Now available online at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L1F1215B8

There don't appear to be any major changes at first glance. Here's what
I see (limited to part 2 of the RRS):

o A more explicit (legalistic ?) verbiage about what rules apply
between boats not racing and boats that are. IRPCAS is explicitly
cited.

o Rule 13 (tacking) has been tweaked to say what happens when two
boats tack at the same time - a clear astern boat now has to keep
clear.

o Rule 16.2 has been modified (again!) so that it only applies when
a port boat is ducking a starboard boat.

o Rule 18 now applies in some circumstances when both boats tack
around a mark. (the current rule states that if the proper course
for either boat is to tack, rule 18 is out. The new rule says one
but not both.) I think this needs to be read carefully, because
at first read it appears to say more than it does. My initial
take is that this change only makes a practical difference in a
situation where two boats are on opposite tacks and the proper
course for both of them is to tack. This would seem to be an odd
occurrence (i.e. boats in different races that share a common mark).
I welcome more discussion on this - I'm not sure I've read it
correctly...

o The first sentence of Rule 18.2 c has been reworded so that it's
stated in the past tense, rather than the present tense. I don't
know that this makes any practical difference at all. Likewise,
the change that says rule 18.2 c no longer applies *and remains
inapplicable* if the clear ahead boat passes head to wind.

o Rule 19.1 (room to tack at an obstruction) has been rewritten,
but the change seems to be motivated by making the text clearer.
I don't see that the practical application of the rule is any
different. (but I may be missing something subtle)

o Rule 22.2 (interfering with another boat) has been modified to
include boats on another lap or leg of the course. This is truly
new - you can't change course if your only purpose is to interfere
with a boat on another leg of the course.

Comments?

--
//-Walt
//
//

Walt wrote:
o Rule 22.2 (interfering with another boat) has been modified to
include boats on another lap or leg of the course. This is truly
new - you can't change course if your only purpose is to interfere
with a boat on another leg of the course.

Comments?

How do you define "another leg of the course"?

Lets say I'm match racing and manage to push the other boat over early.
I start properly. May I interfere with the other boat's efforts to get
back across the start line to restart?

Not that I do any match racing. I'm just trying to think my way through
what this means.

Also, I assume "interfere" means to obstruct the movement of. If I
intentionally sail so as to give the other boat bad air but not actually
make her change course to avoid me, have I interfered with her?

Roy Smith wrote:

Walt wrote:
o Rule 22.2 (interfering with another boat) has been modified to
include boats on another lap or leg of the course. This is truly
new - you can't change course if your only purpose is to interfere
with a boat on another leg of the course.

How do you define "another leg of the course"?

I'm not sure. Lap and leg are not defined terms in the definitions.

Lets say I'm match racing and manage to push the other boat over early.
I start properly. May I interfere with the other boat's efforts to get
back across the start line to restart?

My opinion is that everything that happens before the first mark is the
first leg, so I'd say that this would not be prohibited by the new rule
22.2. But that's just my opinion - I don't have anything serious to
back it up. You raise a good question.

Also, I assume "interfere" means to obstruct the movement of. If I
intentionally sail so as to give the other boat bad air but not actually
make her change course to avoid me, have I interfered with her?

I think that would qualify as interference.

Personally, I'm more troubled by the "different lap" provision - this
could cause some real trouble in practice since it might not be obvious
that another boat is on a different lap. I've got enough trouble
sometimes remembering how overlaps were established, now I've gotta keep
track of which boats are on which laps. Fortunately I don't sail in
very many races where boats lap one another.


--
//-Walt
//
//

In article ,
says...

Now available online at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L1F1215B8

There don't appear to be any major changes at first glance. Here's what
I see (limited to part 2 of the RRS):

o A more explicit (legalistic ?) verbiage about what rules apply
between boats not racing and boats that are. IRPCAS is explicitly
cited.

o Rule 13 (tacking) has been tweaked to say what happens when two
boats tack at the same time - a clear astern boat now has to keep
clear.

o Rule 16.2 has been modified (again!) so that it only applies when
a port boat is ducking a starboard boat.

