Edition
Boats for sale
| Laser 28 - Excellent example of this great design Hamble le rice |
 |
| Rossiter Pintail Mortagne sur Gironde, near Bordeaux |
 |
List classes of boat for sale |
Sailing Instructions interpretation... |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Delicious Digg Facebook Furl Google MySpace Newsvine reddit StumbleUpon Translate Twitter Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
Bootscooter 
Really should get out more 
Joined: 15 May 07 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1094 |
 Post Options
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Sailing Instructions interpretation...Posted: 25 Jul 12 at 11:41pm |
|
|
Here's one for you Rules gods....
This from a Junior Class Champs.. SI. 9.4 - The sustitute mark will be black cylindrical SI. 11 - Change of Course After Start SI. 11.1 - Moving a mark: When it is necessary and posible, the Race Committee will either move the position of the mark, or lay a substitute mark. Scenario; Penultimate race of a champioship, the leading group of around 10-14 boats round the leeward mark (olympic course) and all the correct flags/signals are made to indicate that the windward mark has been moved or replaced. At this point, the black cylindrical mark had not been layed, and was being towed by a rib. This leading group sail the course and round the original orange windward mark, are not given a finish and are made to sail another lap, pushing them to the bottom of the results. Apllications for redress are entered, as the sailors interpretation was that as the black mark had not been dropped, their assumpion was that the original mark had been moved (hence the signals). Allegedly, boats further down the fleet were given the nod that they had to round the black mark. No redress was given to any of the applicants, as apparently a) they were not made in time (they were as we had a stop watch running from the last competitor coming ashore), b) it was admitted that the SIs were confusing, but the RC were within their rights to specify a substitute mark that had not yet been layed/was still being moved. Should I mention that the protest forms went in after sailing on the last day of the champs, with the Club/Assc wanting to get on with prizegiving? My question is; How is a sailor to know whether the original mark has been moved, or if the RC actually want you to use a substitute mark that is not yet stationary? Edited by Bootscooter - 25 Jul 12 at 11:43pm |
||
 |
||
|
Brass
Really should get out more
Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1151 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 Jul 12 at 2:42am |
|
|
The race committee, by their sailing instruction providing for either/or use of a substitute mark has achieved exactly the confusion that was predictable by not following the model SI in RRS Appendix L
Rule 33 provides that the changed mark need not be in position when the change of course signal is given before boats begin the changed leg. This extends some little way into the changed leg, but desirably the moved mark or the new substitute mark should be laid as soon as possible so as to enable competitors to adopt appropriate tactics and strategy to deal with the change in the leg.
HOWEVER, the change in course signals required by rule 33 given before any boats begin the changed leg told them the direction and the distance of the change, so the competitors are able to know the position where the changed mark will be.
If the original mark never moved, then in hearing a protest, I would not accept that an assumption that the original mark had been moved to the position signalled, when there was a substitute mark laid in that position (i.e. further out in the direction signalled), was reasonable.
So, if competitors did not sail the new leg in the signalled direction and distance, and round whatever mark was in the signalled position, then, I would be minded to conclude that they were, in part, at fault for any failure to round the signalled mark, and thus not entitled to redress, even though the race committee has published a confusing SI.
Possibly competitors would have a better case if the wind had flicked back away from the changed direction so that the original mark once again became dead to windward, or more truly to windward than the substiute mark, but you haven't suggested that that happened.
If the race committee 'coached' some boats in the fleet to go to the substitute mark and did not do the same for other boats in the fleet, then that's looking pretty unfair, but it only goes anywhere if there is a valid request for redress.
If the protest committee decided that requests for redress were invalid because they were not deliverd within the time limit in accordance with rule 62.2, that pretty much wraps it up: there will be an unappealable fact found in there.
But I can't see what having 'a stop watch running from the last competitor coming ashore' would prove. In normal SI, the Protest Time Limit is usually calculated based on the time boats finish. How would a race committee or protest committee know when a 'last competitor came ashore', and wouldn't that time 1) be open to manipulation by competitors and 2) get ridiculous if there was a blow-out or one boat sank and never came ashore at all.
If I were you, I wouldn't go alleging that the protest committee fudged its decisions because the organising authority wanted to get on with the prize-giving. That would be a bloody rude insult to the protest committee.
In answer to your last question: a sailor is supposed to know whether the original mark has been moved by observing whether or not it is in its original position or in the position signalled in the change leg signals. The mark, whether the original one or a substitute need not be stationary when the change leg signals are given, or at the beginning of the leg, but it should, desirably be down and firm when boats start shaping their approach to it.
Bottom line:
|
||
|
||
|
sargesail
Really should get out more
Joined: 14 Jan 06 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1459 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 Jul 12 at 7:25am |
|
|
Brass - SIs here often define Protest Limits by the time of the last boat coming ashore since 1 hour sail ins are not uncommon.
|
||
|
||
|
Bootscooter
Really should get out more
Joined: 15 May 07 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1094 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 Jul 12 at 12:00pm |
|
|
If I were you, I wouldn't go alleging that the protest committee fudged its decisions because the organising authority wanted to get on with the prize-giving. That would be a bloody rude insult to the protest committee.
