Rules Observance

Various posts by 423zero raise two different issues:

Whether sailing racing should be ‘policed’ or ‘controlled’ by race officials;  and

Whether some practices described by 423zero are good practices.

I’d like to sum up the first issue in this post, then address the second in another post.

Sailing is often proudly said to be a self-policing sport.

43zero has posted

I don’t know whether this will convince 423zero, who seems determined not to be convinced, but I’ll have a go.

I have pointed out that:

• According to the rules, cases, manuals and policies that govern the sport, sailing is not a ‘refereed’ game where officials control the game.  Even in the umpired disciplines (Match Racing, Team Racing, Umpired Fleet Racing), the umpiring process normally requires competitors, to ask the umpires for a decision.
• If you change the game to a ‘refereed’ or ‘policed’ game, you change the game itself, IMHO for the worse. If you move towards a 'refereed' game, you will move competitors towards a 'play to the whistle' or 'if the referee doesn't see it it's not a foul' mentality which is exactly contrary to the RRS Basic Principle Sportsmanship and the Rules.
• If race officials do exercise authority to control the game then they will be attracting liability for any harm or accidents that happen and will make rule 4 useless.
• Race officials are not responsible for enforcing the rules.  The primary responsibility for enforcing the rules lies with the competitors.
• Race management policies and guidance suggest that the race officials should not normally protest a competitor, and should only protest a boat for a blatant breach of the rules that affects the fairness of a race.

I just find the notion of ‘policing’ the game I love by officials repugnant,  It is not necessary for the game to be played for it to be ‘controlled’ by officials.  That’s how it’s designed.

Admittedly, this whole issue arose in the context of exceptional measures that might be taken in response to observed significant disregard of the rules by groups of competitors.  It may be that an organising authority or race committee might decide that intervention by race officials was necessary and justified.  This might include the race committee exercising its power to protest competitors somewhat more widely than just for blatant breaches affecting fairness.  I don’t think this extends to:

• Action, such as disqualifying boats, berating competitors or directing them to take on-water penalties:  the power of the race committee is to protest a boat:  no more;
• Unilateral action by one race officer if it is not supported by a clear decision or direction by the organising authority or race committee.

In fairness, 423zero has also said

I would certainly agree that a balanced and tailored response to rules non-compliance is sensible, and very much agree that it should be reduced when the problem is solved.