The post Sailboat Racing Tips: Rules at the Start appeared first on Sailing World.

If you race near a major commercial port, you’ve probably encountered a Traffic Separation Scheme. A TSS is essentially a two-lane highway for maritime traffic. A TSS enhances safety and allows commercial shipping to function alongside recreational boating. A TSS is not delineated by buoys, but charts show its two lanes and the direction of travel within each. There is a separation zone, or sometimes just a ­separation line, between the lanes.

Most TSSs are administered by a Vessel Traffic Service. The VTS serves a role for the TSS similar to that of air traffic control for an airport. The U.S. Coast Guard is usually responsible for organizing and staffing the VTS in domestic waters and use an Automatic Information System, which enables all vessels are equipped with AIS to view the locations and motions of other vessels in the AIS on a digital chart.

Traffic schemes are established in international waters by the International Maritime Organization. In the International Regulations for Prevention of Collision at Sea, Rule 10, Traffic Separation Schemes, sets requirements that apply to any vessel within or near a TSS adopted by the IMO. For a TSS in the inland waters of the United States, Rule 10 in the Inland Rules applies. Rule 10 in the Inland Rules is identical to Rule 10 in the IRPCAS, which requires a sailboat using a TSS to proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of traffic flow for that lane; to keep clear of a separation line or zone; when joining or leaving a lane, to normally do so at as small an angle to the direction of flow as practicable; when obliged to cross a lane, to do so as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of ­traffic flow in the lane; when not using the TSS, to avoid it by as wide a margin as is practicable; and, most importantly, not to impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic lane.

The Coast Guard and local law ­enforcement agencies enforce the IRPCAS and the Inland Rules. By law, any sailboat, racing or not, is subject to Rule 10. In The Racing Rules of Sailing, Rule 48.2 requires a boat that is racing to comply with IRPCAS Rule 10 and, for that reason, a boat racing can be disqualified for breaking that rule.

The preamble to Part 2 of the racing rules states that, when a boat sailing under the racing rules meets a vessel that is not governed by the racing rules, she shall comply with the IRPCAS or government right-of-way rules. Given that, you might ask why we need both the preamble to Part 2 and Rule 48.2.

The answer is simple: only the sixth requirement in IRPCAS Rule 10 (listed above) applies when a boat sailing under the racing rules meets a vessel that is not. All of the other five requirements apply to a single boat in or near a TSS whether there are other vessels near her or not.

Why does any of this matter? Traffic Separation Schemes serve an important safety function that everyone on the water in any boat should recognize and applaud. However, the presence of a TSS that boats racing must, or might, pass through during a race can create safety issues for large, difficult-to-maneuver vessels using the TSS lanes that must contend with a fleet of boats. The Coast Guard requires any organization hosting sailboat races to obtain permits to conduct such races. If boats in a yacht club race create unsafe situations for large commercial or naval vessels in a TSS, the host club, or maybe all clubs in the area, might have trouble securing permits to run future races. For this reason alone, and for the obvious reason of safety, it’s important the leaders of our sport take great care to deal prudently and cooperatively with the authorities involved in enforcing IRPCAS Rule 10 or the identical Inland Rule 10.

Also, Rule 10 presents a few knotty issues of interpretation for protest committees. If you study Rule 10’s requirements listed above, you will see several imprecise or “fuzzy” terms, including “practicable,” “general direction” and “normally.” These terms make it difficult for protest committees to make consistent decisions regarding Rule 10.

Rule 10 is not a rule that any of us involved in sailboat races can simply change. Changing it would require an international agreement negotiated between governments. Race officials, therefore, can’t just rewrite Rule 10 with a sailing instruction to make it clearer. However, IRPCAS Rule 1(b) does permit local authorities to make “special rules” and such rules could modify Rule 10. One club, the St. Francis YC, has negotiated with the local VTS to use a special sailing instruction for races held right off their clubhouse on San Francisco Bay just east of the Golden Gate Bridge. St. Francis has a challenging situation for its racecourse. Any race it might conduct in front of its clubhouse would most likely require boats to sail across a narrow stretch of water frequently used by larger ­commercial vessels.

The following two paragraphs summarize the St. Francis YC’s sailing instruction:

Commercial Traffic: The race ­committee may deploy boats on the racecourse equipped with signal flag V. If a race committee member in one of these boats signals a racing boat to change course—by making a sound with a horn or whistle and pointing flag V at her—that boat shall promptly comply unless compliance would create an unsafe condition. If the boat fails to comply, the race committee shall protest her. The protest committee shall assume that the course change would not have created an unsafe condition, and the protested boat shall have the burden of proving otherwise.

Also, if a commercial vessel makes five short, rapid blasts on its whistle (a danger signal, see IRPCAS Rule 34(d)) at a boat that is racing, and/or the vessel or the Coast Guard is subsequently able to identify the offending boat, that boat may be protested; if so, the protest committee shall assume that she has impeded the commercial vessel’s passage or otherwise violated Rule 10, and the protested boat shall have the burden of proving otherwise. If the protest is upheld, the boat shall be scored DNE: disqualification that is not excludable. St. Francis YC shall cooperate with and provide relevant information to the Coast Guard or other governmental authority regarding investigations of boats impeding ship traffic or violating the Inland Rules.

Other organizations have adopted a much simpler way of dealing with a TSS in or near the racing area. For example, the sailing instructions for the Fastnet Race simply designate several TSSs as obstructions—as permitted by the definition Obstruction—and state that boats shall not enter areas designated as obstructions. Of course, this approach is feasible only if it is possible for boats to sail the course without entering any of the separation schemes.

There are now more than 100 TSSs and the racecourses for most ocean races pass through or near one TSS—or, sometimes several. For this reason, World Sailing has established a committee to make a proposal for dealing more comprehensively with TSSs in The Racing Rules of Sailing. The committee is chaired by Stan Honey, Chairman of the World Sailing Oceanic and Offshore Committee, and, in writing this article, I have benefited from research that Stan has done on TSSs.

E-mail for Dick Rose may be sent to rules@sailingworld.com.

The post Rules for Boats in Traffic Separation Schemes appeared first on Sailing World.

The new case, Case 143, got its start from a routine protest following a race at a sailing club in Canada. In the incident, two competitors, Abel and Cain, tangled near a mark. Abel consequently protested Cain. Abel thought he had a strong case, but to his surprise, the protest committee disqualified him and did not penalize Cain. The notice of race and the sailing instructions each stated that the race would be governed by the rules as defined in The Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS).

Abel thought that the protest committee’s decision was not correct so, as apparently permitted by Rule 70.1(a), he wrote up an appeal of the decision and promptly sent it to Sail Canada, the national authority for all sailboat races in Canada. Then the fun began.

It turns out the club that had organized the race previously declined to join Sail Canada and had no connection to or affiliation with Sail Canada. When the appeal arrived in the mail, officials at Sail Canada questioned whether they had any obligation to consider an appeal from a club that was not a member of the organization.

Their attempt to decide this question led them to parts of the rulebook rarely needed or studied. They found their answer in Rules 70.3, 84 and 89.1. Rule 70.3’s first sentence states: “An appeal under rule 70.1 … shall be sent to the national authority with which the organizing authority is associated under rule 89.1.”

Rule 89.1 does not permit any old club to organize a race. In fact, Rule 89.1 lists eight types of organizations that are permitted to organize a race: “World Sailing; a member national authority of World Sailing; an affiliated club; an affiliated organization other than a club, and if so prescribed by the national authority, with the approval of the national authority or in conjunction with an affiliated club; an unaffiliated class association, either with the approval of the national authority or in conjunction with the affiliated club; two or more of the above organizations; an unaffiliated body in conjunction with unaffiliated club where the body is owned and controlled by the club. The national authority of the club may prescribe that its approval is required for such an event; or if approved by World sailing and the national authority of the club, and unaffiliated body in conjunction with an affiliated club where the body is not owned and controlled by the club.”

Because the club was located in Canada, Sail Canada was “the national authority of the venue.” Since the club was not in any way affiliated with Sail Canada, the decisions made by the protest committee for a race at that club were not eligible under Rule 70 to be appealed to Sail ­Canada or, indeed, to any national authority. For these ­reasons, Sail Canada declined to consider Abel’s appeal.

Sail Canada thought their ­decision was interesting and that it deserved to be a World Sailing case. Proposing a case based on their decision had an extra benefit for Sail Canada — it could, effectively, determine whether World Sailing agreed with its decision. The World ­Sailing ­Racing Rules Committee did indeed agree. It upheld Sail Canada’s decision to decline to consider Abel’s appeal, and World Sailing’s view of that decision is now described in detail in new Case 143.

