On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:46:02 UTC, "Garry McGonigal"
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?

"Obstruction... an area so designated by the sailing instructions...."
RRS Definitions.


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.

The word 'prohibited' is not strictly actually necessary as it is
essence of being an obstruction that requires it to be sailed around
(rather than through)... But there is no doubt that adding this word
makes the meaning clearer.
Of course, making it clear only applies to that subset of the racers
who read the instructions, and among those, to the subset who actually
understand the instructions....So 24 point bold type might be in
order!

There are a few other problems associated with a SI that indicates the
Finish Line is a 'prohibited area' unless finishing.

(1) Light air starts, class just gets across the line, air shuts down,
current pushes them back through the start-finish line. Now what?

If your SI's are screwed up then this is a problem. If the SI's say
'Except when starting or finishing, the line is ...(prohibited)' then
you deserve every problem which arises....
If your SI's say 'When proceeding from mark 1 to 3 or mark 3 to 4, ...
the line is (prohibited)' then you have no problem as your recent
starters are not yet on a leg when crossing the line is prohibited.

In part, this is why I would and did nominate the line ends as marks
of the leg when prohibiting passage between them. Under the old rules,
marks only had 'sides' when on a leg which that mark began, ended or
bounded. And more racers understand room at a mark than understand
room at an obstruction...

(2) Most of the SI's identify the situation as 'prohibited' or wording to
that effect but do not spell out a consequence of going through the finish
line before a finish. So, off to the Protest Committee, and the Committee
says fine, but what is the penalty -- none spelled out in the SI's.

Denominating them as marks provides a penalty through 'sailing the
course'..

(3) Due to rough weather, the RC Boat gets moved around and in effect so
does one end of the Finish Line. Along come boats on a leg, trying to
figure out where one end of the Finish Line is so as to stay clear, but the
RC boat is all over the place, perhaps the line 'grew' substantially from
when the classes were started, and boats searching for the outer pin,
unknowingly cross through this new finish line. It happens. Happened to us
two seasons ago, we were in the lead, and we retired once we figured out
where the heck the other end of the line was (behind us and maybe a few
hundred yards further out and back in relationship to the RC boat). Yes, we
could have continued and appealed, but at the time we did not know the RC
boat was pulled off its position. And since the Start-Finish line is at
times in the middle of some legs, you either take it on the pin or on the RC
boat sides.


This is the major stupidity involved in having the RC in the middle of
the arena.

Bad setup, bad result.

Realistically, if you figure you absolutely must have the RC in the
middle, exactly WHY is it so important that the line be closed?
Except for the RC's convenience? If it is because the RC likes it that
way, they are not doing their proper job.


Geoff

Denominating them as marks provides a penalty through 'sailing the
course'..


This is the major stupidity involved in having the RC in the middle of
the arena.

Bad setup, bad result.

Realistically, if you figure you absolutely must have the RC in the
middle, exactly WHY is it so important that the line be closed?
Except for the RC's convenience? If it is because the RC likes it that
way, they are not doing their proper job.


Geoff

And if the Finish line has the RC boat and outer pin designated as marks,
and a boat passes through that 'invisible line, it probably then can correct
itself, by coming back and going around either end and sailing a proper
course.

One must understand that not all race courses are windward-leeward, and you
probably do. Modified Olympic courses have the RC boat in the middle, and
various marks of equal distance radiating out from it. In this case, there
are 8 rounding marks, all .75 miles from the RC boat, each mark 45 degrees
on angle. So a variety of possible legs, some .75 miles, some 1.5 miles.
Other courses of a similar makeup have 6 marks. And so on. But the RC boat
is central, and some of the legs, besides start and finish, bring boats on a
line by the start-finish area.

In terms of why a line msut be closed probably had more to do with various
classes out on the course, slow classes going first. Hence, closing the
line to just finishes not only helps the RC in recording finishes, but
avoids any confusion/mayhem that might occur when you have: boats finishing
but are mixed in with boats still sailing a non-finishing leg (certain rules
apply to a finishing boat that do not apply to another); and another class
coming from the opposite direction through the finish line while still on a
longer racing leg, opposed to boats trying to finish. It does happen.

Even some windward-leeward courses have the RC boat on the course, closer to
the leeward marks/gates.

But, regardless of how the start-finish restriction may be stated in the
SI's, unless there is linkage to a definition of penalties, or ways an
offending boat can correct itself without penalty, the rule is useless when
it comes to a Protest Committee hearing. Nothing is 'understood'.


