National Judges News - Issue 26, July 2006

Distributed by the National Judges’ Sub-Committee of Yachting Australia’s Race Officials’ Committee

27th issue – November 2006

LATEST RULE INTERPRETATIONS

Now available are the minutes of the ISAF RRC’s annual meeting, at which 49 proposals for rule changes or new Cases or Calls were considered.  Here are 5 of the more interesting decisions.

Teams Racing Call

A Rapid Response Call for teams racing had been issued saying that once having rounded a mark, a boat could subsequently return to the previous leg of the course.  The Match and Teams Racing Working Party wanted this to be formalised.

Decision: This is incorrect – you cannot do this. The Rapid Response Call will be withdrawn.

Missing out a Mark

ISAF’s Q&A Panel had answered a question by saying that if a boat misses out a mark then it has broken rule 28.1 at that time, so unless a protest is made at that time then the protest will not have been notified at “the first reasonable opportunity”.  USA wanted a Case included to formalise this answer.

Unanimous Decision:  This is incorrect.  Rule 28.1 has not been broken until the boat finishes, so that is the time to protest.  The Q&A answer must be changed.

Seeking Redress for OCS

We know a request for redress must be made within the time limit of “the relevant incident”.  USA claimed that with OCS the time of the relevant incident was when the race committee allegedly made an error, which was at the start, so it wanted a Case included to reflect this interpretation.

Decision:  This is incorrect.  (The time of the relevant incident would be when the score of OCS is posted.)

Discretionary Penalties

The Offshore Committee wanted a new rule added to permit a protest committee to assess the penalty it would apply to an infringement (other than Part 2 which would remain as DSQ).

Decision:  Rejected.  Penalties other than DSQ can already be written into sailing instructions.  ISAF does not approve of ‘discretionary’ penalties and recommends that if penalties other than DSQ are to be permitted then “the sailing instructions should contain definite tables of breaches and penalties”.

Rounding an Obstruction

We know rule 16.1 does not apply to a boat changing course to round a mark, so a clear astern boat which pushes its nose in when a clear ahead boat is rounding a mark, does so at her own risk.  But what if it is an obstruction?  Can the clear astern boat push its nose in and claim she is “safe” because the boat which was clear ahead (now overlapped on the outside) cannot close the gap without breaking rule 16.1?

This is a situation which has recently been discussed with very differing opinions (usually by umpires because the situation is more common to match racing boats rounding a spectator boat during their pre-start.)

Decisions:

1.  Rule 16.1 does apply at an obstruction so the boat which was clear ahead must comply with 16.1.

2.  Considering the boat which was clear astern (now on the inside):
Rule 18.2(c) requires that boat to keep clear of the outside boat, and if while the outside boat is rounding the obstruction the inside boat fails keep clear (even because the obstruction is now preventing her doing so) then she breaks rule 18.2(c).

3.  Considering the boat which was clear ahead (now on the outside):
If while that boat is rounding she alters her course such that she causes contact with the inside boat, or causes the inside boat to hit the obstruction, then she breaks rule 16.1.  (Both boats have now broken rules.)

So if the outside boat is to stay clean she must let the inside boat through (then outside does not break 16.1) but satisfy the protest committee or umpires that she was prevented from rounding the obstruction in the manner she wished (inside breaks 18.2(c)).