In that case, World Sailing goes beyond Sail Canada’s decision on Abel’s appeal to discuss Rule 75, Entering a Race. This rule has two parts. Rule 75.1 puts limitations on the boats that can be entered in a race, and Rule 75.2 requires competitors to comply with World Sailing Regulation 19, Eligibility Code. I’ll bet you’ve never taken any notice of Rule 75 or the World Sailing Eligibility Code.

Rule 75.1 requires the person who enters a boat in a race to be “a member of a club or other organization affiliated to a World ­Sailing member national authority” or a member of a national authority. This means that in order to enter your boat in any race in the United States, you must be a member of a club or organization affiliated to US ­Sailing or you yourself must be a member of US Sailing. Most clubs in the United States are members of an regional sailing association (such as the Yacht Racing Association of Long Island Sound) and all RSAs I know of are members of US Sailing.

Beware, however, because some organizations that organize races in the United States have no affiliation whatsoever with US Sailing. In my experience, these are informal so-called beer-can races, organized by a group of sailors or a commercial organization like a restaurant, marina or dealership. Those informal races sometimes use the RRS, but not always. There is one in ­Seattle where there are only a handful of vague, simple rules, one of which is: “Never make a duck change its course.”

Rule 75.2 requires every ­competitor in every race, no matter how small or ­inconsequential, to comply with the World Sailing Eligibility Code. Rule 84 requires organizing authorities to follow the rules, and one of the rules is Rule 89.1. If the organizing authority for a race is not one of the permitted organizations listed in Rule 89.1, then, according to Regulation 19.20 in World Sailing’s Eligibility Code, that race is a “­prohibited” race. That sounds ominous. Let’s explore what it means.

Suppose you are a competitor who hopes someday to compete in the Olympics, the Pan-Am Games, or a world or continental championship of one of the World Sailing Classes (classes that have achieved World Sailing class ­status include the Olympic classes as well as most popular one-designs). The ­Eligibility Code contains three rules worthy of your attention.

First, you must have “World Sailing ­Eligibility” to compete in the events listed above. Anyone in the world can easily obtain World Sailing Eligibility, and few ever lose that status. That status can, however, be suspended or revoked if 1) you break Rule 69.1(a) by committing misconduct and part of your penalty is suspension of your eligibility by US Sailing or World ­Sailing (see Rule 69.3); 2) you break Rule 5, the Anti-Doping Rule; or 3) you compete in a race that you “knew or should reasonably have known was prohibited” (see ­Regulation 19.19 in the Eligibility Code). That code lists six types of events that are Prohibited Events; one of those six is an event that “does not conform to the requirements of Rule 89.1.”

Therefore, each of the competitors who sailed in the aforementioned race in ­Canada who knew, or should reasonably have known, that the club that organized it was not affiliated with Sail Canada could have been penalized by suspension for a year or more, or permanent revocation of their World ­Sailing Eligibility. Suspension or revocation of World Sailing Eligibility is exceedingly rare, but it is a possibility and, if it happened to an aspiring Olympian, it would be devastating.

Here’s one more problem that can occur in informal racing that does not use the RRS. In such a race, you expose yourself to added financial risk. Suppose you or your crew were injured or your boat was ­seriously damaged in a casual or informal race that did not use the RRS. When the RRS do not apply, the International Regulations for ­Preventing ­Collisions at Sea govern the race. If you have studied the IRPCAS at all, you know that the rights and obligations of boats under the ­IRPCAS are vastly different from the rights and obligations under the RRS. What seems like the simplest of maneuvers, like tacking from port to ­starboard, might violate the IRPCAS, even when the maneuver was carried out in full compliance with the RRS. This means, if there is injury or damage during a race, responsibility for the costs of that injury or damage will be based on fault as determined by application of the IRPCAS and not the RRS.

A few years ago, in an incident between two keelboats, there was damage that cost several thousand dollars to repair. The boats were on opposite tacks, racing under the IRPCAS and not the RRS, and there was no protest committee. An insurance ­company for one of the boats asked me to apply the IRPCAS to the incident.

Under the racing rules, there would have been no doubt that the port-tack boat would have broken Rule 10 and been responsible for all, or almost all, of the costs of repair. But, applying the IRPCAS, I found that the ­starboard-tack boat was at fault. The lesson from this is clear: Sail with great care in any race that does not use the ­Racing Rules of Sailing.

