I just spent a couple of weeks judging and umpiring, first at the Baker Cup (US High-School Team Race Championships) and then at the National Intercollegiate Championships for Women, Team Racing and Co-Ed Dinghies.  All these events were in predominantly light wind, so a big part of the responsibility of my fellow judges and umpires, and myself, was to enforce rule 42  PROPULSION.

There are three different “authoritative” sources regarding rule 42.  First is the rule itself.  Second is the Official ISAF Interpretation.(http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/42interpretations2010final-%5B8881%5D.pdf)

And third is the Class Rules of the class involved.  In the case of the Baker Cup, there are no class rules, as no class is specified in the sailing instructions (the boats were Club 420s supplied by the Organizing Authority, but class rules did not apply).  In the case of the collegiate championships, the class is “Collegiate Dinghies” as defined in the Collegiate Dinghy Class Rules (http://www.collegesailing.org/archive/2009-2012_PR_And_2009_CDCR.pdf). 

At all the events above save the ICSA Team Race championships, I was asked to present my view of rule 42 at the Competitors’ Meeting, as a guide to what the judges or umpires would be looking for.  The gist of my comments is below.  Note that in these comments I use the colloquial term “cheating” for breaking rule 42.  I don’t mean that breaking rule 42 is any worse than breaking some other rule, I just mean that the boat involved was trying to propel the boat illegally and thus breaking a rule intentionally, i.e., cheating.

The people who drafted rule 42 (and I was one of them, at least for parts of it) did not think that good seamanship meant sitting like statues in the boat; we all know that there is nothing more seamanlike (or more pleasing) than a well-executed roll tack, or a combination of rudder and heel that turns a boat perfectly with minimum drag.  The perfect rule would allow such acts of seamanship and penalize all the things people might do to propel the boat without good seamanship.

The rule consequently is a bit complicated.  It has three parts: 42.1 tells us what the rule is all about and contains some exceptions to prohibited actions; 42.2 lists some actions that are simply prohibited whether or not they propel the boat; and 42.3 lists more exceptions, which are actions allowed even if they do propel the boat. 

The rule is designed to reward good seamanship and to penalize “air rowing” or sculling around the course (in addition to lots of other actions we never even think about, such as literally paddling, or running the motor).  Most rule-42 violations are either the result of poor seamanship or deliberate efforts to break the rule. 

Let me give an example.  A dinghy comes to the leeward mark.  As she begins to round, the crew moves to leeward and heels the boat.  This action steers the boat around the mark with minimum use of the rudder, and is good seamanship, so it’s allowed under the rule.  Then, when the boat reaches a close-hauled course, the crew flattens it.  According to the rule 42.1, it’s legal to “adjust the trim of sails and hull”, so the flattening is simply good seamanship, allowed under the rule.  (The ISAF Interpretations say that this flattening is illegal if it has “the effect of a stroke of a paddle”, but in Club 420’s this basically can’t happen, and in any case, I think the Interpretation is wrong because rule 42 doesn’t say anything even vaguely like that. But if you’re sailing, say, a Vanguard 15, you might want to bring the rig up smoothly and use the flattening to take a higher angle rather than to gain speed; that’s apparently legal even under the ISAF Interpretations.)

So what can go wrong?  Well, what judges see all the time is this: Either the roll was too small or too great and the skipper had to use too much rudder during the rounding, or the flattening was mistimed, or the sheet was too tight or too loose.  Either way, the boat ends up sitting more or less dead in the water, at the leeward mark.  Then the skipper (or skipper and crew) solves this problem by stepping down to the leeward tank to heel the boat again, and then coming back up to windward to flatten the boat again.  This is “rocking”, which is prohibited by the rule.  As a fellow judge once put it to me, you don’t get two bites out of that apple!

For another example, consider the start.  Just before the starting signal, a boat headed below close-hauled heels to leeward, turns up to close-hauled, and then flattens.  The heel facilitates steering and the flattening is trimming the hull to its new upwind heel angle, so all of this is good seamanship and doesn’t break rule 42 (with the same caveat as above, regarding “stroke of a paddle” in the Interpretations – very easily-driven boats should probably moderate that flattening a little, or use it to gain gauge instead of speed). 

But consider a boat that finds herself halfway into the second row just before the start.  She’s already close hauled, trying to get to the line before the starting signal, but in bad air.  To gain way, she heels and then flattens.  The original heel was not to facilitate steering (the boat didn’t turn) and so the purpose of the combined heel and flattening is simply to propel the boat, which is illegal.  (Note that this rocking need not actually propel the boat – the mere action is illegal according to rule 42.2(b).)  When I’m on-the-water judging for large fleets, I especially watch the boats that are a half-length behind or going too slowly, one or two seconds before the starting signal – they’re the ones most likely to cheat in order to get a seat in the front row at the start.

There’s one action at the starting line that’s allowed even though we might not think of it as the best seamanship.  If a boat is moving slowly and is above close hauled, she’s allowed to scull her way down to a close-hauled course.  This rule-42 exception might be thought of as a “mercy clause” – if the wind is very light, a boat caught in irons might have no other way to turn to a close-hauled course and get moving again other than sculling to turn the boat.  We didn’t want to leave boats sitting in irons, so we allowed that specific action.  But note that the exception is very restrictive: the boat must be above close-hauled when she starts sculling, and she has to turn toward a close-hauled course (which might mean going through head to wind and onto the opposite tack). 

Easily the most common action whistled in the high-school and college championships this year was illegal sculling – either the boat was below close-hauled and the driver wanted to turn down further without gaining way, or she sculled one way and then reversed the helm and sculled the other way, or she backed her mainsail and sculled as if to turn the boat downwind without actually turning the boat (“crabbing”).  All of these actions are illegal – as is sculling into the second jibe of a two-turn penalty, which we saw (and whistled) a few times.

Out on the course, we did see some pumps and other prohibited actions that were attempts to establish overlaps at zones or to get bow-out at the finish.  These actions are all well understood by the competitors to be illegal, and were simply the result of yielding to temptation in a stressful moment.  They’re also cheating, so nobody really had much of a problem with the umpires calling those actions.  One call involved ooching in non-surfing conditions*, and that did raise some questions: the crew of a boat was flexing her knee repeatedly and forcefully as she stood holding the boom out, dead downwind.  The rule says “sudden forward body movement, stopped abruptly”, and the girl’s coach argued that rapid motions of the knee were not motions of the body, just the knee; but our attitude was, the knee bone’s connected to the thighbone and the … well, you get the gist.  Besides, if she wasn’t ooching, what was she doing?  Dancing to the beat of a different drummer?

Almost all the other violations we saw were isolated actions, such as roll tacks or jibes in the college championships that broke the college class rules (i.e., the mast aggressively left the perpendicular more than once) or rocking after a jibe was complete.  These violations were probably just bad seamanship; several coaches pointed out to us that the boats carried out the maneuver so badly that they didn’t actually gain from it.  But rocking breaks rule 42.2, which simply bans the action regardless of whether it propels the boat.  (To see why the rule is written this way, imagine trying to judge whether a crew rocking their boat actually propelled her, when she was sailing downwind in a good breeze – any rule that required such judgment would be unenforceable.)

So to avoid getting penalized under rule 42 we should learn how to do really good roll tacks and jibes that don’t break the rule, and learn exactly how and when to heel the boat when rounding a mark, to steer without using the rudder, then flatten the boat.  In other words, we should practice good seamanship until it’s second nature.  And we should curb the temptation to yanking on the mainsheet just as we get to the zone or by jibing and over-flattening right at the finish line to go bow-out on the boat alongside us – that’s not only not good seamanship, it’s cheating.

