Wasting time

should · Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by sprayblond

I copied this from RYA regarding rule 2: I would say gamesmanship is broken. If you by drawing out time gain an advantage, you do not settle the competition in a fair way, i.e. by sailing as well as you can in as many races as possible. 
----------------
A1: The recognised principles of sportsmanship 
and fair play include the following ...
• Respect forthe rules

Breaches of this principle include: ... 

Gamesmanship, defined as behaviour of questionable fairness but not strictly illegal tactics 

Originally posted by Peaky

... questionable tactics (and they have been found to be questionable, because at least one person has questioned them), ...

Ok, Spraybloond, good get, and those racing under the RYA may feel obliged to follow this.

However, I think this is more a product of the RYA Marketing Department's Code of Niceness than careful consideration of the rules and how the game is played.  I note that the RYA was unable to get the agreement of its Racing Rules experts to put this into an Appeal, so that it would have some authority.

I think reference to 'questionable tactics that break no rule' is inconsistent with important aspects of rule 2 as follows:

Rule 2 is an harsh rule:  the penalty for breaking it is a non-excludable disqualification:  one might expect that breaches of rule 2 would be 'greater than' and 'better proved' than breaches of ordinary rules.
The requirement is that breach of the 'recognised principles' must be 'clearly established'.  That is, the rule itself expresses a higher standard of proof than for any other rule, except rule 69.  Arguably the requirement is 'comfortable satisfaction', as for rule 69, or maybe something in between ordinary balance of probabilities and comfortable satisfaction.
If the threshold of the alleged breach is that an action is no more than 'questionable', how can it proved that a violation was 'clearly established'?
I note that 'gamesmanship' of all kinds is recognised feature of all sports, be it nothing more than confident swagger around the boat park.  I think the RYA is attempting to set the bar far to high.
At the very least I would be inclined to qualify the provision by something like:

other than conduct within the ambit of Case 78; and
calculated to gain an unfair advantage

The 'Gamesmanship' displayed in the 2012 Olympic Badminton qualifying rounds didn't go down well... even though similar scenarios had been played out in international events before then. Not sure whether the teams were ejected from the competition under Badminton rules or under the doctrine of the Olympic ethos.

As far as 'questionable' goes, it should be for the National authority to decide whether or not a 'violation was clearly established', and ultimately for the ISAF to endorse it.