Rule 28 - Sailing the Course RC Protests
Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: General
Forum Name: Racing Rules
Forum Discription: Discuss the rules and your interpretations here
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12891
Printed Date: 25 Jun 25 at 2:56am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Rule 28 - Sailing the Course RC Protests
Posted By: sargesail
Subject: Rule 28 - Sailing the Course RC Protests
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 9:44am
|
I thought I'd start a separate topic rather than stay off topic in the Rules Observance area.
Some of the discussion there about RC protests got me thinking about this one.
The question that I want to ask is: should a boat be able to rely on the RC to take action where it (the RC) knows that another boat has not sailed the correct course?
It seems to me that this is the one area where self-policing is really not going to work, because the boat sailing the wrong course may be so far ahead, or behind, that it is not possible for another boat to see it. This is especially so in handicap racing.
I hate the common practice of simply scoring boats DNF for a Rule 28 infringement rather than protesting them. We suffered from this in an event a couple of years ago. The Patrol Boat 'saw' us pass the wrong, inshore and tidally favoured side of a mark. What it did not see, before that, was us pass the mark on the correct side, and then fluff our tack so badly that the tide took us well back behind the mark on that wrong side. I didn't have the energy to redress it on that occasion.
Similarly friends of ours were scored 'DNF' on the opening day of a Nationals. They assumed that they were one of a group of boats also scored as DNF, but actually OCS. It was only on the last day when scoring codes were corrected and the other boats were scored OCS, leaving them as DNF, that they realised that something else had taken place. They asked and were told that the Patrol Boat crew had observed them bear away before rounding the spreader mark. Which was ironic given that they had done turns in the boat free area beneath the fleet sailing across to the spreader....and then sailed on.
Clearly in both cases even a simple discussion in the dinghy park might have resolved things, but failing that a protest would have given them a fair say.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Do Different
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 10:10am
|
Doubtless I am wrong. However I have always considered course infringements when on patrol to be not my place to police, save that is for noting what I saw but being well aware that I may not have seen the whole picture or sequence. I would not take it upon myself to write off somebody's race although I would recount my observations as part of wider conversations.
|
Posted By: Noah
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 10:21am
Does the RC have the authority to score a boat as DNF without a protest hearing, unless the boat didn't cross the finish line (within the time limit)?
-------------
Nick
D-Zero 316
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 10:22am
As a sailor, letting a fellow competitor know (usually with a small delay, depending upon whether the competitor should have known better) that they have rounded a mark the wrong way, or are heading in the wrong direction, is common place. To me, it shows good sportsmanship. After all, I'm out there to have a good race.
However, is that ever the place of a safety boat crew? The only times I've done it are either for beginners, or where the RO has changed things last minute and I'm making sure the whole fleet knows, if communication has been poor.
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 10:25am
I don't think so, they should protest the 'offending' boat I believe.
-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"
|
Posted By: 423zero
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 10:40am
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 10:45am
Originally posted by sargesail
should a boat be able to rely on the RC to take action |
A boat cannot *rely* on the RC to take action because the RC is not required to do so.
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 11:06am
Originally posted by JimC
Originally posted by sargesail
should a boat be able to rely on the RC to take action |
A boat cannot *rely* on the RC to take action because the RC is not required to do so. |
I guess that's where I'm going with this....
We seem to have a situation where in some clubs it is accepted practice for the RC to police Rule 28 without recourse to the procedures in RRS....ie not through the protest procedure.
Yet on the other hand there is no obligation on the RC to take action even when it is aware of an infringement of Rule 28.
I knew what the RRS said when I asked the question. As I said it feels to me as if this is one area where self-policing doesn't answer the mail. Its perhaps because of this that RCs incorrectly take the DNF approach to Rule 28 infringements?
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 11:35am
Seems like a good area for arbitration and a retirement by the wrong course boat if they realise, when shown, where they went wrong. Otherwise, it would need to go to a full protest.
