Hi John,

I believe that strictly speaking, there should be a course change at the same time as the "pump". This would be a course change from just below close-hauled to close-hauled. Then, you're 'cough', using the heel of the boat to assist with the course change 'cough' and then simply flattening it out afterwards.

If there's no course change, then yes, it's just a great big pump. However, I think the practice is so commonplace that it's become accepted however it's done.

If you watch the top Olympic sailors, they would always start the procedure heeled to leeward, sails flapping, well below close hauled.

Are you not allowed "one pump per gust"?

It looks to me as though they are only doing 1/2 a roll: from well to leeward to upright. After that the boat is steady, upright and sailing.

Does anyone have information about rule 42 changes in US collegiate sailing? I find it somewhat disconcerting that a whole branch of sailing is changing the rules so radically.

Looked more like seated air rowing than proper sailing - just like the standup air rowing that appears to be an Olympic sport now.

Gordon

Originally posted by alstorer Originally posted by G.R.F. Even I would assume that was highly illegal, but i shall now go and learn to perfect it. I especially like the bit where the crew over heels to get the full rebound, the sheeting in timing must have to be pretty spot on I guess. Almost as effective as the best form of illegal propulsion I've devised for myself so far, and that is to rake the rudder thing right back to just before it actually breaks the surface, then when you waggle the stick bit it acts like a scull, highly irregular i should think, but useful to get yourself back uptide or to base if the winds gone entirely, do it hard enough and you can almost create a wake. Superb way to knacker your blade and/or stock, mind.

How long before Grumps is back on here bleating that the rudder is poorly designed as it has broken ignoring the fact it's not designed to be an oar ...

Found this on the college sailing website:

7.4       MEANS OF PROPULSION, RRS 42.

7.4.1    During and immediately after tacking or gybing, a boat’s crew may move their bodies to roll the boat, provided that the boat’s mast does not move aggressively away from the vertical more than once.  Replaces RRS 42.3(b).

7.4.2    Except on a beat to windward, when surfing (rapidly accelerating down the leeward side of a wave) or planing is possible, ooching (sudden forward body movement, stopped abruptly) is permitted in order to initiate surfing or planning. RRS 42.2(c) is deleted.

As I read these rules the "stog and go" manoeuvre being taught in the video was illegal, even in college racing. Rule 69 anyone!

Gordon

Re ooching:

My experience at the RS200 Nationals was that ooching was common place in that class.  The acceleration and place gains were incredible and I don't think there was a single protest on the matter. 

I have been a judge at a few RS 200 events. Without judging rule 42 on the water I went out in a RIB and observed racing, whilst conspicuously displaying a JURY flag.

According to competitors, the mere fact of having a judge on the water improved rule observance, and there were a lot less rule 42 infringements. Competitor protests on rule 42 are often contentious and are dificult to judge. If competitors wish to have improved rule observance they should insist on organisers providing on the water judges with the authority to intervene.

Appendix P provides an adequate framework for rule 42 enforcement. Personally I would prefer, for Part 2 rule infringements, for there to be an umpiring system rather than a direst intervention by the judge. The umpire would respond to protest observed on the water -as in partially umpired team racing. If the umpire did not observe the incident the aggreived competitor would have the right to protest in the normal way.

There would of course be a cost -providing RIBS, fuel plus judges and umpires are well known for their large appetities and tremendous thirst! Would a few pounds extra entry fee be worth paying for such a service?

Gordon

The Contenders have to have International juries at their World and European Championships and having them doubles the entry fees! We now allow pumping over 10 knots so they do not have much to do that other competitors could do.

Then we have to watch them eat drink at sleep at our expense. 

Two points :

1. International Class status comes at a cost - one of which is the requirement to have an International Jury at major championships. I'm not convinced, however, that IJ need 4 star hotels, 1st class flights and Michelin star restaurants. It is possible to economise - the requirement is for 5 members, including 3 IJs. The Chairman is usually not from the host country and travel expenses will have to be paid, a "local" IJ is usually vice-chairman. Recruit another IJ from a country that Ryanair flies to, then a EUROSAF candidate and a "local" NJ who aspires to IJ status (these last 2 will pay their own travel expenses). Select club members who live within walking distance of the club (in anticipation of late night jury hearings and/or long discussions at the bar) and ask them to lodge the Jury members. Explain these terms to the judges - a few might politely refuse.

In my experience the most important thing to organise for the Jury is food - if they have been out on the water all day and then in the protest room until late in the evening the poor judges are hungry. Clubs should anticipate that this will happen.

2. I believe that the solution is to find more for the Jury to do. Many Judges now have experience of umpiring match or team racing. Umpires tend to get far more involved in the running of events, both on and off the water. I believe that Judges should follow this example rather than adopting a more distant stance. In my experience competitors appreciate this, and do not complain that Judges are too involved when it comes to a hearing.

I agree that it must be galling for organisers to have a panel of judges who do not go on the water, and, if competitors do not protest, have little to do on shore.

Gordon