Simple Racing Rules

Unfortunately some sailors have been known to confuse 'sportsmanship' with 'gamesmanship'

For once Wikepedia provides an amusing take on this. Referring to the seminal The Theory and Practice of Gamesmanship (or the Art of Winning Games without Actually Cheating,by Stephen Potter:

Potter's double-edged ironies did not spare the gamesman himself (he slyly named one prominent protagonist 'Bzo, U., holder (1947) Yugo-Slav Gamesmanship Championship', for example). Potter acknowledged repeatedly that 'the way of the gamesman is hard, his training strict, his progress slow, his disappointments many', and recognised that as a result 'the assiduous student of gamesmanship has little time for the minutiae of the game itself - little opportunity for learning how to play the shots, for instance'. Yet one of his "correspondents" owlishly admits, 'there is no doubt that a knowledge of the game itself sometimes helps the gamesman'.

Hence 'perhaps the most difficult type for the gamesman to play is the man who indulges in pure play. He gets down to it, he gets on with it, he plays each shot according to its merits, and his own powers, without a trace of exhibitionism, and no by-play whatever' The book gloomily concludes, 'we amateurs have to fight against the growing menace of young people who insist on playing their various games for the fun of the thing...indulging rather too freely, if the truth were known, in pure play'

Originally posted by Brass Originally posted by rb_stretch First of all I've always found your responses extremely helpful on rules and I certainly learn something whenever you comment. Thank you Originally posted by rb_stretch I firmly believe that you will never find the use of language alone can provide an explanation that leaves no room for interpretation. But as the law or rules develop and mature, with the publication of authoritative interpretations (Cases) the need for ad-hoc interpretation diminishes Originally posted by rb_stretch  I found the cases are almost more important that the rules themselves and without the cases I would be lost as to which specific interpretation (or combination of) the rules needs to be made. I think that may be, in part, because the Cases provide concrete examples, while the rules themselves are abstract. Originally posted by rb_stretch Although you dismiss the spirit of rules as irrelevant, I do think think they play an important role I never used the word irrelevant. I absolutely agree that you need a foundation of fairness and sportsmanship in the conduct of competition. I believe that that is to be found in rule 2. 2 FAIR SAILING A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated. A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat’s series score. Maybe we are disagreeing about a difference that is not very material. the 'spirit of the rules' appeals to something that is supposed to reside within the rules; the 'principles of sportsmanship and fair play' referred to in rule 2 are recognisable outside the rules. But doesn't rule 2 give a sufficient basis of fairness and sportsmanship? Originally posted by rb_stretch ... I will probably know correctly 90% of the rules, simply because I have built an approximate model in my own mind to capture the spirit of the rules. I feel confident in saying that I do not remember the actual rules themselves. I don't believe we will have a perfect set of rules, but I definitely think there is merit in considering simplification when so few of us can actually use the rules as worded. If you probably apply the rules correctly 90% of the time, nobody can say that you cannot use the rules as worded. Whether you can recall rule numbers and the precise wording of rules doesn't matter:  thats what rule books and innumerable electronic versions are published for.

Originally posted by Brass On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the below-average competitor didn't read the rules.

Am I a below-average citizen for not having read The Big Book of UK Laws? I do know the 10 Commandments though...

But I do take your point. I should try to educate myself.

Originally posted by sargesail Without returning to old arguments what the Fireball did was explicitly within the letter and the spirit of the laws - in that they are specifically drafted to allow such conduct which is also supported by Case Law.  The circumstances to make it 'worthwhile' has simply never occurred before.  For many the issue was that the Fireball had set the 'worthwhile' threshold too low for a Winter PY Series.  But it's a pointless example.

Originally posted by rb_stretch How are people supposed to stay within the law if no-one can usefully read, let alone understand it all?

Fortunately most of the new laws aren't new laws at all just old ones dressed up a bit with extra trimmings. I'm at risk of getting political here, but you know, once you have a law against assault, that's all you need if you enforce it. You don't need it to be [large list of alternatives]-aggravated-assault as well unless you are a politician in need of a soundbite or a journo needing some copy.