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

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?

(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.

(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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

"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