Grounds for Redress? "Pin Boat" at a downwind start

[Recidivist]

If the black boat was not identified as an RC boat, there is no possible application of RRS. The protest committee has no jurisdiction to hear a matter involving IRPCAS unless the SI's specifically invoke them (for example, at night). The DSQ is invalid. The basis of a protest under RRS was set in Clarke v Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl, The Satanita, which held there is an implied contract between competitors that each will abide by the rules. There is no such contract between blue boat and black boat. IRPCAS could have application in terms of apportioning responsibility for damages, but if black boat was not properly displaying the required signals to indicate she was on anchor, she's going to be pushing sh*t uphill.

Conclusions - RC needs to improve their act, as does mainsheet trimmer (and possibly also helm) on blue boat.

Edit: agree 100% with Walter, except I'd say hitting ANY anchored boat is not good.

 

[DA-WOODY]

SADLY in the sport of sailing

People get away with what they can get away with

and that in turn sets the local perimeters for what can be gotten away with

that runs true from the newest nOOb the the members of the RC themselves - let em off the hook and it gets worse & worse

This year's Beer Cans were a Classic Example at it's worst

but if it's OK it's OK and if everyone lets everyone else slide on the rules - there ain't No rules

Learn Follow & Enforce the rules or spend your time pushing the envelope to see just what you can get away with

 

[Brass]

If the black boat was not identified as an RC boat, there is no possible application of RRS. The protest committee has no jurisdiction to hear a matter involving IRPCAS unless the SI's specifically invoke them (for example, at night). The DSQ is invalid.

I disagree.

Fault the following argument if you can.

RRS Definitions

Rule The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals, Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices.

RRS Preamble to Part 2 (emphasis added

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 23.1.
When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules. If the sailing instructions so state, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the rightof-way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way rules.

RRS Rule 64.1( a )

When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing has broken a rule, it shall disqualify her unless some other penalty applies.

The obligation on a boat that is bound by the RRS to comply with IRPCAS when she meets a vessel that is not bound by the RRS is a rule.

Protest committees, on valid protests (allegations that a boat has broken a rule), decide whether a rule has been broken and impose penalties under the RRS.

 

[stickboy]

To simplify; if you hit a boat on a mooring half way up the weather leg, should you be DSQ?

 

[JohnMB]

The obligation on a boat that is bound by the RRS to comply with IRPCAS when she meets a vessel that is not bound by the RRS is a rule.

Protest committees, on valid protests (allegations that a boat has broken a rule), decide whether a rule has been broken and impose penalties under the RRS.

its an interesting one.

the preamble to section 2 a rule (by definition),

which brings the IPRCAS into the RRS also under the definition.

so based on that any breach of the IRPCAS is a breach of the rules, and the ONLY applicable penalty is a DSQ.

as such any time you hit an anchored boat while racing your should retire

any time you chnage course while you are the stand on boat to a non racing boat you should retire

etc.

 

[Recidivist]

When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules.

 

The obligation on a boat that is bound by the RRS to comply with IRPCAS when she meets a vessel that is not bound by the RRS is a rule.

 

Protest committees, on valid protests (allegations that a boat has broken a rule), decide whether a rule has been broken and impose penalties under the RRS.

 

Good pickup. Your interpretation maw well be right, but 2 points:

1 The absurdities pointed out by John MB indicate that the interpretation must be flawed (don't have time at the moment to look further into that); and

2 The OP says blue was dsq under rule 14, which deals with 2 boats racing, not one racing and another anchored. IF black was anchored and displaying the correct signals, blue could be guilty of not complying with IRPCAS, but that's not the grounds on which she was dsq. It doesn't appear to have been argued as a live issue at all.

 

Further conclusion: PC need to improve their act also.

 

Now, has anyone got an appeal book handy? Has Brass's issue ever been raised?

 

[Brass]

When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules.

The obligation on a boat that is bound by the RRS to comply with IRPCAS when she meets a vessel that is not bound by the RRS is a rule.

Protest committees, on valid protests (allegations that a boat has broken a rule), decide whether a rule has been broken and impose penalties under the RRS.

Good pickup. Your interpretation maw well be right, but 2 points:

1 The absurdities pointed out by John MB indicate that the interpretation must be flawed (don't have time at the moment to look further into that); and

2 The OP says blue was dsq under rule 14, which deals with 2 boats racing, not one racing and another anchored. IF black was anchored and displaying the correct signals, blue could be guilty of not complying with IRPCAS, but that's not the grounds on which she was dsq. It doesn't appear to have been argued as a live issue at all.

