Rule 32.1 allows a race committee to abandon a race for several specific reasons: (a) errors in the starting sequence; (b) foul weather; (c) insufficient wind making it unlikely that any boats will finish within the time limit; or (d) a mark missing or out of position. Then rule 32.1(e) plays a trump card, allowing the RC to abandon a race ”for any other reason directly affecting the safety or fairness of the competition.” The rule then goes on to add one caveat: ”However, after one boat has sailed the course and finished within the time limit, if any, the race committee shall not abandon the race without considering the consequences for all boats in the race or series.”
I understand the reason we need the catch-all reason for abandonment in rule 32.1(e): Suppose the race committee learns that a big ship is about to come through the race area and the RC decides that the probability that someone will get hurt or drown is too great to continue racing. Even if the fleet is able to get out of the way safely, the race will have become disasterously unfair to those who had to turn on their engines to avoid being run down by the freighter or got caught on the wrong side of the ship. Of course in such circumstances the RC should abandon all races currently in progress and wait for the ship to come through before restarting.
But in the absence of big ships, deadly squalls and other similar catastrophes, I’m not at all sure what rule 32.1(e) allows, especially with regard to fairness. I’ve heard it said that if the wind changes more then X degrees (30? 40?) or drops below Y knots (4? 3?) the race should be abandoned, even if it’s on its last leg. But suppose a competitor carefully studies the weather patterns before going out on the racecourse and concludes that there will be a big shift to the right sometime in the midafternoon. If she protects the right side in each race after 1 o’clock, is it unfair to the other competitors when she’s in the right place to take advantage of the shift when it occurs? Or is it more unfair to her if the race committee abandons the race because the beat is now almost a fetch or the run is a reach? Suppose a competitor expects the sea breeze to fill in and heads offshore to pick up the first bit of it; is it unfair for her to lead that race by a mile when the sea breeze does fill in? Or is it more unfair for the race committee to take that huge lead away from her by abandoning the race?
One person’s luck is another’s skill, and before abandoning a race RCs should make very sure that whatever happened that made the race ”unfair” in their estimation was really not predictable. I remember the first time I sailed on the Charles River near Cambridge MA as a college Freshman, I was convinced that the huge shifts and puffs coming across the river off the skyscrapers of Boston were random and that the races were a crap-shoot. Then, at the end of the day, I looked at the results and saw that the same sailor (Terry Cronberg, a student at MIT and an All-American that year) had won almost every race. Moral: RCs should assume that the sailor who benefits from big changes in the wind or other conditions is skillful, not lucky.
And what’s this bit about considering the consequences on all boats in the race or series if one or more boats have finished? I’ve been involved in a lot of decisions about whether to abandon a race, and all good race committees consider the effect of abandonment on all the boats, no matter whether one has finished or not. What additional consideration did the rule-makers have in mind, after one or more boats have finished? I’ve actually been present when the RC chairman said, ”OK, we need to consider the effect of abandonment on all the boats. Here goes: The ones that have already finished will lose the benefit of having finished ahead of the other boats, and the ones that haven’t finished will avoid finishing behind them. There, that’s done; let’s abandon.”
But, silly as this sounds, what are RC members supposed to do to fulfill the ”consideration” requirement? I frankly don’t know, except that the rule clearly intends to set a higher standard for abandoning a race after boats have finished within the time limit than before, while putting no limit on when that abandonment can occur (a feature I’ve already ranted about: see my blog ”Fairness” on this site).
The next question is what a protest committee’s role is, in all this. It’s common for on-the-water judges to be involved (usually by VHF radio) in the original decision to abandon, and of course if a boat requests redress for such an action, those judges have to recuse themselves. But in the case of redress, what can the protest committee look at?
The request for redress has to be based (in this case) on the assertion that the race committee acted ”improperly” in abandoning the race (see rule 62). In my mind at least, ”improper” means that the RC either broke a rule or acted in some egregiously unfair manner – for example, they abandoned the race because the local guy wasn’t winning, or something like that. It doesn’t mean that the decision was an error in judgement. Because of the breadth of scope granted to race committees by rule 32.1(e), I don’t think the protest committee can reexamine the RC’s reasons for abandoning, beyond ensuring that they weren’t trying to favor a certain sailor. But how about the requirement that the RC consider the effect on all the boats in the race or series? I think the protest committee has to at least ask what the RC did to ensure that this rule was followed; but what would constitute a good answer?
The US SAILING Race Management Handbook says (p. 275), ” Because of the significance of a race committee’s decision to abandon a race in which one (or more) competitor has finished, the only justifiable reason for taking such action is safety considerations. ” I’m beginning to think rule 32.1 should be changed in line with that advice. RCs could still abandon for reasons of safety, but not for reasons of fairness -- how can abandonment possibly be fair to a boat that’s already won the race?
By the way, it’s too late now to initiate changes to the 2013 RRS. The deadline for sending Submissions to ISAF is the end of this month (July 2011), and, at least in the United States, the process of rule-writing and approval is too long to get anything done on a new initiative in the time left. And ISAF has a requirement that all proposals for changes in the main body of the 2013 RRS have to be made this year. (This gives the people responsible for appendices, calls, and other similar documents a year in which to draft changes to agree with the new rules.) Of course, if there’s a completely world-stopping problem that has to be solved, ISAF can make exceptional changes in the last year of the rulebook cycle – but as far as I know this has never happened and I don’t expect it will happen next year.
f9db4c22-a714-401f-9ae0-36a7ba088f1a|0|.0