Racing Rules: SailGP Final Aarus

Print Page | Close Window

SailGP Final Aarus

Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: General
Forum Name: Racing Rules
Forum Discription: Discuss the rules and your interpretations here
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13825
Printed Date: 07 Aug 25 at 9:30pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: SailGP Final Aarus

Posted By: Wetabix
Subject: SailGP Final Aarus
Date Posted: 23 Aug 21 at 6:37am

So at what point did 'Japan' (aka Australia 3) not have room to round either mark in a seamanlike manner? I'm asking because I would like to know.

Replies:

Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 23 Aug 21 at 3:00pm

I think SailGP have modified rules. Even so still not clear to me how that was a penalty.

'Similarly to boundaries, marks have a circle zone around them of 45m in diameter with the mark at its center.

When boats overlap as they enter the mark zone, the boat on the inside must be given room to go around the mark. The boat on the outside must allow the inside boat to take the turn as they wish.

When boats are not overlapped, the boat that entered the zone first has the right to go around the mark.'

-------------
Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard"
Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch"
Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air"
Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile"

Posted By: MikeBz
Date Posted: 23 Aug 21 at 4:21pm

So from the above the SailGP rules allowed Japan to tack in the zone and expect GB to keep clear, regardless of whether Japan had completed her tack or not. I guess the question is would there have been a collision if Japan had started to tack before GB had fully crossed her. Presumably Japan feigned the start of a tack and then aborted to make it look as though there would (might) have been a collision. All a bit smelly, but hey this is all about hubris and money.

Posted By: Wetabix
Date Posted: 23 Aug 21 at 6:06pm

There was one replay taken from above (drone?) as Ben approached on stbd with 'Japan' coming in on port with an entitlement to mark room at the left hand gate. Ben was heading high enough for Japan to tack inside him and could easily have luffed a bit higher if necessary, which it wouldn't have been because 'Japan' would have lost about 15kph in the tack and Ben would have been clear ahead in a couple of seconds. 'Japan' had no right to a high speed wide foiling tack as far as I know unless they have modified the rules (in real life Rule 18 does not apply on a beat to windward but it must do in this competition). Sail GP is said to have modelled itself on F1 which it seems to have done very well - complete with incomprehensible steward's decisions!

Posted By: Contender443
Date Posted: 23 Aug 21 at 7:36pm

So how does it with 2 marks and 2 circles?

Japan were outside of the circle around the mark they eventually went round. So not entitled to mark room on that buoy. GBR were on starboard outside of both mark limits.

-------------
Bonnie Lass Contender 1764

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 23 Aug 21 at 8:39pm

I think this is the trouble if you go altering the rules. You get odd situations.
The question is whether the text quoted above, which is off the Sail GP website, is the full text of the rules, or just a simplification for the public. I suspect the latter. Unless we know the exact text of the rules in place for the event its difficult to have an opinion.

Posted By: MikeBz
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 7:56am

Originally posted by Contender443

So how does it with 2 marks and 2 circles?

Japan were outside of the circle around the mark they eventually went round. So not entitled to mark room on that buoy. GBR were on starboard outside of both mark limits.

Under SailGP rules they were entitled to room to tack around the same mark as GBR, the umpires must have decided that GBR didn't give them sufficient room to do that.

Mozzy's take on it here: http://youtu.be/ybXFvnnyUpM" rel="nofollow - https://youtu.be/ybXFvnnyUpM

Posted By: Wetabix
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 8:42am

If the boat entitled to mark room really is allowed to make the turn 'in any way it chooses', including not turning immediately, then that more or less compels the other boat to go so wide that the other boat cannot luff up to it at any time it chooses to do so, including sailing outside the circle. If that is the Rule then the umpires may have been right. Suppose Ben had dialled down in order to give ;Japan an opportunity to tack and they hadn't tacked but had dialled down as well, resulting in a crash? It would be nice to see their interpretation immediately after the race as they did with the French protest against Hannah Mills at the Olympics. FWIIW in a hundred years of motor racing no one has been able to define when a car taking 'the racing line' is allowed to push a car overtaking on the inside onto the grass and when the car doing the overtaking is allowed a teeny weeny slide towards the defender which takes his rear wheel off.

Weta 117

Phantom 903

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 8:59am

Originally posted by Wetabix

FWIIW in a hundred years of motor racing no one has been able to define

My understanding is that part of the problem for motor racing is that they don't have a single set of rules for all events, but instead different events tend to have their own interpretations and ethos which aren't very well codified. The result is a lot more gray area and a lot more confusion, but on the other hand imagine Touring car racing or even banger racing with no contact rules like sailing has for every event.
Because we have a single set of rules for every event and because things tend to happen more slowly its been possible for the rules to be developed to be a lot more precise and with fewer grey areas and no possibility of no fault collisions, but on the other hand that inevitably results in a degree of complexity that not everyone bothers to learn.
I don't think I'd want to swap that for on water banger racing though... I like it being a non contact sport.

Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 9:36am

The rules are here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F-dHKbK0i-N7kgvmXuBaUWgosNdgAOsT/view

It takes a bit of unravelling, as the definition of "mark room" includes the word "room" in italics which implies that it incorporates that definition too.
"Room" brings with it an obligation to manoeuvre "promptly and in a seamanlike manner"

Rule 18.3 obliges a boat that needs to tack at a mark to do so asap, but it doesn't apply at gate marks or to boats not overlapped.

So I would argue that the boat entitled to mark room cannot sail as far as she wants, but is obliged to sail her proper course promptly and in a seamanlike manner.

But it's also worth noting that the rules are effectively just a guide for the umpires, as rule 62 states there shall be no redress.

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 11:15am

It looks like a messy rule set. 18.3b applies tp an inside boat with ROW, but in this case the inside boat didn't have ROW!

Posted By: eric_c
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 1:09pm

Originally posted by ohFFsake

The rules are here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F-dHKbK0i-N7kgvmXuBaUWgosNdgAOsT/view

It takes a bit of unravelling, as the definition of "mark room" includes the word "room" in italics which implies that it incorporates that definition too.
"Room" brings with it an obligation to manoeuvre "promptly and in a seamanlike manner"

Rule 18.3 obliges a boat that needs to tack at a mark to do so asap, but it doesn't apply at gate marks or to boats not overlapped.

So I would argue that the boat entitled to mark room cannot sail as far as she wants, but is obliged to sail her proper course promptly and in a seamanlike manner.

But it's also worth noting that the rules are effectively just a guide for the umpires, as rule 62 states there shall be no redress.

What their rules actually say:

"""18.3 Tacking or Gybing

(a) If mark-room for a boat includes a change of tack, such tack or gybe shall be done no faster
than a tack or gybe to sail her proper-course.
(b) When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat must change tack at a mark to sail her proper
course, until she changes tack she shall sail no farther from the mark than needed to sail
that course. Rule 18.3(b) does not apply at a gate mark or a finishing mark and a boat shall
not be penalized for breaking this rule unless the course of another boat was affected by
the breach of this rule."""

So sailing ones 'proper course' might oblige you to tack slowly on the foils, not crash tack to gain a tactical advantage..

I'm not sure the phrase 'seamanlike manner' is all that helpful, some people seem to interpret it as 'like a pipe smoking bloke in a smelly old jumper', does the phrase even appear in the SailGP rules? Proper course is just what gets you to the finish fastest ignoring other boats affected.

Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 1:43pm

As already noted, none of rule 18.3b applies to this case.

As is so often the case, to interpret the rules requires careful consideration of the definitions, which are also in the document I linked.

We can be clear that JPN was entitled to Mark Room as they entered the 45m circle first.

Mark Room is defined as Room to sail her proper course and leave the mark on the correct side

Room is defined, and includes the phrase "while maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike way",

So she is entitled to sufficient room to sail her proper course in that manner, but no more.

Looking again at the video, I remain convinced that JPN were given ample room to tack promptly in a seamanlike way until after the point when they left the mark zone, at which point rule 18 switches off and GBR reverts to being ROW boat.

So I think the rules, although not terribly clear, covered the situation and were just badly applied.

Posted By: MikeBz
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 2:17pm

Originally posted by ohFFsake

Mark Room is defined as Room to sail her proper course and leave the mark on the correct side

One could intepret that as meaning that even if JPN had no intention of tacking (her proper course being to continue to the other mark of the gate) then IF she had to duck GBR that would be an enforced deviation from her proper course at a time when she was entitled to sail her proper course (because she was entitled to mark room) - maybe that is what the judge was thinking?

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 2:24pm

From video it appears that the SailGP boats need about two boat lengths from starting to turn to completing the tack. JPN were approaching tight to the mark, so couldn't start turning until past the mark. I think there probably was room to tack, but not enough to be called ample. Bearing in mind the catastrophic consequences of collision it wasn't unreasonable for JPN to consider it unsafe to try a tack, or unreasonable for the Umpire to agree. It certainly wasn't a foul under standard RRS, but that's the problem with changing the rules. These rules give a big advantage to a port tack inside boat. I wonder if it was intended?

Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 2:24pm

Originally posted by MikeBz

Originally posted by ohFFsake

Mark Room is defined as Room to sail her proper course and leave the mark on the correct side

That's an interesting bit of lateral thinking, but surely any rights for room at the other mark would only kick in when JPN enters the zone belonging to that mark?

Also, I don't think they actually ducked GBR anyway, did they?

