66 replies to this topic

[Dog Watch]

Found this article about 'roll tacking'.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/racing-articles/20696-basic-roll-tacking.html

And found this picture.



You see this all the time, don't you?

Rule 49.2 and Case 36 are interesting, aren't they?

DW

[Never was]

What part of "except briefly to perform a necessary task" don't you understand?

Found this article about 'roll tacking'.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/racing-articles/20696-basic-roll-tacking.html

And found this picture.



You see this all the time, don't you?

Rule 49.2 and Case 36 are interesting, aren't they?

DW

[Dog Watch]

What part of "except briefly to perform a necessary task" don't you understand?

Sorry Never Was,

I don't really understand your question.

Well, I guess that's the point of raising this thread. To discuss the meaning of that phrase.

From your reply, I get the impression that you consider these guys outside the lifelines, but briefly performing some task, right? Interesting.

DW

[Pleb]

Must be hiking forward to ooch down a wave!!!

Attached Files

•  Hiking1.jpg   9.04K   34 downloads

[Mark K]

Not sure I understand the "3 guys legal" part, so I'm not sure I get the question.

If it's what I think it is...

I'd throw the flag on that as hiking to flatten the boat, but calling that on a roll-tack too chicken-shit for me. I'd let it go. It's pretty momentary.

[sumpin]

hike
BITCH

[The Gardener]

Looks like a roll tack, Thats a brief task right? Sometimes they seem like forever.

[Somebody Else]

Roll-tacking does not equal hiking.

[Life Buoy 15]

Those red shorts are so 5 minutes ago.

[Mark K]

Roll-tacking does not equal hiking.

I think somebody could build a case. It's not a "necessary function". But who want's to win a race that way?

They could have written a rule book the size of a phone-book, but they decided to make it a pamphlet, trusting that people would use common sense and a spirit of sportsmanship in the application of.

[Somebody Else]

Those red shorts are so 5 minutes ago.

minutes=years?

Because that picture is at least that old.
Plus the boat's color theme is white with red and blue accents.
So there's that.

[dogwatch]

I think somebody could build a case. It's not a "necessary function".

A professional coach, who is an Olympic medallist, told us in a coaching session that roll tacking is indeed a "brief and necessary function". Without a specific case to reference it's all a matter of opinion but I tend to take their opinion as an informed one.

[Somebody Else]

Roll-tacking does not equal hiking.

I think somebody could build a case. It's not a "necessary function". But who want's to win a race that way?

A case for or against what? You need to clarify the point you are trying to make. Win a race what way? Roll-tacking?

I see this as common in upper-tier teams.

[Mark K]

Roll-tacking does not equal hiking.

I think somebody could build a case. It's not a "necessary function". But who want's to win a race that way?

A case for or against what? You need to clarify the point you are trying to make. Win a race what way? Roll-tacking?

I see this as common in upper-tier teams.

A case that their technique is illegal.

By using the wording and the examples of that case he cited, as to what was legal and illegal hiking. Not that that case is entirely relevant, but relevance is a matter of opinion too. One can build a case about the hiking method depicted being illegal. Not saying it is, just saying one could make a case. Never know how those things might get work out.

[Somebody Else]

I still don't understand.

The picture in question is roll-tacking, not hiking. It's "brief and necessary" -- certainly less time than, say, loading up a reaching strut.

No one hikes like that. For one thing, it's pretty high windage.

[Mark K]

I still don't understand.

The picture in question is roll-tacking, not hiking. It's "brief and necessary" -- certainly less time than, say, loading up a reaching strut.

No one hikes like that. For one thing, it's pretty high windage.

I think the notion that extending yourself over the lifelines in any direction being deemed "hiking" by someone as not entirely implausible.

I think your confusion stems from taking my explanation as advocacy.

[Somebody Else]

Case 36 states very clearly that the crew member was so positioned "for several minutes".

I know from experience that roll tacking like in the Samba Pa Ti picture, the bodies are so positioned for less than 5 seconds. So for the sake of this discussion, Case 36 has no relevance. While the position of the bodies looks to be similar to position 6 (but facing the opposite direction) the intention and the time period do not match those cited in the case.

If someone wanted to protest that sort of roll tacking, they would have a very difficult time doing so, seeing as the bodies are positioned outside the hiking limit for a very "brief" time and seeing as there is no case precedence.

[Mark K]

I think somebody could build a case. It's not a "necessary function".

A professional coach, who is an Olympic medallist, told us in a coaching session that roll tacking is indeed a "brief and necessary function". Without a specific case to reference it's all a matter of opinion but I tend to take their opinion as an informed one.

Looking at the case he cited, it appeared to me it's all about body position on lifelines, not banning roll tacking.

Implicit in that case, is the theory that positions assumed for ballast reasons in regards to lifelines are restricted. I think the phasing is "momentary AND necessary".

[Steam Flyer]

I still don't understand.

The picture in question is roll-tacking, not hiking. It's "brief and necessary"

... ...

So sorry, it may be brief but it's for sure not necessary.

You can roll-tack without going outside the lifelines, it's just not pumping as much torque. Clearly an advantage to do so, but not a necessary function to sail the boat.


and if you're in a close race with a boat that is doing it legally then it's an advantage taken that the other guy doesn't need.

Why don't you just run the engine? That could be "brief and necessary" too.

FB- Doug

[Somebody Else]

So sorry, it may be brief but it's for sure not necessary.

By your logic it is not "necessary" to extend outboard to load a reaching strut.
And you're right.

You can accomplish the same end by angling the pole foreward, loading the guy in position while still inside the lifelines 100%, and leveraging the pole back to its preferred 90-degree position.

But no one has ever been protested, let alone thrown out, for leaning out to load the reaching strut.

How do you feel about crawling out to the end of a spinn pole to trip, or to the end of the boom to rig a reef line. Suspended well outboard, over water!! ILLEGAL!!! ? or just sailing?
_______________

If we are going to bitch about the way people crew on boats, why are we leaving the saw-your-guts-in-half hiking uncontested? It is extremely uncomfortable for anything more than short bursts and places lots of strain on the lifeline. It is legal, but is this sort of torture how we "grow the sport?"

[Steam Flyer]

By your logic it is not "necessary" to extend outboard to load a reaching strut.
And you're right.

I'm guessing that the phrase "acts of seamane ship" isn't in the rules any more; but the principle is sound & can/should (imho) still be applied. Swinging out to run the guy, or load the reaching strut, would be kosher. But using that as a principle to justify the crew pumping their weight outboard for kinetics is stretching (again imho).

But then some of that stuff is acceptable in some classes. Look at college sailing, it's all about kinetics

You can accomplish the same end by angling the pole foreward, loading the guy in position while still inside the lifelines 100%, and leveraging the pole back to its preferred 90-degree position.

But no one has ever been protested, let alone thrown out, for leaning out to load the reaching strut.

How do you feel about crawling out to the end of a spinn pole to trip, or to the end of the boom to rig a reef line. Suspended well outboard, over water!! ILLEGAL!!! ? or just sailing?
_______________

I'd call that sailing, but imho kinetics are optional and have pretty strict limits in the rules anyway.

If we are going to bitch about the way people crew on boats, why are we leaving the saw-your-guts-in-half hiking uncontested? It is extremely uncomfortable for anything more than short bursts and places lots of strain on the lifeline. It is legal, but is this sort of torture how we "grow the sport?"

I agree with you on the "assisted hiking." The Melges 24 class has decided to put themselves outside the mainstream of the sport by using lifelines as horizontally-rigged multiple trapezes, and that should have been nipped in the bud.