E-mail for Dick Rose may be sent to rules@sailingworld.com.

The post The Hidden Dangers of Casual-Race Rules appeared first on Sailing World.

World Sailing held its annual conference in Mexico in November 2017 with a week of meetings involving several hundred delegates from all prominent sailing countries. There were many proposals to modify the racing rules discussed and voted upon, and for the most part, proposals that were accepted will not take effect until January 1, 2021, when the next revision of The Racing Rules of Sailing is published. However, there is a process for making “urgent” changes effective at an earlier date, and this year that process resulted in urgent changes to one definition and three rules. All of these changes become effective January 1, 2018.

The primary reason for the changes was to provide a fair method for handling incidents in which a coach, parent or other support person breaks a rule. Rule 64.4(b), which came into effect in January 2017, permitted the protest committee to penalize a boat — without a hearing — when the boat’s support person broke a rule. Many sailors and race officials argued that penalizing a boat without a hearing was not acceptable. U.S. Sailing wrote to all U.S. Sailing judges strongly urging them to never penalize a boat under Rule 64.4(b) for a rules breach by her support person and, later, supported proposals to World Sailing to change the rules that permitted such a penalty.

Four changes for 2018 clearly fix the problem U.S. Sailing identified. The changes also establish a clear process to be followed whenever the protest committee receives a report alleging a support person has broken a rule. Here’s a summary of the four changes World Sailing made:

■ A new rule, Rule 63.9, has been added, which specifies a process the protest committee must follow when it receives, under Rule 60.3(d), a report alleging that a support person has broken a rule. The committee must first decide whether the report is sufficiently convincing that a hearing should be called. If so, the committee must conduct the hearing following the procedures specified in Rules 63.2, 63.3, 63.4 and 63.6. This is the same procedure that is followed in a protest or redress hearing, but with one difference. For a hearing involving a support person, the protest committee may appoint a “prosecutor” — a person who will present the case against the support person. In the case of a protest or a request for redress, the role of prosecutor is played by the protestor or the boat requesting redress.

■ Section (e) of the definition Party has been expanded. For any hearing involving a support person, the parties to the hearing are: the support person alleged to have broken a rule, any boat that support person supports, and the prosecutor. This change means that if a hearing is held because a coach, a parent or any other support person may have broken a rule, every boat that that person supports is entitled to be represented during the hearing, and will have all the rights a protestee would have in a protest hearing. Boats can no longer be penalized without having the chance to defend themselves. The change to the definition Party addresses U.S. Sailing’s primary complaint that under the previous rule a boat could be penalized without a hearing if her support person broke a rule.

■ Previously, Rule 64.4(b) referred to a penalty given to a competitor as a result of a breach of a rule by a support person. That did not make sense. A regatta is a contest between boats, and each boat entered is scored and can be penalized. When a competitor breaks a rule, his or her boat receives the penalty. Rule 64.4(b) has been reworded so that only boats, and not competitors, receive penalized. In addition, revised Rule 64.4(b)(2) states that the warning described in that rule must be given in writing.

■ There are now four types of hearings: protest hearings, redress hearings, hearings following reports under Rule 69 alleging misconduct, and hearings following a report under Rule 60.3(d) alleging that a support person has broken a rule. Because protest hearings and hearings under rule 60.3(d) are not the same, a technical change was necessary — Rule 64.4(b) was added to the list of rules in Rule 63.1.

The full text of these changes to the racing rules is available now on the World Sailing website.

The World Sailing Racing Rules Committee publishes The Case Book, which contains authoritative interpretations of the racing rules. Every year new cases are added to it, and occasionally an old case is revised. During 2017 meetings in Mexico, World Sailing made changes in an old case, Case 78, which will affect the tactics that can be used in major races for Olympic classes, as well as in some local races.

Case 78 concerns tactics, usually applied near the end of a series, in which one boat, without breaking any rule of Part 2, closely covers another for an extended period of time in order to drive the other boat well back in the fleet. The case addresses the question: When are such tactics “in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play” and, therefore, consistent with Rule 2, Fair Sailing?

