Fines for Rule 69?

There has been a bit of speculation around that the RYA and/or ISAF Rule 69 inquiries into Ben Ainsle's conduct in Australia may yield a fine for Mr. Ainsle rather than (or perhaps in addition to) a suspension.  While quite common in other professional sports, I've never heard of a fine being issued under MNA/ISAF Rule 69 jurisdiction -- has anyone else?

Stored Power @ AC72

Interesting quote from Paul Cayard:

“We wind up with lot of hydraulics,” Cayard says, “and the America’s Cup rules don’t allow stored power, so two of our eleven guys—we think, two—will be grinding a primary winch all the race long. Not to trim, but to maintain pressure in the hydraulic tank so that any time someone wants to open a hydraulic valve to trim the wing, there will be pressure to make that happen.”

Full story by Kimball Livingston here.

Guest Post: OCS Redress

Another guest post from Bryan McDonald:

At the Stoney Burke Collegiate regatta this weekend (hosted by the Cal Sailing Team at the Treasure Island Sailing Center in San Francisco Bay), there was an interesting request for redress.

Here were the facts found:

UCSB hit line aggressively and was On the Course Side (OCS) at the start

Race Committee (RC) signaled the OCS with the X-Flag 

UCSB saw the X-Flag and thought they 'might' be over (I know this is a flimsy fact :)

RC hailed UCSB over

UCSB testified they never heard the hail (though the witness they called to the hearing testified they did hear the hail)

RC noted that UCSB was over in their notepad on the RC boat

Stanford thought they were over early and returned to the starting line

When Stanford crossed the line, RC lowered the X-Flag, confusing them with UCSB

Total time the X-Flag flew: 20 seconds

RC noted that UCSB never corrected it's starting error (and they were careful to note this when a boat cleared)

Collegiate procedural rule18b(ii) states "The [X-]flag shall be displayed until all such boats are completely on the pre-start side...but not later than two minutes after the starting signal, whichever is earlier." UCSB testified that upon seeing the drop of the X-Flag, in less than 2 mins, they assumed they had started correctly. They also testified that had the flag kept flying after all boats had returned to start, they would have returned to start correctly.

RC scored UCSB as OCS.

UCSB filed for redress based on an improper action of the race committee.

Rule 62.1, the redress rule, states "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 score in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made signifi- cantly worse by..."

Rule 28 requires a boat to start correctly.

The protest committee denied the request for redress based on the fact that UCSB was OCS at the starting signal and failed the "through no fault of her own" criteria in the redress rule. The protest committee completely agreed with UCSB that the race committee made an improper action by lowering the flag 1:40 seconds prematurely, but the fact remains that UCSB was OCS (i.e. they did not start correctly per rule 28 and hence committed a fault that prevented application of the redress rule).

The timing of the RC error is key. In this case, the error by the race committee was approximately 20 seconds after UCSB was OCS. At that point, she was leading the race and if, per her testimony, she had returned to the starting line to correct her OCS error (as rule 28 provides), after Stanford had cleared the line, she would have been at least 40 seconds behind the fleet in a short collegiate race (lasting approx 10 mins) and may not have been able to significantly improve her last place result. In that case, she would likely fail the "score...made significantly worse" criteria in the redress rule and could be denied redress for that reason too. ISAF Case 31 puts it another way "generally, when a recalled boat returns to the pre-course side of the line after her starting signal, she usually starts some time after boats that were not recalled. An allowance for that time should be made."

On the other hand, if the error by the race committee CAUSED the OCS, then UCSB could be granted redress per ISAF Case 79 (i.e. had UCSB been OCS due to the RC signaling the start, for example, 3 seconds late, this OCS could be "through no fault of her own").

ISAF Case 71 is another example of a boat getting redress from an error from the RC. In this case, it was not found as a fact that the boat requesting redress was OCS nor did the boat see the X-Flag. Our incident over the weekend was quite different in that it was clearly established that UCSB was OCS (they were noted OCS on the RC's notepad, the X-Flag signaled OCS immediately, UCSB testified they saw the X-Flag, UCSB was hailed as OCS (with a witness further establishing that fact), RC noted that UCSB never started correctly on their notepad (and they were careful to note this when a boat cleared)).

In our current rulebook, redress is hard to get. There were three requests for redress over the weekend and only one was granted. In windsurfing and kiting, redress is easier to get as they have an additional criteria to be granted redress, rule 62.1(e) (though, it's been my experience that those fleets rarely get in protests or file for redress as compared to collegiate sailing :).