FB- Doug

[Mark K]

I agree with you on the "assisted hiking." The Melges 24 class has decided to put themselves outside the mainstream of the sport by using lifelines as horizontally-rigged multiple trapezes, and that should have been nipped in the bud.

FB- Doug

I sure agree with that. "Hiking aid" is the most ridiculous thing that has ever been invented. If it's not a life line, then it's just plain stupid to have that configuration.

What a great boat the M24 would have been with triple-trap.

[Dog Watch]

Interesting discussion folks. Really. I have always wondered about this but never really got in-depth on the subject.

Although the specific details of Case 36 don't match this scenario, the elements of the interpretations are perfectly valid. (Why write a case book, if you could only use it if the Cases exactly matched your own real situation!) Case 36 is (only) useful here in the clarification of the positions which break or do not break the rule.

There is no doubt that the hiking extends their bodies outside the vertical line drawn from the top of the top life-line.

Unfortunately, Case 36 does not go on to explicitly clarify the part of the rule concerned with 'performing a necessary task'.

The question left to opinion then is what is considered a 'necessary task'.

It's interesting (and nobody has mentioned it) that rule 42.3 says in part:

(a) A boat may be rolled to facilitate steering.
(B) A boat’s crew may move their bodies to exaggerate the rolling
that facilitates steering the boat through a tack or a gybe, provided
that, just after the tack or gybe is completed, the boat’s
speed is not greater than it would have been in the absence of
the tack or gybe.

If 'rolling' a boat is an acceptable form of kinetics, and hiking out to leeward is part of rolling a boat (most efficiently), then that would add weight to the argument that such crew positioning is an acceptable task.

That does not necessarily satisfy the requirement, that the task which takes a crew member outboard must also be 'necessary'. Here, we get to a grey area. How much of anything is 'necessary'?

One could be fickle and argue that almost any action could be deemed unnecessary, but I think this is counter productive and some common sense should flatten such petty arguements. I think there is a difference between 'loading a strut / spiking a kite' (actions which need a body outside the lifelines to avoid ruining the race), and positioning weight to maximise speed. Surely, we can't accept an arguemnt that 'rolling a boat' no matter how acceptable as a means of kinetics, is a 'necessary task' in the same league as those mentioned above.

Additionally, in considering this, I can't help but ask the question, "What is the reason for rule 49.2 in the first place?" Is it to define a limit to which weight can be used to an advantage? Or is it to secure the safety of crew members? Of course, I have no way of knowing what the rulemaker's intent was, but I believe it is probably the latter - to secure the safety of crew members. Unlike Forumla 1 car racing, the sailing rule makers are not normally in the business of slowing people down, unless it lessens safety!

I must admit I am not at all expert on the intricacies of rule 42 interpretations, but it seems to me that the exceptions contain a mixture of what I would call 'necessary' and 'unncessary' forms of kinetics.

Here's the list of exceptions to rule 42 and my view on the necessesity of such actions.

a) - Rolling the boat. - Unnecessary
B) - Using weight to roll a boa. - Unnecessary
c) - Sculling to turn to close hauled - Necessary
d) - Wiggling helm to speed. - Could be necessary or unnecessary
e, f) - Any propulstion to help people in danger or get clear from a grounding - Necessary
g) - Engine as allowed by SI - NA.

In short then, I don't see how such positioning to perform a 'roll tack' (despite being acceptable or even an act of seamanship [rule 42]) meets the requirements for placing crew in a position, which obviously negates the underlyling reason for lifelines and the relevant rule - safety.

Due to the limited 'case history' and lack of interpretation (is it possible to define), this is only my opinion so far.

I hope some rules guru will help out here. I'm genuinely interested to know.

Thanks.

[Dog Watch]

Just to get one thing clear here....

...I am expecting to get proven wrong. Afterall, as someone said, this is such a common sight isn't it, that you would have thought that there would be some protest history on the subject by now. I've done it myself! I wondered whether I was allowed to, but did it because all the others on the boat were doing it - - and they were pros!)

Yet, there isn't a precdent set a far as I know - at least nothing from ISAF. That's what I'm looking for primarily. Acceptable also, would be a really good convincing explanation of how roll-tacking is necessary or not.

Or maybe it is just such a minor thing in the scheme of things (and actually quite a useful way to gain advantage, if you know how to do it well and others don't) that as sailors we ALL 'turn a blind eye'. If that's the case, it could explain the lack of documentation on the matter. Shouldn't then the rules be modified, since 'turning a blind eye' doesn't really match the fundimental principals of sportsmanship which are to 'enforce' rules?

My interest in this is only the interaction between sailors and the rules. Wondering whether the rules are sufficient to prohibit or grant in the way they were intended.

Here, I'm not sure.

[GybeSet®]

I still don't understand.

The picture in question is roll-tacking, not hiking. It's "brief and necessary" -- certainly less time than, say, loading up a reaching strut.

No one hikes like that. For one thing, it's pretty high windage.

It's certainly brief

can you explain to us why it's 'necessary' pls ??

[Mark K]

Just to get one thing clear here....

...I am expecting to get proven wrong. Afterall, as someone said, this is such a common sight isn't it, that you would have thought that there would be some protest history on the subject by now. I've done it myself! I wondered whether I was allowed to, but did it because all the others on the boat were doing it - - and they were pros!)

Yet, there isn't a precdent set a far as I know - at least nothing from ISAF. That's what I'm looking for primarily. Acceptable also, would be a really good convincing explanation of how roll-tacking is necessary or not.

Or maybe it is just such a minor thing in the scheme of things (and actually quite a useful way to gain advantage, if you know how to do it well and others don't) that as sailors we ALL 'turn a blind eye'. If that's the case, it could explain the lack of documentation on the matter. Shouldn't then the rules be modified, since 'turning a blind eye' doesn't really match the fundimental principals of sportsmanship which are to 'enforce' rules?

My interest in this is only the interaction between sailors and the rules. Wondering whether the rules are sufficient to prohibit or grant in the way they were intended.

Here, I'm not sure.

I think it's just one of those things that is techically true, but collectively nonsense. The rules were made very brief, and were not intended to cover every little thing specifically. For better or worse, they decided to not emulate professional baseball, which has a 300 page rule book that covers everything.




Again, this is not about roll tacking, right? This is about leaning over from the waist while standing to extend ones torso over the top life-line, and it's certainly not required to perform a roll-tack. Just a slightly better one. To toss someone out of a race without a warning? The rules are too vague on this point, and the advantage gained too slight.

Can the judges use discretion in penalties on this type of thing? If you are going to have a pamphlet for a rule book...

[Dog Watch]

Again, this is not about roll tacking, right? This is about leaning over from the waist while standing to extend ones torso over the top life-line, and it's certainly not required to perform a roll-tack. Just a slightly better one. To toss someone out of a race without a warning? The rules are too vague on this point, and the advantage gained too slight.

Can the judges use discretion in penalties on this type of thing? If you are going to have a pamphlet for a rule book...

Mark K,

Good post. I think in essence you're right. The thread is not about roll-tacking, its about the torso over the lifeline.

Rules generally fall into 3 categories - Safety, Organisational, Competition Definition.

To turn a blind eye to a competition definition rule might be acceptable to some circles in some cases. However, I am intrigued to see a 'safety' rule so vaguely written and policed.

-------------------------------------------------

Can the judges use discretion in penalties on this type of thing?

Unfortunately no. If a protest was raised, they would have to decide whether the boat broke the wording of the rules, and if so act according to 64.1

DW

[Icedtea]

I don't really see anything wrong with it, bit of the class rules state your torso must be within the lifelines your breaking them..