Further conclusion: PC need to improve their act also.

Now, has anyone got an appeal book handy? Has Brass's issue ever been raised?

I don't agree that the instances JohnMB has cited are 'absurdities'.

Leaving aside JohnMB's normative assertions about retiring:

• If you hit an anchored boat while racing, you have broken a rule, you have probably broken the law and you deserve to be penalised.
  
• If you change course while you are the stand on boat to a non racing boat you have broken a rule: the breach may be trifling if you cause no inconvenience to the other boat, but if you collide with the other boat, it is pretty clear that you have broken a rule and, on valid protest, deserve to be penalised.
  

From a construction point of view, just because a clearly stated statute (rule) (as opposed to an interpretation of an ambiguous rule) leads to what someone says is an absurdity, doesn't mean that the rule is invalid.

The 2005 Rules included a limitation in the Preamble, which was seemingly designed to prevent 'absurdities', as follows:

[A]n alleged breach of those rules [iRPCAS etc] shall not be grounds for a protest except by the race committee or protest committee.

That limitation was removed in the 2009 rules.

There's a 'public policy' objective of our rule-makers which is to maintain the confidence of government regulators that we should be permitted to race according to our own rules without interference. To do that it's important that our rules provide that you can't go hitting other boats, and it's functionally appropriate that our rules should operate so that boats that are not bound by our RRS can act in accordance with IRPCAS, with confidence that we will do likewise. The IRPCAS applies provision in the preamble does this.

You are quite right that Blue did not break rule 14. I discussed that in a previous post.

Yes, there is a directly relevant Case

CASE 67Part 2 Preamble

Rule 69.1, Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest

Committee

When a boat is racing and meets a vessel that is not, both are

bound by the government right-of-way rules. When, under those

rules, the boat racing is required to keep clear but intentionally

hits the other boat, she may be penalized for gross misconduct.

Summary of the Facts

Under the government right-of-way rules applicable, W, a boat that was

racing, was required to keep clear of a sailing vessel to leeward, L, that

was not racing. W wished to sail a lower course to a mark and hailed L,

which refused to respond. W then intentionally hit L by bumping her boom

against L several times, thereby causing damage.

L informed the race committee of W’s behaviour. The race committee

protested W, and a hearing was called. W was disqualified for breaking

rules 11 and 14. W appealed on the grounds that the racing rules did not

apply, and consequently the protest committee was not entitled to

disqualify her.

Decision

W’s appeal is dismissed. The preamble to Part 2 of the racing rules makes

it clear that, when W met L, W was required to comply with the

government right-of-way rules. Moreover, W was also subject to the

racing rules other than those of Part 2. W did not comply with the

government rules and, by intentionally hitting and damaging L, committed

a gross breach of not only a rule but of good manners as well.

The decision of the protest committee is upheld, but W is disqualified

under the government rule applicable and not under racing rule 11 or rule

14. Both those rules are rules of Part 2, which would have applied only if

both boats had been intending to race, were racing, or had been racing. W

also committed a gross breach of the government rule and a gross breach

of good manners, so the protest committee would have been entitled to call

a hearing under rule 69.1.

 

[mikeys]

What if "blue" hit "black" that was anchored nearer to the line (as a properly positioned pin RC boat)? Would Blue be automatically DSQ'd?

 

[TJSoCal]

...

If the pin boat was at anchor, then IRPCAS doesn't apply, except maybe Blue breaks rules 7/8.

???

Being at anchor makes the anchored vessel Not Under Command, doesn't negate IRPCAS

The Right-of-Way Rules (or Rules of the ROad if you prefer) -must- always apply to all vessels or there's no point in having them in the first place.

FB- Doug

absolutely

anchored boat is definitley part of IPRCAS

one question, does breaking IRPCAS break a rule, the only part of the definition of 'rule' which could possibly apply is

(g) any other documents that govern the event.

and I'm not sure that that covers IPRCAS, unless they are called for in the SI's (e..g. between the hours of 10pm and 6am the IRPCAS will apply) or similar.

