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

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