[Dog Watch]

I don't really see anything wrong with it, bit of the class rules state your torso must be within the lifelines your breaking them..

LOL

Thanks for the comment. I think we all kind of agree the same. The question is whether it is worth protesting, or changing the rule.

DW

Your 'O' and 'I' keys are mixed up!

[blackensign]

I am intrigued, but not about the case. To me, roll tacking is more about timing than it is getting your body outside the rail.


In terms of a necessary task and with this case as an example...

If roll tacking is allowed to facilitate steering, then I can understand the roll tack itself being considered a necessary task.
However, if the boat can be steered adequately without being outside of the lifelines, then I can't see being outside as being a necessary part of the task.

So whether it is necessary would depend on whether you are facilitating steering or not?

[Pragmatist]

I think if on the protest committee I would want to know who the hell brought this ridiculous protest up that's keeping me from the beer tent?

[Dog Watch]

I think if on the protest committee I would want to know who the hell brought this ridiculous protest up that's keeping me from the beer tent?

Very good Pragmatist. Wise and noble words, well thought out. A definite contribution to savour!

However, that's not the question. The question is more along the lines of..."How would you rule it?"

In fact, I think this 'reluctance' or 'inability' by most to actually answer that question satisfactorily, kind of proves my point. It seems like everyone would rather shovel this under the carpet, than address the issue, right?

Only one reader of this thread has attempted to refute the point, and now he's gone quiet. Others have sort of agreed with the point made. No one really has the urge to give or find an good answer. That's what I find interesting. And then to muse how the rule could be adjusted to match the (supposed) intent, without adding volume to the rule book.

(Only kidding with the sarcasm!)

--------------------------------------

Blackensign, good point. I thought about that myself.

To answer that question; I see 100's of youtube videos of boats, and have raced against 100's of beer can racers / club racers, who seem to get around the course quite fine, without needing to 'roll-tack' their keel boats. (OK - they are not normally on the podium), but it suggests that the roll-tack is not a necessary part of sailing, right?

DW

[ChiGuy]

Blackensign, good point. I thought about that myself.

To answer that question; I see 100's of youtube videos of boats, and have raced against 100's of beer can racers / club racers, who seem to get around the course quite fine, without needing to 'roll-tack' their keel boats. (OK - they are not normally on the podium), but it suggests that the roll-tack is not a necessary part of sailing, right?

DW

Roll tacking may not be a necessary part of sailing, but it is specifically allowed under 42.3a. Similarly a boats crew may move their bodies to exaggerate the rolling under 42.3b. Your quibble of course is with the word necessary in 49.2. It would be for a jury to decide if in the prevailing conditions, having any part of the crews body outside the upper lifeline was necessary in order to perform the tack effectively.

[Dog Watch]

It would be for a jury to decide if in the prevailing conditions, having any part of the crews body outside the upper lifeline was necessary in order to perform the tack effectively.

Indeed.

I guess, see my answer to Pragmatist two posts ago!

DW

[Mark K]

It would be for a jury to decide if in the prevailing conditions, having any part of the crews body outside the upper lifeline was necessary in order to perform the tack effectively.

Indeed.

I guess, see my answer to Pragmatist two posts ago!

DW

I think it's entirely unnecessary, yet, he has provide a judges way out from having to toss a boat that shouldn't be tossed. There is no rule that explicitly prohibits it, and if a jackass that would lodge this protest wants to appeal, he may do so. Meanwhile, justice is served.

Have to adopt the spirit of the rules (sez me) in the gray areas. Given the nature of how the rules were written, with a heck of a lot of grey areas, the intent being an expectation of common sense in the application thereof. Was this a significant advantage? No. Was there any intent to cheat? No. Was this an understandable mistake due to common practice? Yes.

[Gouvernail]

As I see that photo?? The teamwork os lacking. it is better than most but only three of the guys are realy working hard to make the boat roll properly.
My bet is most of you sail on teams that do even less of a job of properly tacking the boat.

The general theme of this thread suggests many of you don't wish to play a game where you actually try to make teh boat sail to its ultimate performance.

Some of you see the photo as, "Those guys are way too into making their boat go and it isn't any fun if people are gonna play that hard."

Others see the photo as a pretty damned good team and wish yours would try that hard.

I see it as a bunch of sailors who olny sorta get it sorta trying to sorta make teh boat roll and they are standing where they think they are supposed to stand to do that.

if all those sailors were champion dinghy sailors, they would be leaning out in unison and leaning out a hell of a lot harder.

As for the rules?? they are vague at best.
On the one hand the rule says..

it is legal to get outside the lifelines to do something...pretty much anything...One could interpret it to say, you can go outside the lifelines cheat briefly or punch somebody in the mouth.

on the other hand this activity is clearly "hiking the boat flat." and hiking ouitside the lifelines is illegal.

When the world of sailboat racing decided to abandon 100 years of evolution of its rules and try to restate them briefly, we lost a lot of the minutia.

The fact is, with the rules as written "THERE IS NO CORRECT ANSWER!!!!"



Where will the decision about this sort of thing go someday?? The current trend in sailing is to remove any use of skills which might make it less possible for a fat slob old fart to compete with young athletic people. Most revently we changed to a three boat length circle because old fat slobs cannot react in just to boat lengths. Pumping ooching and rocking was banned because old fat slobs cannot wiggle all day.

Soon someone will realize that hiking in dinghies is the singular most profound discriminator in windward prformance and we will have rules demanding our asses stay firmly planted on the bottom of our cockpits while racing.

The old farts who run sailing and refuse to pass their jobs on to younger more enthusiastic kids have a motto. Lets continue to ruin the game so we can imagine we can compete forever!!!

it won't work.

[Gouvernail]

As I see that photo?? The teamwork os lacking. it is better than most but only three of the guys are realy working hard to make the boat roll properly.
My bet is most of you sail on teams that do even less of a job of properly tacking the boat.

The general theme of this thread suggests many of you don't wish to play a game where you actually try to make teh boat sail to its ultimate performance.

Some of you see the photo as, "Those guys are way too into making their boat go and it isn't any fun if people are gonna play that hard."

Others see the photo as a pretty damned good team and wish yours would try that hard.

I see it as a bunch of sailors who olny sorta get it sorta trying to sorta make teh boat roll and they are standing where they think they are supposed to stand to do that.

if all those sailors were champion dinghy sailors, they would be leaning out in unison and leaning out a hell of a lot harder.

As for the rules?? they are vague at best.
On the one hand the rule says..

it is legal to get outside the lifelines to do something...pretty much anything...One could interpret it to say, you can go outside the lifelines cheat briefly or punch somebody in the mouth.

on the other hand this activity is clearly "hiking the boat flat." and hiking ouitside the lifelines is illegal.

When the world of sailboat racing decided to abandon 100 years of evolution of its rules and try to restate them briefly, we lost a lot of the minutia.

The fact is, with the rules as written "THERE IS NO CORRECT ANSWER!!!!"



Where will the decision about this sort of thing go someday?? The current trend in sailing is to remove any use of skills which might make it less possible for a fat slob old fart to compete with young athletic people. Most revently we changed to a three boat length circle because old fat slobs cannot react in just to boat lengths. Pumping ooching and rocking was banned because old fat slobs cannot wiggle all day.

Soon someone will realize that hiking in dinghies is the singular most profound discriminator in windward prformance and we will have rules demanding our asses stay firmly planted on the bottom of our cockpits while racing.

The old farts who run sailing and refuse to pass their jobs on to younger more enthusiastic kids have a motto. Lets continue to ruin the game so we can imagine we can compete forever!!!

it won't work.

