Jump to content

TJSoCal

Members
  • Content Count

    921
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TJSoCal

  1. It seems like some boats either knew or at least rolled the dice that using the motor would result in a bearable time penalty rather than a DSQ and some did not. Sounds like these conditions are not unheard of for this race, has that SI and time penalty process for motor use been used in previous races, maybe? I don't know that you could have made a request for redress stand up. Anchoring rather than using your engine and risking a penalty would likely be seen as your choice, and the boats that retired after using the engine made their own choices. The SI (which appears to be valid) allow
  2. One problem with the SI as written is that it makes all penalties discretionary. Presumably a PC could knock port 5 seconds for a rule 10 violation ("starboard only had to duck a little bit, probably lost less than a boatlength."). Another is that it sounds like the SI was included specifically so that boats that had to use engine propulsion for safety could do so and not have to retire, but apparently some boats did not divine that meaning. From the results sheet it appears that their process is that a boat self-reports engine usage, the RC protests the boat for breaking 42. , a pro
  3. I expect the Corinthian thing to do would be to motor to the nearest safe water, as nearly as possible perpendicular to the direction to the next mark. Motoring toward the mark or in such a way as to otherwise gain advantage, would probably merit a larger penalty (possibly DSQ) in my view. Would be good if this were codified in an SI. But I'll also throw this out there just for the sake of the argument. These boats knew they were breaking rule 42.1 when they engaged their engines, no? Typically, per Case 138, "failing to take an appropriate [voluntary] penalty when the competitor is aware
  4. Looks like the SIs legitimately allowed for a lesser penalty. So it would seem that the PC found the facts, concluded that the boats did break 42.1 and levied what they decided were appropriate penalties. For the conditions that have been described allowing an appropriate time penalty for engine use sounds like a worthwhile safety measure. N.B. Whenever you see a rule change in a NOR or SI it's a good idea to look at rules 85 and 86 to make sure the rule change is allowed.
  5. We did, thanks to Anarchist GOGO Gadget. There's a step in the speed calibration process where it says to stop the boat. But apparently if the boat is stopped (paddlewheel not spinning) the system sees no signal and will not accept calibration. If you don't stop the boat but follow the rest of the steps the speed calibration works fine.
  6. I'm curious - I presume that MNAs print their versions of the RRS in their own languages. If/when they do, do they include the English words "protest" and "you tack" in quotes, or do they translate those words along with the rest of the text? For the record, although I think requiring those hails to be in English is not too great a burden on competitors I think the new rule is a good thing if it avoids having otherwise valid protests dismissed on such a technicality.
  7. If you were able to round on the correct side and didn't touch the mark or the other boat, what was your argument that you were not given mark room? I don't think you have to touch either to "prove" you weren't given mark room (note that you're exonerated from breaking 14 (as long as no damage or injury) or 31 if you do, but still...). You can always bail out to the wrong side of the mark and protest if you think there's not enough room given and trying to go in there would be dangerous. It's not as definitive as contact so creates a "he said-she said" dilemma for the PC but hey, tha
  8. Note that this only applies to hails required by the rules, and I think there are only three (or maybe only two): "Protest" (61.1(a)) Room to tack at an obstruction (note that the wording for this hail is not specified, so presumably could be in a language other than English under the current rules) (20.1, and not strictly speaking required either) "You tack" (20.2(c)) So under the current rules a sailor only needs to know three words in English. Just like a tennis player doesn't have to be fluent in French to declare a score of l'oeuf. But I think the change does ma
  9. I think the change to 16.2 is more significant than you mentioned - it's considerably narrowed. Current 16.2 applies "after the starting signal" - so from the start until the boats are no longer racing, on all points of sail. New 16.2 will only apply "on a beat to windward." Current 16.2 prohibits stbd from changing course (if...). New 16.2 will only prohibit stbd from bearing away. I can't remember the details but I recall someone presenting a scenario where a starboard boat could run afoul of 16.2 by heading up in a perfectly reasonable (i.e non-hunting) maneuver. New wording elimi
  10. I know, you're getting to that... ;-) But I thought you'd covered definitions.
  11. New definition, Sailing the Course, takes the "string rule" out of 28.2 and puts it in the Definitions. I think this was mainly meant to facilitate using the term in other definitions and rules. Significant change to the definitions of Start and Finish - now based on the hull rather than "hull, crew or equipment in normal position." This change is also reflected in Recalls (29) and Starting Penalties (30). And if you look at the Equipment Rules of Sailing it's clear that a bowsprit is a spar, part of the rig and not part of the hull. I think consolidating all of the exonerations in R
  12. Depends on what they mean by "project"
  13. If this club was in Massachusetts or Michigan, would this be an issue? That said, I feel like it's a matter for the members and nobody else. Whether it's offensive to segments the community or not is something they should consider, but the decision should be theirs.
  14. There are lines in the margins that indicate changed text (although I think there are some changes that didn't get marked). I imagine they'll put out a "study version" that will highlight and explain the changes.
  15. Well, not exactly. But the 2021-2024 RRS have been released, see link below. Have fun! https://www.sailing.org/news/90087.php
  16. I'm not sure that's really a fundamental change. It looks like all they're really doing is moving the string rule (rule 28.2) into a definition, which facilitates incorporating it into other definitions & rules. But including it explicitly in the definition of proper course does solve the theoretical issue that JohnMB pointed out.
  17. In my scenario, there are two possibilities for Blue, keeping in mind that in both cases rule 17 is on between Yellow and Green, so Yellow may not sail above her proper course (the course she would steer in the absence of Green): 1. Blue established her overlap with Green in some way other than from clear astern within two hull lengths. In this case Blue is not bound by rule 17 with respect to either Yellow or Green and can sail above her proper course. She can luff both windward boats up to HTW if she pleases. Yellow's proper course is to respond to Blue's luff. 2. Blue did establis
  18. Why would luffing another boat, to get her off your air for example, not be proper course? As has been mentioned, proper course definition says "in the absence of other boats referred to in the rule using the term", not in the absence of any other boats.
  19. If you're sailing within the room or mark room you're entitled to, you do get exonerated from failing to keep clear and/or touching a mark (rule 21). Regarding Yellow sticking her nose in the middle, suppose that Green is a smaller, slower boat who has made it clear that she's not going to let Y roll her to windward. Blue is a bigger, slower boat so if Y tries to go to leeward she's likely to get stuck in bad air and never get around. Middle starts to look like a good choice, especially if you don't think B will try to luff you.
  20. Rule 17 definitely applies between Yellow and Green, and definitely not between Blue and Yellow. What efrank correctly pointed out is that rule 17 could apply between Blue and Green if Blue established the overlap on Green from astern within two hull lengths. But Blue can still luff Yellow and by extension Green - in the Blue-Green incident Blue's proper course is what it would be in the absence of Green (the other boat referred to in rule 17) but considering the presence of Yellow (who is not referred to in the Blue-Green rule 17 situation).
  21. That's a good question - it's possible that rule 17 could apply between Blue and Green. I would parse the question this way: If Green was not there, could luffing Yellow be a proper course for Blue?
  22. Consider this scenario. Rhumb line to the next mark is a beam reach. Blue decides that she would like to get Yellow and Green off her air. Has Yellow sailed her proper course? If Green protested rule 17, would she win the protest?
×
×
  • Create New...