From 2013 to 2017, Case 78 stated that such tactics do not break Rule 2 provided “there is a sporting reason” for using them. At recent major regattas for Olympic classes, that test has caused problems. For example, some national authorities use their sailors’ scores at a continental championship to select members of their national team or to select a boat that will qualify to represent their nation at a future event. Often, the details of such a selection procedure are confidential, and as a result, it is not possible for the protest committee at the continental championship to decide whether a boat that used close covering tactics had a sporting reason for doing so.

Another problematic situation happened at a recent event in which Boat A had clinched first place before the last race of the series. After the start of the final race, Boat A drove Boat B, at the time second in the standings, way back in the fleet, with the result that B ended up in fourth after the last race. Boat B then protested A for breaking Rule 2, and the helmsman of A gave as his sporting reason for using the tactics: “I wanted to practice those tactics.” The protest committee accepted A’s reason as a sporting reason and did not find that A broke Rule 2, but many people thought A’s tactics were not fair play.

Because of these issues, World Sailing has changed the criterion for deciding whether extended close covering violates Rule 2. Effective January 1, 2018, the criterion will be whether the covering tactics “benefit [the boat’s] final ranking in the event.” Clearly, Boat A’s close covering of Boat B in the example above would break Rule 2 because there was nothing she could have done in the last race to benefit or improve her final ranking in the event. Also, boats will no longer be able to point to procedures for national team selection or qualification for a future event to justify extended interference with another boat.

This could affect you in your local sailing series. Many clubs combine the standings of boats in several weekend events to create a season or to pick a seasonal club champion. The implication of the change in Case 78 will be that a boat sailing in a particular weekend event may use extended close covering only when it will benefit her standing in that weekend event. Extended close covering that does not benefit her standing in the weekend event can no longer be justified on the grounds that it improves her standing in the season series.

The full text of revised Case 78 is, or will soon be, available on the World Sailing website.

E-mail for Dick Rose may be sent to rules@sailingworld.com

The post Rule Changes for Support and Fairness appeared first on Sailing World.

It was a pursuit-start race and the first event for our newly purchased Alerion 28. We had taken ownership of the boat the night before, so we were arguably rushing things, but it was just a low-key random-leg event with more than 130 boats. What could ­possibly go wrong?

The race attracted a wide spectrum of competitors and boat types. Its simplicity is its appeal. The course is set regardless of wind direction, and it features an uncrowded starting line for most entrants. Ratings are assigned if needed, and there’s a party for everyone afterward. There are few hurdles to ensure maximum fun, which makes it perfect for encouraging participation.

We went off as the 10th starter, in a drifter, but with the wind building soon after, the fleet quickly caught up. When the second leg became a run, we could see the next turning mark would be jam-packed. I anticipated our pleasure race was about to get unpleasant. It’s one thing to have a crowded rounding among experienced teams, but we were dealing with something much more unpredictable.

Doing our best to protect our new prized possession, we negotiated the approach, found an inside lane to the mark, and felt safe with only seconds before the turn. That’s when we glanced over our shoulder to see a 43-foot boat aiming to round inside of us. All they saw was the mark and the turn. All we saw was our glimmering new hull about to get bulldozed.

What followed was regrettable. I shouted, telling them to spin out before the mark. They told me to protest. Protest? We had no flag, plus this wasn’t a protestable situation. It was a hit-and-run. I grabbed their toe rail to defend my gelcoat, yelling words like “Corinthian” to explain what they were not. It was futile. We were roadkill as they carried on past.

Fortunately, the only damage was to my ­disposition. In retrospect, we should have seen the bigger boat’s ill-thought intent earlier and given them the room they didn’t deserve. They were going to pass us regardless, and despite our rights, it would have been smarter to maintain my mood. To paraphrase George Carlin, it’s best not to argue with certain people because they will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

The situation does shed light on a conundrum in our sport, however. We often race among sailors of varying skills. The most experienced of them understand the rules and tactics and how to leverage every situation. Newer sailors often don’t know what they don’t know and find frustration at moments.

Others, like my friend at the aforementioned mark rounding, have been sailing long enough to know better but don’t. Bad things can happen when we all mix, and when it does, how do we all get off the water at the end of the day feeling enthused about our chosen recreation?

A panel discussion I once co-hosted tackled the topic of participation, to which rock-star Terry Hutchinson replied that he preferred quality over quantity. Of course he does, I thought to myself. When one is as good as he is, it’s perfectly sensible to not want to be surrounded by boats that could unfairly impact performance. You don’t want someone barging down the starting line or creating a pileup at a mark. None of us wants that.