[ChiGuy]

Where will the decision about this sort of thing go someday?? The current trend in sailing is to remove any use of skills which might make it less possible for a fat slob old fart to compete with young athletic people. Most revently we changed to a three boat length circle because old fat slobs cannot react in just to boat lengths. Pumping ooching and rocking was banned because old fat slobs cannot wiggle all day.

Soon someone will realize that hiking in dinghies is the singular most profound discriminator in windward prformance and we will have rules demanding our asses stay firmly planted on the bottom of our cockpits while racing.

The old farts who run sailing and refuse to pass their jobs on to younger more enthusiastic kids have a motto. Lets continue to ruin the game so we can imagine we can compete forever!!!

it won't work.

Not quite sure the 3bl zone was for auld pharts who can't work fast enough, or to boats going faster over time?

Auld age and cunning beat skill and athleticism any day

I actually have 2 younguns, and they both prefer athletic hard working boats. V15s, Melges 24s... I rather hope that is the direction of boat racing as us auld pharts die off.

[Somebody Else]

OK, I figured out why this is a weird topic.

The topic title is "Rules - Hiking".
The 1st poll question is "At least three sailors are hiking ilegally?""
The 2nd poll questions is "I have seen this kind of hiking often?"

The picture used to illustrate Dog Watch's point does not show hiking; it shows roll-tacking.
The referenced article is about roll-tacking, not hiking.

So we have a definite apples/oranges thing going on here.

So if you ignore that the picture is of roll-tacking and the reference article is about roll-tacking and take the poll questions at face value, as written, and with nothing implied, they are much less ambiguous.

1. Are the sailors hiking illegally? YES.
2. Have seen this kind of hiking often? NEVER, EVER.
3. Is hiking this way legal? NEVER. Protest it.

If we change just one word the answers are exactly the opposite.

1. Are the sailors roll-tacking illegally? NO.
2. Have seen this kind of roll-tacking often? YES, but not in the 4-knot-shitbox PHRF fleets.
3. Is roll-tacking this way legal? YES.

[Steam Flyer]

As I see that photo?? The teamwork os lacking. it is better than most but only three of the guys are realy working hard to make the boat roll properly.
My bet is most of you sail on teams that do even less of a job of properly tacking the boat.

My my, aren't we just Mr Perfect today.
Maybe we should all genuflect and kiss your ring

The general theme of this thread suggests many of you don't wish to play a game where you actually try to make teh boat sail to its ultimate performance.

No, the general theme of this thread is that the rules are not perfect and are not written in a way to be ALL-ENCOMPASSING FIERY LETTERS IN THE SKY but that intelligent & reasonable sailors can probably understand them & agree on how to apply them.

We were just waiting for you to make it all clear

Some of you see the photo as, "Those guys are way too into making their boat go and it isn't any fun if people are gonna play that hard."

Others see the photo as a pretty damned good team and wish yours would try that hard.

I see it as a bunch of sailors who olny sorta get it sorta trying to sorta make teh boat roll and they are standing where they think they are supposed to stand to do that.

if all those sailors were champion dinghy sailors, they would be leaning out in unison and leaning out a hell of a lot harder.

If they were champion dinghy sailors, then they wouldn't be sailing a boat with LIFELINES.

Sailing can be dangerous. We know this because because people have died doing it... not very many really, but providing for SAFETY is usually seen as a Good Idea ^™ because most people want to minimize the risk of death for the sake of collecting trophies.

As for the rules?? they are vague at best.

Bullshit.

The rules are fairly clear.

You just don't like them.

But isn't it an awful shame that you can't dictate from your mighty throne how the rest of us must play together. I feel your pain (not really).

FB- Doug

[Dog Watch]

OK, I figured out why this is a weird topic.

The topic title is "Rules - Hiking".
The 1st poll question is "At least three sailors are hiking ilegally?""
The 2nd poll questions is "I have seen this kind of hiking often?"

Somebody Else,

In fact you are right here. The instant the 'time for editing' expired, I immediately regretted that I had not been more succint in my use of the term 'hiking'. (I do hate that time limit.)

The pupose of this thread really was to ask the question:

Is the crew positioning in the photo, against the rules?

If I could at all steer the discussion and the poll in that direction, it might be a more productive one.

I rather lazily used the term 'hiking' to include 'any form of crew weight outside the shearline of the boat', whether it be to flatten the boat, or to heel the boat. While I don't want to get into a semantics arguement, I can see how this could have confused things.

That being said, I think the essense has been captured by a number of people, and much of the discussion thus far is still valid.

Your post suggests that the difference between 'roll-tacking' and 'hiking' would create a number of different poll responses.

If we change just one word the answers are exactly the opposite.

1. Are the sailors roll-tacking illegally? NO.
2. Have seen this kind of roll-tacking often? YES, but not in the 4-knot-shitbox PHRF fleets.
3. Is roll-tacking this way legal? YES.

I still challenge then, whether the positioning of crew in this picture, despite being an allowed form of kinetics, breaks rule 49.2, by the fact that the 'task' being performed is not a necessary one.

In other words, if you can't roll-tack and comply with all other rules, then you can't roll-tack legally. The fact that roll-tacking is an approved form of propulsion, doesn't entitle it to be used in contravention of other rules, does it?

DW

[Dog Watch]

The general theme of this thread suggests many of you don't wish to play a game where you actually try to make teh boat sail to its ultimate performance.

I think you make a pretty unfair presumption on that 'general' theme and by saying that some here don't want to go fast. Racing is about going fast...or at least faster than the others. It has nothing to do with what kind of game we wish to play.

I've stated the question many times, and if you choose to ignor it in favour of such claims, so be it.

As I have answerd to others, the reluctance or inability of people to answer the question asked with any meaninful ballast is to me evidence of the difficulty people are having with the concept that the rule might be flawed, by either not matching current technique, or by failing to be effective in acheiving its intent.

On a more personal level, this question is probably exposing the fact that so many of us who claim to be law abiding sailors, actually can't in good faith apply that claim in this case. Troubling, right?

DW

[cosmicsedso]

I think somebody could build a case. It's not a "necessary function".

A professional coach, who is an Olympic medallist, told us in a coaching session that roll tacking is indeed a "brief and necessary function". Without a specific case to reference it's all a matter of opinion but I tend to take their opinion as an informed one.

Would that be the same professional coach/Olympic medallist who got dsq'ed TWICE in the same Olympics for failing to keep clear on PORT and failing to exhonerate?

[Somebody Else]

The purpose of this thread really was to ask the question:

"Is the crew positioning in the photo against the rules?"

I still say, "Depends."

In the rule, the term "brief" is vague but there seems to be a consensus here that roll-tacking is brief and hiking is not brief.

The big question then is the inclusion of "necessary" in the rule. That word just sort of hangs there with no further justification: necessary for what? There is a continuum that spans from "keeping people alive/the boat afloat" to "winning the race." That covers quite a lot of territory. But considering the RRS are specifically for "racing" I tend to favor the latter end of that continuum: "winning the race". That train of thought coupled with the fact that there is no case law addressing aggressive roll-tacking of large keel boats leads me to conclude "It's OK."

[Beau.Vrolyk]

...snip....

If we are going to bitch about the way people crew on boats, why are we leaving the saw-your-guts-in-half hiking uncontested? It is extremely uncomfortable for anything more than short bursts and places lots of strain on the lifeline. It is legal, but is this sort of torture how we "grow the sport?"

+100

[Beau.Vrolyk]

OK, I figured out why this is a weird topic.

The topic title is "Rules - Hiking".
The 1st poll question is "At least three sailors are hiking ilegally?""
The 2nd poll questions is "I have seen this kind of hiking often?"