The new US Sailing prescription to rule 60, allowing 'any boat' to participate in the hearing of redress, was also utilized and multiple parties joined the hearing for redress (we even invited a few coaches to be present) to effect a healthy rules discussion (and a healthy one ensued).

respectfully submitted,

Bryan McDonald

ICSA Rules Committee Chair

TNZ Camper Rules Controversey

An interesting article over at the Daily Sail regarding a quasi-adjustable forestay on the Camper VO70.  Links to the relevant Public Interpretation are in the article.

No contact, no foul? Guest Post

Awesome shot above by Adam Koch from this past weekend.

Guest post from Bryan McDonald this week:

I had the privilege to umpire at the US Sailing Team Racing National Championship for the Hinman Trophy in Texas this past weekend. We had some very healthy debriefs at the event (best debriefs in years for the Hinman).

At one of the debriefs, two competitors, Trevor Moore and Ben Spiller were adamant that an incident needed contact to get a penalty from an umpire (and they felt many other competitors shared this same sentiment). They suggested that if there was no contact, umpires would virtually always green flag the incident.

I'd like to counter and say that contact is absolutely not necessary to get a penalty.

Since 1997, the rules have been rewritten to send a very clear message that sailing is a non-contact sport. I recall former rules committee chairman Dick Rose saying that If you want a contact sport, there are plenty but sailing is not one of them :)

Built into the rules, the definition of keep clear makes no mention of contact. The definition from the rulebook says: "One boat keeps clear of another if the other can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action..."). Please note there is no mention that contact is necessary to prove one boat did not keep clear of another.
Rule 14 tag teams this definition by saying "A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible." For me, this further emphasizes that contact is a bad thing in sailing.

In the ISAF Team Race Call Book, the gospel of non-contact comes in the front of the book, in the second call, Call A2, and is italicized for special emphasis "There does not need to be contact for a boat to fail to keep clear." This is my favorite sentence of the call book to quote to competitors who are upset with a call at the end of the race when they question why a red flag was flown in the absence of contact. If the competitor is still stumped why a red flag was flown after I recite this line verbatim, I place the ball back in their court by asking them why they hailed protest and umpire in the first place 'if there was no contact'. My logic for asking that question is as follows: if they were inspired to hail protest and umpire in the first place, they must have felt a rule was broken and my red flag validated this notion (though it might be the opposite outcome they anticipated). Rules 15 and 16.1 are rules that can penalize a starboard or leeward right of way (ROW) boat and surprise a protestor that they are getting the penalty despite them having the ROW.

On an international note, I've been told that the USA enforces 16.1 more strictly than our brethren across the pond. Any umpire willing to fly a red in the name of rule 16.1 would do well to memorize those italics in Call A2 (and of course we all know from the index to the call book that italics "...highlight important principles in the rules."). 

It should also be noted that judge and umpire training also emphasize that contact is NOT necessary for a boat to break a rule. Thus the rules, call book and training are all in agreement that contact is NOT necessary to establish a rule has been broken.

Still not convinced? Umpire Steve Wolff suggested that if sailors really want contact to be part of the game, the cost of entry would skyrocket for repair bills and hosts would likely discontinue to loan boats for events. Higher cost of events and not being able to borrow boats are two shots in the foot in my book.

OK, what to do if there is contact? If there is contact, in addition to a red or green flag, I'll fly a black flag to signal we may have a hearing for damage after the race. I'm not shy about flying the black flag. In the case of contact, I think it's a good signal to tell the fleet that we are serious about penalizing for contact (and the team racing appendix D supports that). 

Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McDonald

What do you think? Clearly, as a rules question, a foul can occur without contact. BUT, I am very sympathetic to the point that far too many umpires will green flag a situation where there was a foul -- but no contact -- because it is "easier" for them to do so, on a number of levels. This is bad umpiring, but it absolutly does happen.

ACWS "Booth Decisions"

You can review the replays of various "booth decisions" for penalties during the America's Cup World Series here.

Please leave your check for E.150,000.00 at the door on the way out!

...says the AC jury to Green Comm.

New TR Rapid Response Call

ISAF just released Team Race Rapid Response Call 2011/001.

Not sure if I'm on board with this one; at position X3, X is at the mark and is not sailing her proper course.

Mike Martin on AC RRS

Mike Martin (Director of Umpiring for the 34th America's Cup) is interviewed over at the Daily Sail.  You'll need to sign up for a membership to read the full article.