This would seem a major change. Consider port crossing a short distance
ahead of starboard. Under RRS2001 starboard cannot start to pinch up to
make life harder for port. Under RRS2005 they can. Given that the
intention of the 1997 rewrite was to make collisions less likely, I
don't understand this one.


o Rule 18 now applies in some circumstances when both boats tack
around a mark. (the current rule states that if the proper course
for either boat is to tack, rule 18 is out. The new rule says one
but not both.) I think this needs to be read carefully, because
at first read it appears to say more than it does. My initial
take is that this change only makes a practical difference in a
situation where two boats are on opposite tacks and the proper
course for both of them is to tack. This would seem to be an odd
occurrence (i.e. boats in different races that share a common mark).
I welcome more discussion on this - I'm not sure I've read it
correctly...

Would this be a relevant situation? Windward mark to be rounded to port.
Starboard tacker is short of the layline so both boats must tack. Port
tacker approaches on collision course. Under RRS2001 rule 18 does not
apply. Under RRS2005 it does. Personally I think the situation under
RRS2001 is better because it is unclear which is the "inside" boat when
close-hauled on opposite tacks.


o The first sentence of Rule 18.2 c has been reworded so that it's
stated in the past tense, rather than the present tense. I don't
know that this makes any practical difference at all. Likewise,
the change that says rule 18.2 c no longer applies *and remains
inapplicable* if the clear ahead boat passes head to wind.

o Rule 19.1 (room to tack at an obstruction) has been rewritten,
but the change seems to be motivated by making the text clearer.
I don't see that the practical application of the rule is any
different. (but I may be missing something subtle)

o Rule 22.2 (interfering with another boat) has been modified to
include boats on another lap or leg of the course. This is truly
new - you can't change course if your only purpose is to interfere
with a boat on another leg of the course.

I'm baffled by that one. In match or team-racing, interfering with a
boat on another leg of the course would seem entirely part of the game.


Comments?

I find it hard to regard any of these changes as improvements.

Stefan wrote:
says...

o Rule 16.2 has been modified (again!) so that it only applies when
a port boat is ducking a starboard boat.

This would seem a major change. Consider port crossing a short distance
ahead of starboard. Under RRS2001 starboard cannot start to pinch up to
make life harder for port. Under RRS2005 they can. Given that the
intention of the 1997 rewrite was to make collisions less likely, I
don't understand this one.

I thnk the intention is to encourage port to duck instead of cross.


o Rule 18 now applies in some circumstances when both boats tack
around a mark. (the current rule states that if the proper course
for either boat is to tack, rule 18 is out. The new rule says one
but not both.) I think this needs to be read carefully, because
at first read it appears to say more than it does. My initial
take is that this change only makes a practical difference in a
situation where two boats are on opposite tacks and the proper
course for both of them is to tack.

Would this be a relevant situation? Windward mark to be rounded to port.
Starboard tacker is short of the layline so both boats must tack. Port
tacker approaches on collision course. Under RRS2001 rule 18 does not
apply. Under RRS2005 it does.

These boats are on a beat to windward, no? RRS2005 says rule 18 doesn't
apply to boats on opposite tacks on a beat to windward. That part
hasn't changed.


Actually, I think I've figured out a situation where this rule change
makes a difference.

Consider a "leeward" mark where the wind has shifted 90 degrees as in
the diagram below. A boat on Starboard (S) is reaching to the mark
while a boat on port (P) is running towards the mark. The mark is to
be left to starboard. S's proper course is to tack around the mark.
P's proper course is to gybe, then tack.


Wind -- ^
|
Next Mark

S


P
M

Under RRS2001, it's not clear that P is entitled to room. Under RRS2005
it is.

--
//-Walt
//
//

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:28:02 UTC, Stefan wrote:

In article ,
says...

Now available online at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L1F1215B8

There don't appear to be any major changes at first glance.

Rule 18 now applies in some circumstances when both boats tack
around a mark. (the current rule states that if the proper course
for either boat is to tack, rule 18 is out. The new rule says one
but not both.) I think this needs to be read carefully, because
at first read it appears to say more than it does. My initial
take is that this change only makes a practical difference in a
situation where two boats are on opposite tacks and the proper
course for both of them is to tack. This would seem to be an odd
occurrence (i.e. boats in different races that share a common mark).
I welcome more discussion on this - I'm not sure I've read it
correctly...