The picture used to illustrate Dog Watch's point does not show hiking; it shows roll-tacking.
The referenced article is about roll-tacking, not hiking.

So we have a definite apples/oranges thing going on here.

So if you ignore that the picture is of roll-tacking and the reference article is about roll-tacking and take the poll questions at face value, as written, and with nothing implied, they are much less ambiguous.

1. Are the sailors hiking illegally? YES.
2. Have seen this kind of hiking often? NEVER, EVER.
3. Is hiking this way legal? NEVER. Protest it.

If we change just one word the answers are exactly the opposite.

1. Are the sailors roll-tacking illegally? NO.
2. Have seen this kind of roll-tacking often? YES, but not in the 4-knot-shitbox PHRF fleets.
3. Is roll-tacking this way legal? YES.

Thank you SombodyElse, I was sitting her slapping my forehead with my had wondering what the hell was going on with folks ranting about two different things and not bothering to sort them out first. My vote was based upon what was written in the post, thus I voted the way your first example shows. Roll-Tacking is not hiking, and even the leaning out bit of roll tacking isn't hiking.

Do note, one and all, that the rule RRS 49.2 talks about "Crew Position" it does not use the work hiking. Further, it may very well be that in both cases (Hiking and Roll-Tacking) the competitors are breaking rule 49.1. The existence of 49.2 doesn't mean that 49.1 turns off in any way. Rather, it says that there are additional restrictions in the way one uses Life Lines. The guys in the picture, who are roll tacking, are certainly breaking 49.1 as they are utilizing something other than a hiking strap or stiffener to position their bodies outboard. Thus, in the second example that SomebodyElse provided, where we assume the team is roll-tacking, they are probably breaking 49.1 but not 49.2.

BV


BV

[Mark K]

I think somebody could build a case. It's not a "necessary function".

A professional coach, who is an Olympic medallist, told us in a coaching session that roll tacking is indeed a "brief and necessary function". Without a specific case to reference it's all a matter of opinion but I tend to take their opinion as an informed one.

Would that be the same professional coach/Olympic medallist who got dsq'ed TWICE in the same Olympics for failing to keep clear on PORT and failing to exhonerate?

Has any Olympic class boat ever had lifelines?

[Dog Watch]

...snip....

If we are going to bitch about the way people crew on boats, why are we leaving the saw-your-guts-in-half hiking uncontested? It is extremely uncomfortable for anything more than short bursts and places lots of strain on the lifeline. It is legal, but is this sort of torture how we "grow the sport?"

+100

The fundimental aspect nhe misses (and why I didn't give Somebody Else +100 for this post) is the fact that lifelines are designed for safety!

They are not desgnied to stop people falling off in heavy weather when they are standing up, and the top rail (pivot point) is at knee height!

However, the rule makers (and presumably rail designers) have determined that when the person's center of gravity is below the top rail, and the body is contained by the bottom rail then the relative safety is enhanced enough to allow it.

Good grief!

[Dog Watch]

Do note, one and all, that the rule RRS 49.2 talks about "Crew Position" it does not use the work hiking. Further, it may very well be that in both cases (Hiking and Roll-Tacking) the competitors are breaking rule 49.1. The existence of 49.2 doesn't mean that 49.1 turns off in any way. Rather, it says that there are additional restrictions in the way one uses Life Lines. The guys in the picture, who are roll tacking, are certainly breaking 49.1 as they are utilizing something other than a hiking strap or stiffener to position their bodies outboard. Thus, in the second example that SomebodyElse provided, where we assume the team is roll-tacking, they are probably breaking 49.1 but not 49.2.

As I said, I'm sorry for confusing things.

However, the question was about the positioning of the torso outside the rail, rather than the 'roll tack' task. I don't think we necessarily need to get hung up with the definition of hiking.

As for 49.1, maybe, but we are still posed with a question of 49.2. I don't know how you can attest that 49.2 was not broken, simply because it is an allowed task in 42.

Rule 42 is only allowing 'roll-tacking', it does not allow you to break another rule. You can roll-tack how you want in a boat without lifelines, but if you have lifelines, your roll-tacking must stay inside the sheerline.

DW

[Beau.Vrolyk]

Do note, one and all, that the rule RRS 49.2 talks about "Crew Position" it does not use the work hiking. Further, it may very well be that in both cases (Hiking and Roll-Tacking) the competitors are breaking rule 49.1. The existence of 49.2 doesn't mean that 49.1 turns off in any way. Rather, it says that there are additional restrictions in the way one uses Life Lines. The guys in the picture, who are roll tacking, are certainly breaking 49.1 as they are utilizing something other than a hiking strap or stiffener to position their bodies outboard. Thus, in the second example that SomebodyElse provided, where we assume the team is roll-tacking, they are probably breaking 49.1 but not 49.2.

As I said, I'm sorry for confusing things.

However, the question was about the positioning of the torso outside the rail, rather than the 'roll tack' task. I don't think we necessarily need to get hung up with the definition of hiking.

As for 49.1, maybe, but we are still posed with a question of 49.2. I don't know how you can attest that 49.2 was not broken, simply because it is an allowed task in 42.

Rule 42 is only allowing 'roll-tacking', it does not allow you to break another rule. You can roll-tack how you want in a boat without lifelines, but if you have lifelines, your roll-tacking must stay inside the sheerline.

DW

DW,

I think you are correct, that one can Roll-Tack, as allowed under RRS 42 without breaking another rule. The competitors in your picture may be breaking both 49.1 and 49.2. The loop-hole in 49.2 is "briefly" and "necessary" which may both be true of doing a good roll tack. However, as 49.1 clearly states, no one may "hike" by any means other than a hiking strap or stiffener. Someone breaks a rule when they break one - regardless of which one.

I've found that finding a rule that's been broken that is simple and without debate is far easier to drive to a conclusion than Rules with words like "briefly" and "necessary".

Best,

BV

[dogwatch]

Would that be the same professional coach/Olympic medallist who got dsq'ed TWICE in the same Olympics for failing to keep clear on PORT and failing to exhonerate?

Don't know who you are referring to. But no, they weren't "DSQ twice" or indeed as far as I recall, at all. Not too sure how it's possible to be a medallist and be "DSQ twice".

[Dog Watch]

I've found that finding a rule that's been broken that is simple and without debate is far easier to drive to a conclusion than Rules with words like "briefly" and "necessary".

Best,

BV

Words like 'briefly' and 'necessary' do have their place and help to keep the rule book downsized, but they lead to requirement to interpret. Thus we have to accompany the rule book with a 215 page Casebook, 150 page Question and Answer Booklet, 114 Page Team Racing Call Book, 91 page Match Racing Call Book and a hand full of rapid response calls, to guide competitors on how to interpret.

That's at least 570 pages of interpretation! What interests me is that I know all 570 pages pretty much off by heart, and I can't remember seeing an interpretation on this subject!

Yet, clearly there is a conflict between what is currently being done and the reasonable interpreation of the subjective terms in rule 49.2.

------------------------------------------------------------

SomebodyElse made a good point that all tasks could be thought of as sitting on a continuum of necessity, stretching from 'unnecessary' at one end to 'race winning tasks' at the other. In which case he suggests that it could be valid to place 'Roll-Tacking' as per the picture, in the group of tasks 'necessary to win races'.

While this would appear to solve the conundrum of whether the photo guys were performing a 'brief and necessary task', I don't think this is really the style of the rule makers. I think this is an artificial twist of the intent of the rule. That's my opinion.