*The Class Rules for the Collegiate Dinghy Class allow ooching, but only in surfing conditions.

Two boats, A and B, enter the zone at the windward mark on the same tack.  A enters the zone clear ahead of B.  After they’re both in the zone, B tacks twice while A just sails on inside the zone.  The question is, does B, who was clear astern at the zone, still have to give A mark-room under rule 18.2(b)?

When I first heard this question, my immediate answer was “No.”  After B tacks, the boats become on opposite tacks on a beat to windward and therefore rule 18 no longer applies (see rule 18.1(a)).  It seemed to me that if the whole rule turns off, so does every part of it, including rule 18.2(b).  When B tacks back, rule 18 applies afresh and because both boats are inside the zone, rule 18.2(b) can’t come into play because neither boat enters the zone during this new application of rule 18.  In effect, my argument was that rules have no memory of the previous times they applied.  When a rule begins to apply, it’s a new situation entirely, and what happened the last time the rule applied is irrelevant.

My second thought was that the answer doesn’t much matter, at least in fleet racing.  If B is already clear astern of A and tacks twice while A just sails on, B is going to be so far behind A that mark-room just isn’t going to come into play.

Then last month, the ISAF Team Racing Rapid Response Working Party took up this issue in a proposed Rapid Response Call. (The answer is important in team racing because boats frequently stop at marks, and if the non-tacking boat is dead in the water or nearly so, the boat that tacks twice can easily become overlapped inside her.)  The working party was asked to select one of two alternative answers, essentially “Yes, the boat that was clear astern at the zone still has to give the other boat mark-room under rule 18.2(b)” and “No, the boat that was clear astern at the zone no longer is required by rule 18.2(b) to give mark-room” (my answer). To my surprise, the committee voted five-to-one in favor of “Yes” – exactly the opposite of my interpretation! 

 Here’s the argument supporting the group’s answer:  The new version of rule 18.2(c), in force since January 1, 2010, says:

(c)          When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b), she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins. However, if the boat entitled to mark-room passes head to wind or leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

Note that only the boat entitled to mark-room is mentioned.  By inference, the only way she can lose those rights under rule 18.2(c) is by tacking or leaving the zone – the rule is clearly written so that the other boat cannot affect those rights by her own actions, and in fact that was the reason for the urgent change in the rule (see my earlier blog on this topic).  The implication in our windward-mark scenario is that even though rule 18 is clearly not in effect during the time the boats are on opposite tacks, the overall wording of rules 18.2(b) (which says “thereafter”) combined with the new 18.2(c) preserve the memory of how the boats entered the zone, when rule 18 applied earlier.

Regardless of the actual meaning of the words in rule 18 (which is all we’re supposed to go on), the “yes” answer seems fairer – why should a boat that is required to give room “thereafter” (rule 18.2(b)), even if overlaps change (rule 18.2(c)), be able to get out of that obligation by tacking twice?  Shouldn’t this be just like coming from clear astern and establishing a new overlap?

OK, now let’s continue this question a little further:  What if both boats tack?  In particular, what if B tacks first (turning rule 18 off), then A also tacks?  Now they’re on the same tack again, so rule 18 applies again.  Does B still owe A mark-room under rule 18.2(b)? 

Here, we’d like to say no, because rule 18.2(c) says “if the boat entitled to mark-room passes head to wind or leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply,” and clearly A, the boat entitled to mark-room, passes head to wind when she tacks.  But that interpretation has two big problems, at least in my mind.  First, when A passes head to wind, rule 18 doesn’t apply (remember, B had already tacked so at that point A and B were on opposite tacks on a beat to windward).  So now we’re not just saying rule 18 has memory; parts of it apply even when the overall rule doesn’t!  And second (although this might seem a little technical), while rule 18 isn’t in effect there is no boat “entitled to mark-room”.  So how do we apply the words of rule 18.2(c) to boat A?

I’d like to ask the readers of this blog three simple questions:

1. Do you think if B tacks twice and A doesn’t, that B still must give A mark-room under rule 18.2(b)?  In other words, does rule 18 have “memory” of the last time it applied, as long as the boat entitled to mark-room doesn’t tack and doesn’t leave the zone?
2. Do you think that if both boats tack, the boat that was clear astern at the zone is still required to give the other boat mark-room when they’re on the same tack again?
3. How clear is rule 18 on this issue?  In other words, do the answers to questions 1 and 2 seem obvious to you?

In closing, I should add that I’m perfectly prepared to discover that I’m the only one who thinks there’s a problem here, and that everybody else agrees that the current rule is perfectly clear, one way or the other.  So, let me know!

I think there are two separate issues here. The first is consistency in the rules. Consistency is good because consistent language makes the rules easier to read and, more importantly, easier to remember. So on that level, Butch is definitely right: using boat and equipment to determine starting, finishing and overlaps, and then using just hull length to determine whether a boat is in the zone is inconsistent, and to that extent it's wrong.

But the other consistency issue is between how the zone is defined and how we decide whether a boat is in the zone. Right now, both use hulls only – the zone is 3 hull lengths (2 for match and team racing, and when the SIs change the definition), and whether a boat is in the zone is determined by her hull only. So Butch's idea of using hull and equipment for entering and leaving the zone would induce an inconsistency there. (Note that Butch does not commit on whether the equipment would need to be in proper position.)

Butch would solve this new inconsistency by changing the definition of zone size to include the length of a boat including hull and equipment. That would make all the definitions consistent – starting, finishing, overlapping, zone size and being in the zone. Again, this proposal avoids the issue of whether the equipment must be in normal position, but in my opinion that's not the most important issue, which is practicality.

What would it mean for the size of the zone to be defined by the overall length of the boat nearer to the mark (let's say, with crew and equipment in normal position)? Consider a class with a 24-foot hull and a 5-foot sprit, including a little piece of batten to keep the sheets from wrapping around the sprit. This boat enters the zone when she's about 90 feet from the mark. Let's say she's just dropping her chute as she enters. As soon as her sprit is retracted, the zone instantly shrinks by 15 feet, or about 5/8 her former length. Can she actually leave the zone because of this? I think maybe she could, in light air anyway. Then when did she enter the zone? Does rule 18.2(b) apply to the overlaps that existed when she first entered the zone, or when she enters the zone the second time?

I understand Butch's position, and I've got a different solution: Base all the criteria on a boat's hull length. There's rarely a difference between hull and (hull + equipment) at a windward start, and we could live with hulls instead of hulls plus equipment for downwind starts. The change from hull and equipment to simply hull to determine finishes was already proposed this year, and actually was adopted by ISAF for match racing, to get around the problem of defining "in normal position", which judges and umpires don't seem to be able to resolve. (In particular, if a boat drops her chute at a downwind finish, is the chute "in normal position" while it floats out in front of her during the drop?)

As for overlaps, as an umpire I can tell you that it would be a lot easier to determine overlaps if the criterion for overlaps used only hulls, rather than hulls and equipment. It's almost impossible to determine whether the spinnaker on one boat overlaps a transom of another, especially as the crew trims it in and out and the overlap can be broken and re-established every few seconds, as a result.

Also, it's not clear how the rules work when the spinnaker of one boat is floating out over the stern of another. The boats are overlapped, certainly; but which one is leeward and which is windward? If the boat behind moves slowly forward until her spinnaker touches the backstay of the boat ahead, who just fouled whom? Umpires would say that since the last point of certainty was when the boat behind was clear astern, that boat should be treated as if she were still clear astern, but this says, in effect, that they weren't overlapped when they were.

All in all, I'm with Butch. Let's clear this up. Let's make boats' hulls the only criteria for starting, finishing, zone size, and overlaps. That would make the rules more consistent and also easier to use on the water.