A vessel at anchor is not a "vessel not under command." See Rule 3 ( f ) for the definition of the term. "At anchor" is not defined, except the definition of "vessel" in rule 3 (a) (a vessel at anchor is still a vessel) and by negation in the definition of "underway" in International Rule 3 ( i ) which defined underway as not at anchor, etc. I couldn't find anything in the rules addressing behavior of vessels at anchor or requiring a vessel underway to avoid a vessel at anchor, except (as cited) Rules 7 and 8 which define risk of collision and require all vessels to take appropriate action to avoid collision.

 

[Brass]

What if "blue" hit "black" that was anchored nearer to the line (as a properly positioned pin RC boat)? Would Blue be automatically DSQ'd?

If Blue hit Black, she should, on valid protest be penalised.

Only if the SI changed rule A5 to allow it, could Blue be 'automatically' DSQ.

Unless the SI create a power, a boat can only be DSQ by a protest committee following a valid protest and a hearing.

 

[ojfd]

It doesn't matter whether Black was anchored, moving slowly, drifting, displaying any flags and so on - good seamanship require Blue to keep lookout and avoid collision. It is also interesting to note that IRPCAS Rule 2 actually overrides any other IRPCAS Rule.

Rule 2
Responsibility

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

{b}In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

 

[ftbinc]

A couple of things to add:

1. I was at the helm of a boat the had to tack around the "black" pin boat, who was clearly in the starting area and caused me to delay my tack by 10 -15 seconds making me late to the line to start.

2. I was not the boat that hit the black boat, but called as a witness to the request for redress for the blue boat

3. The black boat did not respond to any of my hails and did not appear to be at anchor.

4. If they were at anchor, any boat they called over early in this race should have had grounds to request redress, since they were not in a position to sight down the line and could not have possibly fairly called any boat over early.

Since I have never seen a case were the pin boat was clearly interfering with boats that were about to race, i wanted to hear what others thought of the situation and to get everyone's insights.

Thanks to everyone that has responded so far!!

 

[DA-WOODY]

When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules.

The obligation on a boat that is bound by the RRS to comply with IRPCAS when she meets a vessel that is not bound by the RRS is a rule.

Protest committees, on valid protests (allegations that a boat has broken a rule), decide whether a rule has been broken and impose penalties under the RRS.

Good pickup. Your interpretation maw well be right, but 2 points:

1 The absurdities pointed out by John MB indicate that the interpretation must be flawed (don't have time at the moment to look further into that); and

2 The OP says blue was dsq under rule 14, which deals with 2 boats racing, not one racing and another anchored. IF black was anchored and displaying the correct signals, blue could be guilty of not complying with IRPCAS, but that's not the grounds on which she was dsq. It doesn't appear to have been argued as a live issue at all.

Further conclusion: PC need to improve their act also.

Now, has anyone got an appeal book handy? Has Brass's issue ever been raised?

I don't agree that the instances JohnMB has cited are 'absurdities'.

Leaving aside JohnMB's normative assertions about retiring:

• If you hit an anchored boat while racing, you have broken a rule, you have probably broken the law and you deserve to be penalised.
  
• If you change course while you are the stand on boat to a non racing boat you have broken a rule: the breach may be trifling if you cause no inconvenience to the other boat, but if you collide with the other boat, it is pretty clear that you have broken a rule and deserve to be penalised.
  

From a construction point of view, just because a clearly stated statute (rule) (as opposed to an interpretation of an ambibuous rule) leads to what someone says is an absurdity, doesn't mean that the rule is invalid.

The 2005 Rules included a limitation in the Preamble, which was seemingly designed to prevent 'absurdities', as follows:

[A]n alleged breach of those rules [iRPCAS etc] shall not be grounds for a protest except by the race committee or protest committee.

That limitation was removed in the 2009 rules.

There's a 'public policy' objective of our rule-makers which is to maintain the confidence of government regulators that we should be permitted to race according to our own rules without interference. To do that it's important that our rules provide that you can't go hitting other boats, and it's functionally appropriate that our rules should operate so that boats that are not bound by our RRS can act in accordance with IRPCAS, with confidence that we will do likewise. The IRPCAS applies provision in the preamble does this.

You are quite right that Blue did not break rule 14. I discussed that in a previous post.

Yes, there is a directly relevant Case

CASE 67Part 2 Preamble

Rule 69.1, Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest

Committee

When a boat is racing and meets a vessel that is not, both are

bound by the government right-of-way rules. When, under those

rules, the boat racing is required to keep clear but intentionally

hits the other boat, she may be penalized for gross misconduct.

