unprecedented statement:

Race officials and organizing authorities in the United States are strongly advised: 1. Not to penalize a competitor under rule 64.4(b) because we believe that it is not permitted by the rules; and 2. Not to use the notice of race or sailing instructions to change rule 63.1 to permit them to penalize a competitor under 64.4(b), because doing so removes due process safeguards that protect a boat or competitor.

The World Sailing Racing Rules Committee meets in November, and US Sailing will make a proposal to require that no boat be penalized for the actions of one of her support persons unless she is protested for breaking a rule and found in a protest hearing to have done so. It is possible that Rule 64.4(b) will be changed by World Sailing as soon as January 1, 2018.

If, after reading this series of articles, you still have some questions about the changes made in the 2017-2020 edition of The Racing Rules of Sailing, you may find the Study Version of the new rules helpful. It is an Adobe Acrobat “pdf” file that contains the reasons for each proposal that resulted in a change in one of the racing rules or the definitions. You can access this file here.

– – –

E-mail for Dick Rose may be sent to rules@sailingworld.com

The post Rule Changes in Your Favor appeared first on Sailing World.