Now with starting boxes, as an example, regattas spell that out very
clearly. If you are in your start, you stay in the box or this may happen.
If it is not your start and you offend, then this may happen.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:38:00 UTC, "Garry McGonigal"
wrote:

Denominating them as marks provides a penalty through 'sailing the
course'..


This is the major stupidity involved in having the RC in the middle of
the arena.

Bad setup, bad result.

Realistically, if you figure you absolutely must have the RC in the
middle, exactly WHY is it so important that the line be closed?
Except for the RC's convenience? If it is because the RC likes it that
way, they are not doing their proper job.


Geoff

And if the Finish line has the RC boat and outer pin designated as marks,
and a boat passes through that 'invisible line, it probably then can correct
itself, by coming back and going around either end and sailing a proper
course.

One must understand that not all race courses are windward-leeward, and you
probably do. Modified Olympic courses have the RC boat in the middle, and
various marks of equal distance radiating out from it. In this case, there
are 8 rounding marks, all .75 miles from the RC boat, each mark 45 degrees
on angle. So a variety of possible legs, some .75 miles, some 1.5 miles.
Other courses of a similar makeup have 6 marks. And so on. But the RC boat
is central, and some of the legs, besides start and finish, bring boats on a
line by the start-finish area.

This was the form of course used for quite a number of years in the
Toronto area and still is by some of the local clubs.
Having the RC in the middle was 'easy' but not always 'good'.
The last year or 2 that this setup was used, the line was proscribed
by using the wording I set out " when proceeding from mark 2 to 3,
mark 1 and the RC shall be left either both to starboard, or both to
port". They may or may not have also said, the line between the RC and
mark 1 is an obstruction to any boat sailing a leg which does not
commence or end at the start or finish line.

But having the RC in the middle always gave lousy racing for
closewinded boats when the wind shifted. Having the RC at the bottom
was not much better. There were some trials which made the line a gate
on the second round, so that a change of course could be made,
providing a better beat for 1/2 of the round (in contradistinction to
a fetch from the 'bottom'). In the end, we stopped using fixed mark
courses. Locally Ashbridges Bay YC continues to use a fixed circle of
marks for weeknight racing, but starts are from the bottom and course
changes are rare if not extinct. Still gives good weeknight racing:
its not the full-on level, its the full-fun level!
The RC uses the 'bottom' mark as the start/finish pin, and even if
fleets are still starting when the first (fast) boats get back, the
problem is for the incoming boats (on port and rounding into the face
of the starboard starters!)..

In terms of why a line msut be closed probably had more to do with various
classes out on the course, slow classes going first. Hence, closing the
line to just finishes not only helps the RC in recording finishes, but
avoids any confusion/mayhem that might occur when you have: boats finishing
but are mixed in with boats still sailing a non-finishing leg (certain rules
apply to a finishing boat that do not apply to another); and another class
coming from the opposite direction through the finish line while still on a
longer racing leg, opposed to boats trying to finish. It does happen.

Personally, I now believe that any course which seems to 'require' a
closed line, is a cop-out by the RC. There is no real reason why the
RC *has to* remain exactly *there* to finish the racers. It *may* be
reasonable to start from there, but realistically the RC could just as
easily move to some other point of the course to finish boats. It does
not have to anchor.

Even some windward-leeward courses have the RC boat on the course, closer to
the leeward marks/gates.

But the line should NOT be immediately to weather of the leeward mark
*AND* closed. The RC should be below the leeward mark. If the RC wants
to use the leeward mark as the pin it should move to the other side so
that all boats leave the pin to port.

But, regardless of how the start-finish restriction may be stated in the
SI's, unless there is linkage to a definition of penalties, or ways an
offending boat can correct itself without penalty, the rule is useless when
it comes to a Protest Committee hearing. Nothing is 'understood'.

If you feel you *have to*, then making them marks, and defining the
course to proscribe passing between them automagically provides the
penalty....DNF for not sailing the course!

There were USYRU and IYRU cases about 'required sides' etc. and the
'string rule' which discussed this... Long since lost in the mists of
history unfortunately.

Now with starting boxes, as an example, regattas spell that out very
clearly. If you are in your start, you stay in the box or this may happen.
If it is not your start and you offend, then this may happen.

Exactly.

