Racing Rules of Sailing

Transcription

1 Rule 29.1 and Appendix A 29.1 Individual Recall When at a boat s starting signal any part of her hull, crew or equipment is on the course side of the starting line or she must comply with rule 30.1, the race committee shall promptly display flag X with one sound. The flag shall be displayed until all such boats are completely on the pre-start side of the starting line or its extensions and have complied with rule 30.1 if it applies, but not later than four minutes after the starting signal or one minute before any later starting signal, whichever is earlier. A11 Scoring abbreviations OCS Did not start; on the course side of the starting line at her starting signal and failed to start, or broke rule 30.1 did not return to the pre-start side. New scoring abbreviation IFP Did not start; on the course side of the starting line when rule 30.1 applied, and did not return round an end. No change to other scoring abbreviations. As above. To solve a problem with rule At present, if a boat is over the line in the last minute, and returns back across the line, but not round an end, the race committee must display flag X, even if no boat is OCS at the starting signal. As a result, boats that know that they had made a better start than others may believe wrongly that they were OCS, and will themselves return round an end and start again, so going from the front to the back of the fleet. Meanwhile, it is unlikely that the boat for whom the signal was intended will return round an end. If she had believed she was over before the starting signal, then she would have started to sail to an end immediately rather than waiting for the starting signal (or she decided to take a chance on not having been

2 observed). If she did not realise her error, she is also unlikely to realise the signal was for her. It is believed that some race officers deliberately do not display flag X in these circumstances, to avoid confusion, even if it means that a boat that did not return round the end is not penalized. This proposal brings the rule into harmony with that practice, and allows the boat to be deprived of her finishing position if she does not then sail round and end and start. It is proposed that, in an I flag start, flag X is reserved for boats OCS at the starting signal. Unless the sailing instructions say otherwise, no signal will be made to a boat that was over in the last minute and returned, but not round an end. Note the V flag procedure in L11.5 which can help advise a boat of a pre-start line-crossing. Sailing instructions could also specify a different post-start signal to advise that a boat returned, but not round an end. (For larger boats, this can be by VHF). The proposed IFP score designation in the results will make the situation clear to competitors, although this is not central to the main proposal.

3 Rule If the race committee signals a shortened course (displays flag S with two sounds), the finishing line shall be, (a) at a rounding mark, between the mark and a staff displaying flag S; (b) (c) at a line boats are required to cross at the end of each lap, that line; at a gate, between the gate marks. The shortened course shall be signalled before the first boat crosses the finishing line. As above. Flag S should be displayed before the first boat crosses the finishing line for the shortened course so that boats can plan their tactics. Under rules 32.2(b) and (c), a race committee could shorten a race at a gate, or at a line boats are required to cross at the end of each lap, by displaying flag S after boats have passed through that gate or have crossed that line. This is undesirable. Before 2005, when a race in progress was shortened, this was not possible because one end of the finishing line was always a staff displaying flag S. Where retrospective shortening of a race is specifically required, the sailing instructions can change this rule.

4 Rule CHANGING THE NEXT LEG OF THE COURSE The race committee may change a leg of the course that begins at a rounding mark or at a gate by changing the position of the next mark (or the finishing line) and signalling all boats before they begin the leg. The next mark need not be in position at that time. No change to the rest of this rule As above. To enable the course to be changed at a gate when the gate is part of the course to be sailed. The gate may be at any part of the course, not only at its leeward end. At present this requires a sailing instruction. The submission is complementary to the approved submission which adds words about gates to rule 28.1.

5 Rule REDRESS 62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat s finishing place in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by (a) (b) (c) an improper action or omission of the race committee or protest committee, but not in respect of a decision in a hearing where the boat was a party, physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 or of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear, giving help (except to herself or her crew) in compliance with rule 1.1, or (d) a boat against which a penalty has been imposed under rule 2 or disciplinary action has been taken under rule 69.1(b). As above. An application by a party to a hearing to reopen under rule 66 is restrictive and correctly leaves the decision to the protest committee. At present these restrictions can be avoided if, instead, the party requests redress under rule 62.1 when there must be a hearing. Since the rejection of the identical submission , the Court of Arbitration for Sport has ruled on the case of the windsurfer at the Athens Olympics in 2004 (Arbitration number CAS OG 04/009). In paragraph 4.2 of the court's decision it is stated that the windsurfer requested redress in accordance with rule 62.1(a) but the international jury reclassified it as a request to reopen a hearing under rule 66. The court, in finding no lack of due process, rejected the argument that this reclassification was improper. This submission brings that decision into the RRS.

