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 Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:00:04 UTC, "J. Allan"
wrote:

"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.

It is not a 'necessary implication' although you seem to think it
necessary. Yours is definitely tortured: as you interpret it, a boat
would 'finish' after the first half round of a multi-lap race, merely
by sailing between the RC and the mark which is denoted as the other
end of the finishing line. That is not the intention of the race, nor
of the rules.
Moreover, that interpretation would REQUIRE that every boat sail
through the 'finishing line' on every lap because the finishing marks
would therefore have a required side *at all times*.

The thing which we simply call the 'finish line' does not become an
actual 'finishing line' until a yacht has rounded the penultimate
mark and commenced the last leg. Prior to that point, the ends of the
'finishing line' are marks of the course, but have no required side.
See rule 28.2.

The discussion has been about whether to/how to give those marks a
required side at an earlier point in time in the race.

The bit about 'in the direction of the course from the last mark' is
meant to take care of lousy RC's who set weird lines which would
require a button-hook finish. And 'last mark' is not just 'the
immediately preceding mark' but 'the penultimate mark of the course'.

You ought also to give some thought to the fact that in the example we
have been dealing with, the line is also the starting line....??still
and forever???

Get out your rule book and read it through about 5 times. Then browse
to the ISAF site and look at some of the rules examples and cases.

Geoff

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