I have to admit that a part of me feels that if a boat hasn't sailed the same course as everyone else, they haven't actually completed the race, so marking them as not finished makes sense. This approach simply doesn't allow for human error or accountability, though, whereas a more official approach does.
One of our more common errors is the race officer putting a board in the wrong way round on the race hut. Some will round the way they were expecting from the course map, others the way it is on the start hut (which is what the SIs say), even though it may involve sailing 270 degrees. Abandoning races is unpopular, so often the first lap gaffs are ignored and by second lap the fleet will usually have reached agreement on what to do. Can't remember this ever coming to a protest. Usually, it is noticed before the start and the red faced RO will flip it over just in time, with apologies.
The above makes it sound like it happens every week... It doesn't, really!
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: Eisvogel
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 11:42am
Originally posted by Rupert
One of our more common errors is the race officer putting a board in the wrong way round on the race hut. Some will round the way they were expecting from the course map, others the way it is on the start hut (which is what the SIs say) |
For exactly that reason we no longer put the course on our sign-up sheets. The course is displayed on the race box, nowhere else.
The most common problem we have with course sailed is people missing the gate in an average lap race. Most ROs now make the gate wide enough (and position it close to the leeward mark) so that it is really hard to miss, though it occasionally still happens. But then, racers will still finish, only they will have sailed fewer laps...
-------------
Enterprise 20361 (Eisvogel), Laser 102727 (Halcyon), Laser 121986
|
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 12:19pm
Originally posted by Noah
Does the RC have the authority to score a boat as DNF without a protest hearing, unless the boat didn't cross the finish line (within the time limit)? |
We had this issue a few years ago; we now have the following SI
Boats observed by the Race
Committee to have not sailed the correct course will be scored DSQ without the
need to protest. Boats may seek redress from this action. This amends RRS 63.1
& Appendix A
Hopefully Brass will not pull this apart
-------------
Happily living in the past
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 12:38pm
Originally posted by Rupert
As a sailor, letting a fellow competitor know (usually with a small delay, depending upon whether the competitor should have known better) that they have rounded a mark the wrong way, or are heading in the wrong direction, is common place. To me, it shows good sportsmanship. After all, I'm out there to have a good race.
However, is that ever the place of a safety boat crew? The only times I've done it are either for beginners, or where the RO has changed things last minute and I'm making sure the whole fleet knows, if communication has been poor. |
I'm glad you raise this. There's an interesting logic.
I hope we would agree that if Boat A, observing Boat B infringe Rule 28, needs to hail protest at the time. (Let's not get into the whole debate about levels of aggression associated with the 'P' word). This then gives the other boat an opportunity to rectify the error.
I also hope we would agree that if it could be proved (so I think we're in theoretical space - unless Boat A admitted it) that Boat A made no attempt to inform Boat B, then there would be a problem with the validity of the Protest.
Now take the first situation, delete Boat A and insert 'Patrol Boat'. There was a generally held view in the Rules Observance topic that we need to be careful about elements of the RC interfering. But that seems an odd logic in this context since it removes the opportunity for Boat B to correct its error.
It also seems a little strange that there isn't a requirement on the RC to inform.....
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 12:40pm
Originally posted by Rupert
Seems like a good area for arbitration and a retirement by the wrong course boat if they realise, when shown, where they went wrong. Otherwise, it would need to go to a full protest.
I have to admit that a part of me feels that if a boat hasn't sailed the same course as everyone else, they haven't actually completed the race, so marking them as not finished makes sense. This approach simply doesn't allow for human error or accountability, though, whereas a more official approach does.
One of our more common errors is the race officer putting a board in the wrong way round on the race hut. Some will round the way they were expecting from the course map, others the way it is on the start hut (which is what the SIs say), even though it may involve sailing 270 degrees. Abandoning races is unpopular, so often the first lap gaffs are ignored and by second lap the fleet will usually have reached agreement on what to do. Can't remember this ever coming to a protest. Usually, it is noticed before the start and the red faced RO will flip it over just in time, with apologies.