6 Appendices K and L, Preamble Preamble to Appendix K After deleting unused paragraphs, renumber all paragraphs in sequential order. Be sure that paragraph numbers are correct where one paragraph refers to another. For unused paragraphs, retain the paragraph numbers and add "[Not used]" so that each subject has the same paragraph number in all notices of race. Preamble to Appendix L After deleting unused instructions, renumber all instructions in sequential order. Be sure that instruction numbers are correct where one instruction refers to another. For unused instructions, retain the instruction numbers and add "[Not used]" so that each subject has the same number in all sailing instructions. All other paragraphs in both preambles are unchanged. As above. At present even if the notice of race is identical with the exception of one paragraph, then it looks very different as all the numbering is different, whereas the reality is that they are identical with the exception of the one paragraph. Notice of race paragraph 4 "Classification" is a case in point as some will use this and others will not. This change has been requested by competitors and these documents will be easier for them to read if the numbering is consistent. Thus it should be identical (apart from local modifications such as position of notice boards, colour of marks) for all events when these appendices are used by organising authorities.

7 New Case Rule 28.1, Sailing the Course Rule 61.1(a), Protest Requirements: Informing the Protestee An intention to protest a boat for not sailing the course will be valid if it is notified when she finishes, or later if the first reasonable opportunity to do so is after the protestee finishes and leaves the racing area. SUMMARY A boat rounded a starboard-hand mark to port. Realising her mistake, she returned and unwound, but then (it was alleged) she continued the race without rounding the mark as required. On finishing and returning to the shore, she was notified by another boat of a protest under rule The protest committee found the protest invalid, as the protestor had been in the vicinity of the mark and of the protestee at the time, but had not hailed Protest. The protestor appealed. DECISION Appeal upheld. The term incident in rule 61.1(a) could be either the moment in the race when a mark has been left on the wrong side or the time the boat finishes and the string representing her wake does not lie on the required side of that mark when it is pulled taut. While a hail (and, if required, the display of a flag) would be valid if made in the vicinity of the mark concerned, it is equally valid if the protestor starts to comply with rule 61.1(a) when the protestee finishes. In both cases the intention to protest is notified at the first reasonable opportunity as required by the rule. If at the time that the protestee finished she were beyond hailing distance, and if the protestor then informed her of her intention to protest as soon as reasonably possible, the protest would be valid. The hearing is to be reopened, to reconsider its validity. The hearing is to continue if the protest is valid. RYA 2003/4

8 None. Following the rejection of submission in November 2006, ISAF RRC agreed and minuted an interpretation as follows: "A boat that leaves a mark on the wrong side does not break rule 28.1 until she finishes." This case confirms and implements this interpretation.

9 New Case Rule 61.3, Protest Time Limit Rule 78.1, Compliance with Class Rules; Certificates The hearing of requests for redress and rule 69 actions may unavoidably have to take place after the end of an event, but the time limit for lodging a protest should not normally be extended beyond the end of an event.. The protection of ISAF case 57 does not extend to an owner or person in charge who knows, or should know, that the boat does not comply with class rules. SUMMARY The national championships of the class took place in August. In April the next year, the class association ratified the use of Kevlar sails for the first time. The organizing authority of the previous year s event then received a protest alleging that two prizewinning competitors at the event had used Kevlar sails that broke the class rules in force at the time of the event. The crews of the protested boats were sailmakers. The protest committee considered the matter of validity and decided that under rule 61.3 there was good reason to extend the time limit. It heard the protest, which it dismissed, citing ISAF Case 57. The protest committee then referred the matter to the national authority to confirm or correct its decision. DECISION The protest was invalid and should not have been heard, because it was not lodged before the end of the event. For protests concerning something that may have happened during racing, any good reason for extending the protest time limit beyond the end of the event will usually be outweighed by the better reason of the need for the results to be as final as possible by the end of the last day of the event. The requirement to extend the time limit for protests, if there is good reason to do so, is to allow for circumstances in which the competitor finds it impossible to submit the protest in time. These reasons might include being very late ashore after being rescued, going to hospital, or poor wind conditions making a return to shore in time very difficult; it does mean however that submitting a protest needs to be done promptly on returning to shore. Regattas need to have closure for new protests involving on-the-water incidents, which includes competing in a boat that does not comply with class rules, and the time limit as described in rule 61.3 should not normally be extended. (Belated requests for redress, for instance in relation to inaccurate results not available to a

10 competitor until after the end of the event, should however be heard. The circumstances that may give rise to a hearing under rule 69 may not occur until after a prize giving, but the hearing should take place when it is possible to do so.) If a valid protest had been lodged and heard at the event, it should have been upheld if the alleged facts were confirmed. In ISAF case 57, a duly authenticated certificate had been presented in good faith by an owner who had no reason to be aware of the error in the certificate. In this protest, the protested competitors, being sailmakers, must have known the material in their sails, and no boat can plead ignorance of a class rule as an excuse. They would not therefore have been entitled to the protection of Case 57 in a valid protest based on rule RYA 2005/7 None. To provide a time limit for protests at the end of an event.