Probably just cleaning up the language: "either" can be taken to mean
"if any one of"... which does not exclude when "both". But clearly, if
both must tack, then Rule 18 should not (yet) apply. Only when they
are both on the same tack and about to round (going to windward)
should Rule 18 apply.


Would this be a relevant situation? Windward mark to be rounded to port.
Starboard tacker is short of the layline so both boats must tack. Port
tacker approaches on collision course. Under RRS2001 rule 18 does not
apply. Under RRS2005 it does. Personally I think the situation under
RRS2001 is better because it is unclear which is the "inside" boat when
close-hauled on opposite tacks.

Without carefully reading the new rules, I would not believe that
RRS2005 means what you have just stated....neither boat is "inside"
when close-hauled on opposite tacks: Rule 18 does not apply and
therefore "inside" is not relevant (except as a descriptive
adjective).

o Rule 22.2 (interfering with another boat) has been modified to
include boats on another lap or leg of the course. This is truly
new - you can't change course if your only purpose is to interfere
with a boat on another leg of the course.

I'm baffled by that one. In match or team-racing, interfering with a
boat on another leg of the course would seem entirely part of the game.

Match and team racing have their own rules, which bring back some of
the explicit rules which were dropped in 1996 (for example, when a
gybe is completed).

This rule makes it clear you cannot, for example, luff a boat on
another leg. Example: you are on starboard, on the port layline to the
windward mark, and would normally tack, but instead continue on
starboard, to luff a boat which has just rounded the off-set windward
mark, and set her spinnaker....I would call that interference.

Comments?

I find it hard to regard any of these changes as improvements.

The 1996 changes were not an improvement on the 1992 rules, and these
are merely more attempts to fix the awful language and concepts
foisted on us.

Geoff

Walt wrote:

Now available online at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L1F1215B8


Thanks Walt! Here is the link that you can download the entire PDF from
without having to download by sections (still on sailing.org website):

http://www.sailing.org/menu.asp?Menu...y1/kIk?snNv~xK

[http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q307266B8]

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on Racing Rules of
Sailing 2005 - 2008 (Download the complete Racing Rules of Sailing 2005
- 2008. Please note that this is a large file (887KB) and will take some
time to download. Smaller sections of the RRS can be downloaded
separately.) for the entire 887KB doc.

Stefan wrote:

In article ,
says...

o Rule 16.2 has been modified (again!) so that it only applies when
a port boat is ducking a starboard boat.

This would seem a major change. Consider port crossing a short distance
ahead of starboard. Under RRS2001 starboard cannot start to pinch up to
make life harder for port. Under RRS2005 they can. Given that the
intention of the 1997 rewrite was to make collisions less likely, I
don't understand this one.

No change under RRS 2005-08. Under RRS 2001-04 S pinching enough so
that P can no longer keep clear breaks rule 16.1. Since 16.1 won't
change under RRS 2005-08 S will still break 16.1.


o Rule 18 now applies in some circumstances when both boats tack
around a mark. (the current rule states that if the proper course
for either boat is to tack, rule 18 is out. The new rule says one
but not both.) I think this needs to be read carefully, because
at first read it appears to say more than it does. My initial
take is that this change only makes a practical difference in a
situation where two boats are on opposite tacks and the proper
course for both of them is to tack. This would seem to be an odd
occurrence (i.e. boats in different races that share a common mark).
I welcome more discussion on this - I'm not sure I've read it
correctly...

Would this be a relevant situation? Windward mark to be rounded to port.
Starboard tacker is short of the layline so both boats must tack. Port
tacker approaches on collision course. Under RRS2001 rule 18 does not
apply. Under RRS2005 it does. Personally I think the situation under
RRS2001 is better because it is unclear which is the "inside" boat when
close-hauled on opposite tacks.

In your example, since the boats are on opposite tacks on a beat to
windward rule 18 does not apply under either RRS 2001-04 or RRS
2005-08. No change.

Where there would be a change is where both boats are on starboard
tack (at a leave-to-port windward mark) and neither boat can fetch the
mark. Under RRS 2001-04 rule 18 cannot apply since both need to tack.
Under RRS 2005-08 rule 18 can apply since both must tack. This is an
inconsequential change in my view.

The reason for the change was a rare situation at leeward marks. Two
boats enter the zone on port but the only proper courses for the next
mark require both to tack immediately after passing the mark. Under
RRS 2001-04 wording rule 18 wouldn't apply even though except for the
tack after the mark it would be a typical rounding. Under RRS 2005-08
rule 18 will apply since both boats must tack to sail a proper course.

o The first sentence of Rule 18.2 c has been reworded so that it's
stated in the past tense, rather than the present tense. I don't
know that this makes any practical difference at all.

This is a team racing problem. If the clear ahead boat is miles ahead
of the next boat but waits around until the next boat gets to the mark
there is an argument that under RRS 2001-04 rule 18.2(c) couldn't
apply because they weren't both "about to round or pass" the mark when
the first boat entered the zone. With "was clear ahead" that argument
disappears and the first boat to reach the zone will have right of way
even if she enters the zone before the 2nd boat is also "about to
round or pass." [Angels on the heads of pins!]

Likewise,
the change that says rule 18.2 c no longer applies *and remains
inapplicable* if the clear ahead boat passes head to wind.

Under RRS 2001-04 and RRS 2005-08 both, rule 18 can turn off when
boats become on opposite tacks. Under RRS 2001-04 there was an
argument that 18.2(c) could reapply when rule 18 started applying
again. Under RRS 2005-08 that argument is not possible.

o Rule 19.1 (room to tack at an obstruction) has been rewritten,
but the change seems to be motivated by making the text clearer.
I don't see that the practical application of the rule is any
different. (but I may be missing something subtle)

Fairly major change here (in a very minor rule). In RRS 2001-04 if a
boat was hailed wrongly they simply could ignore the hail and there
was no penalty for a "bad" hail. Under RRS 2005-08 a "bad hail" can be
protested but the hailed boat must respond whether or not it is a bad
hail.

o Rule 22.2 (interfering with another boat) has been modified to
include boats on another lap or leg of the course. This is truly
new - you can't change course if your only purpose is to interfere
with a boat on another leg of the course.

I'm baffled by that one. In match or team-racing, interfering with a
boat on another leg of the course would seem entirely part of the game.

Match racing and team racing have their own rules on this so this is
pretty much a fleet racing change only. It will have an impact but I
don't think it will be major.

I find it hard to regard any of these changes as improvements.

I think they are all very minor improvements and for the most part
(rule 19 is an exception) eliminate unusual arguments that 99.9% of
sailors never considered.

Art Engel
e-mail: artengel123 (at) earthlink.net
Web: http://www.racingrules.org

"Art Engel" wrote in message
...

Interesting comments - you are obviously familiar with the reasons for some
of the changes.

Stefan wrote:

In article ,
says...

o Rule 16.2 has been modified (again!) so that it only applies when
a port boat is ducking a starboard boat.

This would seem a major change. Consider port crossing a short distance
ahead of starboard. Under RRS2001 starboard cannot start to pinch up to
make life harder for port. Under RRS2005 they can. Given that the
intention of the 1997 rewrite was to make collisions less likely, I
don't understand this one.

No change under RRS 2005-08. Under RRS 2001-04 S pinching enough so
that P can no longer keep clear breaks rule 16.1. Since 16.1 won't
change under RRS 2005-08 S will still break 16.1.


If that is the case, why is 16.2 needed at all?


o Rule 18 now applies in some circumstances when both boats tack
around a mark. (the current rule states that if the proper course
for either boat is to tack, rule 18 is out. The new rule says one
but not both.) I think this needs to be read carefully, because
at first read it appears to say more than it does. My initial
take is that this change only makes a practical difference in a
situation where two boats are on opposite tacks and the proper
course for both of them is to tack. This would seem to be an odd
occurrence (i.e. boats in different races that share a common
mark).
I welcome more discussion on this - I'm not sure I've read it
correctly...

Would this be a relevant situation? Windward mark to be rounded to port.
Starboard tacker is short of the layline so both boats must tack. Port
tacker approaches on collision course. Under RRS2001 rule 18 does not
apply. Under RRS2005 it does. Personally I think the situation under
RRS2001 is better because it is unclear which is the "inside" boat when
close-hauled on opposite tacks.

In your example, since the boats are on opposite tacks on a beat to
windward rule 18 does not apply under either RRS 2001-04 or RRS
2005-08. No change.