But conflict does occur, and how we ­handle it impacts the moment and everything that follows. This is where the wisdom of the esteemed Paul Elvström comes to mind. As brilliant as Elvström was with his understanding of the rules, and as dominant he was as a competitor, he was an equally masterful sportsman. He put friendships above all accolades, and saw the conundrum in the sport. It’s one thing to be competing for Olympics medals, but what about the other end of the spectrum? For our sport to increase participation and be enjoyable, Elvström counseled, we must at times be tolerant of sailors of all skill levels. Those who did know the rules needed to be cautious in intimidating those who didn’t know them.

If I’d handled myself more appropriately at that turning mark, the outcome would have been measurably better for both boats. I didn’t know the other skipper, but I did see him later at the after-race party. I thought about approaching him to discuss what occurred but determined the earlier hostility would prove too much a distraction.

If I had handled it better on the water, it would have been easy to have had a ­conversation afterward. We both might have learned something. This wasn’t the Olympics, after all, and neither of us was in contention for a trophy. It’s best to keep the racing fun and positive.

This experience got me thinking about how such behavior impacts our sport. ­Considering the Corinthian ethos isn’t what it used to be these days, minimizing conflicts for new racers seems wise, if not obvious. It’s an ambitious ask of our self-policing sport, but sailboat racing becomes markedly less fun when the racing rules get trampled by inexperience.

A key component to any race is the racecourse itself, and I believe a windward-­leeward course is the worst option for growing the sport. While a superior ­layout, the crisscrossing of boats upwind and downwind, along with busy mark roundings, all lead to the likelihood of countless conflicts. Consider for a moment that the bulk of our rule book is crammed into Part 2, “When Boats Meet.” A better racecourse for the majority of amateur racers would be one where boats meet less frequently. We need to cautiously move people from casual ­racing to “racing with a purpose.”

Nothing encourages participation better than a well-managed culture, and no aspect of our sport does that better than what we call “beer can” racing, when nobody really takes it too seriously, which makes it more welcoming to the masses. While weekend events might struggle with participation, twilight racing remains strong. However, what we must remember is that it’s still racing, and rules and safety remain important.

Even if it’s meant to be casual, the fun ­element vaporizes when the game is not played properly by all.

The post Playing by the Rules appeared first on Sailing World.

In this, the fourth in a series of articles on the changes in new rules, the focus is on penalties. There are changes that increase the times during which boats may be penalized for breaking certain rules, changes in the penalty given, and new rules that permit penalizing “support persons,” including coaches and parents.

When Penalties May Be Given

Let’s start with a hypothetical scenario: Six minutes before the start of the first race of a series for a big fleet of large keelboats, you are in the racing area, intending to race, and on starboard tack reaching below the starting line well clear of Reckless, which is on port tack on a course to pass to leeward of you. Without warning, Reckless luffs up and T-bones you amidships, causing only superficial damage to her bow but major damage to your hull. The damage forces you to motor back to the harbor and prevents you from ­sailing any race of the series.

Under the second sentence of the preamble to Part 2 in last year’s rules, even though Reckless broke Rules 10 and 14, she could not be penalized because she was not racing at the time of the incident. Reckless went on to sail and win the first race of the series.

That sure doesn’t sound fair. The outcome this year would be different. The second sentence of the preamble to the Part 2 rules now reads, “…a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 14 when the incident resulted in injury or serious damage…” So now, Reckless would be disqualified for breaking Rule 14 even though she was not racing when she broke it. Under the new preamble, Reckless would also have been penalized if, after finishing while still “in or near the racing area,” she had broken Rule 14 and caused injury or serious damage. Previously, if the incident had occurred while you and Reckless were racing and the race had later been abandoned, Reckless would not have been penalized. However, Rule 36 has been changed such that now she would be penalized [see new Rule 36(b)]. To sum up, now whenever a boat breaks Rule 14 while the Part 2 rules apply, they will be penalized if they cause injury or serious damage.