Geoff

Geoff,

The current definition of "finish" does not require "sailing the
course". There is no connection to the string rule.

The only option allowed to a Race Committee if a boat does not sail the
course correctly is to protest the infringing boat. Automagical DNF
penalties are not allowed. If a boat crosses the finish line from the
direction of the last mark it has finished, subject only to the
technicalities spelled out in the definition. Note that the boat does
not need to round the last mark; it only needs to cross the finish line
from the direction of the last mark.

I won't argue whether this is right or wrong, but it is the current
rule. See ISAF Case 45 for further reinforcement that the definition of
finish cannot be changed.

Regards,
Gene Fuller


R. G. Newbury wrote:

[big snip]



If you feel you *have to*, then making them marks, and defining the
course to proscribe passing between them automagically provides the
penalty....DNF for not sailing the course!

There were USYRU and IYRU cases about 'required sides' etc. and the
'string rule' which discussed this... Long since lost in the mists of
history unfortunately.


Now with starting boxes, as an example, regattas spell that out very
clearly. If you are in your start, you stay in the box or this may happen.
If it is not your start and you offend, then this may happen.


Exactly.

Geoff

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message

Geoff,

The current definition of "finish" does not require "sailing the
course". There is no connection to the string rule.

MMMMMM, I understand:

If the finish line is in the middle of the race course, a boat can
"finish" numerous times as she passes through the finish line from the
direction of the last mark, on various legs or laps.

But a boat can only sail the course under RRS 28.1 once.

I think this is a somewhat tortured construction, and I think it would
be correct to imply into the definitition of _finish_ words to the
effect of "after properly rounding the last mark".

Otherwise, or as well, there should be implied or expressly written into
RRS A4.2, immediately before the word _finish_, the words "sail the
course in accordance with rule 28.1 and".

The only option allowed to a Race Committee if a boat does not sail
the course correctly is to protest the infringing boat. Automagical
DNF penalties are not allowed.

Do you have an Appeals Case for this. I don't think Case 45 gets quite
there.

If a boat crosses the finish line from
the direction of the last mark it has finished, subject only to the
technicalities spelled out in the definition. Note that the boat does
not need to round the last mark; it only needs to cross the finish
line from the direction of the last mark.

I disagree: although a 'black-letter' construction of the definition of
"finish" indicates this, such an interpretation leads to the absurdity I
described above, that a boat can "finish" numerous times in the same
race. The canons of construction allow for interpretation or
implication to remove absurdities. As I indicated, it think it is quite
proper and right to imply "after properly rounding the last mark" into
the definition of _finish_.

I won't argue whether this is right or wrong, but it is the current
rule. See ISAF Case 45 for further reinforcement that the definition
of finish cannot be changed.

snip

John

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:32:10 UTC, "J. Allan"
wrote:

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message

Geoff,

The current definition of "finish" does not require "sailing the
course". There is no connection to the string rule.

Of course there is a connection to the string rule.
The definition of 'finish' requires that finishing be 'from the last
mark'. The last mark must be 'touched' by the string. Note that if the
line is closed by making the ends marks, those marks are NOT rounding
marks, and the string need not touch them. In fact, it would touch one
of them but not the other, if both are to be left on the same side.

As to multiple 'finishes': that does not happen, since it is only a
finish when it happens '...from the last mark...'

The others are just...laps?

Geoff

"R. G. Newbury" wrote in message
news:JcldVHe8EppF-pn2-Z0L2R9dSyv5O@Tor2

snip

The definition of 'finish' requires that finishing be 'from the last
mark'.

I think you're misquoting the defintion of _finish_.

The definition I have says "... crosses the finishing line *in the
direction of the course from the last mark* ..."

The last mark must be 'touched' by the string. Note that if the
line is closed by making the ends marks, those marks are NOT rounding
marks, and the string need not touch them. In fact, it would touch one
of them but not the other, if both are to be left on the same side.

As to multiple 'finishes': that does not happen, since it is only a
finish when it happens '...from the last mark...'

I disagree that that is what the definition says. Without further
interpretation it says

"A boat finishes when any part of her ... crosses the finishing line in
the direction of the course from the last mark ... "

Taken literally, this means that every time a boat crosses the finishing
line in the direction of the course from the last mark, the boat
"finishes".

As I've previously said, I think this is a somewhat tortured
construction, and is clearly unnecessary. It can be cured by making the
necessary implication, as you have done.