The 2009 ISAF AnnualConferences are over, and there have been some changes made to future versionsof the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS). A few of those changes go into effect on January 1, 2010; the others won'tgo into effect until we have the next rulebook, in 2013.  In this blog, I'll run though thechanges that go into effect this coming January 1. 

When I show a rule below,any text that is struck through is in the current rule and will be deletedstarting in 2010, and any bold text is new for 2010.

There are six changes thatgo into effect this January 1: One change to rule 18, Mark-Room; one change tothe definition of Obstruction; onechange to the definition of Partyto a hearing; one change to Appendix B for windsurfers to agree with the changein rule 18; a new mark-room rule in Appendix C for match racing; and a bunch ofamendments to appendices having to do with advertising.    The good news is, for most fleet sailors there willbe no impact from any of these changes. 

IMMEDIATEChange 1, Rule 18.2(c)

This change simply corrects a mistake I and the restof the Section C Working Party made when we drafted the new rule 18, and isdiscussed at length in an earlier blog I published on this site.  The change was proposed by the sameworking party who made the error in the first place, and had universal supportamongst sailors and rulies alike:

18.2 Giving Mark-Room

(c)  When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b), she shall continue to do so even iflater an overlap is broken or anew overlap begins. However, if either boat passes head to wind or ifthe boat entitled to mark-room passeshead to wind or leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

Without this change, a boatapproaching a leeward mark could spin just before she got to a pack of boatsthat she owed mark-room to, and then simply sail inside them without breakingany rules.  This maneuver has beenused successfully a few times in both team racing and fleet racing, so the ISAFRRC felt this was important enough to warrant an urgent change.  To work, the move had to be done inlight air, in slow, highly maneuverable boats such as Tech Dinghies orInterclubs, so unless you sail one of those classes you were never going to seeit – and even then, you might not have done so.  In any case, the "spin and win" play won't workafter this coming January 1.

IMMEDIATECHANGE 2, Definition Obstruction:

This change removes boatsentitled to room or mark-room from the list of things that can beobstructions: 

Obstruction An object that a boat could not pass without changingcourse substantially, if she were sailing directly towards it and one of herhull lengths from it. An object that can be safely passed on only one side andan area so designated by the sailing instructions are also obstructions. However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keepclear of her, give her room or mark-room or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her. A vessel underway, including a boat racing, isnever a continuing obstruction.

I discussed this issue atlength in a previous blog; in my opinion, it will clear up some potential"conflicts" between rule 18 (Mark-Room) and 19 (Room to Pass anObstruction), but it might also make it more difficult to see quickly whichboats around you are obstructions. 

In order for this change towork properly, sailors must realize that if Boat O is required to give Boat Mroom at an obstruction, or mark-room at a mark, and Boat M is required to giveroom or mark-room to Boat I, then Boat O must give Boat M space to provide roomto Boat I.  In the diagram below, Ois required by rule 18.2 to give M room to sail "to the mark".  That means that in the absence of I, Mis only entitled to room to sail directly to a point near the mark where shewill begin to turn to round it. But because M owes mark-room to I, the space M needs to sail "tothe mark" includes the space she needs to give I to do likewise. 

 

 

The Section C Working partyhad submitted a proposed new ISAF Case that said, "Room is defined as the space needed for a seamanlikemaneuver, and it is not seamanlike to break therules."  This proposed Casewas not approved by ISAF, though the ISAF Racing Rules Committee agreed thatthe principle was valid in general. The reason they didn't approve the new Case was the followingargument:  Suppose that two boatsare on starboard tack, approaching the starting line to start, and the Z Flagor Black Flag is flying from the RC boat (see rules 30.2 and 30.3).  If the leeward boat luffs the windwardboat, she must give that boat room to keep clear (see rule 16.1).  But if the windward boat breaks theplane of the starting line, she will break rule 30.2 or 30.3, so according tothe general principle above, it would not be seamanlike for her to do so.  Thus, if in keeping clear she is forcedto enter the "forbidden triangle", she could get the leeward boatdisqualified and claim exoneration for breaking rule 30.2 or 30.3.  This is clearly not the result we intendedwhen we drafted the Case!  Ipredict that a new Case will be submitted next year, saying something like,it's not seamanlike to break to rules of Part 2 and rule 31.  If you have some good words to achievethis succinctly and clearly, please let me know!

IMMEDIATECHANGE 3, Definition Party

This change came from theISAF Race Officials Committee, and is simply common sense.  The problem came up as a result of aredress hearing at last year's US Olympic Trials (the Hall v. Rioscontroversy).  The change is asfollows:

Party A party to a hearing: aprotestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress or for which redress isrequested by the race committee or considered by the protest committee underrule 60.3(b); a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); a boat or competitor that may be penalized underrule 69.1; a race committee or an organizingauthority in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).

Under the current rules, if a boat requests redressthen she is a "party" to the redress hearing (so she gets the rightto question witnesses, to remain in the room while other witnesses arequestioned, to ask for a reopening of the hearing under certain conditions, toappeal the decision, etc.); but if the redress hearing was originally requestedby the race committee or brought by the protest committee on the boat's behalf,then she is not entitled to those privileges.  This is clearly unfair and unintended.  In drafting the change, Charley Cook,the ISAF Race Officials Committee chairman, realized that the same privilegesshould be granted to race committees and protest committees when they wereinvolved in the situation that led to the hearing.  For some reason, the ISAF Racing Rules Committee didn’t wantto make protest committees parties to hearings involving their own actions, sothey only extended the definition to race committees.  Theoretically, this means that if a competitor files forredress based on an improper action of the protest committee and a new panel isformed to hear the redress request, then the old protest committee cannot bothtestify about their actions and defend them – they have to be excused from theroom during the argument phase of the protest (see rule 63.3(a) – I read"protest committee" there as meaning the current panel, not the old one).  In practice this doesn't happen, and inany case the change is good, and shouldn't be very controversial.

IMMEDIATECHANGE 4, Appendix B

Appendix B, for windsurfing, restates rule 18.2(c);so when ISAF changed that rule (see CHANGE 1 above) they had to change AppendixB as well.  For the record, here'sthe change:

Rule B3.1(c)

Rule 18.2(c) is changed to:

When a board is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b), she shall continue to do so even iflater an overlap is broken or anew overlap begins. However, if either board the board entitled to mark-roompasses head to wind rule 18.2(b)ceases to apply.

IMMEDIATECHANGE 5, Appendix C

This is a new rule for match racing, unrelated to anyof the other changes.  It says:

C2.12 Rule 18.2(e) is changed to ‘If a boatobtained an inside overlap andfrom the time the overlap began,the outside boat has been unable to give mark-room, she is not required to give it.’

Obviously, if you're not a match racer this new rulewon't affect you directly.  But it'san interesting change, and needs some explanation.  Rule 18.2(e) says "If a boat obtained an inside overlapfrom clear astern and, from the time the overlap began, the outside boat has been unable to give mark-room, she is not required to give it."  The phrase "obtained [the] insideoverlap from clear astern"was not in the 2005-2008 rules, and the match-race folks wanted to revert tothe old rule.

Why would they want that?  Consider the situation shown in the diagram below, takenfrom Match Race Call UMP 34.  Themark is to be left to starboard.

 

 

 

In this situation, when A and X enter the zone theyare on opposite tacks, so rule 18 does not apply to them; and so when X tacksrule 18 applies but rule 18.2(b) doesn't -- meaning that the only mark-room rule that could apply is rule18.2(a), which simply gives the inside boat mark-room.  At about position 4, X becomes theinside boat, and as soon as X passes head to wind, A is required to give X mark-room.  But A physically cannot provide thatroom, so X has to go the wrong side of the mark and when she protests, she winsthe protest.  The reason rule18.2(e) doesn't apply here is that X established the overlap by tacking, notfrom clear astern.  Note that rule18.3 doesn't apply because A is not fetching the mark – she has to tack to passto windward of it (see definition Fetch).

Under the new rule C2.12, A does not have to provideroom if she cannot do so from the time the overlap begins, i.e., from the timeX passes head to wind.  On the faceof it, this seems like a good change, but I don't think it is wellthought-out.  Consider the simpleand very common situation diagrammed below:

 

 

In this case, X tacks ahead and to leeward of A, andso close to the mark that she cannot physically give A mark-room.  Using the same arguments as before, wesee that rule 18.2(a) applies from the time X passes head to wind, so she mustgive A mark-room.  If she cannot doso and the boats are fleet racing, X breaks rule 18 when she fails to givemark-room – rule 18.2(e) does not apply because the overlap was established byX's tack, not from clear astern. 

But if the boats are match racing under new ruleC2.12, X does not have to give A mark-room because there is no physical way shecan provide space for A between her and the mark.  Rule C2.12 says that since she was not able to provide roomfrom the time the overlap began, she does not have to do so. A must go thewrong side of the mark, and if she protests she receives a green flag.  Furthermore, if she interferes with X'smark rounding she may well break rule 23.2 (see my earlier blog on thistopic). 

Note that rule 13 applies between positions 1 and 2,and X must keep clear of A while she's tacking; but if X is a length or soahead of A, that isn't hard for her to do.  Additionally, after X completes her tack she must initiallygive A room to keep clear, but in the situation above A can easily keep clearby going the wrong side of the mark.

So, I think this is a new match-racing move for X,and guess what?  It gives the boaton the left side of the leg control over the boat on the right – exactly theopposite of the current match race status!

IMMEDIATE CHANGE 6, Advertising

The last change is purely technical; it simplyconforms all the rules that refer to advertising to the wording in theAdvertising Code in ISAF Regulation 20. We used to have categories of advertising, with Category A being themost restrictive.  These Categorieshave been eliminated in the Code, so ISAF removed the references to Category Ain the RRS, and at the same time cleaned up some other wording.  There was clearly no urgency about thischange (most of which was in Appendix K, which is not even a rule), and the changewould normally have waited until 2013 to take effect; but because there weregoing to be other Immediate Changes (see 1-5 above) anyway, ISAF went ahead andmade the advertising edits "urgent", putting them into effect thiscoming January 1.  For the record,here they are:

J1.2 Thenotice of race shall include any of the following that will apply and thatwould help competitors decide whether to attend the event or that conveys otherinformation they will need before the sailing instructions become available:

(1)  that competitor advertising will be restricted toCategory A or that boats will be required to display advertising chosen andsupplied by the organizing authority (see ISAF Regulation 20) and otherinformation related to Regulation 20;

 

J2.2 Thesailing instructions shall include those of the following that will apply:

(1)  that competitor advertising will be restricted toCategory A (see ISAF Regulation 20) and other information related toRegulation 20;

Appendix K

2          ADVERTISING

See ISAF Regulation 20.     2.1   Competitor advertising will be restricted to
Include other applicable               Category A. asfollows: ______.
information related to
Regulation 20.

See ISAF Regulation           2.2  Boats may [shall] [may] be required to display
20.(d) 20.                                      advertisingchosen and supplied by the
                                                     organizing authority.

Appendix L

See ISAF Regulation            21  ADVERTISING
20.3(d)20. Insert necessary        Boats[shall] [may] display advertising
information on the                       suppliedbythe organizing authority
advertising material.                    as follows: ______.

The ISAF Section C Working Party has made two submissions to ISAF that deal with rules 18 and 19.  One is an "emergency" change in the definition of Obstruction, to go into effect January 1, 2010, and the other is a proposed ISAF Case dealing with the meaning of Room.

Before we get into the submissions themselves, let's look at the problem the working party is trying to solve.  There are a number of scenarios in which Rule 18, Mark-Room, and Rule 19, Room to Pass an Obstruction, appear to conflict.  Consider the following scenario, taken from a team-race call suggested by Matt Knowles.  The boats are at a reach mark to be followed by a run: 

Black is clear ahead of both Grey and White when she enters the zone, and Grey is inside White when they the zone.  Grey and White are sailing faster than Black.  Grey sails to pass to leeward of Black, and White elects to sail between Grey and Black.  In doing so, White forces Black to luff up.  Black protests White under rule 18.2(b) for not being given mark-room, and White protests Grey under rule 19 for not giving her room to pass to leeward of Black.

White's argument is that Black is an obstruction to both Grey and White because they both owe Black mark-room (see definition 'Obstruction').  So when Grey elects to go to leeward of Black, she must give White room to do so, too.  By sailing up toward White between positions 1 and 2, Grey fails to give White room, causing White to sail too close to Black and thus forcing Black above her course to the mark.  White admits she broke rule 18.2(b) with respect to Black but claims she was compelled to do so.  She points out that when it became clear that Grey was not going to give her room under rule 19 at position 2, she could not avoid both Black and Grey.  So that means Grey should be disqualified, and White exonerated under rule 64.1(c) for her breach of rule 18.2(b).

Grey sees it a different way.  White is required to give mark-room to both Grey and Black, and from positions 1 through 3 that means giving them room to sail to the mark.  White could easily have seen that at position 1 that she would not be able to go between Black and Grey and still give mark-room to both of them, so she wasn't "compelled" to break rule 18.2(b).  Therefore White should not be exonerated.  Grey says she herself broke no rule; she was entitled to room under rule 18.2(b) and was simply taking the room to which she was entitled.

(Note that Grey can insure she is blameless by bearing off toward the wrong side of the mark to give White room to pass between her and Black, and protesting White.  Now White has clearly broken rule 18.2(b) by not giving Grey room to sail to the mark, and Grey has given room as required by rule 19.)

This apparent conflict between rules 18 and 19 is caused at least in part by the fact that Black is an obstruction to both White and Grey.  That's because the definition of Obstruction says a boat racing is an obstruction only if they both "required to keep clear of her, give her room or mark-room or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her."  If those words " give her room or mark-room" were removed, then White's case disappears.  Black would only be an obstruction as long as both Grey and White are clear astern of her, and after that, Grey would be under no obligation to give White room to pass to leeward of Black.  

This is the substance of the submission the Section C Working Party has put forward to ISAF.  The definition Mark-Room would say "… However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her. …"

But wait; think about the following scenario:

Under the current definition, PW is an obstruction to both PL and SW because, even though PW has right of way over neither of them, they both owe her room to pass SL.  This means that SW must give PL room to pass between her and PW.  Under the proposed definition, neither PL nor PW would be obstructions to SW.  SW would still be required to give PL and PW room to pass SL because SL has right of way over all those boats; but why should SW give PL room to avoid PW?  

The answer is a basic principle, not explicitly stated in the Racing Rules of Sailing, but nonetheless clearly implied:  Room is defined as the space needed for a seamanlike maneuver, and it is not seamanlike to break the rules.  Because SW owes PL room to pass between her and SL, and because PL cannot do that without giving room to PW, thus SW must give PL room to give PW room.  

Because this is not explicit in the rules, nor in the ISAF Cases, the Section C Working Group has proposed a new ISAF Case that makes this principle explicit.  The summary of the proposed Case says "When a boat is entitled to room, the space she is entitled to includes space to comply with the rules."

Before making these submissions, the working group spent a lot of time thinking of scenarios where the change to the definition of Obstruction might cause problems.  Despite our efforts, we could think of none.  Can you think of any place on the racecourse where the words "give her room or mark-room" are necessary in the definition of Obstruction?  If you can, please let me know by commenting on this blogsite, or contact any of the members of the Section C Working Party: Ben Altman, Chris Atkins, Dick Rose, Richard Thompson, or myself, by e-mail.  E-mail addresses for Ben Altman, Dick Rose and me are on the US SAILING website, at http://raceadmin.ussailing.org/Rules/Committee.htm. 

There's been a new spate of discussion about when, in thedefinition of mark-room, a boat is "sailing to the mark" andwhen she's "at the mark". Unlike the earlier discussion of this topic when the new rules firstcame out, most of this recent discussion comes out of match racing.  In that discipline, in many races there aremore umpires than skippers and tacticians combined, to decide when precisetransition points have been reached; and for consistency of calls, everybodywants the umps to have as little latitude of interpretation as possible.  Of course, in fleet and team racing, whichdo not have such resources, such precision is impossible to achieve; but itstill might be helpful to try to define what is meant.

I'veargued before in the UK-Halsey blogsite that the distinction between the rightsof a boat "sailing to the mark" and "at the mark" is notimportant for the purpose of rule 18.2, Giving Mark Room, because when a boatis nearly at a mark, her course "to the mark" and her proper coursearound it are essentially the same, so the exact moment when she ceases to besailing to the mark and is now at the mark is irrelevant.  But there's a related issue, where thedistinction might be important:  Rule18.5 says,

"When a boat is taking mark-room to whichshe is entitled, she shall be exonerated

(a) if, as a result of the other boat failingto give her mark-room, she breaks a rule of Section A, or

(b) if, by rounding the mark on her propercourse, she breaks a rule of Section A or rule 15 or 16."

The rules of SectionA deal with keeping clear, so both parts of the rule exonerate a boat forfailing to keep clear if she's simply taking mark-room to which she's entitled,and the other boat gets in her way; this makes sense, as the other boat wasn'tsupposed to do that.

Rules 15 and 16 area different matter.  Rule 15 requires aboat that gains right of way by her own actions to initially give the otherboat room to keep clear, and rule 16 requires a right-of-way boat that changes courseto give the other boat room to keep clear. Exonerating a right-of-way boat from breaking these rules puts a mightyweapon in her hand.  She can now carryout actions against the boat that owes her mark-room, which she could not doanywhere else on the racecourse.

The opportunity to take such aggressive actions withoutpenalty is, of course, the grist of the match racing mill, so naturally matchracers and umpires want to know exactly when a boat is "rounding themark"; seeing that this is in some way related to "at the mark",they want to know if"rounding themark" in rule 18.5 is the same as the transition in the definition of mark-roomfrom "sailing to the mark" to "at the mark".

My answer is "Being at the mark is related, but notidentical, to rounding it." To see why I say they're related, consider thesituation at a port-rounding leeward mark, where the inside boat (S) is onstarboard tack, with right of way over the port-tack boat (P) outside her.  Suppose S is just entering the zone andshe's not at that moment sailing toward the mark.  If she turns to her course to the mark in such a way that Pcannot keep clear, she breaks rule 16. Does she get exonerated for thatbreach?  I think we'd all say, no, shedidn't change course "by rounding the mark", she did it while sailingto the mark.  So she would getexonerated if she broke a rule of Section A (which she can't do, she's theright-of-way boat) but not for breaking rules 15 or, as in this case, 16.

On the other hand, suppose S has sailed to the mark and, forwhatever reason (maybe there's a current she misestimated) she ends up aimingat the wrong side of the mark and needs to turn to starboard at the lastsecond, to get to the correct side of the mark.  She has right of way, so she doesn't need her mark-room to turnto pass on the right side of the mark; but if she turns so fast that she failsto give the other boat room to keep clear, ordinarily she'd run afoul of rule16.  In this case, however, I think sucha turn is exonerated by rule 18.5.  Shebroke rule 16 "by rounding the mark".  In effect, her right to exoneration is the same as under the2005-2008 RRS.

Note that the turn of the boat at the edge of the zone mighthave pretty much the same radius at that of the boat at the mark – thedifference is that at the mark she turns sharply by rounding the mark, whereasat the edge of the zone she's turning sharply to sail to the mark, and that'snot an exonerated action.

So "at the mark" and "by rounding themark" are not synonymous, but they're related by the fact that a boat boatcannot be rounding the mark when she's still sailing to it, only when she's atit. (On the other hand, even if she's at the mark, a sharp turn that's not toround the mark would still get her into trouble if she breaks rule 16 when shedoes it.)

This gets us back to the question of when a boat is at amark.  Unfortunately, it turns out to bedifficult to define the moment of arrival "at the mark" precisely(which is why the rule-writers didn't put a more precise definition into therules).  For example, we might betempted to say that a boat is "at the mark" when the mark isalongside her, i.e., the mark is abeam of some part of her hull and equipmentin normal position.  But that clearlydoesn't work – consider a boat like the one in the scenario above, whicharrives at the mark with the mark directly in front of her.  Surely if she's only inches from the markshe's "at" it in any reasonable sense of the word; yet she's notalongside the mark.  Conversely, a boatapproaching the mark might turn away from the mark so that the mark is abeam ofher bow, but if she's two of her lengths from the mark with nothing but waterbetween her and it, she's surely not "at" the mark in any reasonablesense. 

Another approach to defining "at the mark", whichI think I like, is to look at the boat's proper course.  If a boat's proper course is to sail towardthe mark in preparation for rounding it (taking into consideration other boatsshe needs to give mark-room to or keep clear of), then she's sailing "tothe mark"; if her proper course is to turn to round the mark (even if thatturn is counter to the direction to the next mark, and even if she's somedistance from the mark), she's "at" it.  And, if she does turn to round it while taking mark-room to whichshe's entitled and she thus breaks rule 15 or 16, she's exonerated for doingso.

And that, I'm afraid, is the best we can do for the matchracers.

There's been a new spate of discussion about when, in thedefinition of mark-room, a boat is "sailing to the mark" andwhen she's "at the mark". Unlike the earlier discussion of this topic when the new rules firstcame out, most of this recent discussion comes out of match racing.  In that discipline, in many races there aremore umpires than skippers and tacticians combined, to decide when precisetransition points have been reached; and for consistency of calls, everybodywants the umps to have as little latitude of interpretation as possible.  Of course, in fleet and team racing, whichdo not have such resources, such precision is impossible to achieve; but itstill might be helpful to try to define what is meant.

I'veargued before in the UK-Halsey blogsite that the distinction between the rightsof a boat "sailing to the mark" and "at the mark" is notimportant for the purpose of rule 18.2, Giving Mark Room, because when a boatis nearly at a mark, her course "to the mark" and her proper coursearound it are essentially the same, so the exact moment when she ceases to besailing to the mark and is now at the mark is irrelevant.  But there's a related issue, where thedistinction might be important:  Rule18.5 says,

"When a boat is taking mark-room to whichshe is entitled, she shall be exonerated

(a) if, as a result of the other boat failingto give her mark-room, she breaks a rule of Section A, or

(b) if, by rounding the mark on her propercourse, she breaks a rule of Section A or rule 15 or 16."

The rules of SectionA deal with keeping clear, so both parts of the rule exonerate a boat forfailing to keep clear if she's simply taking mark-room to which she's entitled,and the other boat gets in her way; this makes sense, as the other boat wasn'tsupposed to do that.

Rules 15 and 16 area different matter.  Rule 15 requires aboat that gains right of way by her own actions to initially give the otherboat room to keep clear, and rule 16 requires a right-of-way boat that changes courseto give the other boat room to keep clear. Exonerating a right-of-way boat from breaking these rules puts a mightyweapon in her hand.  She can now carryout actions against the boat that owes her mark-room, which she could not doanywhere else on the racecourse.

The opportunity to take such aggressive actions withoutpenalty is, of course, the grist of the match racing mill, so naturally matchracers and umpires want to know exactly when a boat is "rounding themark"; seeing that this is in some way related to "at the mark",they want to know if"rounding themark" in rule 18.5 is the same as the transition in the definition of mark-roomfrom "sailing to the mark" to "at the mark".

My answer is "Being at the mark is related, but notidentical, to rounding it." To see why I say they're related, consider thesituation at a port-rounding leeward mark, where the inside boat (S) is onstarboard tack, with right of way over the port-tack boat (P) outside her.  Suppose S is just entering the zone andshe's not at that moment sailing toward the mark.  If she turns to her course to the mark in such a way that Pcannot keep clear, she breaks rule 16. Does she get exonerated for thatbreach?  I think we'd all say, no, shedidn't change course "by rounding the mark", she did it while sailingto the mark.  So she would getexonerated if she broke a rule of Section A (which she can't do, she's theright-of-way boat) but not for breaking rules 15 or, as in this case, 16.

On the other hand, suppose S has sailed to the mark and, forwhatever reason (maybe there's a current she misestimated) she ends up aimingat the wrong side of the mark and needs to turn to starboard at the lastsecond, to get to the correct side of the mark.  She has right of way, so she doesn't need her mark-room to turnto pass on the right side of the mark; but if she turns so fast that she failsto give the other boat room to keep clear, ordinarily she'd run afoul of rule16.  In this case, however, I think sucha turn is exonerated by rule 18.5.  Shebroke rule 16 "by rounding the mark".  In effect, her right to exoneration is the same as under the2005-2008 RRS.

Note that the turn of the boat at the edge of the zone mighthave pretty much the same radius at that of the boat at the mark – thedifference is that at the mark she turns sharply by rounding the mark, whereasat the edge of the zone she's turning sharply to sail to the mark, and that'snot an exonerated action.

So "at the mark" and "by rounding themark" are not synonymous, but they're related by the fact that a boat boatcannot be rounding the mark when she's still sailing to it, only when she's atit. (On the other hand, even if she's at the mark, a sharp turn that's not toround the mark would still get her into trouble if she breaks rule 16 when shedoes it.)

This gets us back to the question of when a boat is at amark.  Unfortunately, it turns out to bedifficult to define the moment of arrival "at the mark" precisely(which is why the rule-writers didn't put a more precise definition into therules).  For example, we might betempted to say that a boat is "at the mark" when the mark isalongside her, i.e., the mark is abeam of some part of her hull and equipmentin normal position.  But that clearlydoesn't work – consider a boat like the one in the scenario above, whicharrives at the mark with the mark directly in front of her.  Surely if she's only inches from the markshe's "at" it in any reasonable sense of the word; yet she's notalongside the mark.  Conversely, a boatapproaching the mark might turn away from the mark so that the mark is abeam ofher bow, but if she's two of her lengths from the mark with nothing but waterbetween her and it, she's surely not "at" the mark in any reasonablesense. 

Another approach to defining "at the mark", whichI think I like, is to look at the boat's proper course.  If a boat's proper course is to sail towardthe mark in preparation for rounding it (taking into consideration other boatsshe needs to give mark-room to or keep clear of), then she's sailing "tothe mark"; if her proper course is to turn to round the mark (even if thatturn is counter to the direction to the next mark, and even if she's somedistance from the mark), she's "at" it.  And, if she does turn to round it while taking mark-room to whichshe's entitled and she thus breaks rule 15 or 16, she's exonerated for doingso.

And that, I'm afraid, is the best we can do for the matchracers.

In my blogs on the new Section C, I've gone through a number of changes in the rules that, in my opinion, will change the fleet-racing game in a major way, in a minor way, or not at all.  I think it might be useful for me to summarize what I think the changes are, with a brief description of each major rules change and an assessment of how I think it will affect the game we play.

Rule 18 and associated definitions

Definition Zone and when rule 18 begins to apply.  The zone around a mark is now 3 lengths rather than 2, and rule 18 now applies when the first of two boats is at the zone rather than when they are "about to pass" it.  Game changes: (1) A larger zone requires an earlier "inside move" and overlaps have to be established or broken earlier.  This is a major game change.  (2) In very heavy air, the old rule may have applied more than 3 lengths from the mark, because boats were "about to round" earlier; under such conditions rule 18 may actually apply less far from the mark than before.  On the other hand, boats are unlikely to luff each other or otherwise carry out aggressive maneuvers in such weather, so I rate the impact of this game change as minor.

Definition Mark-Room.  The new definition defines much more clearly what is meant by room at a mark:  room to sail to the mark; and then room to take a proper course around the mark.  No game change during the approach, but at the end of the rounding an inside boat with room now gets more room, because her optimal radius turn is much larger than her "seamanlike" radius turn.  This game change is not, in my opinion, major.  Note that Butch disagrees.

Room to tack.  The definition of mark-room says, "However, mark-room does not include room to tack unless the boat is overlapped to windward and on the inside of the boat required to give mark-room."  I interpret this to mean that if a boat is overlapped on the inside and to windward, she does get room to tack, and I think this is what we already thought the rule said (even if it didn't), so no game change.  

No change in right of way.  The old rule gave right of way as well as room to a boat that was clear ahead (or inside and became clear ahead) at the zone.  We used to say she "owned the zone".  The new rule 18 does not change right of way, so, for example, a boat on starboard tack still has right of way over a boat on port tack (though if she owes the port-tack boat mark-room, her right of way is severely limited).  In practice, this makes little or no difference to the game – it just makes the rules easier to understand and remember. No game change.

No point where rule 18.1 "turns off" rule 18.  The old rule 18 applied "until both boats have passed [the mark]."  The new rule deletes these words, so, just as with other rules like port/starboard etc., rule 18 no longer applies when the situation no longer requires it.  In this case, since "mark-room" is only defined when the boat entitled to it is sailing to the mark and when she is at the mark, all parts of rule 18 dealing with mark-room effectively "turn off" when the boat entitled to mark-room is past the mark.  In practice, I don't think the difference between this and the old rule's "both boats" criterion causes a game change.  There may be a game change with respect to rule 18.3, Tacking When Approaching a Mark because mark-room is not an issue in that rule.  So rule 18.3 presumably continues to apply until both boats leave the zone.  For example, even if you are the leeward boat with luffing rights, if you tacked in the zone you can't luff the other boat above close-hauled, even after you have passed the mark, as long as you or she is in the zone.  This change was clearly unintended, and will no doubt be reversed in 2013.  Until then, I don't think it will have much impact on windward-leeward courses, where boats rarely luff each other even to a beam reach after they round the mark, let alone above close hauled.  If the next leg is, say, a beam reach, a boat that tacks in the zone and then luffs after passing the mark might get in trouble.  So let's say this is a moderate change.

Rule 18.1(c).  The provision that rule 18 does not apply between a boat approaching a mark and one leaving it is new, but it only clarifies the sentence of old rule 18.1 that said rule 18 began applying only to boats that were [both] about to round."  (A boat leaving the mark and a boat approaching the mark are almost never "about to round" it at the same time.)  So, little or no game change.  

Rule 18.2(c) turns off 18.2(b).  Rule 18.2(b) is the "lock-in" rule, which says that if a boat was clear ahead or overlapped at the zone, then she gets mark-room throughout the rounding, regardless of her overlap status later.  Rule 18.2(c) makes that clearer, and then says, "However, if either boat passes head to wind or if the boat entitled to mark-room leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply."  As far as leaving the zone is concerned, this is what we all thought the rule said anyway (even if it didn't).  But the words about tacking are new, and could, in certain circumstances, cause a huge game change.  Suppose a boat approaches a leeward mark clear astern of a pack of other boats, in light air.  Rather than granting them mark-room as required by rule 18.2(b), she quickly luffs up, passes head to wind, and bears off for the mark.  According to rule 18.2(c), 18.2(b) no longer applies, so that means rule 18.2(a) applies.  As soon as she gets an overlap on the other boats, she's entitled to mark-room.  Of course, some of them will have gone around the mark by then, but maybe not all.  To those boats, this would be a big change in the game.

This change was inadvertent, and will probably be reversed by 2010, if not sooner, on an "emergency" basis.  Everybody makes mistakes, and this time, we did.

Rule 18.3, Tacking When Approaching a Mark.  The old rule said that for it to apply, the tacking boat had to "complete her tack" in the zone.  The new rule only requires that she be subject to rule 13 (i.e., between head to wind and close-hauled) in the zone.  In almost all cases, this is equivalent; to see this, sketch a zone on a piece of paper and look at how boats enter it to round a windward mark.  You'll see that boats which complete their tacks in the zone were subject to rule 13 in the zone, and vice-versa.  So why the change?  Well, under the old rule a boat could start to tack, realize she was about to break rule 18.3, and simply fail to complete the tack.  This gave her room at the mark, and because the rules of Section C overruled those of Section A she wasn't breaking rule 13.  So, the new rule is a game change – but only if you knew about this problem in the old rule 18.3, which I'll bet you didn't.

Rule 18.4, Gybing.  This is the rule that requires a right-of-way boat to jibe at a jibe mark, or at a leeward mark where she has to jibe to round it.  The change is that now this rule does not apply at a gate mark.  This means that a boat can enter the zone of, say, the left-hand gate mark on starboard tack, continue more or less across toward the right-hand gate mark, force an oncoming port-tacker to jibe, and then turn and go back to the left-hand gate mark – without breaking any rule.  Under the old rules, if the starboard-tacker's course before she jibed took her farther from the left-hand gate than her proper course around it would allow, she would have had to continue on to the right-hand mark to avoid breaking rule 18.4.  Now, not so.  This is, I believe, a substantial game change.

Rule 18.5, Exoneration.  The effect of this rule is to replace the old Section C preamble, which said that when rules of Section C conflicted with those of Sections A or B, the Section C rules took precedence.  There are two effects of this change: (1) Rule 14, Avoiding Contact, is not mentioned; now, if you break rule 14 you are not exonerated unless you were forced to do so by another boat breaking a rule (see rule 64.1(c)); and (2) breaches of rules 15 and 16 are now only exonerated when the boat is at the mark and sailing her proper course.  I think most of us thought that the old preamble really didn't apply to rule 14 anyway, so I'm rating (1) as an insignificant game change.  On the other hand, old rule 18.2(d) used to exonerate boats from rule 16 if they were "changing course to round or pass [the] mark."  The only places I can think of where this is different from sailing her proper course around the mark is as boats approach the mark (under the old rules, a leeward boat presumably could have luffed an inside leeward boat as hard as she liked, as long as she was turning toward the mark) and in certain cases as they leave it, where a leeward boat entitled to mark-room can now only luff to her proper course.  For example, at a leeward mark, if a clear-astern boat goes inside a boat that was clear ahead at the zone, the outside boat can only luff up to approximately close-hauled to "shut the door" without worrying about rule 16.  Under the old rule, it was unclear whether she was similarly restricted by rule 16, or whether she could go head-to-wind without breaking rule 16; it all depended on how you interpreted "course … to round the mark".  So I'd rate this game change as moderate.

Rule 19

Rule 19.2(a).  This rule simply answers a rules FAQ – it's implied by the definitions of "keep clear" and "right of way".  No game change.

Rule 19.2(b).  In the new rules, there are no zones around obstructions unless they are also marks.  In general, this won't affect the game much – except in match racing, we never put zones around obstructions, anyway; we simply gave room to boats overlapped inside us.  But now there's a move that works at fixed obstructions such as sea walls and shoals:  Suppose two boats are on the same tack and barely overlapped, with the leeward boat almost clear ahead and about to be outside boat at the obstruction.  Two lengths before the mark, she luffs and then bears off sharply, breaking the overlap.  If she does this right, it's difficult for the other boat to reestablish the overlap, so there's a good chance there won't be an overlap before they reach the obstruction, and so the boat ahead doesn't have to give the other boat room.  Even if the clear-astern boat establishes an inside overlap at the last moment, it's possible that the other boat can't give room at that point, in which case she doesn't have to.  I'd say this is a substantial game change.

No special exoneration/precedence over Sections A and B.  As I mentioned above, under the old rules if there was a conflict between rules of Section C and those of Sections A or B, the Section C rules took precedence.  In the new rule 18, this is replaced by rule 18.5, Exoneration (see above), but there is no such provision in rule 19.  So if a right-of-way boat fails to give room when she's required to, the other boat must try to solve the problem while still keeping clear – which might mean tacking or going the other side of the obstruction – and protesting.  Only if she has no other options may she simply push in where there's not enough room and foul the outside boat – under those circumstances she'll be exonerated under rule 64.1(c).  This is a major game change.

Rule 19.2(c).  There's only one change here from the old rules – under the new rules, the prohibition against "going in there" at a continuing obstruction only applies to boats that are required to keep clear before they go in.  That's because a boat with right of way can simply steer at the inside quarter of the boat ahead and force her to move away from the obstruction in order to keep clear.  Thus, the restriction is moot in such cases.  No game change.

Rule 20

Hailing when the other boat is fetching the mark.  Under the old rule, it was not clear what was supposed to happen at an obstruction that was also a mark, if a boat hailed another boat when the hailed boat was fetching.  Most experts taught that the hailed boat had to tack and protest, but they had to resort to rule 2 or rule 14 to get to that answer.  The new rule says exactly what those lecturers and writers were saying, so I'd say there's no game change – at least if you read those books or went to those talks.

The 2009-2012 Racing Rules of Sailing feature a couple ofchanges that haven't received much attention, what with all the hullabalooabout the changes to Section C.  One ofthese is the change to rule 23.2 (formerly, 22.2) regarding interfering with aboat on a different leg (or doing her turns). This probably won't come up a lot in fleet racing except near the end ofa regatta when one boat wants to push another boat back in the fleet, but itcertainly comes up in team and match racing. 

 

Thenew rule is a direct copy of the 2005-2008 match-race rule:  "Exceptwhen sailing her proper course, a boat shall not interfere with a boattaking a penalty or sailing on another leg."  The old rule (numbered 22.2) said "A boat shall not change course if her onlypurpose is to interfere with a boat … on another leg or lap of thecourse."  So the old rule requiredintent and a change in course, but the new rule only requires that a boat notbe sailing her proper course at the time of interference.

 

The new rule is plainly simpler, but has somesubtle ramifications.  First, becauseintent is no longer part of the rule, it applies equally to both boats involved– if one boat cuts across to another leg to interfere with another boat and theother boat is not sailing her proper course when the interference occurs, thenboth boats break the rule (or maybe only the boat that didn't cut the course).

 

Well, that seems OK, doesn't it?  Why would the boat on the other leg besailing anything other than her proper course? The answer might be, to avoid the attacking boat! Consider the followingscenario:

 

It's the last race of a series, and RuleBeater is five points behind Just There for the championship.  But Rule Beater hasn't used herthrow-out, while Just There has already had a bad race so she can'tafford to throw out this one.  Thatmeans Rule Beater can win the championship if she can force JustThere back into the fleet, to, let's say, 15^th place.  Rule Beater doesn't care what placeshe gets in this race, as she's going to throw out the race anyway. 

 

The course is windward-leeward, twicearound.  Rule Beater covers JustThere before the start and manages for them both to get terrible starts;but Just There gets free, sails well on the first windward leg and comesto the port-rounding mark in 12^th place, just ahead of RuleBeater.  So Rule Beater,instead of following Just There around the mark, reaches across belowthe mark on starboard tack and then hardens up again, meeting Just Thereas she's bearing off for the downwind leg. Rule 18 doesn't apply between them because Just There is leavingthe mark and Rule Beater is approaching it.  They're both on starboard tack and Just There is towindward, so she must keep clear.  Soshe luffs up to a close-hauled course, putting herself just to windward of RuleBeater, who now cannot tack for the mark without breaking rule 16. 

 

Then … (drum roll here)  Rule Beater protests Just Therefor breaking rule 23.2!  She's right,because (a) the boats are clearly on different legs of the course; (b) JustThere is not sailing her proper course; and (c) Just There isinterfering with Rule Beater, who wants to tack and go back to themark. 

 

This all has to do with the definition ofProper Course, which is defined as "[a] course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible inthe absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using theterm."  So when Rule Beaterforces Just There to luff up away from her course to the next mark,there is no question that Just There is not on her proper course –because in the absence of Rule Beater, she would surely have simplysailed downwind toward the leeward mark!

 

It's possible that Rule Beater isbreaking rule 23.2 as well – she's clearly interfering with Just There,and if she's not on her proper course, she might be in trouble.  ISAF Case 78 says in part that whileexecuting a tactic to slow another boat, " a boat … breaks rule 2 if she intentionally breaks another rule toincrease the likelihood of the tactic succeeding."  So if Rule Beater breaks rule 23.2"intentionally", she breaks rule 2 as well, in which case her DSQ forthe rule-2 breach is non-discardable, meaning she has to count it in her seriesscore, even if she retires immediately in acknowledgment of breaking rule 23.2(see rules 64.1(a) and (b)).  This wouldclearly defeat her purpose in getting Just There disqualified ormaking her do her turns.

 

Note that rule 23.2, like almost all otherPart 2 rules, only looks at the moment in question.  In general, if a rule references a boat's course, as rule 23.2does, it's irrelevant how she got there, only what her course is at thetime.  (There are exceptions to thisprinciple, as for example rule 18.3, which uses the past tense to describeevents that had to occur before the rule could come into effect, and rule18.2(b), which uses the relationship of boats at the edge of the zone todetermine mark-room later; but such rules refer clearly to the earliercriterion.)  The fact that RuleBeater reached over (i.e., sailed below her proper course) to intercept JustThere is irrelevant, as long as she turned to her proper course (in thiscase, close-hauled) before interfering. This seems like a huge loophole to me.

 

Another issue is the meaning of the word"shall not interfere".  Thisis not a defined expression, and seems to me to be much stronger than"shall keep clear" or "shall give room".  I think that arguably, even luffing one'ssails to windward of a boat interferes with her; and certainly exercising rightof way over a keep-clear boat, as Rule Beater did, or using a right toroom to keep a right-of-way boat from sailing her course, as Just Theredid, is interfering.  And as long as RuleBeater's proper course is to tack back to the mark, I think Just Thereis interfering with her by simply being, well, just there.  But what if they're close to the mark and RuleBeater's proper course is to gybe around and go back to the mark?  Does that mean Just There is not"interfering" with her?  Thisseems like a reasonable statement, to me, but it bothers me that somehow ProperCourse, a defined term, can be involved in interpreting "Interfere",which is undefined.

 

Finally, we come to the issue is what ismeant by "on different legs", but I'll leave that thorny question fornow.  Suffice it to say that you can'tuse the rule C7.2(c) definition from match racing, except to decide how to doMR  penalty turns. There's a Team RaceRapid Response Call about to come out that gives some insight into this issue;stay tuned.

 

One of the interesting things about rules changes is that many people, including rules experts, discover “problems” or “features” in the new rules, implying that these problems or features are new.  In some cases, these problems or features were actually in the old rules, and the experts apparently never noticed.  A good example of that is the issue, lately raised, of anticipation in rule 18.2.

To understand the issue, we need to take a look at the new rule 18, Mark-Room.  The part of this rule that has raised the question of anticipation is in section 18.2(b), which says:  

(b)    If boats are overlapped when the first of them reaches the zone, the outside boat at that moment shall thereafter give the inside boat mark-room. If a boat is clear ahead when she reaches the zone, the boat clear astern at that moment shall thereafter give her mark-room.

As I pointed out in an earlier blog, this rule has the same overall effect as rules 18.2(b) and (c) of the 2005-2008 RRS.  The only major differences in application are that the new zone is bigger (3 hull lengths from the mark instead of 2), and now rule 18 only applies at and inside the zone, whereas the old rule applied “when boats are about to round or pass” the mark.  This second change is not as big as it might seem; a now-defunct ISAF Case attempted to define “about to round” without actually doing so, but that Case implied that, in moderate conditions with most boats, a boat was first “about to round” when she was at the two-length zone.  

There’s one exception to rule 18.2(b), and it’s contained in rule 18.2(e), which says:

(e) If a boat obtained an inside overlap from clear astern and, from the time the overlap began, the outside boat has been unable to give mark-room, she is not required to give it.

My understanding of this rule is that if boats are already overlapped inside you, or if you are sailing into an outside overlap from clear astern, you will have to give the inside boat mark-room when you reach the zone.  On the other hand, if, at the last moment, a boat comes from behind and establishes an inside overlap and you simply cannot give her mark-room, then you don’t break rule 18.2(b) when you fail to do so.

So, where does anticipation come in?  Well, if you’re headed for a leeward mark with four boats overlapped inside you, you can’t simply head for the mark and then, at the zone, say “sorry, boys and girls, but I can’t give you room.”  Rule 18.2(b) requires you to give those boats mark-room when you (or they) reach the zone, and if you fail to do so, you have to do your turns or face disqualification.  The rules do not require you to give mark-room outside the zone, but if you have boats inside you, you have to anticipate before you get to the zone that rule 18.2(b) will eventually apply to you, and start moving over so you will be able to give room at the zone, in order to comply with rule 18.2(b).  This is a lot like having to give mark-room outside the zone, though technically it’s not the same.

The interesting thing, to me at least, is that this situation was equally true (actually, more often true because of the smaller zone) under the 2005-2008 RRS:  Boats were required to give room to boats inside them when they became “about to round”, which according to the ISAF Case generally meant when they reached the zone, and the only exemption was almost the same in the old rules as in the new ones – old rule 18.2(e) said, in part, “If the outside boat is unable to give room when an overlap begins, rules 18.2(a) and 18.2(b) do not apply.”  This exemption was broader than current rule 18.2(e) in that it applied no matter how the overlap was established; but it clearly did not exempt boats from anticipating the need to give room to boats inside them when they were well outside the zone, if that’s what it took to enable them to give room when they were “about to round”, i.e., later on.

So, just as a port-tack boat has to anticipate the need to tack or duck a starboard-tack boat well before they meet, an outside boat has to anticipate the need to give mark-room to boats inside her well before she gets to the zone.  And I think that was true under the old rules, too.