Yes I got that wrong.

Where there would be a change is where both boats are on starboard
tack (at a leave-to-port windward mark) and neither boat can fetch the
mark. Under RRS 2001-04 rule 18 cannot apply since both need to tack.
Under RRS 2005-08 rule 18 can apply since both must tack. This is an
inconsequential change in my view.

The reason for the change was a rare situation at leeward marks. Two
boats enter the zone on port but the only proper courses for the next
mark require both to tack immediately after passing the mark. Under
RRS 2001-04 wording rule 18 wouldn't apply even though except for the
tack after the mark it would be a typical rounding. Under RRS 2005-08
rule 18 will apply since both boats must tack to sail a proper course.


"Hard cases make bad law". The wording of rule 18 is now so opaque I could
not
understand it after 10 minutes of repeated reading. I am interested in the
racing rules -
95% of racing sailors are not. Making the rules incomprehensible in order to
cover rare situations cannot be the right way forwards.


o The first sentence of Rule 18.2 c has been reworded so that it's
stated in the past tense, rather than the present tense. I don't
know that this makes any practical difference at all.

This is a team racing problem. If the clear ahead boat is miles ahead
of the next boat but waits around until the next boat gets to the mark
there is an argument that under RRS 2001-04 rule 18.2(c) couldn't
apply because they weren't both "about to round or pass" the mark when
the first boat entered the zone. With "was clear ahead" that argument
disappears and the first boat to reach the zone will have right of way
even if she enters the zone before the 2nd boat is also "about to
round or pass." [Angels on the heads of pins!]

Likewise,
the change that says rule 18.2 c no longer applies *and remains
inapplicable* if the clear ahead boat passes head to wind.

Under RRS 2001-04 and RRS 2005-08 both, rule 18 can turn off when
boats become on opposite tacks. Under RRS 2001-04 there was an
argument that 18.2(c) could reapply when rule 18 started applying
again. Under RRS 2005-08 that argument is not possible.

o Rule 19.1 (room to tack at an obstruction) has been rewritten,
but the change seems to be motivated by making the text clearer.
I don't see that the practical application of the rule is any
different. (but I may be missing something subtle)

Fairly major change here (in a very minor rule). In RRS 2001-04 if a
boat was hailed wrongly they simply could ignore the hail and there
was no penalty for a "bad" hail. Under RRS 2005-08 a "bad hail" can be
protested but the hailed boat must respond whether or not it is a bad
hail.

o Rule 22.2 (interfering with another boat) has been modified to
include boats on another lap or leg of the course. This is truly
new - you can't change course if your only purpose is to interfere
with a boat on another leg of the course.

I'm baffled by that one. In match or team-racing, interfering with a
boat on another leg of the course would seem entirely part of the game.

Match racing and team racing have their own rules on this so this is
pretty much a fleet racing change only. It will have an impact but I
don't think it will be major.


Except that the team racing appendix does not over-ride 22.2, so it will
apply.

I find it hard to regard any of these changes as improvements.

I think they are all very minor improvements and for the most part
(rule 19 is an exception) eliminate unusual arguments that 99.9% of
sailors never considered.

Art Engel
e-mail: artengel123 (at) earthlink.net
Web: http://www.racingrules.org

"R. G. Newbury" wrote in message
news:JcldVHe8EppF-pn2-7vkhjvcwHOG9@Tor2...
o Rule 22.2 (interfering with another boat) has been modified to
include boats on another lap or leg of the course. This is truly
new - you can't change course if your only purpose is to interfere
with a boat on another leg of the course.

I'm baffled by that one. In match or team-racing, interfering with a
boat on another leg of the course would seem entirely part of the game.

Match and team racing have their own rules, which bring back some of
the explicit rules which were dropped in 1996 (for example, when a
gybe is completed).

This rule makes it clear you cannot, for example, luff a boat on
another leg. Example: you are on starboard, on the port layline to the
windward mark, and would normally tack, but instead continue on
starboard, to luff a boat which has just rounded the off-set windward
mark, and set her spinnaker....I would call that interference.


For fleet racing I would agree. For team-racing I'd call it part of the
game.
However 22.2 is not over-ridden in the team-racing appendix.