Summary of the Facts

Under the government right-of-way rules applicable, W, a boat that was

racing, was required to keep clear of a sailing vessel to leeward, L, that

was not racing. W wished to sail a lower course to a mark and hailed L,

which refused to respond. W then intentionally hit L by bumping her boom

against L several times, thereby causing damage.

L informed the race committee of W’s behaviour. The race committee

protested W, and a hearing was called. W was disqualified for breaking

rules 11 and 14. W appealed on the grounds that the racing rules did not

apply, and consequently the protest committee was not entitled to

disqualify her.

Decision

W’s appeal is dismissed. The preamble to Part 2 of the racing rules makes

it clear that, when W met L, W was required to comply with the

government right-of-way rules. Moreover, W was also subject to the

racing rules other than those of Part 2. W did not comply with the

government rules and, by intentionally hitting and damaging L, committed

a gross breach of not only a rule but of good manners as well.

The decision of the protest committee is upheld, but W is disqualified

under the government rule applicable and not under racing rule 11 or rule

14. Both those rules are rules of Part 2, which would have applied only if

both boats had been intending to race, were racing, or had been racing. W

also committed a gross breach of the government rule and a gross breach

of good manners, so the protest committee would have been entitled to call

a hearing under rule 69.1.

Tiz a DEAD Horse and chatting on about it here is nothing more than that

What I got back regarding Flagrant Violations "That Might Have Happened" according to photos in another thread

comprised of .............................. Oh Fuck It ..................... Really No-One Cares ............. Bitch about it here if it makes you feel better

You WON'T Change ANYTHING

The BEAT GOES ON & ON & ON

Till someone with the Chones to do the: Proper Thing - In The Proper Manor - In The Proper Time-Frame

Till then "IF YOU'RE NOT CHEATING - YOU'RE ONLY CHEATING YOURSELF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I couldn't Give a Shife

WHY I GAVE UP CARING ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN FRONT OF ME

The Response from a question that could have been from this thread's issues: (Edit's in Shife Brown)

"SAID CULB" is a private club, and is the Organizing Authority for their 'Whatever the name' races. They can run their races and require entry and qualification under the rules. In the United States over 30,000 races are held every year. There are many races that involve boats making contact with one another. This happens for a number of reasons, sometimes accidentally, and sometimes by poor boat handling and lack of seamanship. I do not know if you are a member of the SAID CULB, but if you are, have you spoken with the organization directly about this matter. Issues like this are local, and the best solutions are those that come from the locals. While US Sailing is the national authority, we believe that sailboat races such as the "Whatever the name", are best left to having issues solved by those that know the parties more personally, than a reactive force from the outside. When we are invited in, we help offer solutions.

The sport of sailing is guided by the Basic Principle - Sportsmanship and the Rules, which is located in the beginning of the Racing Rules of Sailing. Further Part 5 of the Racing rules - specifically rule 60 deals with protests and who may protest. It does not say shall, and rule 60 is broken down by boat, race committee and protest committee. For many, sailing is a still a self policing sport and what creates the hands off approach that we see taken by those in the sport.. In your inquiry, there are other boats racing in the class. Did they not see the see the incident? Would they, not just the boat damaged be affected by a two boat collision, if a boat didn't retire for breaking a rule? Have you asked the other competitors why they didn't protest?

 

[TJSoCal]

What if "blue" hit "black" that was anchored nearer to the line (as a properly positioned pin RC boat)? Would Blue be automatically DSQ'd?

Unless Black was a mark of the course there should be no penalty under RRS. Definition of "Mark" includes "a race committee boat surrounted by navigable water from which the starting of finishing line extends." So unless the pin boat was the pin, they're just another vessel in the vicinity not racing.

I don't think the RC boat gets any special consideration or protection in RRS other than being granted status as a mark. If the RC wants to use a standoff mark, they have to specify it in the SIs.

 

[mikeys]

After making contact with Black RC (that is anchored "on the line"), Blue could remedy the foul by doing some circles & start.

But hitting an anchored Black boat some distance from the line, no RC ID, what should Blue do? I'd leave my number/get their number and settle up later.

 

[Recidivist]

When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules.

The obligation on a boat that is bound by the RRS to comply with IRPCAS when she meets a vessel that is not bound by the RRS is a rule.