In answer to your last question: a sailor is supposed to know whether the original mark has been moved by observing whether or not it is in its original position or in the position signalled in the change leg signals. The mark, whether the original one or a substitute need not be stationary when the change leg signals are given, or at the beginning of the leg, but it should, desirably be down and firm when boats start shaping their approach to it.
. Bottom line:
I'm not suggesting that the decision was fudged in this way - that's just how a number of the sailors felt after the hearing. Bear in mind that this is a Junior Class within a larger Class association, and because of the way this was done, a number of other issues with the RC earlier in the week, and some decisions that were made at last years Nationals, there is an element of "Inferiority Complex" going on. Also bear in mind that as a Junior Class, most of the competitors were racing without using compasses, so a bearing is of little practical use. The race in question was race one of two on the day, so time limit on protests was 20 mins of the last boat coming ashore. As the confusion (interpretation) arose in this case from the poorly written SIs, is it right that the "correct" interpretation should be that of the RC (who knew what they meant), or the 14 sailors at the front of the Champs fleet (who knew what made practical sense, and hadn't been advised otherwise by RIBS on the course)? |
||
|
||
|
Brass
Really should get out more
Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1151 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 Jul 12 at 2:59pm |
|
Sounds like you had a disappointing championship regatta. I'm sorry to hear that.
Also sounds like you have reasons to think that the race committee that your Class Association appointed has let you down. I'm also sorry to hear that, but apart from promising yourself that you will take a more active part in the organisation next year and prevent bad things happening, there doesn't seem to be much to be done about it at this point.
OK, I understand about the protest time limit running from when last boat comes ashore (thanks Sargesail). I'm also pleased to hear that you don't really think that the protest committee flicked your competitors off.
I understand the difficulty about compasses, but I wonder why the race committee, who should have known that many boats didn't have compasses, signalled the change with a compass bearing instead of the green triangle, red rectangle signals for right and left provided in rule 33(a)(2). Maybe just another little thing that the race committee didn't do very well.
Hoooowever, you are saying that the top dozen boats in the fleet, presumably containing the best and brightest of your juniors, at least some of whom should have had compasses and known how to use them, all sheep-followed one another to the wrong mark. At least some of those competitors should be kicking themselves.
As I said before, because the protest committee never heard the requests for redress, we will never know how they would have decided them, but this is not a matter of 'interpretation', rather it's a matter of the requrements of the rules regarding the giving of redress.
Rule 62.1 requires that for redress to be given for a race committee action or inaction:
Firstly, it is arguable that because the race committee didn't actually break any part of rule 33, then their SI and their actions on the water don't constitute an improper action.
Secondly, supposing that the protest committee did find that there was an improper action of the race committee, it may seem harsh, but any action of the boat that contributed to causing her score to be made worse rules out the giving of redress.
In this case, with the top flight of sailors in a national championship, I (from 10,000 miles away, and not having heard all the evidence) am inclined to think that going back to the original mark that had not been moved at all was a fault of the boat's own, and that redress should not be given.
Later Addition:
You earlier mentioned that the boats were 'not given a finish'. Depending on the SI about boats being 'given a finish' and 'how many laps they were required to do', you might have had a better grounds for redress for the race committee not recording and scoring the finish (Case 80).
There might have been fault on the boat's part in rounding the wrong mark, but there was no apparent fault on the boats when they crossed the finishing line.
But it's rather water under the bridge
Edited by Brass - 27 Jul 12 at 1:51am |
||
|
||
|
GarethT
Really should get out more
Joined: 21 Apr 07 Online Status: Offline Posts: 714 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Jul 12 at 11:26am |
|
|
The relevance of the stop watch is that the sailors knew they were within the time limit for their class. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that the time limit the protest committee chose to apply was for when the last radial had come ashore.
As to the signalling of the mark being moved, I understand that there was nio bearing shown, just a green flag to indicate it had been moved to the right.
Regardless of any rights and wrongs, the sailors in question felt that they had been 'dismissed' because they were just children, and the grown-ups wanted to get on with their prize giving.
Add to this that the first race of the championship was abandoned due to confusion about marks, and the second race had to be re-run because the race committee lost the results, it really left some of the kids feeling like they were second class competitors despite paying the same entry fee as the grown-ups.
|
||
|
||
|
RS400atC
Really should get out more
Joined: 04 Dec 08 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3011 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Jul 12 at 1:02pm |
|
That sounds absolutely shameful. When clubs take an entry fee, they should be expected to provide a reasonable quality of service. I would write formally to complain and copy the RYA. Too many clubs treat open events purely as am income stream with too little thought to delivery of quality racing. |
||
|
||
|
Bootscooter
Really should get out more
Joined: 15 May 07 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1094 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Jul 12 at 6:58pm |
|
|
That's what I was trying to say, without actually saying it as straight as Gareth did (and I thought I was the blunt-talking one of the family
 )
|
||
|
||
|
SoggyBadger
Really should get out more
Joined: 26 Oct 10 Location: The Wild Wood Online Status: Offline Posts: 552 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Jul 12 at 8:56pm |
|
|
The hosting club sound like a load of incompetent buffoons. Perhaps you should name and shame?
|
||
|
Best wishes from deep in the woods
SB |
||
|
||
|
gordon
Really should get out more
Joined: 07 Sep 04 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1037 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Aug 12 at 10:52pm |
|
|
One word answer - APPEAL
|
||
|
Gordon
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy