Print Page | Close Window

Sailing Instructions vs Racing Rules

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=3670
Printed Date: 09 Dec 19 at 2:43am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Sailing Instructions vs Racing Rules
Posted By: Noble Marine
Subject: Sailing Instructions vs Racing Rules
Date Posted: 05 Dec 07 at 4:31pm

An interesting case has just been raised in discussions relating to a claim.  I'd be interested to learn the thoughts of any rules gurus.

The situation is as follows:

The Sailing Instructions of a regatta contained the following:
"Boats whose warning signal has not been made shall keep clear of the starting area and of all boats whose warning signal has been made. Attention is drawn to RRS22.1"

Boat A has missed her start and is approximately 200m downwind of the start line 90 seconds after her starting signal, sailing close hauled on port tack.

Boat B is sailing in a different fleet awaiting her preparatory signal, sailing on starboard tack.

As the two boats approach, boat A hails "We are racing", boat B "Hails starboard".  Boat A attempts to take avoiding action, but fails and a collision occurs.

Obviously if both boats were racing, boat A should keep clear as per RRS10, but as Boat B is not yet racing, she should keep clear of boat whose warning signal has been made, as per the sailing instructions.

My question to the forum is - When the Sailing Instructions and the Racing Rules are in conflict, which should take precedent?
 






-------------
http://www.noblemarine.co.uk" rel="nofollow - Boat Insurance from Noble Marine

http://www.facebook.com/noblemarine" rel="nofollow - Noble Marine on Facebook .



Replies:
Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 05 Dec 07 at 4:59pm

Try International prevention of collisions at sea.

basic starboard boat has right of way over Port



Posted By: Noble Marine
Date Posted: 05 Dec 07 at 5:14pm
But if both boats had signed the entry form agreeing to be bound by the sailing instructions and the racing rules, would this effectively give right of way to a port tack boat who is racing over a starboard tack boat awaiting her preparatory signal?

-------------
http://www.noblemarine.co.uk" rel="nofollow - Boat Insurance from Noble Marine

http://www.facebook.com/noblemarine" rel="nofollow - Noble Marine on Facebook .


Posted By: ChrisJ
Date Posted: 05 Dec 07 at 5:28pm

The question: When the Sailing Instructions and the Racing Rules are in conflict, which should take precedent?

 

Should always give the answer: the SIs over-rule.

 

Having said that, back to this particualr incident. Is 200m below the line "the starting area"? I would have said not - it is too far away to be considered the starting area.

Of course, if the starboard boat failed to keep clear and a collision happened, then they are in the wrong just as much as the port tack boat. Whether or not they were past their preparatory signal or not.



Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 05 Dec 07 at 5:50pm

I'm not a "guru" but my take would be:

Racing A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes

So Boat A was racing and B was not.

RRS 22.1 If reasonably possible, a boat not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.

So B is wrong under 22.1, unless it wasn't "reasonably possible" to avoid A, which doesn't sound the case.

There is no conflict between SIs and RRS.

Colregs are irrelevant because both boats are contracted to follow the RRS. The boundary of the "starting areas is also irrelevant.

 

 



Posted By: hurricane
Date Posted: 05 Dec 07 at 6:15pm
how come I have seen a jury use the colregs to disqualify a boat for a similar situation?

-------------
lifes to short to sail slow boats!

RIP Olympic Tornado 1976-2007


Posted By: Worthy
Date Posted: 05 Dec 07 at 7:17pm
Noble Marine

Could you clarify if the collision took place before the 2nd boat's warning signal (5 mins) or preparatory signal (4 mins) as the terms have been used interchangably above.


Posted By: Noble Marine
Date Posted: 05 Dec 07 at 8:34pm
Originally posted by Worthy

Noble Marine

Could you clarify if the collision took place before the 2nd boat's warning signal (5 mins) or preparatory signal (4 mins) as the terms have been used interchangably above.

The collision took place approximately 2 mins after boat A's start and 13 minutes before boat B's start (i.e. 8 minutes before the 5 minute signal).

Both boats were approximately 200 metres downwind of the start line.
 

-------------
http://www.noblemarine.co.uk" rel="nofollow - Boat Insurance from Noble Marine

http://www.facebook.com/noblemarine" rel="nofollow - Noble Marine on Facebook .


Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 05 Dec 07 at 9:20pm
Also please clarify the SIs do they state a time limit for a boat to cross the line after the start signal...some acutually say must cross the line within 2 minutes of the start signal.


Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 05 Dec 07 at 9:22pm
Also look back in some of the IYRU/RYA appeals think you will find that this has been clarified and Im sure colregs led to the dsq of the boat on port.


Posted By: Noble Marine
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 6:17am

Originally posted by Stuart O

Also please clarify the SIs do they state a time limit for a boat to cross the line after the start signal...some acutually say must cross the line within 2 minutes of the start signal.

The port tack boat would have been inside the starting time limit of 15 minutes.

Originally posted by Stuart O

Also look back in some of the IYRU/RYA appeals think you will find that this has been clarified and Im sure colregs led to the dsq of the boat on port.

I have tried to find some former case like this as I am sure it must have arisen previously.  If anyone knows of a case, please let me know.

 



-------------
http://www.noblemarine.co.uk" rel="nofollow - Boat Insurance from Noble Marine

http://www.facebook.com/noblemarine" rel="nofollow - Noble Marine on Facebook .


Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 6:57am

Originally posted by hurricane

how come I have seen a jury use the colregs to disqualify a boat for a similar situation?

There have been several court cases in the UK and USA upholding the principal that RRS, not Colregs, apply between boats involved in racing, even if not in the same race.  http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/news/04/0111pera/ - http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/news/04/0111pera/  is a good read on the subject.

ISAF case 67 ruled that a boat racing that collided with a boat not racing could be penalised under RRS. However I don't think the case is relevant here because the other boat in case 67 was not involved in racing at all and hence 22.1 didn't apply. I can't locate any ISAF cases involving RRS 22.1.

If you know of International Jury findings that found a boat in boat B's situation was not required to abide by RRS22.1, please let us know the details.



Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 10:28am
Frankly if I was either of the parties to this claim and came across this while browsing this forum I would be more than a little shocked.  While I appreciate that extremely obscure cases call for more unusual research methods I don't really see it as appropriate.


Posted By: Noble Marine
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 11:18am
Originally posted by sargesail

Frankly if I was either of the parties to this claim and came across this while browsing this forum I would be more than a little shocked.  While I appreciate that extremely obscure cases call for more unusual research methods I don't really see it as appropriate.


Which is why I have deliberately kept names and precise details out of the discussion.

We have had long discussions in-house about the case and thought that it would be an interesting to debate. This wording is commonly found in the sailing instructions of many events and I believe that similar situations must have occured previously.

Thankfully in the specific incident, no-one was injured, but it is easy to see how an injury could occur if one skipper felt he had right of way by virtue of the fact that he was sailing on starboard (rule 10) and another skipper felt he had right of way by virture of the fact that he was racing and the SIs stated that a boat not yet racing must keep clear of a boat who is racing.

Obviously under rule 14, a boat shall avoid contact, however the rule also states that, a right-of-way boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear.  If the SI and the racing rules are in conflict, confusion could arise whereby both boats believe themselves to be the right of way boat and therefore wait for the other boat to take action.

My question was, if the rules and the sailing instructions are in conflict, which should take precedence.




-------------
http://www.noblemarine.co.uk" rel="nofollow - Boat Insurance from Noble Marine

http://www.facebook.com/noblemarine" rel="nofollow - Noble Marine on Facebook .


Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 11:27am
However I've argued that the rules and SIs are not in fact in conflict. See RRS 22.1.


Posted By: Noble Marine
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 12:06pm
Originally posted by Stefan Lloyd

However I've argued that the rules and SIs are not in fact in conflict. See RRS 22.1.


But 22.1 states "If reasonably possible,a boat not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.".

The SIs state that "Boats whose warning signal has not been made shall keep clear of the starting area and of all boats whose warning signal has been made"

There could be a big difference between "if reasonably possible" and "shall".

Perhaps if the proposed case were more general.  Would a boat, either racing, or about to race, have automatic right of way over a boat, awaiting her start, well away from the starting area and the course?


-------------
http://www.noblemarine.co.uk" rel="nofollow - Boat Insurance from Noble Marine

http://www.facebook.com/noblemarine" rel="nofollow - Noble Marine on Facebook .


Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 12:27pm

Yes but surely the point here is that neither boat could actually know who was bound by what at the stage that the incident occurred, or more specifically if you take Stefan's line, or indeed apply the "shall" above, that Boat B the give-way boat had no reason to believe she was not the right of way (or to go IRPCAS - stand-on vessel).  The hail from Boat A was her first indication - they may have been close or seperated but the question for me really comes down to "was there time and opportunity for Boat B to compute the relative merits of the SIs, RRS, IRPCAS and move her perception from right of way to give way and then make an alteration of course, in a sensible manner, without worsening the situation.  That it was Boat A that made the attempt to alter and avoid might suggest not, or might suggest that Boat B was mereley being difficult.  But the point is that any Protest decision or I believe insurance decision shoul take this into account.

Frankly if Boat A, who had already duffed the start was entering the starting area and was not keeping up a constant stream of "advice" that she intended to take up her rights as a racing boat over boats that were not then she deserved everything she got - and the question of rights and which rules have priority is dancing on thr head of a pin.

I assume if this has been debated at length that a decison has been made.  These things do create odd circumstances and odd decisions - I was staggered that a pal of mine who was returning ashore foils up and hit another boat which launched into his path lost his excess - but I have/had faith in the protocols used for these decisions - until I saw this thread!



Posted By: craiggo
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 12:37pm
On most counts I agree with Stefan, however ultimately colregs must be the final requirement to be met, and in this instance boat A is in the wrong, however having hailed Starboard, boat B should not have just assumed that boat A would avoid them and should have maintained watch. When it became obvious to boat B that boat A was not going to alter course boat B should have taken avoiding action, not doing so was in contrivention of colregs and so swithed blame onto them. Had B avoided A then they would have been entitled to protest although given that they still had 13mins before their preparotory signal they would be unlikely to claim any redress, boat A however may have been DSQ.

Paul


Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 1:10pm

Originally posted by sargesail

Boat B the give-way boat had no reason to believe she was not the right of way (or to go IRPCAS - stand-on vessel). 

Questionable. They were different classes in the same event. It isn't too much to expect that you might know which classes started ahead of you.

In a protest I'd chuck boat A under rule 10 and boat B under 14 and 22.1.

 



Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 1:31pm
Originally posted by Stefan Lloyd

Originally posted by sargesail

Boat B the give-way boat had no reason to believe she was not the right of way (or to go IRPCAS - stand-on vessel). 

Questionable. They were different classes in the same event. It isn't too much to expect that you might know which classes started ahead of you.

In a protest I'd chuck boat A under rule 10 and boat B under 14 and 22.1.

 

 

That maybe so, but given who is asking the question, we need to go further than the results of a protest.  The protest does not provide a definition of ultimate "fault", it provides a ruling based on the SAILING RULES that apply.

Consider if the Starboard boat was not part of the race and so did not know what the SSI's said.  Would it then be a simple port / stbd / colision regs situation ?

I would say, on balance (and it's close IMO) that the boat on PORT was wrong to push to the point of collision as the stbd boat (may) have had the view that they had rights.  Did the Port boat know the Stbd boat was part of the regatta ?

Did the Stbd boat assume that the PORT boat was not part of the regatta as they were so late for the start ? Or did the Stbd boat assume that the boat was on a later start because hey were so late.

Without all the facts it's difficult to be certain, but perhaps port boat was pushing TOO hard as they were late.

I'd probably bin both as above and find fault with the port boat.

would be good to have more facts



-------------
F16 GBR 553 - Hungry Monster - For sale
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
I also talk sport http://www.letshaveachat.com - here


Posted By: Granite
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 1:44pm
Originally posted by Stefan Lloyd

Originally posted by sargesail

Boat B the give-way boat had no reason to believe she was not the right of way (or to go IRPCAS - stand-on vessel). 


Questionable. They were different classes in the same event. It isn't too much to expect that you might know which classes started ahead of you.


In a protest I'd chuck boat A under rule 10 and boat B under 14 and 22.1.


 



It is reasnable to know the classes starting ahead of you and possibly the order but to know the specific starting condition of any boat that you meat is pushing it a bit especially if they are part of a number of general handicap classes.

The Sailing instructions have introduced a situation where the right of way boat will swap on a large number of occations through the starting sequence without any good indication of the change.
I would suggest that the situation is caused by the sailing instructions that have changed expectation of who has right of way in a random and arbitary way. I would say that the organising club is at fault for the colision.


-------------
If it doesn't break it's too heavy; if it does it wasn't built right


Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 2:24pm
Like that one Phi!  Club to pay the excess then!


Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 2:33pm

Originally posted by Scooby_simon

That maybe so, but given who is asking the question, we need to go further than the results of a protest.  The protest does not provide a definition of ultimate "fault", it provides a ruling based on the SAILING RULES that apply.

It's the sailing rules that matter, because both boats have entered races and thereby contracted to abide by the RRS. This is true even if they are in different regattas. In places such as the Solent and Chichster Harbour it's quite common to encounter boats racing in different events to your own and RRS apply between such boats. There are both ISAF cases and real-life lawsuits that say it is RRS that must be used to decide RoW and hence fault. See the Mary Pera link I posted earlier in this thread for some history on the subject. 

Saying RRS apply isn't the same as saying a protest ruling decides the outcome of an insurance claim. The latter is for insurance companies to agree between themselves, or ultimately the courts. But it's RRS that provides the framework for the decision, not colregs.



Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 3:27pm

Stefan,

 

I think we are actually agreeing here (almost).

Consider when the SI's of one regatta say stbd gives way to port and this fleet meets another fleet who are sailing by the normal rules.

Then the RRS apply?  Or the conflicting SI's ?,

 

In this case the port boat is wrong ?

One thing I do not understand is when the SI vs RRS switch may occur, and how this timing can be defined…

 



-------------
F16 GBR 553 - Hungry Monster - For sale
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
I also talk sport http://www.letshaveachat.com - here


Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 3:30pm

You come under the remit of Part 2 of the RRS even before your prep signal:

WHEN BOATS MEET

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area

and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. However, a boat not racing

shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 22.1. When a

boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with

the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or

government right-of-way rules. However, an alleged breach of those rules shall

not be grounds for a protest except by the race committee or protest committee.

If the sailing instructions so state, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the rightof-

way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way rules.

 

So, if you're sailing around the start area, you have to comply with the Part 2 of the RRS - the whole "when boats meet" bit. Because both boats are intending to race/are racing, the RRS apply.

The preamble specifically states that a boat can be penalized under 22.1.

The downside is that it doesn't negate Ports requirements to keep clear of a starboard boat.

Normally difficult to do these things online, but gut feel would be to DSQ both boats - S for 10, P for 22.1 - assumig that S complied with the whole R&O requirements, and made reasonable efforts to avoid collision.



Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 3:36pm
Originally posted by Scooby_simon

Consider when the SI's of one regatta say stbd gives way to port and this fleet meets another fleet who are sailing by the normal rules.

Then the RRS apply?  Or the conflicting SI's ?,

 

You can't do that - or at least, you can't do that and use ANY of the ISAF RRS. SI's cant change rules of Part 2. And if you write your own part 2 rules, and use any other ISAF RRS, then you're actually in breach of copyright. Also, I doubt any insurance company would be willing to cover any racing under rules that are diametrically opposite to the IRPCS.

 

One thing I don't know is whether affiliation to the RYA means that clubs agree to always use the RRS for racing - or whether the RYA liability insurance (I assume there is such a thing) requires use of the RRS.



Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 4:08pm

Thanks Presuming Ed knew that Colreg applied or where mention somehow... Thought I was going mad...Ok those that know me I am already unfortunate thing about work is that you don't have your rule book with you!!!! Besides mines enroute to Australia.

So in this case the SIs should not apply



Posted By: Noble Marine
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 4:16pm
I agree that a racing rule in part 2 cannot be changed (rule 86.1), but what if the SI were intended to reinforce the rules, but in doing so changed the emphasis?

A great number of clubs and regattas carry the same or similar wording in their Sailing Instructions (see this http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1_____ENXX250&q=Boats+whose+warning+signal+has+not+been+made+shall+keep+clear+of+the+starting+area+and+of+all+boats+whose+warning+signal&btnG=Search&meta= - Google search ) shifting the emphasis that a boat not racing MUST keep clear of a racing boat, rather than keeping clear "if reasonably possible" as per rule 22.1.

To follow this through, is it not possible that in a multiple fleet start, a fleet of slower boats awaiting their start, could be decimated by a faster boat who is racing, but who would not have right of way if the slower boats were also racing?


-------------
http://www.noblemarine.co.uk" rel="nofollow - Boat Insurance from Noble Marine

http://www.facebook.com/noblemarine" rel="nofollow - Noble Marine on Facebook .


Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 4:35pm

Then the wording of the SI is wrong IMHO. Having worked with barristers and solicitors what is meant is often not what is written and therefore what is written conflicts and is therefore invalid.

Again though some mention line and define the line and others mention area with only a few defining what area is eg RCYCRBYC, Optimist.

 



Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 5:01pm

Originally posted by Stuart O

Thanks Presuming Ed knew that Colreg applied or where mention somehow... So in this case the SIs should not apply

The SIs do apply, because both boats are involved in racing in the same events. RRS apply even if they are not in the same event, if both are involved in racing.

There are two situations for a racing boat when colregs apply.

1. When meeting a boat that isn't racing, intending to race etc. as defined in the part 2 preamble.

2. Some SIs state that colregs will apply after dark. This is common for offshore races but not otherwise. The reason is that in the dark, you can't tell if another boat is racing or cruising.

Neither of those conditions are true, so SIs and RRS apply.

 

 



Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 5:05pm

And all this just illustrates that if we can't agree, with rule books to hand and a warm office, desk and brew, what chance did Boat B have of working out that he was the Give Way boat, especially in view of Presuming Ed's post above.

And let me give you a hypothetical situation.  Boat B is hove to on starboard tack (perfectly safe and reasonable bearing in mind the time to run to his start.  Is it now "reasonably possible" for him to, as give way boat to avoid Boat A?

More to the point what sort of qualifying adverb is reasonably?  It either is or isn't possible.  Does reasonably refer to the amount of effort involved?  Or the time?

Badly written sailing instructions which placed Boat B in jeopardy - and no-one should find against him (and I don't confine that to my hove to postulation) - protest committee or insurance company.



Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 6:04pm

The "reasonably possible" you object to is in the RRS, not the SIs.

What chance did boat B have? Well, he could have asked. Or he could have thought: here's a boat hiking hard - it looks like they are racing. It really isn't hard, 90% of the time, to tell the difference between a boat racing and one than isn't.

By the way I once saw a major collision quite similar to this between a yacht who was racing and a keelboat having their lunch between races. I don't think anyone who witnessed would have disagreed that both parties needed to be more aware what was going on around them. It's all too easy to switch off.  

 



Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 6:38pm

Ignore what the thoughts of the boats are and go back to the question, although I do agree that observation would help make a judgement call, which should take precidence the SIs or RRS in this case?

In the case mentioned the SIs rewrote part 2 contradicting 86.1, whatever there intention (clarity I would guess), therefore the SIs are NOT valid so the RRS take precidence. Thus creating confusion!!!



Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 06 Dec 07 at 7:11pm

There is confusion between the simple obligations of rule 10 and the more nuanced requirements of 22.1 but I don't agree that the wording of the SIs adds to it. We could be having exactly the same debate if the SIs said nothing at all on the subject.



Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 07 Dec 07 at 9:22am

Stefan,

 

I resally can't agree with you that "it really isn't hard to tell the difference between a boat that's racing and one that isn't".  But even if I did I would still say that as the right of way boat (and clearly within an obligation to keep aware and act sensibly) Boat B should stand on until it is apparent that its time to avoid a collision - or until it becomes apparent that Boat A has rights he is exerting as a racing boat.  Therefore its Boat A's problem to make sure Boat B knows that he is exerting those rights no matter what SIs, RRS etc say about rights of boats racing (and clearly remembering the responsibility to avoid a collision).  I see where you are and others are coming from on a theoretical basis, but there is a question of practicality on the water.



Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 07 Dec 07 at 9:49am
In terms of "practicality on the water", with the kind of sailing I mostly do, this kind of problem comes up frequently. If you race off Cowes or on the Hillhead plateau, almost invariably you are sharing your racing space with other classes and more often that not with other regattas too.


Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 07 Dec 07 at 10:23am

Yes - I know what you mean as a Stokes Bay member we're more protected but it can still be an issue.

But that only makes you more aware - it does not change the fact that Boat B in the scenario described has no way of "knowing" that he is the give way boat, and therefore shaping his response appropriately, with an attendant risk in not standing on and altering course unpredictably.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07 Dec 07 at 11:19am
Originally posted by Noble Marine



<p style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
="Msonormal">An interesting case has just been raised in
discussions
relating to a claim.  I'd be interested to learn the thoughts of any rules
gurus.
The situation is as follows:



<p style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
="Msonormal">The Sailing Instructions of a regatta contained
the following:
"Boats whose warning signal has not been made shall keep clear of the
starting area and of all boats whose warning signal has been made.
Attention is
drawn to RRS22.1
"
Boat A has missed her start and is approximately 200m downwind of the
start
line 90 seconds after her starting signal, sailing close hauled on port tack.
Boat B is sailing in a different fleet awaiting her preparatory signal, sailing
on starboard tack.
As the two boats approach, boat A hails "We are racing", boat B
"Hails starboard".  Boat A attempts to take avoiding action, but
fails and a collision occurs.



<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-
serif;">Obviously if both boats were racing, boat A should keep
clear as per RRS10, but as Boat B is not
yet racing, she should keep clear of boat whose warning signal has been
made,
as per the sailing instructions.</span><br style="font-family:
Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">


<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New
Roman";"><br style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-
serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">My
question to the forum is - When the Sailing
Instructions and the Racing Rules are in conflict, which should take
precedent?</span>
 
<span style=""></span></span>


My three happorth, whatever the sailing instructions might say and
wether morally it was wrong for boat b to hail starboard, once hailed Boat
A must take avoiding action.

It used to happen to us windsurfers all the time, we could hail til we're
blue in the face but boats seldom give way to windsurfers racing or not.

But in this case it's not the action of the boat not racing being on
starboard, it's the fact he/she hailed a warning. Simply put, whatever the
reason for the hail, and there could be any number of reasons for the hail
including ignorance and just plain curmudgeon, it has to be obeyed on
open water, there could be other issues.

It's a simple fundamental rule that sailing instructions do not take
precedence over. Unless there's been some other recent case which I
could hardly imagine any amount of publicity would circulate widely
enough to propagate.


Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 07 Dec 07 at 2:00pm
GRF - Exactly what I'm getting at.


Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 07 Dec 07 at 2:56pm
The RRS and the sailing instructions are both rules as per the RRS definition. Unless the SIs specifically state that the SIs take precedence over the RRS, or vive versa, then neither has precedence. They, and all the other sources of the rules apply equally.

However, the SI quoted is an attempt to modify RRS 22.1. This is specifically prohibited by RRS 86.1(b) (unless there is specific authorisation from ISAF or, in limited circumstances, from the MNA). The SI is thus void, and the Protest Committee should announce this in their judgement.

RRS 22.1 applies - the PC will have to decide if it was reasonably possible for the Starboard boat not ot interfere with Port boat:

either it was reasonably possible in which case Starboard infringed RRS 22.1 and should be penalised;

or it was not reasonably possible in which case Port infringed RRS 10.

As I believe there was both contact and damage the appropriate penalty is disqualification. There may be grounds for redress under 62.1(b)

Gordon




-------------
Gordon


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07 Dec 07 at 4:03pm
Please don't tell me this actually happened and Nobles are trying to duck
paying out on the Insurance...


Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 07 Dec 07 at 4:06pm
The evnts are rael but the names have been cleverly disguised to hide the identity!!!!


Posted By: tack'ho
Date Posted: 07 Dec 07 at 5:15pm

May I make a practical suggestion.  As there was clearly confusion about ROW both on the water and in the SIs each side should cover there own excess and the insurors should write to the club asking them to ensure future SIs are better written.  It'll save a lot of paperwork and therefore money!

ps.  Just off to check the clubs SIs.



-------------
I might be sailing it, but it's still sh**e!


Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 08 Dec 07 at 1:02am
Originally posted by gordon

However, the SI quoted is an attempt to modify RRS 22.1. This is specifically prohibited by RRS 86.1(b) (unless there is specific authorisation from ISAF or, in limited circumstances, from the MNA). The SI is thus void, and the Protest Committee should announce this in their judgement.


Disagree.

The SI is: "Boats whose warning signal has not been made shall keep clear of the starting area and of all boats whose warning signal has been made. Attention is drawn to RRS22.1"

22.1 is: 22.1 If reasonably possible, a boat not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.

The SI in no way modifies 22.1. It's perfectly possible to obey both the SI - by keeping clear of the starting area before the relevant warning signal, and to obey 22.1 by not interfering with a boat that is not racing.

In fact, from the OP: Boat A has missed her start and is approximately 200m downwind of the start line 90 seconds after her starting signal, sailing close hauled on port tack.

Boat B is obeying the SI - 200m away from the start line is, in any book, keeping clear, (assuming we're not talking maxis). The SI is irrelevant. The only rule that apply are 22.1 and 10.


Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 08 Dec 07 at 7:05am
the problem is the SI doesn't define the starting area.


Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 09 Dec 07 at 11:55am
Doesn't matter. By any definition - unless you're in super maxis, 200m is not in the starting area. For a laser, it's what - 50 boatlengths. For a 10m boat, it's still 20 boatlengths.

22.1 and 10 can both apply. The boat on S can interfere with a boat on P. And a boat on P can fail to keep clear of a boat on S.


Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 09 Dec 07 at 12:42pm
Originally posted by Presuming Ed

Doesn't matter. By any definition - unless you're in super maxis, 200m is not in the starting area.

I'm not at all sure I agree with you. I was having this discussion with the Sailing secretary at my club, because starting area is also relevent to DNS/DNC which scores differently for our club series, and we came to the conclusion that for our purposes the entire reservoir constitutes the starting area. What are you using as the basis for that definition? I haven't spotted anything in a quick trawl of the casebook and the definitions. I think I'd define the starting area as the bit of water where boats tend to mill around before the start or between races.


Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 09 Dec 07 at 3:10pm

Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by Presuming Ed

Doesn't matter. By any definition - unless you're in super maxis, 200m is not in the starting area.

I'm not at all sure I agree with you. I was having this discussion with the Sailing secretary at my club, because starting area is also relevent to DNS/DNC which scores differently for our club series, and we came to the conclusion that for our purposes the entire reservoir constitutes the starting area. What are you using as the basis for that definition? I haven't spotted anything in a quick trawl of the casebook and the definitions. I think I'd define the starting area as the bit of water where boats tend to mill around before the start or between races.

So then all boats that have started have rights over non starters.  Port and Stbd will then be secondary to started / not started - scary.  I can see a lot of collisions.  I'd suggest a starting area would be close to the line.  Afterall, you are starting (well should be) from an area close to the start line.  In the absence of a definition I would suggest using an oval that extends (perhaps) 50% of line length out in all directions from the line.  Outside this area you are sailing, not starting (or preparing to start).



-------------
F16 GBR 553 - Hungry Monster - For sale
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
I also talk sport http://www.letshaveachat.com - here


Posted By: Contender443
Date Posted: 09 Dec 07 at 3:24pm

200m equals about 50 boat lengths in terms of most dinghies. I think that is keeping clear of the start area.

I think boat A was very stupid and arrogant to assume they would get a starboard boat to give way 50 boats lengths away from the start line. They had already lost their race being that far away from the startline.

It would not have taken much for them to dip the starboard mailto:boat'@s - boat's transome and continue on with their race.



-------------
Bonnie Lass Contender 1764


Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 09 Dec 07 at 5:22pm
Originally posted by JimC

I'm not at all sure I agree with you. I was having this discussion with the Sailing secretary at my club, because starting area is also relevent to DNS/DNC which scores differently for our club series, and we came to the conclusion that for our purposes the entire reservoir constitutes the starting area. What are you using as the basis for that definition? I haven't spotted anything in a quick trawl of the casebook and the definitions. I think I'd define the starting area as the bit of water where boats tend to mill around before the start or between races.


IMHO, the whole starting area bit of the discussion is a chimera.

Pramable to part 2: The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 22.1. When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules. However, an alleged breach of those rules shall not be grounds for a protest except by the race committee or protest committee. If the sailing instructions so state, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way rules.

So in the case of a resevoir, and the normal course takes up the whole of the resevoir, then part 2 rules apply from pretty much the time when you go afloat - you're sailing in the racing area, and intending to race.

Normally, it doesn't matter that you're no longer sailing under IRPCS, but sailing under RRS instead, because in the most part, there is effectively no difference in the way that to boats are required to keep clear of each other. The one thing that the RRS has - which IRCPS hasn't - is rule 18 - which doesn't apply at the start.

200m is 1min 30 seconds away from the line at 5kts. I would argue that if you're within one and a half minutes of the start line and you're intending to race, then you fall under the requirements of the preamble to part 2.

And as soon as that happens, P has to comply with 10 (which she may well have not in this case) and S comply with 22.1 (again, which she may well have not here).



Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 09 Dec 07 at 5:35pm
Originally posted by Scooby_simon

So then all boats that have started have rights over non starters.  Port and Stbd will then be secondary to started / not started - scary.  I can see a lot of collisions.


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."


Posted By: Noble Marine
Date 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




-------------
http://www.noblemarine.co.uk" rel="nofollow - Boat Insurance from Noble Marine

http://www.facebook.com/noblemarine" rel="nofollow - Noble Marine on Facebook .


Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 11 Dec 07 at 5:38pm

Originally posted by Noble Marine

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


Exactly what I was expecting. 



-------------
F16 GBR 553 - Hungry Monster - For sale
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
I also talk sport http://www.letshaveachat.com - here


Posted By: gordon
Date 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


Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 24 Mar 08 at 1:14am
Originally posted by ChrisJ

The question: When the Sailing Instructions and the Racing Rules are in conflict, which should take precedent?

Should always give the answer: the SIs over-rule.

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

 



Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 24 Mar 08 at 2:32am

Originally posted by Presuming Ed

Originally posted by gordon

However, the SI quoted is an attempt to modify RRS 22.1. This is specifically prohibited by RRS 86.1(b) (unless there is specific authorisation from ISAF or, in limited circumstances, from the MNA). The SI is thus void, and the Protest Committee should announce this in their judgement.


Disagree.

The SI is: "Boats whose warning signal has not been made shall keep clear of the starting area and of all boats whose warning signal has been made. Attention is drawn to RRS22.1"

22.1 is: 22.1 If reasonably possible, a boat not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.

The SI in no way modifies 22.1. It's perfectly possible to obey both the SI - by keeping clear of the starting area before the relevant warning signal, and to obey 22.1 by not interfering with a boat that is not racing.

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



Posted By: Stuart O
Date 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.


Posted By: farc anal
Date 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 .

 

 

 

 

 

 




Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com