On the other hand, maybe the rule is left subjective to allow a protest committee to have such a discussion as we have had here, and rule according to the 'tribal voice' around them...if it ever came up. Or maybe the intent is to leave it so subjective so that the competitors make that judgement before it even gets to the room. Kind of like..."When in Rome...."

So I concede that I may never get the answer I seek. Still, I feel clearer in my mind for the discussion.

I personally conclude that from a safety standpoint the rules support keeping torsos inside, the rails. And I tend to agree. I aslo conclude that 'roll-tacking' is unnecessary. Therefore, in my opinion the guys break 49.2.

Would I protest them? Probably not. I'd leave that to someone even more anal than me! But I would be mighty interested in the result.

Cheers,

DW

[BalticBandit]

I've found that finding a rule that's been broken that is simple and without debate is far easier to drive to a conclusion than Rules with words like "briefly" and "necessary".

Best,

BV

Words like 'briefly' and 'necessary' do have their place and help to keep the rule book downsized, but they lead to requirement to interpret. Thus we have to accompany the rule book with a 215 page Casebook, 150 page Question and Answer Booklet, 114 Page Team Racing Call Book, 91 page Match Racing Call Book and a hand full of rapid response calls, to guide competitors on how to interpret.

That's at least 570 pages of interpretation! What interests me is that I know all 570 pages pretty much off by heart, and I can't remember seeing an interpretation on this subject!

Yet, clearly there is a conflict between what is currently being done and the reasonable interpreation of the subjective terms in rule 49.2.

------------------------------------------------------------

SomebodyElse made a good point that all tasks could be thought of as sitting on a continuum of necessity, stretching from 'unnecessary' at one end to 'race winning tasks' at the other. In which case he suggests that it could be valid to place 'Roll-Tacking' as per the picture, in the group of tasks 'necessary to win races'.

While this would appear to solve the conundrum of whether the photo guys were performing a 'brief and necessary task', I don't think this is really the style of the rule makers. I think this is an artificial twist of the intent of the rule. That's my opinion.

On the other hand, maybe the rule is left subjective to allow a protest committee to have such a discussion as we have had here, and rule according to the 'tribal voice' around them...if it ever came up. Or maybe the intent is to leave it so subjective so that the competitors make that judgement before it even gets to the room. Kind of like..."When in Rome...."

So I concede that I may never get the answer I seek. Still, I feel clearer in my mind for the discussion.

I personally conclude that from a safety standpoint the rules support keeping torsos inside, the rails. And I tend to agree. I aslo conclude that 'roll-tacking' is unnecessary. Therefore, in my opinion the guys break 49.2.

Would I protest them? Probably not. I'd leave that to someone even more anal than me! But I would be mighty interested in the result.

Cheers,

DW

If 'roll tacking' is "unnecessary" then so is shifting your weight from side to side in a tack to promote better helm balance and better performance. After all, in each case the movement of the bodies is to make steering easier. The notion that moving crew around on a boat to facilitate the handling of the boat is "unnecesary" is simply ludicrous.

Using your reasoning, the dinghy technique of keeping the helm neutral and heeling the boat to use 'the natural action of the wind and water on the hull and sails' to steer the boat is ALSO illegal.

In this case, they are using 'the natural action of the water on the hull' to help the boat turn - that is part of what a roll tack does. And it also accellerates the rate of turn, which in turn allows "the natural action of the wind" to improve the drive performance of the sails.

And where this differs from the dynamics of "ooching" and "pumping" VERY MUCH is a decision for judges. And in setting up the rules for Lasers, they've come up with a great guideline:

If the boat DECELERATES after CESSATION of the activity, then it is illegal. If it simply does not slow down as much during the maneuver (roll tacking Samba Pa Ti is not going to snap it out faster the way a "spider monkey tack" on a Laser will, it will just minimize the impact of the tack) It is no more illegal than asking your trimmer to cross sheet from the weather rail - strictly "not necessary" but very much better performance.


One fleet where the judging rules do NOT work are foiler moths. In one of the MothCast podcasts, there was a discussion about how almost everyone in the fleet finds that they have to pump and ooch to get up onto the foils in marginal conditions. But since they ACCELLERATE once on the foils (at which point they stop pumping to stabilize flow) the "Laser rule" doesn't work

[Dog Watch]

BB,

You're exactly right. We could discuss the necessity of any move given an unlimited context, couldn't we?

You must take my word 'unnecessary' in the context of the word 'task' and the range of 'tasks' there are to be done.

In fact, to be honest, I don't think that word 'task' is designed to include actions such as 'rolling'. I think it is more in terms of say, spiking a kite, attaching a new sheet, releasing a jammed spin pole jaw...that kind of thing.

Using your reasoning, the dinghy technique of keeping the helm neutral and heeling the boat to use 'the natural action of the wind and water on the hull and sails' to steer the boat is ALSO illegal.

And please don't put words into my mouth. I never attested that such seamanship is illegal. First of all, torso outboard in a dinghy does not break rule 49.2, since it has no lifelines. Secondly, while something may be great seamanship, it may not be necessary. I'm sure I could get my dinghy around the course without having to use that technique. I know keel boats can get around the course without roll-tacking.

If you are unable to grasp the complexities of the argument, then maybe re-read the thread. This is not a thread about the legality of some propulsion (rule 42) techniques. Nor is it an arguement about the seamanship of the use of weight.

It is a discussion about whether certain tasks are necessary and certain others aren't.
Because if a task is deemed not 'necessary' and it requires the torso to be outside the lifelines, by the way rule 49.2 is worded, it doesn't take a genius to work out that the rule is breached.

Most of all though, I have accepted that the word 'necessary' is very subjective, and as of yet undefined. Where on SomebodyElse's continuum is the line for the rule drawn?

Necessary for what? To win the race? Necessary to complete the course? Necessary to move the boat? Necessary to ensure safety?

And what is a 'task'. Is it moving from side to side to balance the boat? Is it an adjustment of rig/sails/sheets? Is it walking up to the 20/20s to switch the mast display to TWA from AWA?

It's all quite subjective, isn't it. I wouldn't say anything is ludicrous without taking into accont the context of the word being used. Let's be a little open-minded in the discussion.

Intesting about the Moths though. I hadn't thought of that. Do the class rules amend rule 42, or is that another instance of a rule being breached, but people turning a blind eye?

DW

[Steam Flyer]

If 'roll tacking' is "unnecessary" then so is shifting your weight from side to side in a tack to promote better helm balance and better performance. After all, in each case the movement of the bodies is to make steering easier. The notion that moving crew around on a boat to facilitate the handling of the boat is "unnecesary" is simply ludicrous.

So, by your statement above, "easier" = "necessary"

Good luck with that in front of a Protest Committee

Using your reasoning, the dinghy technique of keeping the helm neutral and heeling the boat to use 'the natural action of the wind and water on the hull and sails' to steer the boat is ALSO illegal.

In this case, they are using 'the natural action of the water on the hull' to help the boat turn

???

The 'the natural action of the water on the hull' makes the crew hang outside the lifelines? Seems like a bit of a stretch.

... ...
If the boat DECELERATES after CESSATION of the activity, then it is illegal.
... ...

That's been a part of the rulings about kinetics for a long time.

But there is a difference between things to make the boat go faster, and elements of seamanship to make the boat SAIL

Remember this is not about kinetics, or whether kinetics are good, or whether certain types of kinetics are legal... it's about whether these kinetics are NECESSARY and therefor make it OK for the crew to go outside the lifelines briefly.

I think they're not, you think they are. Considering that we were racing boats long before roll-tacking was invented, that probably shapes my opinion, but the wording of the rules also puts it on the far side of the gray area.

