29er GBR 074 Tynemouth |
J24 (Sail No. 4239) Dartmouth |
Laurent Giles 'Jolly Boat' Exeter |
List classes of boat for sale |
Sailing Instructions vs Racing Rules |
Post Reply | Page <1 456 |
Author | ||
Presuming Ed
Really should get out more Joined: 26 Feb 05 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 641 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Topic: Sailing Instructions vs Racing Rules Posted: 09 Dec 07 at 5:35pm |
|
No, because the usual boat - on - boat rules still apply. What should happen is: S tack boat sees P tack sailing up to start. "Oh look. Here comes Joe - he's already started, but he's a bit late. Stupid fool - we'll get a pint out of him later for this one. Wave him across" Or, P sees S. "We're racing - could you duck us? Blast - no reply. They obviously haven't seen us. Ah well, bearing away to duck them. As it's not particularly egregious - e.g. they're not 1bl below the line at the favoured end with 10 secs to go, we won't do anything. We are a bit late for the start, anyway." |
||
Noble Marine
Posting king Joined: 09 May 05 Location: Newark, Nottinghamshire Online Status: Offline Posts: 126 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 11 Dec 07 at 4:35pm | |
Following such a lively discussion, I thought that I would keep you all updated having just received a response from the RYA Racing Rules Committee Advisory Group.
In a nutshell, and as has been suggested here by Presuming Ed, Stuart O and others, rule 86.1 states that the rules in Part 2 cannot be changed and therefore, in this scenario, the Sailing Instructions cannot take precedence over the racing rules. Obviously to suggest in the SIs that a boat who is racing has automatic right of way over a boat not yet racing, could cause a huge amount of confusion and may result in a serious collision. Having seen the large number of Sailing Instructions that use similar wording, I am surprised that other incidents have not been documented. If you're responsible for writing Sailing Instructions in the future you should bear this in mind and when you're next at a Skipper's briefing, question the Race Officer for clarification if you read anything like this in the Sailing Instructions. Jon |
||
Scooby_simon
Really should get out more Joined: 02 Apr 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2415 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 11 Dec 07 at 5:38pm | |
Exactly what I was expecting. |
||
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
||
gordon
Really should get out more Joined: 07 Sep 04 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1037 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 11 Dec 07 at 5:56pm | |
Would it be somewhat surly to point out that Presuming Ed was arguing that the SIs did not modify RRS22.1
On the relationship between rules of Part 2 Section A and RRS 22.1 RYA Case 1996/1 is clear. 22.1 does not override Part 2 Section A rules. As for the Sailing Instructions they can designate a well defined Starting Area and rule that boats shall not enter the Starting Area before their warning signal. However if this is in the SIs I would hope that - the area being clearly designated (preferably by marks); - the right to protest under this SI be restricted so that only the Race Committee or the on the water Jury can protest any infringement; - that the Race Committee (or Jury) is willing to protest any infringement. Many stipulations in SIs are worse than useless because, when it comes to the crunch, the RC is not prepared to enforce the SIs they have put in place. I would agree that many SIs are dire. I would suggest that the best way to proceed is to write a rough draft then ask a National or International Judge to translate your wishes into ISAFese. This can be a long process. It took me 6 months intense negotiation at my local club to get a set of SIs that were conform to the current RRS. Gordon |
||
Gordon
|
||
Brass
Really should get out more Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1146 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 24 Mar 08 at 1:14am | |
I can't agree with the general statement that SI trump RRS. SI only override RRS where the RRS specifically allow the SI to do so, and where the SI conform to special requirements to expressly say which RRS they are changing. 1. RRS 86.1 'A racing rule shall not be changed unless permitted ...' RRS 86.1(b) SI may ... not ... [change] a rule listed in rule 86.1(a) [which says that a Part 2 rule (and Part 7 rules, including RRS 86.1, and several others) cannot be changed]. 2. RRS 89.2 and RRS J2.2(4) '... SI shall include ... [any] changes to the RRS permitted by rule 86, referring specifically to each rule and stating the change'. So if there isn't a RRS number any purported change is an improper action. 3. Case 98 and RRS 63.7 (Confilict between Rules), while expressly applying to conflicts between NOR and SI, give guidance in principle: a) Case 98: there is no precedence unless expressly stated (RRS 89.2 expressly states precedence between RRS and SI) b) RRS 63.7: don't look for 'rules about rules' apply the rule that will provide the fairest result for all boats affected.