The above makes it sound like it happens every week... It doesn't, really! |
Ah yes I remember that problem as I grew up racing at your club....I'm pretty sure I can even remember a protest/request for redress about it....but 25 years later its probably faded from corporate memory.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 6:24pm
How often does a boat gain by sailing the wrong course? Usually it seems that one merrily sails off to the wrong mark, only to have to come back when someone joyfully informs you of that. Never have I thought of it as a "protest" situation.
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 8:03pm
Telling somebody they are sailing for the wrong mark is usually a mark of sportsmanship (tempered with a little smugness).
-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 10:00pm
|
Not disagreeing with that. But to self police it if Boat B do the right thing then you have to have a valid protest. Which means you have to tell. Yet we seem to have a view that the RC can’t tell but can protest
|
Posted By: 423zero
Date Posted: 23 Oct 17 at 10:29pm
|
Can't see how RC can tell wrong way boat anything other than they are sailing wrong course ?
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 8:06am
But what if they tell one boat, but not another? Hardly fair.
Pretty sure I've given in to the temptation of shouting "you are going the wrong way" several times when standing in the race box, thinking back. I think I need to learn to keep my mouth shut, though. I've given people a race course, I need to let them use it.
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 8:43am
|
But that's exactly what I'm getting at. To be able to take action against Boat B who is sailing the wrong course Boat A would need to have told Boat B with a minimum (but not necessarily 'sportsmanlike' hail of protest.
Yet the RC can take action without warning a boat...in fact there seems to be a view that it shouldn't/mustn't....because that might not be fair to all.
I'm not sure that the latter is a logical position.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 8:57am
Originally posted by Noah
Does the RC have the authority to score a boat as DNF without a protest hearing, unless the boat didn't cross the finish line (within the time limit)? |
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons
I don't think so, they should protest the 'offending' boat I believe. |
Correct.
http://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/755?page=13" rel="nofollow - Case 128 If a boat makes an error under rule 28.2 or breaks rule 31 at the finishing line and finishes without correcting her error or taking a penalty, she must be scored points for the place in which she finished. She can only be penalized for breaking rule 28.2 or rule 31 if she is protested and the protest committee decides that she broke the rule. |
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 9:51am
|
We put the clause into our SI's because it would could become necessary to score retiring boats with finishing places unless they remember to inform the RC that they have retired. This is because we cannot see the entire course from the race box, but they have to pass through the line to get back to the beach. However I think that it is a pragmatic ammendment and I cannot really see why the RRS could not set this as the default position.
I think that the RRS provide a route to deal with missing marks or wrong direction roundings, though a bit clunky. With regard to hitting marks, perhaps refer to Elvstrom "You haven't won the race, if in winning the race you have lost the respect of your competitors."
Out of interest, am I correct in thinking that a competitor who breaches Rule 41 can only be disqualified by protest? I am thinking particularly where a boat receives assistance from a rescue boat and carries on to finish.
-------------
Happily living in the past
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 9:55am
Originally posted by sargesail
Originally posted by JimC
Originally posted by sargesail
should a boat be able to rely on the RC to take action |
A boat cannot *rely* on the RC to take action because the RC is not required to do so. |
I guess that's where I'm going with this....
Originally posted by sargesail
It seems to me that this is the one area where self-policing is really not going to work, because the boat sailing the wrong course may be so far ahead, or behind, that it is not possible for another boat to see it. This is especially so in handicap racing.
|
We seem to have a situation where in some clubs it is accepted practice for the RC to police Rule 28 without recourse to the procedures in RRS....ie not through the protest procedure.
Yet on the other hand there is no obligation on the RC to take action even when it is aware of an infringement of Rule 28.
I knew what the RRS said when I asked the question. As I said it feels to me as if this is one area where self-policing doesn't answer the mail.
From a 'bare rules' point of view there's no getting around Case 39
http://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/955?page=4" rel="nofollow - Case 39 Sportsmanship and the Rules A race committee is not required to protest a boat. The primary responsibility for enforcing the rules lies with the competitors.