BB,

You're exactly right. We could discuss the necessity of any move given an unlimited context, couldn't we?

You must take my word 'unnecessary' in the context of the word 'task' and the range of 'tasks' there are to be done.

In fact, to be honest, I don't think that word 'task' is designed to include actions such as 'rolling'. I think it is more in terms of say, spiking a kite, attaching a new sheet, releasing a jammed spin pole jaw...that kind of thing.

Using your reasoning, the dinghy technique of keeping the helm neutral and heeling the boat to use 'the natural action of the wind and water on the hull and sails' to steer the boat is ALSO illegal.

And please don't put words into my mouth. I never attested that such seamanship is illegal. First of all, torso outboard in a dinghy does not break rule 49.2, since it has no lifelines. Secondly, while something may be great seamanship, it may not be necessary. I'm sure I could get my dinghy around the course without having to use that technique. I know keel boats can get around the course without roll-tacking.

If you are unable to grasp the complexities of the argument, then maybe re-read the thread. This is not a thread about the legality of some propulsion (rule 42) techniques. Nor is it an arguement about the seamanship of the use of weight.

It is a discussion about whether certain tasks are necessary and certain others aren't.
Because if a task is deemed not 'necessary' and it requires the torso to be outside the lifelines, by the way rule 49.2 is worded, it doesn't take a genius to work out that the rule is breached.

Most of all though, I have accepted that the word 'necessary' is very subjective, and as of yet undefined. Where on SomebodyElse's continuum is the line for the rule drawn?

Necessary for what? To win the race? Necessary to complete the course? Necessary to move the boat? Necessary to ensure safety?

And what is a 'task'. Is it moving from side to side to balance the boat? Is it an adjustment of rig/sails/sheets? Is it walking up to the 20/20s to switch the mast display to TWA from AWA?

It's all quite subjective, isn't it. I wouldn't say anything is ludicrous without taking into accont the context of the word being used. Let's be a little open-minded in the discussion.

Intesting about the Moths though. I hadn't thought of that. Do the class rules amend rule 42, or is that another instance of a rule being breached, but people turning a blind eye?

DW

IMHO there's a lot of blind-eye-turning; lots of classes & many venues have their own ideas about some rules & kinetics is always open season.

With boats like the Moth that work so differently from other boats, there should be a strong case for letting that class amend these kinds of rules; but the problem becomes (like the M24 'horizontal trapeze') that their practices creep into the rest of the sailing world.

One answer is to just take the f@#%ing lifelines off. You don't see any pussy lifelines on the J-Class, do ya??!


FB- Doug

[BalticBandit]

BB,

You must take my word 'unnecessary' in the context of the word 'task' and the range of 'tasks' there are to be done.

In fact, to be honest, I don't think that word 'task' is designed to include actions such as 'rolling'. I think it is more in terms of say, spiking a kite, attaching a new sheet, releasing a jammed spin pole jaw...that kind of thing.

One of the tasks is "steering" And moving weight in the boat to steer (which is my point about invoking the dinghy example - not that you have to do this by moving the body outside the plane of the hull necessarily) then is something that is part of a "necessary task". You don't NEED to send someone out to the end of a pole to spike the kite. you CANT take it down without doing so, Its just slower. And I can enumerate through pretty much ALL of the "tasks" that you are describing as generally "unnecessary" to simply sailing the boat.

RACING THE BOAT implies an attempt to sail the boat AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE using the tools at your disposal. And the bodyweight of your crew is one such tool. Now this USED TO INCLUDE "ooching, pumping and rocking and sculling. And in some classes (windsurfers) It STILL IS LEGAL. For a whole lot of reasons - more to do with the fun factor than the safety factor, these four techniques are pretty much banned. But that doesn't mean that optimizing how the hull and sails interact with the water and wind are not "necessary" to racing.

If you are unable to grasp the complexities of the argument, then maybe re-read the thread. This is not a thread about the legality of some propulsion (rule 42) techniques. Nor is it an arguement about the seamanship of the use of weight.

Relying on ad hominem ain't gonna get you anywhere. This very much IS an arguement about you trying to define "necessary" to something LESS THAN optimizing your performance around the course. Which in the context of racing is rather oxymoronic. Hence why the rule is not simply limited to "necessary" but also includes the term "brief".

Because the argument that hiking leaning out is very much a MORE optimized weight mgmt than hiking slightly less aggressively is perfectly legitimate. But it simply isn't something that is done "briefly".

Having someone outside the lifelines to "spike the kite" isn't "necessary" EXCEPT to OPTIMIZE sail handling (and thus performance) But in the context of racing it is both "necessary" (to optimize blah blah) AND BRIEF

Same is true in a roll tack. It is "necessary" to optimize boat handling, and it is "BRIEF" and it fits within the limits placed on weight management by the "dynamics" rules.

Necessary for what? To win the race?

Correct. These are RACING RULES. Necessary means necessary for racing. They contain LIMITS on such actions for the purposes of safety as well as fairness and other reasons. But if what you are doing can be construed as optimizing performance, AND IT DOES NOT violate other rules, it is "necessary" FOR RACING.

Whether it is "brief" is then the other operative question. In this case the two kinds of behaviours:

• Hiking - which was the incorrect label initially applied
• Roll Tacking - which is the correct label

Are differentiated not by the invocation of "necessary" but by the term "brief".

So while there is some subjectivity to this its not really as complicated as you make out. Yes, Briefly, is open to definition. Precisely so that context can be used. Fore example, a bowman sent to the end of the spin pole to "spike the kite" would be their "briefly" if he was there not much longer than to do so in a "seamanlike manner".... but leaving him on the end of that pole as the boat comes to close hauled for say the first 30 seconds of the upwind is neither "seamanlike" nor "brief" - even though in the context of a 1hr race, 30 seconds is pretty brief.

Intesting about the Moths though. I hadn't thought of that. Do the class rules amend rule 42, or is that another instance of a rule being breached, but people turning a blind eye?

DW

Not having attended the worlds, I can only go on the Mothcast discussion. And it seems to be a case where everyone is doing it, and no-one is bitching on the course. but its being discussed.

[my nuts]

can we all agree that hiking is legal and that roll tacking (and gybing) are legal, and get back to the question of crew position during these maneuvers? the fact that there is little case law on this, would have me assume that rolling is done "briefly to perform a necessary task". however, it should be noted in this conversation that some classes have additional rules on this subject that do dictate some more specificity. for example, J/105 rules state that you can roll, but can't hang off the shrouds to do so. also, it is specifically stated in those rules that rolling is not a "necessary task."

exact text of j/105 rule:
7.6 Notwithstanding the provisions of RRS 42, 42.3 or 49, hanging on the mast or shrouds to promote roll tacking or roll gybing is prohibited at all times. For purposes of RRS 49.2, roll tacking or roll gybing shall not be a "necessary task.".

so, my answer to the original post is: in addition to the RRS, what class rules apply to this situation?

[Dog Watch]

OK - BB. I fully understand what you are saying. It is a logical explanation, but no more logical than the other. Since, neither of us can substantiate with any official interpretation we must accept to a certain extent that both could be true. I think we have expended the discussion there.

As I mentioned before, I expect that if we did find an 'official' explanation, they would lean towards an interpreation along the lines you explain. That's because, we see this kind of crew positioning often without question.To ban it now would cause an uproar! However, until that time, it still is only an unofficial interpretation, and could reasonably be concluded either way. Do you agree? (J105 Class Rule 7.6 refers!)

MyNuts,

Thanks for that extract from the J105 class rules.

Clearly, the class has asked this question before, for them to find it necessary to include that line.