The others are just...laps?

Geoff

John

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:19:24 UTC, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Geoff,

The current definition of "finish" does not require "sailing the
course". There is no connection to the string rule.

The only option allowed to a Race Committee if a boat does not sail the
course correctly is to protest the infringing boat. Automagical DNF
penalties are not allowed.

Sorry if I was unclear. There is a penalty available if a boat does
not sail the course. That penalty can only be applied on protest.
The point is that there is a penalty structure if the closed line is
bounded by marks. That is not so clear if it is an obstruction.

Unfortunately, as I have pointed out here before, many useful concepts
were tossed out when the rules were screwed up.

Geoff

Thanks for the input, everyone. Just for those who are interested, we
use a mid-course start / finish line for our Thursday night beer can
races. We use two drop marks (in addition to the start and finish
marks) that are always in the same position, and a government channel
marker. Sometimes we get windward legs, sometimes the entire race
consists of reaches. All boats sail three legs, and the spinnaker
boats additionally sail to the "weather" mark and back to the finish.
This results in boats finishing from both directions simultaneously.
We therefore have separate finish lines for the two fleets, with the
committee boat in the middle.

The most interesting thing about our racing is the Navy operations
that often occur in the area. We often get Seals jumping out of
helicopters into our race area, and then they get retrieved. We also
get an occasional antisubmarine sled towed through the course. Not
great for "real" racing because of the requirement for us to stay well
clear of these operations, but good enough for this level of
competition.

We normally have about 20 nonspinnaker boats and 10 spinnaker boats
registered. Most are learning to race or trying to improve racing
skills for the more important weekend races with other clubs.

Thanks again,

Jim Williams




On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:20:14 GMT, "R. G. Newbury"
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:46:02 UTC, "Garry McGonigal"
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?

"Obstruction... an area so designated by the sailing instructions...."
RRS Definitions.


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.

The word 'prohibited' is not strictly actually necessary as it is
essence of being an obstruction that requires it to be sailed around
(rather than through)... But there is no doubt that adding this word
makes the meaning clearer.
Of course, making it clear only applies to that subset of the racers
who read the instructions, and among those, to the subset who actually
understand the instructions....So 24 point bold type might be in
order!

There are a few other problems associated with a SI that indicates the
Finish Line is a 'prohibited area' unless finishing.

(1) Light air starts, class just gets across the line, air shuts down,
current pushes them back through the start-finish line. Now what?

If your SI's are screwed up then this is a problem. If the SI's say
'Except when starting or finishing, the line is ...(prohibited)' then
you deserve every problem which arises....
If your SI's say 'When proceeding from mark 1 to 3 or mark 3 to 4, ...
the line is (prohibited)' then you have no problem as your recent
starters are not yet on a leg when crossing the line is prohibited.

In part, this is why I would and did nominate the line ends as marks
of the leg when prohibiting passage between them. Under the old rules,
marks only had 'sides' when on a leg which that mark began, ended or
bounded. And more racers understand room at a mark than understand
room at an obstruction...

(2) Most of the SI's identify the situation as 'prohibited' or wording to
that effect but do not spell out a consequence of going through the finish
line before a finish. So, off to the Protest Committee, and the Committee
says fine, but what is the penalty -- none spelled out in the SI's.

Denominating them as marks provides a penalty through 'sailing the
course'..

(3) Due to rough weather, the RC Boat gets moved around and in effect so
does one end of the Finish Line. Along come boats on a leg, trying to
figure out where one end of the Finish Line is so as to stay clear, but the
RC boat is all over the place, perhaps the line 'grew' substantially from
when the classes were started, and boats searching for the outer pin,
unknowingly cross through this new finish line. It happens. Happened to us
two seasons ago, we were in the lead, and we retired once we figured out
where the heck the other end of the line was (behind us and maybe a few
hundred yards further out and back in relationship to the RC boat). Yes, we
could have continued and appealed, but at the time we did not know the RC
boat was pulled off its position. And since the Start-Finish line is at
times in the middle of some legs, you either take it on the pin or on the RC
boat sides.


This is the major stupidity involved in having the RC in the middle of
the arena.

Bad setup, bad result.

Realistically, if you figure you absolutely must have the RC in the
middle, exactly WHY is it so important that the line be closed?
Except for the RC's convenience? If it is because the RC likes it that
way, they are not doing their proper job.


Geoff