Here is a very interesting quote regarding Rule 18:

“Also with room at the mark – rule 18 – in the past there was one set of rules at the windward mark and a different set of rules at the leeward mark and we just eliminated that and it is the same at both. Right now the inside boat when they reach the zone, any outside boat owes them room. For example, if you are approaching a mark to round it to port, and you are on port tack, you have room at that mark. In the past you couldn’t come in on port tack at the weather mark, but under the new rules you can – you don’t have right of way over the starboard tacker, but the starboard tacker has to give you room to round the mark - which is the same situation as it’s been at the leeward mark for years. So we are just trying to make it symmetric up and down the course and trying to keep it simple.”

Mike notes that he thinks -- or hopes -- that some of the AC RRS changes, such as the deletion of rules 13 and 17, will be incorporated into the ISAF RRS.

That might be a bit too much....

From today's Scuttlebutt:

* From Helmer Schweizer:
I read with interest the part on ZERO TOLERANCE in Scuttlebutt 3416. In my
opinion, judges sometimes overact and want to make use of their power,
demonstrate it to themselves and the others on the water. In other words:
They police more than the police does.
This reminds me of the famous experiment where people were given power to
switch higher and higher the penalizing voltage, even beyond the kill point
indicator and the artificial pains screams of the sufferer.
Sure, I do not want to say the starboard yelling port sailing guy was
right, especially if he was known to be an experienced sailor. What else
other than a formal protest and dsq could a judge do?
He could walk up to the sailor and tell about the observation and very
brief on the possible/potential actions by the judge and the resulting
consequences. And then, suggest/recommend him to do two things on his own
will:
- provide the other boat an apology
- withdraw from the race finish and be classified as a DNF.
This has two effects: It allows the wrongful sailor to take things back in
his own hands, and show that he is a gentleman after all, regain his future
credibility; as well as teach all a lesson who hear about it.
Only if the sailor would be stubborn would/could the judge lodge a protest.
This is similar to get caught in the car going too fast, but being let go
with a (lower priced) ticket/warning instead of being charged and
prosecuted by the full power of the law. Some common sense should be
implied in all we do all day. 

Sailing judges = participants in the Milgram experiment? A bit harsh...

ISAF Q&A 2011-018

ISAF just released Q&A 2011-018 which is, I think, going to be a quite important and often cited Q&A as people seek redress for RC procedural errors involving recalls:

Situation
At the start of a race with 60 Lasers and approximately 15-18 knots wind, the race officer observes 4 boats on the course side of the starting line close to the pin end. 10 seconds after the starting signal the race committee signals an individual recall with flag X and one sound.
Case 79 states the following about the timing of individual recalls:
‘No specific amount of time will apply in all circumstances, but in this rule it means a very
short time. A race committee should signal ‘Individual recall’ within a very few seconds of
the starting signal. Forty seconds is well beyond the limits of  acceptability’.

Question 1
Is 10 seconds acceptable under the mentioned circumstances? 

Answer 1
To recall boats individually, rule 29.1 requires the race committee to display flag X with one sound promptly after the starting signal. Promptly cannot be quantified. The acceptable time between the two signals may depend on various parameters  such as the size of the fleet, the size and maneuverability of the boats, the length of the starting line and even the weather conditions. In the circumstances described in question 1, 10 seconds would not be promptly. 

Question 2 If the answer to Question 1 is no, what would be the latest acceptable time for signaling? 

Answer 2: See Answer 1

Seems like the Q&A panel painted itself in a bit of an odd corner.  First, I agree that 10 seconds is too long in Question 1.  But this naturally raises Question 2: how long is too long?  The panel ducks the question.  It is certainly true that the answer to "how long is too long" depends on the factors listed in Answer 1 (size of fleet, type of boats, size of line, etc.).  But by giving the answer "no, 10 seconds is too long here" in Answer 1, the panel admits that it has enough information to decide whether 10 seconds is too long given the facts supplied in Question 1.  Therefore, it must be able to answer the second question (assuming the same facts hold).

I hope someone submits the same exact question with "5 seconds" substituted for "10 seconds"!

As Justice Potter Stewart of the United States Supreme Court once said while trying to define what constitutes pornography, "I know it when I see it!"

EDIT: Looks like Jos beat me to it, and he has some very good advice for Race Committees.

No, but thanks for asking!

ISAF Q&A 2011-016:

Question
Should the loss of corrected sunglasses for a partially visually impaired sailor be considered as
‘injury or physical damage’ under rule 62.1(b)? 

Answer
No.