What does this mean? It could mean that a bunch of learned sailors had the same discussion and concluded that 'rolling' was not necessary (as I suggest), and faced with the insufficiency of the standing rule 49.2, decided to clarify that point. Or it could mean that the class recognised an argument such as BB's as prevailing, but wanted to 'break' away from that for some reason. Nevertheless, we are still none-the-wiser!

exact text of j/105 rule:
7.6 Notwithstanding the provisions of RRS 42, 42.3 or 49, hanging on the mast or shrouds to promote roll tacking or roll gybing is prohibited at all times. For purposes of RRS 49.2, roll tacking or roll gybing shall not be a "necessary task.".

It is difficult to really know why they should write that rule. Maybe the J105 shrouds aren't built for such side loads. In Case 36, diagrams #2 & 3 show a crew member hanging off the shrouds, but remaining inside the lifelines. Presumably, this class rule prohibits those actions.

(MyNuts, in answer to your question, this thread must presume that there are no class rule amendments or clarifications to rule 49.2)

That class rule is the closest I have seen to addressing / clarifying the issue of 'necessary'. Interestingly, it doesn't follow BB's case. However, that is largely moot.

Good stuff...

DW

[BalticBandit]

OK - BB. I fully understand what you are saying. It is a logical explanation, but no more logical than the other. Since, neither of us can substantiate with any official interpretation we must accept to a certain extent that both could be true. I think we have expended the discussion there.

As I mentioned before, I expect that if we did find an 'official' explanation, they would lean towards an interpreation along the lines you explain. That's because, we see this kind of crew positioning often without question.To ban it now would cause an uproar! However, until that time, it still is only an unofficial interpretation, and could reasonably be concluded either way. Do you agree? (J105 Class Rule 7.6 refers!)

MyNuts,

Thanks for that extract from the J105 class rules.

Clearly, the class has asked this question before, for them to find it necessary to include that line.

What does this mean? It could mean that a bunch of learned sailors had the same discussion and concluded that 'rolling' was not necessary (as I suggest), and faced with the insufficiency of the standing rule 49.2, decided to clarify that point. Or it could mean that the class recognised an argument such as BB's as prevailing, but wanted to 'break' away from that for some reason. Nevertheless, we are still none-the-wiser!

exact text of j/105 rule:
7.6 Notwithstanding the provisions of RRS 42, 42.3 or 49, hanging on the mast or shrouds to promote roll tacking or roll gybing is prohibited at all times. For purposes of RRS 49.2, roll tacking or roll gybing shall not be a "necessary task.".

It is difficult to really know why they should write that rule. Maybe the J105 shrouds aren't built for such side loads. In Case 36, diagrams #2 & 3 show a crew member hanging off the shrouds, but remaining inside the lifelines. Presumably, this class rule prohibits those actions.

(MyNuts, in answer to your question, this thread must presume that there are no class rule amendments or clarifications to rule 49.2)

That class rule is the closest I have seen to addressing / clarifying the issue of 'necessary'. Interestingly, it doesn't follow BB's case. However, that is largely moot.

Good stuff...

DW

On the contrary - the class rules on "not hanging from the shrouds" are completely consistent. They essentially define the limits on what can and cannot be done WITHIN THAT CLASS to "optimize performance". Just like banning Carbon from a J-24 boom (which would reduce weight aloft, heeling moment etc) the J-24 class ALSO bans rolling from the shrouds and stanchions shorter than a certain height.

Note BTW, the comments of folks like Dick Rose on what is considered 'seamanlike' comes closest. So it is quite 'seamanlike' to move your bodies to trim and optimize boat speed - including "ooching". Which is why you need a rule limiting it. Its not that "ooching" is "unseamanlike" it is that it rewards behaviour that the rulemakers (and ratifiers and by extension us) wish to see banned (putting people down below to run back and forth into bulkheads or spidermonkey tacks in Lasers).


BTW the reason for why they banned rolling on the shrouds in the J class is that it comes from the J-24 class. And they banned it because THAT class rule came into effect BEFORE there was the limit on making the boat go faster during a roll tack. so the top boats in light air would roll so aggressively that they could come out of a tack going faster than they went into it. and they accomplished this by having the 220# gorrilla who was "mid" (aka Boat Flattener)grab the mast and Roll the boat DOWN by 35 degrees and then "pop it" by grabbing the shrouds on the other side.

So it wasn't that the J-24 class felt "rolling" was "not necessary". It is that they wanted to make it more of a contest of handling skill rather than who could put the biggest deck ape to snap the boat in light air....

[Dog Watch]

Ok!

[DaneRalston]

I still don't understand.

The picture in question is roll-tacking, not hiking. It's "brief and necessary"

... ...

So sorry, it may be brief but it's for sure not necessary.

You can roll-tack without going outside the lifelines, it's just not pumping as much torque. Clearly an advantage to do so, but not a necessary function to sail the boat.


and if you're in a close race with a boat that is doing it legally then it's an advantage taken that the other guy doesn't need.

Why don't you just run the engine? That could be "brief and necessary" too.

FB- Doug

"Necessary" for what? to safely navigate the course? no its not necessary then. To get your boat around the course as fast as possible? then yes it is necessary....
You are not gaining an unfair advantage, the other guys is just not gaining the same advantage by being lazy. Its like saying a guy who is pumping is gaining an unfair advantage when actually its just the lazy git at the back is not making the most of the possibilities

[pmc]

So, how 'bout Case 83?

That case pertains more directly to sail trim than to roll tacking, but this part of the finding speaks to how they answered the question of what counts as "necessary" in that context:

"Permission does not extend to normal sail trimming even when this would be more effectively achieved by positioning the torso outside the lifelines. Rule 49.2 is for the safety of the crew, and it is unavoidable that it inhibits the gains that might be obtained from optimizing weight distribution of the crew."

[The Advocate]

How about this?

Mac Race.

[Dog Watch]

How about this?

Mac Race.

LOL!

Legal per RRS, but does not comply with the laws of physics!

How does he stand on the boomvang with one leg, half his other leg is missing, and yet still be in front of the headstay !

Looks like one of escher's drawings!

Dw

[MSA]

I still don't understand.

The picture in question is roll-tacking, not hiking. It's "brief and necessary"

... ...

So sorry, it may be brief but it's for sure not necessary.

You can roll-tack without going outside the lifelines, it's just not pumping as much torque. Clearly an advantage to do so, but not a necessary function to sail the boat.


and if you're in a close race with a boat that is doing it legally then it's an advantage taken that the other guy doesn't need.

Why don't you just run the engine? That could be "brief and necessary" too.

FB- Doug

Just running over a local life line case.. After seeing this http://www.cyca.com....r-disqualified/

I remembered this thread.. and thought I should mention my feelings to Doug.

The guys from years ago in the SPT pic are performing a brief action, and you mentioned it wasn't necessary and and used an example of some one doing that maneuver and cheating V's some one not and being legal.

What is your thoughts now based on the ISAF case pics of banned hiking methods. To me if you follow the life line angle they would be over the line fore maybe 1 second.. Sure dosnt get much more "momentary" than that. Considering races are decided by seconds.

[bgytr]

just for giggles, I computed (estimated using nav.arch. formulae) the additional heel angle these guys can gain by leaning out. Assuming about 800 lbs leans out an additional foot outside the lifelines, for a Farr 40 you get about an extra 0.3 degrees of heel. Is that gonna make much difference if they lean out like that for 5 seconds?

You be the judge. Talk amongst yourselves...

[GybeSet®]

It's not a "necessary function".

correct

they are 'OUT' , go home