Changes in the Penalties Given

Under last year’s rules, with only two exceptions, if you were protested and the protest committee found you had broken a rule, the penalty was always disqualification. The exceptions were Rules 69 and 77. Under the new rules, if a boat breaks Rule 2, Fair Sailing, the penalty may be either a DSQ or a disqualification that is not excludable (DNE). In ­addition, World Sailing race officials now often label certain rules in the notice of race or sailing instructions with the letters “DP” for “discretionary penalty. If a boat breaks a rule labeled “DP,” the penalty may, at the discretion of the protest committee, be less than disqualification [see the new paragraph in the Introduction called “Notation”].

Examples of sailing instructions that are frequently designated “DP” at World Sailing events are Check-Out and Check-In Requirements (SI 18 in Appendix L), Replacement of Crew or Equipment (SI 19), Haul-Out Restrictions (SI 25) and Limitations on Electronic Communication (SI 27). The new rule book has two rules for which the penalty is “DP” — Rule 55, Trash Disposal, and Rule 77, Identification on Sails [see Rule G4 in Appendix G.]

More New Rules for 2017

Penalties for Support Persons

The new rules now contain provisions that require “support persons” to “accept the rules.” These rules were written by a World Sailing committee consisting of lawyers, race officials and members of the World Sailing Racing Rules Committee. This is a development in response to the many support boats that come to regattas with coaches or, in the case of youth sailors, parents to provide support. To help you understand these significant changes, I’ll take you on a guided tour through your new rule book of the changes in definitions and rules that relate to support ­persons. Our first stop is at the new definition “Support Person.”

Support Person: Any person who (a) provides, or may provide, physical or advisory support to a competitor, including any coach, trainer, manager, team staff, medic, paramedic or any other person working with, treating, or assisting a competitor in or preparing for the competition, or (b) is the parent or guardian of a competitor.

Our next stop is Rule 3, Acceptance of the Rules. This is the rule that the lawyers refer to as “the hook.” Each competitor and boat owner is “hooked” by the following words in Rule 3: “By participating or intending to participate in a race conducted under these rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees…to be governed by the rules, to accept the penalties imposed…under the rules,” and not resort to a court with respect to any decision made by race ­officials under the rules.

Rule 3 is now extended to include similar provisions that apply to support persons. These state: “A support person by providing support, or a parent or guardian by permitting their child to enter a race,” agrees to be hooked into the same agreement as the one quoted above for competitors and boat owners. In addition, Rule 3 requires “each competitor and boat owner to ensure that their support persons are aware of the rules.” On the next portion of our guided tour, it would be logical for me to point out the rules a support person must follow. You might be surprised to learn that there are only three rarely used rules that state that a support person shall or shall not do something; they are Rules 6, 7 and 69.1. However, the defined term “rules” includes the rules in the notice of race (NoR) and sailing instructions (SIs), and those documents often contain rules that involve support persons, especially coaches and parents, and the boats from which they watch the races. It is those rules in the NoR or SIs and that a coach or parent is most likely to break.

The next stops on our tour are Rules 60.3(d) and 69.2. These rules explain how a support person can end up in the protest room. Suppose it’s alleged that a support person has broken a rule. A hearing to consider whether a support person has broken a rule can be instigated only by the protest committee. The protest committee can act under this rule based on its own observations or on information received “from any source, including evidence taken during a hearing.” Therefore, a competitor or race-committee member who believes that a support person has broken Rule 69.1 or a rule in the Notice of Race or Sailing Instructions should report the matter to the protest committee. If the protest committee thinks it’s appropriate, it will schedule a hearing. The support person alleged to have broken a rule will be a party to that hearing [see new paragraph (e) in the definition Party]. The person who made the allegation will not be a party to such a hearing but will surely be called as a ­witness to give testimony.

Our final stop brings us to new Rule 64.4. After such a hearing, if the protest committee “decides that the support person…has broken a rule,” it must follow the process set out in Rule 64.4. Unlike a boat entered in an event, a support person does not have a score to which a penalty may be assessed. Rule 64.4 gives the protest committee considerable discretion as to how to penalize a support person. The committee may warn the support person; it may exclude the support person from the event venue, or it may remove any privileges granted to support persons at the event. Competitors beware: If one of your support persons breaks a rule, your boat may be penalized by changing your boat’s score in one race, up to and including DSQ. However, your boat can be penalized only if you gained a “competitive advantage” from the support person’s breach or if “the support person commits a further breach after [you have] been warned by the protest committee that a penalty may be imposed.”

E-mail for Dick Rose may be sent to rules@sailingworld.com.

The post New Rules for Penalties appeared first on Sailing World.