Protest committees, on valid protests (allegations that a boat has broken a rule), decide whether a rule has been broken and impose penalties under the RRS.

Good pickup. Your interpretation maw well be right, but 2 points:

1 The absurdities pointed out by John MB indicate that the interpretation must be flawed (don't have time at the moment to look further into that); and

2 The OP says blue was dsq under rule 14, which deals with 2 boats racing, not one racing and another anchored. IF black was anchored and displaying the correct signals, blue could be guilty of not complying with IRPCAS, but that's not the grounds on which she was dsq. It doesn't appear to have been argued as a live issue at all.

Further conclusion: PC need to improve their act also.

Now, has anyone got an appeal book handy? Has Brass's issue ever been raised?

I don't agree that the instances JohnMB has cited are 'absurdities'.

Leaving aside JohnMB's normative assertions about retiring:

• If you hit an anchored boat while racing, you have broken a rule, you have probably broken the law and you deserve to be penalised.
  
• If you change course while you are the stand on boat to a non racing boat you have broken a rule: the breach may be trifling if you cause no inconvenience to the other boat, but if you collide with the other boat, it is pretty clear that you have broken a rule and deserve to be penalised.
  

From a construction point of view, just because a clearly stated statute (rule) (as opposed to an interpretation of an ambibuous rule) leads to what someone says is an absurdity, doesn't mean that the rule is invalid.

The 2005 Rules included a limitation in the Preamble, which was seemingly designed to prevent 'absurdities', as follows:

[A]n alleged breach of those rules [iRPCAS etc] shall not be grounds for a protest except by the race committee or protest committee.

That limitation was removed in the 2009 rules.

There's a 'public policy' objective of our rule-makers which is to maintain the confidence of government regulators that we should be permitted to race according to our own rules without interference. To do that it's important that our rules provide that you can't go hitting other boats, and it's functionally appropriate that our rules should operate so that boats that are not bound by our RRS can act in accordance with IRPCAS, with confidence that we will do likewise. The IRPCAS applies provision in the preamble does this.

You are quite right that Blue did not break rule 14. I discussed that in a previous post.

Yes, there is a directly relevant Case

CASE 67Part 2 Preamble

Rule 69.1, Allegations of Gross Misconduct: Action by a Protest

Committee

When a boat is racing and meets a vessel that is not, both are

bound by the government right-of-way rules. When, under those

rules, the boat racing is required to keep clear but intentionally

hits the other boat, she may be penalized for gross misconduct.

Summary of the Facts

Under the government right-of-way rules applicable, W, a boat that was

racing, was required to keep clear of a sailing vessel to leeward, L, that

was not racing. W wished to sail a lower course to a mark and hailed L,

which refused to respond. W then intentionally hit L by bumping her boom

against L several times, thereby causing damage.

L informed the race committee of W’s behaviour. The race committee

protested W, and a hearing was called. W was disqualified for breaking

rules 11 and 14. W appealed on the grounds that the racing rules did not

apply, and consequently the protest committee was not entitled to

disqualify her.

Decision

W’s appeal is dismissed. The preamble to Part 2 of the racing rules makes

it clear that, when W met L, W was required to comply with the

government right-of-way rules. Moreover, W was also subject to the

racing rules other than those of Part 2. W did not comply with the

government rules and, by intentionally hitting and damaging L, committed

a gross breach of not only a rule but of good manners as well.

The decision of the protest committee is upheld, but W is disqualified

under the government rule applicable and not under racing rule 11 or rule

14. Both those rules are rules of Part 2, which would have applied only if

both boats had been intending to race, were racing, or had been racing. W

also committed a gross breach of the government rule and a gross breach

of good manners, so the protest committee would have been entitled to call

a hearing under rule 69.1.

Hey, this is SA. There's no place here for such reasoned, articulate and informative posts!

Sorry, I missed your previous post about rule 14. While I agree about the policy (and removal of the limitation supports that), I have a nagging doubt that it is the jurisdictional role of a protest committee to delve into meetings between boats racing and others that are not (save for the appeal example you gave, where I would have thrown W's skipper out of the sport for a significant period - it's an extreme example and should have been confined to Rule 69 imho). If a non-racing boat is the give way boat in relation to a racing yacht, and the racing yacht tacks without embarassing the non-racer, I still consider it an absurdity that the racer could be dsq. I find it more of an absurdity that by removing the limitation, another savvy competitor could protest and have a quite innocent competitor thrown out.