It's fair to observe that the rules are basically designed to cope with one design racing, or at least racing between boats of similar sizes and speeds. Even in a handicap fleet with a wide spread of handicaps one would normally expect there to be a few boats around the tail-end who could protest a boat for missing a mark.
If an OA was running races where there was such a spread that competitors might not be expected to observe a rule 28 error, then I would be quite happy to see the SI notifying competitors that the race committee would observe compliance with rule 28 and protest apparent breaches where observed.
Its it perhaps because of this that RCs incorrectly take the DNF approach to Rule 28 infringements?
No, I think it's just because they don't know the rules and relevant cases.
As discussed, a race committee is absolutely forbidden to score a boat DNF for breaking rule 28, and IMHO should not be given a power in SI to DSQ a boat. Sargesail and Rupert have provided several examples of race committees getting rule 28 issues wrong: race committees should not be given arbitrary powers to penalise boats outside of the restricted situations stated in A5. That's not what ROs are qualified for.
|
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 10:12am
Originally posted by sargesail
Originally posted by Rupert
As a sailor, letting a fellow competitor know (usually with a small delay, depending upon whether the competitor should have known better) that they have rounded a mark the wrong way, or are heading in the wrong direction, is common place. To me, it shows good sportsmanship. After all, I'm out there to have a good race.
However, is that ever the place of a safety boat crew? The only times I've done it are either for beginners, or where the RO has changed things last minute and I'm making sure the whole fleet knows, if communication has been poor. |
I'm glad you raise this. There's an interesting logic.
I hope we would agree that if Boat A, observing Boat B infringe Rule 28, needs to hail protest at the time. (Let's not get into the whole debate about levels of aggression associated with the 'P' word). This then gives the other boat an opportunity to rectify the error.
I also hope we would agree that if it could be proved (so I think we're in theoretical space - unless Boat A admitted it) that Boat A made no attempt to inform Boat B, then there would be a problem with the validity of the Protest.
Now take the first situation, delete Boat A and insert 'Patrol Boat'. There was a generally held view in the Rules Observance topic that we need to be careful about elements of the RC interfering. But that seems an odd logic in this context since it removes the opportunity for Boat B to correct its error.
It also seems a little strange that there isn't a requirement on the RC to inform..... |
No, a protesting boat is NOT required to hail 'protest' and display a red flag at the time a protestee makes a 'rule 28 error'. Rule 28 is not broken until the boat finishes.
http://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/740?page=12" rel="nofollow - Case 112
A boat that makes, and does not correct, an error in sailing the course does not break rule 28 until she finishes. If a boat makes such an error, a second boat may notify the first that she intends to protest before the first boat finishes, or at the first reasonable opportunity after the first boat finishes.
The hail and flag rule has been specifically amended to cope with this: rule 61.1( a )(3) provides
(3) if the incident was an error by the other boat in sailing the course, she need not hail or display a red flag but she shall inform the other boat either before or at the first reasonable opportunity after the other boat finishes;
If a race committee is regularly going to get into the business of on-water protesting, I wouldn't mind the race committee using a red flag and hailing 'protest', telling competitors what's going on in the SI, of course.
|
Posted By: 423zero
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 10:13am
|
I can remember being shouted at at Whitefiars, " You are wrong side of start line " probably classed as an assist.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 10:21am
Originally posted by 423zero
I can remember being shouted at at Whitefiars, " You are wrong side of start line " probably classed as an assist. |
As long as it's unsolicited information from a disinterested source, its OK. And a race committee or a boat in the same race is a disinterested source.
Rule 41.1 OUTSIDE HELP A boat shall not receive help from any outside source, except (d) unsolicited information from a disinterested source, which may be another boat in the same race.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 10:31am
Originally posted by Rupert
How often does a boat gain by sailing the wrong course? Usually it seems that one merrily sails off to the wrong mark, only to have to come back when someone joyfully informs you of that. Never have I thought of it as a "protest" situation. |
Can easily happen where the SI provide 'short' and 'long' courses or legs, and a boat rounds the short mark instead of the long one: this typically puts that boat well in front of the fleet, who cannot catch her to hail 'protest': this is a good reason for the new rule 61.1( a )(3).
