'Boats shall at all times follow the instructions of Safety Boat crews' and sometimes this extends as far as 'including to retire'.  I've certainly seen it at 3 different events this season.  Once with a threat to DSQ without a hearing.

Yet Fundamental Rule 4 has:

Is anyone aware of any occasion in which a boat has been protested (or DSQ without a hearing) in such circumstances?

What do our esteemed Judges think would happen if such a case came to appeal?

It was slightly thrown in to relief when a patrol boat crew at one of the events told a pal of mine he should be towed in.  It subsequently emerged he was concerned about the crew.....who he took to be a girl of 15/16, but who is actually a tough but quiet soldier of 27, and who was warm, happy and concentrating hard.

In the past I have also had situations where the last thing I wanted was the rescue boat crews anywhere near me in the given conditions!  That's a side issue, but it does perhaps have some relevance to the question of who can make such decisions (and hence Rule 4).

I think you're right about modification of Part 1 Jim.....but it's an interesting one if you are DSQ without a hearing, presumably you would then ask for redress (since it's an action of the RC), and then if redress is denied, you would have to appeal.

I have sat mum in a number of briefings preferring to let the RC have its crutch (and I know at at least one port venue racing is conditional on this SI being incorporated - therefore in no-one's interest to point out that it's invalid until the need arises!).

However, my experience of such a clause being inserted at my previous club was that it was in response to issues that arose at open meetings where conditions were strong, but sailable by the experienced, and where one or more boats without sufficient experience sailed, and continued to do so long after it was quite apparent they weren't coping. I remember one case where a boat would capsize, progress about 100m and repeat. The result was that 2 safety boats were kept effectively fully occupied by this one competitor on a day with 50+ boats on the water and demanding conditions.

I think it's important that race teams can act in those sorts of circumstances, in order not to reduce the cover that can be provided for everyone else on the water. There may be a better way to do it, but I'm not clear what it is. I'd also think that any sort of challenge is incredibly unlikely in that situation - anyone who is likely to be asked to go ashore is almost certainly going to be trailing the fleet anyway.

DSQ without allowing hearing is clearly going too far, however, and would open up the possibility of misuse - a race team should certainly be prepared and able to justify their actions.

Originally posted by PeterG It's an interesting question.  However, my experience of such a clause being inserted at my previous club was that it was in response to issues that arose at open meetings where conditions were strong, but sailable by the experienced, and where one or more boats without sufficient experience sailed, and continued to do so long after it was quite apparent they weren't coping. I remember one case where a boat would capsize, progress about 100m and repeat. The result was that 2 safety boats were kept effectively fully occupied by this one competitor on a day with 50+ boats on the water and demanding conditions. I think it's important that race teams can act in those sorts of circumstances, in order not to reduce the cover that can be provided for everyone else on the water. There may be a better way to do it, but I'm not clear what it is. I'd also think that any sort of challenge is incredibly unlikely in that situation - anyone who is likely to be asked to go ashore is almost certainly going to be trailing the fleet anyway. Yup. Another example might be, in difficult and worsening conditions where, say the top ten boats had finished, and the stragglers were struggling. The race committee could, of course, abandon the race, but to do so would deprive the boats that had finished of their hard earned results, and pointscore standings, which would not be affected whether the tailenders finished or not. DSQ without allowing hearing is clearly going too far, however, and would open up the possibility of misuse - a race team should certainly be prepared and able to justify their actions. Arguably, it's unnecessary to put it in the SI.   http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Racing/RacingInformation/Best%20practices%20and%20guidance/RYA%20Guidance%20-%20Competitor%20Misconduct%20-%2001.13.pdf" rel="nofollow - RYA Misconduct Guidance  provides that Intentionally disobeying a reasonable request of the organizing authority or its officials is Level 1 to 5 misconduct. But the purpose of the SI is to motivate competitors to comply, so a bit of a mention of penalty is probably useful. I also think that a score a bit less severe than DSQ, or even DNF would be more acceptable to the competitors and quite appropriate. Obviously a bit of reassurance that the power would not be used inappropriately would not go astray either. I note also the example Sargesail gave mentions "shall at all times".  That adds nothing, and is just needlessly provocative. How would this run If foul weather or other circumstances make it unsafe for some boats to continue to race, the race committee may instruct those boats to cease racing and return to shore, and boats so instructed shall be scored points for the finishing place one more than the number of boats that that had finished when the race committee decided to give the instructions [using the scoring abbreviation DPI/TLE, insert preferred TLA].  Boats shall comply with any instruction by a race committee or safety boat to cease racing and return to shore.

I agree.  I think Brass' view is overly skewed by different waterborne regulatory frameworks down south, and by an emphasis on home club rather than open circuit competition.

His answer also seems to refer to the general: ie all boats directed to cease racing, not the specific of a single boat given direction by a rescue crew.

I also do not at all follow how direction to a boat by the RC not to continue racing constitutes anything other than a removal of that boat's responsibility for the decision, and thus is in conflict with Rule 4.

I can call on an example.  I recollect (but can't find) a thread on here where a sailor was told to retire by a safety boat crew because they were bleeding from a finger.  Imagine if a SI of the kind mentioned here were in play....and the sailor either complied, and requested redress, given their own assessment, Monty Python style, that it was a mere flesh wound.  Or continued and were DSQ either with or without a hearing.

Howdo you think that would/should play out Brass?

I do not accept your point about abandoning after starting.  That is not the same thing.  When the race is abandoned there is no race for the to continue to race in.

I can't, of course, speak for other judges, and I wouldn't be surprised if Gordon was along soon to give us his opinion.

While I wouldn't be keen to knock out a SI, I would be more than happy to give redress if a safety boat crew did something unreasonable and silly.

Thinking about it, one strategy that could be used is similar to that used to get tailenders to give up racing and move quickly to the starting area in sprint races:  You simply say in SI that any boat that has not finished after [usually a specific time limit like 10 minutes after the first boat finishes, but it could be a signal by the race committee,] shall be scored DNF/TLE without a hearing.  That makes it pointless to continue racing (and was sitting in the background of the SI I proposed and further discussed upthread).  In terms of seriously getting a struggling boat to give up and go ashore, it's not as good as a power to direct, which, if I was trying to accomplish those outcomes, I would probably also include.

Originally posted by sargesail I do not accept your point about abandoning after starting.  That is not the same thing.  When the race is abandoned there is no race for the to continue to race in.

Sorry to leap on that statement - but having inserted a SI like that are you not kind of under obligation to support your rescue crew in their judgement? What seems reasonable out on the water can once ashore and with hindsight be seen to be OTT.

I think its a universally accepted, if unwritten, rule that if in difficulty you follow the direction of the safety crew. 

Not at all.....see the example I gave upthread re a rescue boat crew mistaking a 27 year old for an under 16.  If the helm had tried to comply she'd have decked him.

And there are far too many times when the direction of the Safety Boat crew has actually been unsafe, and/or beyond their capabilities.....