Monday, February 23, 2009

And Now for Something Completely Different

[From Scuttlebutt. Sailing Anarchy provided the link to the actual ruling below.]

USOC DECISION REQUIRES CHANGES TO RACING RULES Portsmouth, R.I. (Feb. 22, 2009) - A hearing panel appointed by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) issued a decision Friday that states the provisions of the International Sailing Federation’s (ISAF) Racing Rules of Sailing governing the conduct of protests and requests for redress do not comply with the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act and USOC Bylaws.

Based on an initial reading of this decision, US SAILING, the national governing body of the sport, believes the panel’s directives, if implemented, will fundamentally change how the sport of sailboat racing is conducted in the United States.

In its decision, the USOC panel adopted arguments presented by the attorneys of a competitor at the 2007 U.S. Olympic Trials – Sailing that would require protest committees to consist of at least 20 percent athletes and that the well-established provisions in the Racing Rules of Sailing concerning the conduct of protest and redress hearings violated U.S. law.

This is the second of two complaints against US SAILING filed with the USOC by the same athlete. The first complaint was dismissed when the arbitrator granted US SAILING’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the protest hearings complied with all due process requirements and that the protest committee’s decision was a “field of play” decision not subject to review. One year after the filing of the second complaint and nine months after the arbitrator dismissed the first complaint, the USOC hearing panel concluded that the sport of sailing doesn’t comply with the USOC bylaws.

The USOC’s decision requires US SAILING to amend portions of ISAF’s Racing Rules of Sailing pertaining to protests and redress in the U.S. -- Read on:
http://linkbee.com/F7QX

A link to the USOC decision can be found here:
http://www.farrah-hall.com/pdf/paneldecision.pdf

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Frisbee Day?

A reader from Australia writes:

Dear Bob,

At a recent club race... winds were very light prior to the start of a race, and the officer of the day announced via radio that boats could motor until the 1 minute signal (5 minute start sequence). Is this allowable under rule 42.3(h). A search of the ISAF website provided little guidance on this new rule.

In response, I assume that the "5 minute" sequence referred to maintains the standard preparatory signal at the 4 minute gun, which means that the rules begin to apply at that time. The new Rule 42.3(h) reads:
Sailing instructions may, in stated circumstances, permit propulsion using an engine or any other method, provided the boat dos not gain a significant advantage in the race.

I do not know the origin of this new subsection, and if any reader does, please comment below. Though I haven't read the SIs that apply to the race in question, it is my interpretation of 42.3(h) that if the SIs make allowance for the use of the engine for all boats, then none gains a significant advantage if it's a one-design fleet. If it's a mixed fleet, there may be significant speed differences in engine power that could leave someone coasting longer after shut-off. A Macgregor 26 on full plane might coast for well longer than one minute!

Since the other racing rules apply at the prep signal, having them in force while boats are motoring around seems problematic. I'm not a PRO, but I think a better way to go is 1) sit and wait for breeze, 2) abandon and go play frisbee, or 3) change the prep signal to the one minute gun, let them motor around until then, and then turn off the engines and turn on the rules. As for this case, unless someone can make a case that a boat had a significant advantage, this seems like a permissable, though possibly unintended, consequence of the new 42.3(h).

Thoughts?

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Inside, Outside, Upside Down

At Wednesday's rules seminar at CGSC, Nick Voss and Augie posed a question I couldn't answer about the application of the new Rule 18 between two boats at a leeward mark. I've added some detail to describe a very possible scenario.

Yellow and blue are approaching a leeward mark to be rounded to port on opposite tacks, in 5 knots of breeze, slight chop.

Step 1 (below). Yellow reaches the Zone with Blue overlapped inside her.


Step 2 (below). Yellow douses her spinnaker and bears away to a run, slowing from the takedown and deep angle. Blue, wishing to maintain speed because she's still 2 to 3 lengths away, leaves her spinnaker up and continues on her angle, possibly with a slight luff to take Yellow's transom. With greater speed she crosses astern of Yellow and estalishes an overlap outside Yellow.


Step 3 (below). Yellow is now between Blue and the mark. Yellow is somewhat slower, and Blue has to avoid her and round outside and protests, claiming Yellow, by her presence, did not give her room to sail to the mark, or room to sail her proper course at the mark.


Step 4.

Who broke what rule, if any? How could she have avoided doing so?