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 10:59am
Originally posted by sargesail
... we seem to have a view that the RC can’t tell but can protest |
Rule 61.1( b ) (b) If the race committee, technical committee or protest committee intends to protest a boat concerning an incident the committee observed in the racing area, it shall inform her after the race within the time limit of rule 61.3. In other cases the committee shall inform the boat of its intention to protest as soon as reasonably possible.
This does not prevent the race committee informing a boat of the intention to protest at some sooner time.
Rule 41.1 OUTSIDE HELP A boat shall not receive help from any outside source, except ... (d) unsolicited information from a disinterested source, which may be another boat in the same race.
This would allow the race committee to tell a boat that she has missed a mark or is sailing the wrong course.
Originally posted by 423zero
Can't see how RC can tell wrong way boat anything other than they are sailing wrong course ? |
Originally posted by Rupert
But what if they tell one boat, but not another? Hardly fair.
|
That's the problem isn't it?
Rule 61.1( b ) has the effect of allowing competitors to gain a substantial advantage from another's failure to sail the course correctly.
It's probably not a good thing for the race committee to take that advantage away by informing the protestee any sooner than her competitors need to.
Maybe, just maybe, if the boat making the rule 28 error is a back of the fleet duffer a little help from the race committee might save him or her from having a miserable day without hurting other competitors too much, but the race committee would want to be pretty sure that they're not going to get any requests for redress.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 11:22am
Originally posted by davidyacht
We now have the following SI
Boats observed by the Race Committee to have not sailed the correct course will be scored DSQ without the need to protest. Boats may seek redress from this action. This amends RRS 63.1 & Appendix A
Hopefully Brass will not pull this apart |
Originally posted by davidyacht
We put the clause into our SI's because it would could become necessary to score retiring boats with finishing places unless they remember to inform the RC that they have retired. This is because we cannot see the entire course from the race box, but they have to pass through the line to get back to the beach. However I think that it is a pragmatic amendment and I cannot really see why the RRS could not set this as the default position. |
Drafting looks pretty OK to me.
But the question remains: why does the race committee want to interfere in the game being played by the racers?.
And if the race officer can't see the whole course, how can consistent enforcement possibly be achieved.
As I've previously indicated, I think that giving race committees power to disqualify or penalise competitors in other than the specifically limited circumstances of rule A5.
Even qualified Race Officers rarely have the training and experience in boat positioning and observation of Umpires, or the knowledge and experience in applying the rules of Judges. Race Officers have a multiplicity of tasks other than observing competitors for rules breaches. The same goes in spades for patrol boat crews. Race Committees are just not equipped to reach conclusions about breaches of the rules in general.
There's a further difficulty.
Over in the other thread OhFFSake posted an example of a competitor, rostered as race officer who disqualified half the fleet, then went on to win the series.
This is an embarrassing and obvious conflict of interest.
If you roster competitors to perform duties on behalf of the race committee, and you invest the race committee with arbitrary power to penalise competitors, this conflict of interest is going to produce big problems.
IF the club/sailing/race committee identifies problems with rules observance and decides that race committee intervention is useful, then I suggest the race committee intervention should be limited to protesting, then your properly constituted protest committee or appointed arbitrator can deal with it.
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 11:30am
Originally posted by davidyacht
We put the clause into our SI's because it would could become necessary to score retiring boats with finishing places unless they remember to inform the RC that they have retired. |
That feels like a rather harsh approach. If I understand you correctly you are saying that due to your finish line configuration boats that have already retired will "finish" on their way back to the beach, so you need to score boats that have elected not to complete the course as DSQ. If I came to your club I'd be bloody furious at being scored DSQ rather than RET, even if the points implication was the same.
