"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
Hi Jim,
I understand exactly what you are trying to do, because we tried the
same thing for many years in both TSC club racing and in open events
such as Lakefest.
As you know, we get some really high level officials on board for
Lakefest, with national and international race officers and judges.
To a person they told us the closed start/finish line was unworkable.
The RRS do not really accommodate this closure, and anyone appealing
a DSQ would probably win.
Could you elaborate in general terms why the international jurists have
said this is so?
What would be the problem with the following SI based on RRS 29.1
"If, other than when a boat is _finishing_, any part of a boat's hull,
crew or equipment is on the side of the finish line farthest from the
last mark, the boat shall sail completely to the side of the finish line
nearest the last mark before _finishing_. This modifies RRS 28.1"
This could be elaborated along the lines of RRs 30.2/3 to provide for a
percentage penalty or a DSQ (and also allow it to be "switched on/off"
by a flag signal depending on the conditions).
If your club is willing to go along with a valiant attempt to modify
the rules it may work, but perhaps not if you have genuine sea lawyers
involved. I agree that a "request" is not a good idea.
OK, the "request" situation works to keep already-finished boats clear
of the finish line. If the prospect of a "little chat' with a flag
officer about sportsmanship and co-operating with the RC isn't enough to
induce people to co-operate, then I'm sorry for you. Obviously,
district regattas are a little different.
We gave it up for Lakefest to avoid the pitfalls. To maintain sanity
of the RC we have changed all the courses to remove the need for a
closed line. Any boat crossing the line other than starting or
finishing is way off course, so the number of incidents is very small.
If you can't get longitudinal offsets as illustrated in RRS Appendix K
Addendum A, then maybe you could try a lateral offset as shown in the
Match Racing SI 10.1 at
http://www.sailing.org/matchrace/mrssi.doc
Maybe this is what RG is suggesting.
As to your question of wording the SI's, the definition seems pretty
clear. An "area so designated by the sailing instructions [is] also an
obstruction". There is no mention of why the area might be selected,
such as being a prohibited area. There is no automatic designation
other than one that is safety related. It is not allowed to change
the RRS definitions. Therefore the SI's must explicitly designate the
area as an obstruction.
But I think the discussion in this thread indicates that you don't want
to make the line an obstruction, and confer rights to room.
Regards,
Gene Fuller
ProjectPro wrote:
Thanks, Gene and John. Our ham-fisted attempt wasn't to recreate the
RRS 30 system, it was to keep boats out of the finishing area on laps
of the course between starting and finishing.
Sorry, on offence intended.
Thanks for clarifying that it's just the finish that needs to be
attended to.
We have boats of
widely differing speeds sailing different courses, and could end up
with a boat under spinnaker hauling butt to finish, only to have to
deal with a slower close hauled boat going back to the weather mark.
The intent is to keep the slower boat out of the finish line for
safety purposes.
Well, boats meet in this situation all the time on the race course away
from the finish line: why is it any different? You've got the whole of
RRS Pt 2 to take care of it. It might be different if your finish line
was in some narrow channel, not surrounded by navigable water.
The reason that we allow someone to correct an error of going through
the line is that the Southern Chesapeake Bay gets some crazy currents
at times, and is possible for a boat to drift across the line without
the helmsman being able to prevent it. Under those drifting
conditions we are less concerned about the posibility of collision.
See my suggestion above.
We are constrained by the shape and size of our Willoughby Bay and
cannot offset the starting line. I'm also not an favor of
"requesting" that competitors do something - there needs to be a
consequence.
See my comment above.
It is not a problem that the RC would have to protest a competitor
for violating the line. It doesn't happen often enough for that to
be an issue.
See my comment above: by making the SI an amendment to RRS 28, you can
provide for exhoneration, percentage or DSQ without a hearing.
The main question is whether the SIs have to use the word
"obstruction" in defining the area to be avoided, or is the fact that
it is a prohibited area enough to make it an obstruction for the
purposes of Rules 18 and 19?
I think we've all said that, if you want it to be an obstruction, the SI
have to say "it's an obstruction".
snip
John