Posted By: MikeBz
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 2:57pm

Originally posted by ohFFsake

That's an interesting bit of lateral thinking, but surely any rights for room at the other mark would only kick in when JPN enters the zone belonging to that mark?

I'm thinking of rights at the mark GBR is rounding (JPN is overlapped, so by the definition of mark room you quoted she is entitled to room to sail her proper course). The question is does 'proper course' include not rounding the mark and continuing to the other one? I think it's arguable, but maybe the full text of the rules deals with this.

It would be interesting to get @Mozzy's take on this.

Also, I don't think they actually ducked GBR anyway, did they?

They feigned a duck but whether it was necessary is another matter.

Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 3:09pm

Originally posted by JimC

From video it appears that the SailGP boats need about two boat lengths from starting to turn to completing the tack. JPN were approaching tight to the mark, so couldn't start turning until past the mark. I think there probably was room to tack, but not enough to be called ample. Bearing in mind the catastrophic consequences of collision it wasn't unreasonable for JPN to consider it unsafe to try a tack, or unreasonable for the Umpire to agree. It certainly wasn't a foul under standard RRS, but that's the problem with changing the rules. These rules give a big advantage to a port tack inside boat. I wonder if it was intended?

Are we back to the "spirit of the rules" here, whatever that may mean?

Japan possibly thinking they wanted a big safety margin is surely their call and not cause for protest or penalty?
The rules don't oblige the boat giving room to give "ample" room, merely enough room for a "prompt and seamanlike" manoeuvre.

So if it takes 2 boat lengths to tack an F50 then surely the 3 boat lengths that GBR were giving at the point when JPN chose not to tack was sufficient to comply with the letter of the rules?

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 3:21pm

The trouble with ditching the entire rule book is that you've ditched the entire rule book. So none of the case book applies. Nevertheless maybe the principles do.
Case 50 says "When a protest committee finds that in a port-starboard incident S did not change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the committee finds that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P should be disqualified. "
So if you consider the general principle might apply then do we end up with "was there a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of JPN?" Especially when considering the time available for a decision and the closing speed.
I submit that its possible to consider that tacking into that gap at that speed would have been a risky manouver, and that risky manouvers at that sort of closing speed should not be attempted in those boats. If that was the belief of the umpires then I suggest their call, even though marginal was, if not definitively correct, at least defensible.

Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 3:43pm

Originally posted by JimC

...I submit that its possible to consider that tacking into that gap at that speed would have been a risky manouver, and that risky manouvers at that sort of closing speed should not be attempted in those boats. If that was the belief of the umpires then I suggest their call, even though marginal was, if not definitively correct, at least defensible.

If we go along with this line of thought, which isn't unreasonable, then it brings up another point.

Which is that if a call is marginal, then surely the benefit of the doubt should be "no penalty"?

Also, as it is there is an incentive to protest every marginal situation as the avoiding boat can never realistically lose out.

Either the umpires need to start considering "no penalty" to be the default unless there is a clear foul beyond reasonable doubt, or perhaps the pressing of the "protest" button needs to have a cost associated with it - eg it uses up a limited number of allowable protests so don't waste it on a frivolous, prospective call!

Posted By: MikeBz
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 3:52pm

^^^ especially when the exoneration is to drop behind the boat you have fouled and they then sail very slowly (due to bad luck or bad decisions or even deliberately to delay the penalty to as late in the race as possible giving little or no chance for the penalised boat to recover) for almost a lap - Mozzy covers this in his video and reiterates that as in the Cup itself the penalty exoneration system badly needs a rethink.

Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 5:19pm

Originally posted by JimC

The trouble with ditching the entire rule book is that you've ditched the entire rule book. So none of the case book applies. Nevertheless maybe the principles do.
Case 50 says "When a protest committee finds that in a port-starboard incident S did not change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the committee finds that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P should be disqualified. "
So if you consider the general principle might apply then do we end up with "was there a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of JPN?" Especially when considering the time available for a decision and the closing speed.
I submit that its possible to consider that tacking into that gap at that speed would have been a risky manouver, and that risky manouvers at that sort of closing speed should not be attempted in those boats. If that was the belief of the umpires then I suggest their call, even though marginal was, if not definitively correct, at least defensible.

The problem is that the case law is for the Protest Room.

This is umpired racing. Conventionally that is driven by a Call Book. The changes to the rules for Sail GP mean that no extant Call Book would apply. We can see the Sail GP rules. What we cannot see is whether there is a Call Book and what is in it if it exists.

But for me it would be a very odd call to have constructed to find in Japan’s favour here.

Normally call books are based upon the last point of certainty. In this case GB is crossing and therefore keeping clear. There is a gap….such that JPN can BEGIN its mark rounding manoeuvre without affecting GB’s ability to give room. And GB, if necessary could luff to create more room.

So either the Call Book is flawed or the Umpire messed up or both!