Having said that, in the "mast abeam" days, there was a situation where an innocent boat could be forced to retire - but that scenario was removed when the rules were modernised back in 97 or 98.

You correctly address the situation where the racer causes damage to a non-racer, and the policy is fair enough there. It's not anywhere near as clear when no damage occurs and no embarrassment is caused.

Excellent discussion though - the best rules thread in years!

 

[TJSoCal]

A couple of things to add:

1. I was at the helm of a boat the had to tack around the "black" pin boat, who was clearly in the starting area and caused me to delay my tack by 10 -15 seconds making me late to the line to start.

2. I was not the boat that hit the black boat, but called as a witness to the request for redress for the blue boat

3. The black boat did not respond to any of my hails and did not appear to be at anchor.

4. If they were at anchor, any boat they called over early in this race should have had grounds to request redress, since they were not in a position to sight down the line and could not have possibly fairly called any boat over early.

Since I have never seen a case were the pin boat was clearly interfering with boats that were about to race, i wanted to hear what others thought of the situation and to get everyone's insights.

Thanks to everyone that has responded so far!!

If I may ask, it's still not clear to me why you guys were 2 boat lengths above the start line and way outside the laylines--I don't see how you make a good start from there, and to me it seems like it would be a fairly safe place for a nonracing boat to hang out.

 

[Brass]

Hey, this is SA. There's no place here for such reasoned, articulate and informative posts!

Sorry, I missed your previous post about rule 14. While I agree about the policy (and removal of the limitation supports that), I have a nagging doubt that it is the jurisdictional role of a protest committee to delve into meetings between boats racing and others that are not ... If a non-racing boat is the give way boat in relation to a racing yacht, and the racing yacht tacks without embarassing the non-racer, I still consider it an absurdity that the racer could be dsq. I find it more of an absurdity that by removing the limitation, another savvy competitor could protest and have a quite innocent competitor thrown out.

You correctly address the situation where the racer causes damage to a non-racer, and the policy is fair enough there. It's not anywhere near as clear when no damage occurs and no embarrassment is caused.

Thanks.

I don't think there is, or should be any 'jurisdictional issue.' A protest committee doesn't 'delve into' issues: it hears the evidence and arguments, and questions witnesses brought by parties. If there's a valid protest about a breach of the rules, the protest committee decides it: pretty straightforward.

There are innumerable permutations and combinations of circumstances, commercial vessel or pleasure vessel, big or small, serious interference or trivial, boat gained advantage or not, which, I guess the old 'only the Race Committee may protest' was intended to control. I also guess that some MNA persuaded the Racing Rules Committee that the limitation was excessive.

Sure, as it stands it allows an aggressive rule-using competitor to get a boat disqualified over a triflling breach, but how do you distinguish an 'aggressive rule-using competitor' from a 'person with high ethical standards' who believes that they are obliged by Basic Principle Sportsmanship and the Rules to rigourously enforce the rules by protesting every breach that they see?

Ways to fix the problem that you perceive would be:

1. put back the 'protest only by the race committee' provision through a SI;
   
2. put a discretionary penalty provision in the SI.
   

 

[Brass]

For those floundering around about which or whether a boat that hits a boat at anchor breaks an IRPCAS Rule, for further confusion, try

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com.au%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DhoVjQRmq658C%26pg%3DPA180%26lpg%3DPA180%26dq%3Dkeep%2Bclear%2Bof%2Bvessel%2Bat%2Banchor%26source%3Dbl%26ots%3DoVlR9fIdTh%26sig%3DTl4OGa9jjDgf1WILlwMRTAUAtlc%26hl%3Den&ei=PiZQUPbyOYrNmAXaxoGIAg&usg=AFQjCNHVk954dx7Heul0OCTQYBf4s1GR-Q&sig2=iKRWjaZwmg5B5fVXF25Zdw

about page 180

 

[dogwatch]

If I may ask, it's still not clear to me why you guys were 2 boat lengths above the start line and way outside the laylines--I don't see how you make a good start from there, and to me it seems like it would be a fairly safe place for a nonracing boat to hang out.

Agreed. I sometimes operate a mark-laying boat near the start-line and you've got to be somewhere in the area to be available if the RO wants something done. I'm relying on competitors to behave in a reasonably conventional starting pattern in order to predict where I can place myself that isn't in the way.