If I were sailing at your club I'd be happier with an SI that said something like boats that are observed to retire before completing the course may be scored RET - or maybe even a new code - without the boat needing to inform the RC they have retired. A mistake is then a scoring error which may be corrected without a hearing (90.3c) if the RC is content that it made an error. If not then a hearing would be appropriate. That would mean that you still need a hearing for a boat that appears to have completed the race but sailed the course incorrectly.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 11:33am
Originally posted by davidyacht
I think that the RRS provide a route to deal with missing marks or wrong direction roundings, though a bit clunky. |
Rule 34 MARK MISSING If a mark is missing or out of position, the race committee shall, if possible, (a) replace it in its correct position or substitute a new one of similar appearance, or (b) substitute an object displaying flag M and make repetitive sound signals.
If a race committee doesn't replace or substitute a missing mark, and doesn't itself abandon the race, then they've required competitors to sail a course which doesn't exist, which is probably an improper action justifying redress, which is may be to abandon the race.
Originally posted by davidyacht
With regard to hitting marks, perhaps refer to Elvstrom "You haven't won the race, if in winning the race you have lost the respect of your competitors." |
Would you be kind enough to cite the document in which this was published?
Originally posted by davidyacht
Out of interest, am I correct in thinking that a competitor who breaches Rule 41 can only be disqualified by protest? I am thinking particularly where a boat receives assistance from a rescue boat and carries on to finish. |
Many race committees amend rule 41 in the SI to include help in the event of capsize or damage from a race committee vessel as an exception, as long as no significant advantage is gained.
|
Posted By: Noah
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 12:23pm
Going back to the outside assistance posts for a moment; if boat A says to boat B 'you've rounded that mark the wrong way', it's unsolicited and B can't be lobbed. However, if B asks A 'which way do we round this mark?' and A answers then it's not unsolicited and B can be protested by C (or even A, which would be particularly mean!)
-------------
Nick
D-Zero 316
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 12:32pm
Originally posted by Noah
Going back to the outside assistance posts for a moment; if boat A says to boat B 'you've rounded that mark the wrong way', it's unsolicited and B can't be lobbed. However, if B asks A 'which way do we round this mark?' and A answers then it's not unsolicited and B can be protested by C (or even A, which would be particularly mean!) |
So maybe A needs to position herself so she can use the 'follow the boat in front' navigation method.
Always remembering the barge that went to load sand.
|
Posted By: 423zero
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 6:53pm
|
Following Brass's objection to on the water policing a lot easier on this thread than "Rules observance" thread.
|
Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 9:53pm
Originally posted by Brass
Originally posted by davidyacht
With regard to hitting marks, perhaps refer to Elvstrom "You haven't won the race, if in winning the race you have lost the respect of your competitors." |
Would you be kind enough to cite the document in which this was published? |
IIRC it is in his autobiography. I have a copy floating about, will try and look it out later...
|
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 24 Oct 17 at 10:39pm
|
Jim, I probably did not explain this in the best way that I could; firstly we always keep a running order (regardless of whether we think someone has retired or been disqualified) so have a good handle on who is at which end of the fleet ... we get feedback from rescue boats on who has encountered problems or has retired ... and also a visual reference to how boats are being sailed can all point toward a retiree and such boats get RTD.
It is difficult for us to invoke a signing off or tally system with competitors keeping their boats in multiple venues.
However we also have had instances of competitors rounding the wrong marks, or rounding the wrong way, possibly out of sight of other competitors, but in sight of patrol boats. In these cases we wish to disqualify a competitor without the need to protest. Such offenders are recorded DSQ. Along with introducing the amended SI we also introduced a reporting system to correct errors in the results.
The scenario that we were trying to avoid is having to put together a protest committee for something that really is an open and shut case, but even then an easy route for redress exists.
I guess that there is subjectivity in the RTD assessment by the RO but it seems to work.
-------------
Happily living in the past
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 25 Oct 17 at 7:35pm
That (combined with your user name) sounds like you are a keelboat racing club? Don't they all have VHF? If so why can't they sign off by radio? Also, from a health and safety, surely you need some means of knowing all are safe home?
