Simple Racing Rules

Isn't saying that football is too complex, it needs simple rules, pretty similar? After all, they work for a kick about in the park, till the fights break out...

Fact is, most of those of us who race regularly USE the rules, we play the game by them, they aren't just there to stop us bumping into each other. It is part of what makes racing interesting.

Hello Jim

I'm just wondering whether this is the "mindshift barrier" here - no offence intended, by the way, Jim.

As I read through your Cases, I glaze over. Even the description of the incident is couched in the usual legalese, and that's before we even start looking at the relevant rules.

Let's change our way of thinking, just for a moment. Let's put the current rules aside and go with the simpler ones.

Case 9, which some people might call "complex". Why is this Case seen as complex? It could be seen as simple, if we wanted to; The boats have to get themselves round the mark without colliding with each other. Exactly how they do that is up to them. If somebody can see a collision coming (whether or not they regard it as their fault) they have to avoid it, otherwise they're DSQ. That's it. Sure, it changes the game. Maybe it would change the game for the better, and it's entirely possible that the game needs changing anyway.

Case 93 - Same, really. I have to read and re-read it a few times just to understand the "incident", and that's before we get the rule book out. Once again, the "complexity" evaporates if you say something like; The rules simply require you to get your boat round the agreed course without colliding with another boat. If you do collide with another boat, you're DSQ. Outside of that, it's "racing".

Jim, you ask; "If any of you want to convince me that using simplified rules like the becker ones I quoted is viable for general competitive club racing then a good start will be to work through some of the case book examples and tell us what boats get penalised, and how they should know whether they are in the wrong as the situation develops."

Well, we've looked at some of your Cases, and things could be seen as simple - the boats that get penalised are the ones that hit another boat. That's it.


Thinking about it, maybe we should look again at the Colregs approach - back to the KISS principle. It's going to take a mindshift though - we'll need to think of the rules as rules of safety rather than rules of racing. OK - fine. We could have a few simple rules that get boats around a course safely. Once that's achieved, anything else is OK, and is called "racing". Almost at a stroke, we can make "Complex" situations much, much simpler. No Zones, no room to manoeuvre, no establishing overlaps from behind, no proper course, no illegal propulsion - none of that. Get yourself around the agreed course without colliding with anybody, otherwise you're disqualified. No ifs, no buts. Just do it. Eeeek.

Edited by Solo4652 - 13 Aug 15 at 9:00pm

@Quagers;   "You have to have a concept of a right of way and give way boat so that everyone knows what is expected of them. The scenarios you describe without these rules just lead to confusion and that thing on the pavement where you both keep trying to avoid each other and end up colliding."

I like that example! Made me smile. An awful lot of the time, people don't need rules to enable them to walk along pavements without colliding with others. It's enough for them to go into this "complex" pavement-walking task with the simple aim of not bumping into other people. Even if some rules are needed, they don't have to be complex. I know I've posted this link before, but it may have gone unnoticed amongst my brain-dump waffling. If I'm reading this right, here are just 3 rules that are currently being used to govern high-speed yacht racing;

See pages 19 to 21 of; http://www.britishlandsailing.org.uk/uploads/1/0/2/9/10293636/training_manual_presentation_v5.pdf



Edited by Solo4652 - 13 Aug 15 at 9:36pm

Originally posted by Solo4652 Hello Jim I'm just wondering whether this is the "mindshift barrier" here - no offence intended, by the way, Jim. As I read through your Cases, I glaze over. Even the description of the incident is couched in the usual legalese, and that's before we even start looking at the relevant rules. Let's change our way of thinking, just for a moment. Let's put the current rules aside and go with the simpler ones. Case 9, which some people might call "complex". Why is this Case seen as complex? It could be seen as simple, if we wanted to; The boats have to get themselves round the mark without colliding with each other. Exactly how they do that is up to them. If somebody can see a collision coming (whether or not they regard it as their fault) they have to avoid it, otherwise they're DSQ. That's it. Sure, it changes the game. Maybe it would change the game for the better, and it's entirely possible that the game needs changing anyway. Case 93 - Same, really. I have to read and re-read it a few times just to understand the "incident", and that's before we get the rule book out. Once again, the "complexity" evaporates if you say something like; The rules simply require you to get your boat round the agreed course without colliding with another boat. If you do collide with another boat, you're DSQ. Outside of that, it's "racing". Jim, you ask; "If any of you want to convince me that using simplified rules like the becker ones I quoted is viable for general competitive club racing then a good start will be to work through some of the case book examples and tell us what boats get penalised, and how they should know whether they are in the wrong as the situation develops." Well, we've looked at some of your Cases, and things could be seen as simple - the boats that get penalised are the ones that hit another boat. That's it. Thinking about it, maybe we should look again at the Colregs approach - back to the KISS principle. It's going to take a mindshift though - we'll need to think of the rules as rules of safety rather than rules of racing. OK - fine. We could have a few simple rules that get boats around a course safely. Once that's achieved, anything else is OK, and is called "racing". Almost at a stroke, we can make "Complex" situations much, much simpler. No Zones, no room to manoeuvre, no establishing overlaps from behind, no proper course, no illegal propulsion - none of that. Get yourself around the agreed course without colliding with anybody, otherwise you're disqualified. No ifs, no buts. Just do it. Eeeek.

Edited by Chris 249 - 13 Aug 15 at 11:49pm

What if both boats involved in a collision were DSQ'd? That might concentrate people's minds on sailing fast and not getting involved in collisions.

Alternatively, we could allow ourselves the luxury of the 8 rules posted above. Here they are, for reference;

•1. Avoid collisions.
•2. Port keeps clear of starboard.
•3. Windward keeps clear of leeward
•4. Overtaking boat keeps clear
•5. Give boats enough time and room to avoid hitting things.
•6. The inside boat(s) at a mark is entitled to room to round the mark.
•7. If you have violated a rule, do a tack and a gybe as soon as you safely can.
.8   Behave towards others in the same way you'd want them to behave towards you.

Applying these to your scenarios, we get;

You luff me hard, we collide. I'm DSQ'd under rule 3 and you're DSQ'd under rule 1

You luff me hard into some other boats. You're DSQ'd under rule 5

You hunt me down on Starboard. We collide. You're DSQ'd under rule 5 and rule 1

I'm becalmed and you reverse your windsurfer into me. You're disqualified under rule 5 and rule 1

Is there something in this, do you think?