|
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
Our club prohibits crossing the start / finish line except to start or
finish. The entire area, including nearby extensions of the start / finish line, are navigable. Our sailing instructions do not modify RRS 28.1 (the "string" rule) in this regard, so "unwinding" is permitted. A handful of sailors had a lively discussion over beer one night regarding whether the prohibited start / finish line ranks as an obstruction. It is clearly not a mark - boats can (and do) leave this area to either side depending on individual polars or tactical circumstances. The RRS definitions state that an obstruction is "an object that a boat could not pass...", but the line is not an object. Further, the definitions state that "...an area so designated by the sailing instructions (is) also (an) obstruction...". Does the prohibition of crossing the line in the sailing instructions make the "area so designated by the sailing instructions" an obstruction, or would the SIs have to specifically state that the line ranks as an obstruction? Thanks, Jim Williams Willoughby Racers Norfolk, VA |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
Hi Jim,
There are several different issues in this topic. The string rule is irrelevant. The start/finish line marks do not begin or end the leg in question, and they do not have a required side. Therefore they are not "marks" according to the definition. The string rule does not prohibit multiple roundings of a required mark, and it says nothing at all about objects that are not marks. The prohibited area is clearly an "obstruction" if the prohibition is properly written into the sailing instructions. Typically this sort of sailing instruction would be used to prevent potentially dangerous shortcuts, avoiding commercial traffic, and so on. If written carefully, with particular attention to the definition of the exact prohibited area and the time in which the prohibition is in effect, it should be possible to use this approach. The prohibited start/finish line, or closed gate as it is sometimes called, is full of problems. It potentially makes life easier for the RC, but it creates strategic headaches for the competitors. It is not allowable for the RC to simply toss a violator unless the rules are modified. Rule A5 requires a protest hearing to "worsen a boat's score" for all but a couple of specific reasons. The rule modification is possible, but it requires adjustments to at least rules A5, A4.1, 63.1, and 28.1. It does not make a lot of sense to have a prohibited area that can be violated and then "un-violated" as you seem to indicate. If the area is prohibited for good reason, then protest and toss the perps. If the transgression can somehow be undone by unwinding the course, then it would not appear that the prohibited area made much sense in the first place. The rules are generally unforgiving with regard to "innocent mistakes". Been there, done that, got burned, learned, etc. Regards, Gene Fuller ProjectPro wrote: Our club prohibits crossing the start / finish line except to start or finish. The entire area, including nearby extensions of the start / finish line, are navigable. Our sailing instructions do not modify RRS 28.1 (the "string" rule) in this regard, so "unwinding" is permitted. A handful of sailors had a lively discussion over beer one night regarding whether the prohibited start / finish line ranks as an obstruction. It is clearly not a mark - boats can (and do) leave this area to either side depending on individual polars or tactical circumstances. The RRS definitions state that an obstruction is "an object that a boat could not pass...", but the line is not an object. Further, the definitions state that "...an area so designated by the sailing instructions (is) also (an) obstruction...". Does the prohibition of crossing the line in the sailing instructions make the "area so designated by the sailing instructions" an obstruction, or would the SIs have to specifically state that the line ranks as an obstruction? Thanks, Jim Williams Willoughby Racers Norfolk, VA |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
"ProjectPro" wrote in message
om Our club prohibits crossing the start / finish line except to start or finish. The entire area, including nearby extensions of the start / finish line, are navigable. Our sailing instructions do not modify RRS 28.1 (the "string" rule) in this regard, so "unwinding" is permitted. A handful of sailors had a lively discussion over beer one night regarding whether the prohibited start / finish line ranks as an obstruction. It is clearly not a mark - boats can (and do) leave this area to either side depending on individual polars or tactical circumstances. The RRS definitions state that an obstruction is "an object that a boat could not pass...", but the line is not an object. Further, the definitions state that "...an area so designated by the sailing instructions (is) also (an) obstruction...". Does the prohibition of crossing the line in the sailing instructions make the "area so designated by the sailing instructions" an obstruction, or would the SIs have to specifically state that the line ranks as an obstruction? 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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
"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. |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
|
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
"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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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. |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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. |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
"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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
"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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
"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 |
Obstruction - Start / Finish Line
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com