-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 25 Oct 17 at 10:23pm
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons
That (combined with your user name) sounds like you are a keelboat racing club? Don't they all have VHF? If so why can't they sign off by radio? Also, from a health and safety, surely you need some means of knowing all are safe home? |
If it's a keelboat race and, as usual, the equipment safety rules require the boats to be self righting and adequately equipped, in accordance with, among other things rule 1.2, and bearing in mind rule 4, why should the club 'need some means of knowing all are safe home'?
Rule 1.2 Life-Saving Equipment and Personal Flotation Devices A boat shall carry adequate life-saving equipment for all persons on board, including one item ready for immediate use, unless her class rules make some other provision. Each competitor is individually responsible for wearing a personal flotation device adequate for the conditions.
4 DECISION TO RACE The responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 25 Oct 17 at 10:28pm
If I'm running a race, it is important to know all are finished or retired. A boat disappears at sea, chances are some sort of search will be called. Poor form if they just sailed off without informing someone.
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 25 Oct 17 at 10:45pm
|
Don’t race yachts and don’t race on open sea.
-------------
Happily living in the past
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 25 Oct 17 at 11:36pm
Originally posted by davidyacht
Don’t race yachts and don’t race on open sea. |
Is that a personal statement or supposed good advice?
|
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 26 Oct 17 at 8:29am
Originally posted by Brass
Originally posted by davidyacht
Don’t race yachts and don’t race on open sea. |
Is that a personal statement or supposed good advice? |
Wish I could like!
No, was a brief response in response to JC’s post. We race dinghies in a harbour. In the race office we check boats in, record who we consider has finished and who we consider to have retired ... if there are any left overs we account for them. We run laid back family week long regattas and all attempts to have a signing on and signing off system have previously failed.
We try to mark those that we consider to have retired as RTD and those who have infringed with the appropriate monicker, occasionally it does not work, in which case we have set up a system that allows competitors to advise the RC of any perceived errors in the results, without the need to call a PC.
It seems to work for us.
-------------
Happily living in the past
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 26 Oct 17 at 8:59am
Originally posted by davidyacht
... we have set up a system that allows competitors to advise the RC of any perceived errors in the results, without the need to call a PC. |
There is no need to call a PC to correct scoring errors. The only time you need a hearing for scoring errors is if there's disagreement.
But if there is any disagreement I think you do need to call a PC.
|
Posted By: PeterG
Date Posted: 26 Oct 17 at 9:53am
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons
That (combined with your user name) sounds like you are a keelboat racing club? Don't they all have VHF? If so why can't they sign off by radio? Also, from a health and safety, surely you need some means of knowing all are safe home? |
Reminds me of where I used to sail. We (a dinghy club) shared the water with the local yacht racing. We also shared a VHF channel. Trying to communicate with our support boats at times became impossible, while the yachts did their tally in and count down over the VHF. Not infrequently one of them would leave their mic on in the cockpit during their race and you could hear them swearing at each other as they blocked our communication with our motor boats. Kind of entertaining, but also bl**dy annoying.
-------------
Peter
Ex Cont 707
Ex Laser 189635
DY 59
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 26 Oct 17 at 10:22am
|
It is unusual for dinghy clubs to launch/recover from multiple locations.
The simple answer, as adopted by many, is to make signing off (or posting the tally) a requirement and any boat failing to do so is automatically marked DNF. In davidyacht's case, if you introduce it to a club that has not done it in the past you are bound to upset some people so if your present system works it's probably better to leave it alone (though I'd still be slightly concerned that you don't have a means of ensuring everybody got ashore safely).
-------------
Spice 346 "Flat Broke"
Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"
|
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 26 Oct 17 at 10:43pm
Wrong thread!
-------------
Happily living in the past
|
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 26 Oct 17 at 10:44pm
Wrong thread,
-------------
Happily living in the past
|
|