Brass
|
||
Brass
Really should get out more Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1146 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 24 Mar 08 at 2:32am | |
The SI has two bits: Boats whose warning signal has not been made: 1. shall keep clear of the starting area and 2. [shall keep clear] of all boats whose warning signal has been made. Bit 1 is unobjectionable, except for problems of what is the 'starting area' (probably better to define the 'starting box', make it an obstruction, and require boats before their warning signal to keep out of it.) Bit 2 is where the problems are. Whether Bit 2 modifies RRS 22.1 or not can be argued (particularly given that 'not interfere' (includes wind shadow, wake) can be taken to be a greater obligation than 'keep clear' (RRS definition), but Bit 2 does purport to modify all of the Section A rules, RRS 10, RRS 11, RRS 12, RRS 13, and all the other RRS that create obligations to keep clear (RRS 18.2(b), 18.2(c), 18.5, 20.1, and 20.3, except RRS 20.2 which can't apply to a boat before her warning signal). As it stands the second bit is improper. My bet would be that the RC never gave a thought to the fact that their little 'add-on' to the 'keep clear of the starting area' would create such a mess. They should have observed RRS Appendix L, Principle 7, 'use words and phrases from the racing rules', on the understanding that if you don't want a phrase to mean what it does in the RRS, don't use it. In the original situation, Part 2 rules apply, (Preamble to Part 2). Boat A on port is racing. Boat B on stbd is not racing (Definition of racing). Boat B has promised to observe all Part 2 rules, but can't be penalized for breaking any of them except RRS 22.1 (Preamble to Part 2), that is, if B managed to break a Part 2 rule without interfering with a boat that was racing (perhaps by not giving room), then B cannot be penalized. But in this case, it can't be said that, after the collision, A wasn't interfered with. A breaks RRS 10 and RRS 14: If A did not cause injury or serious damage, A may take a RRS 44 Penalty, otherwise, on valid protest DSQ A B breaks RRS 22.1 and RRS 14. A is not racing so A may not take a RRS 44 Penalty, on valid protest DSQ B. Did the improper action of the RC in writing the SI saying that B must keep clear of A, contradicting RRS 10, make either boat's score significantly worse without any fault of that boat, thus grounding a RRS 62 redress? Regardless of which boat was obliged to keep clear, each boat broke RRS 14 (through being silly and rude). Even if they validly sought redress, neither should be given redress. Brass |
||
Stuart O
Really should get out more Joined: 22 Jul 07 Online Status: Offline Posts: 514 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 24 Mar 08 at 6:26pm | |
Having recently been sailing at International level and speaking to highly regarded ROs, some of which are ROs at this years Olympics, it is becoming more apparent that ISAF want SIs to say less rather than more.
ie WE ALL LEARN THE RULES, thus SIs should only say what local variations apply eg not sailing in a designated area, and NOT give a run down of rules. |
||
farc anal
Groupie Joined: 11 Oct 07 Location: one stop short of Tooting Online Status: Offline Posts: 54 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 25 Mar 08 at 1:57pm | |
I'm totally shocked that an insurance company would ask a forum these questions , the fact they didn't disclose identities is irrelevant . someones liability is obviously in question here and desreves professional attention and I would think Noble Marine would be legally bound to do so too . Even if both parties were insured by Noble , Noble still have a duty to the policy holder to resolve without "unqualified" public debate and to follow the correct channels . in the future I would hope that Noble marine would refer to the governing body in the first instance for judgement as is proper in these circumstances, or consult lawyers qualfied in providing advice in these matters. Had Nobles followed the correct proceedures settled the case and informed of their findings in a forum to make clubs etc aware of these circumstances I could see relevance of it Thankfully - Noble saw the light and followed the correct route eventually . I normally ignore these long wrangled rule debates , but was bored and read this thread , still gobsmacked at Nobles initial response to the issue . If it was a case I was involved with and treated like this , I would be complaining to an Insurance regulator. Similarily if you've ever had a case decided against you on rule interperation and you think it was wrong I would seriously consider requesting to find out how the decision was arrived at and with what authority , especially in these times of rising premiums and the loss of no claims bonuses .
|
||
Post Reply | Page <1 456 |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |