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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Gene - Best of luck with the Lakefest Regatta next weekend. I wish I
could be there. It is a wonderful event!

Jim Williams
Willoughby Racers
Norfolk, VA

Allan" wrote in message u...
If it is desired to treat the line as an obstruction, that is, creating
an entitlement to room under RRS 18, then the SI should explicitly
designate the thing as an obstruction.

But by designating start/finish lines as obstructions, you are
destroying the principles that allow one boat to force another over at
the start.

The effect of your local SI is a rather ham-fisted attempt to do what
the Flag I, Flag Z and Black Flag starting options in RRS 30 provide in
a carefully thought out way (with effective penalties, that won't
require a protest hearing). Why not use the carefully developed rules
provided?

The RRS don't provide a specific rule to keep the finish line clear, but
if this is really a problem, bearing in mind that the SI probhibition
will require a protest hearing to deal with an infringer, then it can
probably be dealt with better by:

* _requesting_ boats not to cross or re-cross the finish line except
when finishing (in the SI, or general notices), (this works fine with
several clubs where I race) and

* locating the finish line sufficiently away from nearby rounding marks
so that boats that are racing do not come near it, for example, 200 m to
windward of the windward mark of the course, or to leeward of the
leeward mark, if a downwind finish.

John

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Gene - Best of luck with the Lakefest Regatta next weekend. I wish I
could be there. It is a wonderful event!

Jim Williams
Willoughby Racers
Norfolk, VA

A closed line only makes sense where the line lies between the
windward and leeward marks. To avoid the problem entirely, just ensure
that leeward mark is either upwind of the line, level with the line,
or uses the non-RC end as the leeward mark. However, it is easier to
separate boats by just dropping a finish mark a short distance to
starboard (usually) of the RC boat. If any line needs to be 'closed'
it can be that one, unless your conditions are such that you may still
be starting boats while prior starters may be transiting the area
(presuming you still have the leeward mark to leeward of the line).

If all this fails or cannot be done, there is one method which will
beat the sea-lawyers:

You must define each non-starting/finishing leg as requiring that BOTH
of the RC and the Start mark must be left, (at the helmsman's option)
either to port or to starboard.
'... from mark 3 to mark 4 leaving both of mark 1 and the Race
Committee vessel to starboard, or both of mark 1 and the Race
Committee vessel to port...'

This allows 'un-stringing' in case of error and protest ("did not
string") in case of failure.

In the Toronto area we gave up on this sort of idiocy about 20 years
ago....It is MUCH simpler to restructure things to completely obviate
any need for.

Geoff



On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:26:34 UTC, Gene Fuller
wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Gene - Best of luck with the Lakefest Regatta next weekend. I wish I
could be there. It is a wonderful event!

Jim Williams
Willoughby Racers
Norfolk, VA

"R. G. Newbury" wrote:
A closed line only makes sense where the line lies between the
windward and leeward marks. To avoid the problem entirely, just ensure
that leeward mark is either upwind of the line, level with the line,
or uses the non-RC end as the leeward mark.

This is good advice, but assumes it's possible. Some fleets race in
constricted waters where geography (hydrography?) force you to set
courses that you might otherwise prefer not to, especially when using
fixed marks.

I've become a big fan of the setup R.G. suggests, when it's possible.
We set a start/finish line square to the wind and a windward mark dead
upwind. Then, we drop the leeward mark about 100 yards to windward of
the RC boat, and have a downwind finish. This gives you a couple of
advantages:

1) If the wind shifts, you only have to move one mark (the windward
one). Unless the shift is really radical, the leeward mark can stay
where it is, and it's not critical that it gets set exactly. The chase
boat can just toss it over the side on the way up to set the windward
mark and forget about it. This really helps out when the RC is
shorthanded and you've only got a single chase boat.

2) The spinnaker drops all happen right in front of the RC boat. This
not only adds to the RC's entertainment factor, but makes for great
photography as well.

Hi Geoff,

This is probably beating a dead horse, but here goes.

Your anti-sea-lawyer solution won't work. The definition of "mark" says,
"An object the sailing instructions require a boat to leave on a
specified side . . . ." There is no option to allow a "mark" to have
anything but ONE specified side. Changing definitions is not allowed.
Rule 28.1 could be changed to modify "sailing the course", but it would
need to avoid the use of "mark". Sounds like a real mess.

Mid-course start/finish lines can be useful in several situations.
However, it is necessary to either leave the line "open" or jump through
a bunch of hoops in the SI's to try to "close" the line.

Regards,
Gene Fuller



R. G. Newbury wrote:
A closed line only makes sense where the line lies between the
windward and leeward marks. To avoid the problem entirely, just ensure
that leeward mark is either upwind of the line, level with the line,
or uses the non-RC end as the leeward mark. However, it is easier to
separate boats by just dropping a finish mark a short distance to
starboard (usually) of the RC boat. If any line needs to be 'closed'
it can be that one, unless your conditions are such that you may still
be starting boats while prior starters may be transiting the area
(presuming you still have the leeward mark to leeward of the line).

If all this fails or cannot be done, there is one method which will
beat the sea-lawyers:

You must define each non-starting/finishing leg as requiring that BOTH
of the RC and the Start mark must be left, (at the helmsman's option)
either to port or to starboard.
'... from mark 3 to mark 4 leaving both of mark 1 and the Race
Committee vessel to starboard, or both of mark 1 and the Race
Committee vessel to port...'

This allows 'un-stringing' in case of error and protest ("did not
string") in case of failure.

In the Toronto area we gave up on this sort of idiocy about 20 years
ago....It is MUCH simpler to restructure things to completely obviate
any need for.

Geoff

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 20:54:00 UTC, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Hi Geoff,

This is probably beating a dead horse, but here goes.

Your anti-sea-lawyer solution won't work. The definition of "mark" says,
"An object the sailing instructions require a boat to leave on a
specified side . . . ." There is no option to allow a "mark" to have
anything but ONE specified side. Changing definitions is not allowed.
Rule 28.1 could be changed to modify "sailing the course", but it would
need to avoid the use of "mark". Sounds like a real mess.


Well, it will always have to be a 'mark' because the we are requiring
it to be left on a specified side.. And my formulation does not change
the definition, only the manner in which the specified side is
determined. And that is quite clear.
There is nothing in the rules which requires that a mark have only one
'side' *under all circumstances*. The instructions can require that a
mark may have a differing required side under differing circumstances.
In this case, the required side is that side chosen by the helmsman
which leaves both marks on the same side. In effect, the helmsman
specifies the side, for both marks.

Your interpretation would make it impossible to allow yachts to round
any group of marks in either direction, and would make it impossible
to stage a race from a start to and around an island, *in either
direction* as in one direction the island would be left to port, and
in the other, to starboard.


Mid-course start/finish lines can be useful in several situations.
However, it is necessary to either leave the line "open" or jump through
a bunch of hoops in the SI's to try to "close" the line.

I have never been able to figure out any of those 'useful' situations.
Even with fixed mark courses, it is simpler to set the line at the
leeward end of things, or just start at one point and finish
elsewhere. Most excuses for using the mid course setup amount to a
lack of RC capabilities (boats, marks etc) which are reasonably
avoidable or surmountable. If they can set up in the middle they can
do so at the bottom. If there is no working space at the bottom, then
start at the middle, but do not attempt to finish there! Then there
is no start line after the start and therefor no problem.

But closed midcourse start/finishes are just a problem waiting to
happen and should not be used. Anyway, mid-course lines rarely easily
handle any sort of wind shift leading to lousy racing... And RC's do
not set out with the intention of providing lousy races... well at
least we certainly hope so! VBG

Geoff

"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

John,

Comments interspersed.


J. Allan wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
,snip

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?


Note that I used the word "unworkable", not illegal, immoral, etc. The
Changes to the SI's are not trivial, as demonstrated in this newsgroup
thread. Getting it right in all conceivable circumstances is not easy. I
cannot find any appeal is the ISAF case book that deals with this
subject, but I will guess that most SI's that attempt to deal with issue
would come up short.



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"


I don't think this will work. In many cases, perhaps most cases, the
entire reason for attempting to close the line is to avoid confusion
during a multilap race. In such circumstances your proposed rule would
be violated constantly. Boats have a perfectly legitimate reason to be
on the wrong side of the finishing line in the middle of the race.
Again, this does not demonstrate that it is impossible to set up such a
limitation, but it is not at all trivial.

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.


Most sailors believe in sportsmanship, and some even practice it. The
"request" is fine until someone disagrees. I have no issue with informal
agreements and requests, but what happens if there is a violation,
intentional or not? Does the RC ignore it? Other sailors might ask for
redress. Can another boat lodge the protest? Probably, unless the SI's
deal with that possibility. What is the penalty? Does a 720-rule apply?


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.


The obstruction issue is very easily handled, and I do not have the
slightest problem with making the line an obstruction. However, one must
figure out how to close the line in the first place.


snip

John

Regards,
Gene Fuller

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message

J. Allan wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message ,snip

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?

Note that I used the word "unworkable", not illegal, immoral, etc. The
Changes to the SI's are not trivial, as demonstrated in this newsgroup
thread. Getting it right in all conceivable circumstances is not
easy. I cannot find any appeal is the ISAF case book that deals with
this subject, but I will guess that most SI's that attempt to deal
with issue would come up short.

What you seem to be getting at is that, while it may be difficult but
not impossible to draft a binding SI, 'closing' a finish line that is
'inside' the course, is a poor solution to the problem of potential
confusion for the RC.

I'm inclined to agree with you for the following reasons:

* for high level (district/province/national) racing having an
artificial closed line in the middle of the racecourse is obviously
detrimental;

* for club racing, surely there aren't so many boats our there that the
RC can't keep track of them, if they keep their mind on the business
(and delegate etc).

BUT, for club-level racing, I think we've got to recognise that the
hard-working Race officers, who may not be all that numerous to permit
delegation, should be cut a bit of slack to try to balance up making
their own lives a little easier, while not too much creating bad race
courses.


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"


I don't think this will work.

I have to agree with you. As drafted it 'catches' boats crossing the
extensions of the finish line, every time they go past. I guess I was
trying to be a bit too clever.

If Jim or anyone else wants an improved version, I'll try again, if
asked.

In many cases, perhaps most cases, the
entire reason for attempting to close the line is to avoid confusion
during a multilap race.

I note that Jim (OP) said that the primary reason was safety, to
separate fast-moving, free sailing finishers from slow beating boats,
which I didn't think was a very good reason, for a finish line
surrounded by navigable water.

In such circumstances your proposed rule would
be violated constantly. Boats have a perfectly legitimate reason to be
on the wrong side of the finishing line in the middle of the race.
Again, this does not demonstrate that it is impossible to set up such
a limitation, but it is not at all trivial.

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.


Most sailors believe in sportsmanship, and some even practice it. The
"request" is fine until someone disagrees. I have no issue with
informal agreements and requests, but what happens if there is a
violation, intentional or not? Does the RC ignore it?

RC, if it wishes discusses it with the flag officers who act as they
think necessary.

RC could act under RRS 2/69.1, but if RRS 2/69.1 were to be invoked,
then I would expect it to apply regardless of whether there was a
'request' on the books or not.

Other sailors might ask for redress.

Not unless one of the four circumstances in RRS 62.1 apply, most
probably breach of RRS2/69.1.

Can another boat lodge the protest? Probably,

Yup, any boat can protest about anything: RRS 60.1, but, apart from RRS
69.1, the only way a protest can have an outcome is when a _rule_ is
broken. A "Request" is not a rule.

unless the SI's deal with that possibility.

And the SI would be really standing into danger if they attempted to
apply some 'automagical' penalty for breach of a non-rule Request.

What is the penalty? Does
a 720-rule apply?

720 penalties only generally apply for breaking RRS Part 2 When boats
meet.

If you wanted to impose a 'turns' or a percentage penalty for breach of
other than a When boats meet rule inserted in the SI:

* firstly, as you have prevously observed, you have to get around RRS
63.1, at least by referencing and modifying RRS 63.1; and

* secondly exactly describing how the penalty shall operate, for
example as is done in RRS 32.1.

But, as I have agreed with you above, you can't expect seriously
competitive sailors to suffer an artificial 'closed' line in the middle
of their race-course gladly.

snip

John

On 11 Apr 2004 07:41:59 -0700, in message

(ProjectPro) wrote:

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?

If you are writing the sailing instructions and you want it to be
treated as an obstruction, then be sure to use the word "obstruction"
in your declaration as well as "prohibited". That way the SIs will
communicate clearly to the racers that it is to be treated as an
obstruction. It may or may not be a legal requirement, but it never
hurts to be explicit.

Ryk