Boom Topper interpretation discussion

Steve Landeau · Post by **Steve Landeau** » 19 Jul 2004, 07:06

Posted on 7/1/2004:
2) Can the lower end of the headsail boom topping lift be attached to the boom by both an adjustable line and an elastic line?

Lester has commented on his site and questions the legality of an elastic that attaches to the boom.
Many of us here in the US are currently using this technique.

On my boat, the topper loops through the hole in the Bantock boom fitting, and I build another fitting into the end of that fitting to hook the elastic. I agree with Lester that the rules do not allow for attaching an elastic to the boom.
The question I have (unofficially, since it is not a request for interpretation) is am I really attaching it to the boom? I had always seen the black fitting at the end of the boom to be just that, a boom fitting, not part of the boom. If it is a fitting, then we are not really attaching to "the boom". Am I reaching a bit far on this, or does it have merit?
Lastly, IF it is decided that attaching to the boom end fitting is illegal, would simply tying a ring to the fitting, say 20mm away from the boom, then running the topper and the elastic to this ring be a legal fix?

Brad Gibson · Post by **Brad Gibson** » 19 Jul 2004, 11:34

Steve,

I couldnt be sure on how this may be interpreted.
On my own boats, i have been using an elastic band (AUD$0.07ea) by half hitching around the leech line & then looping under the aft end of the boom.
It would seem that this method is soon to be labelled illegal if i am led to believe what is written.

May i put forward to those in the know:
What is the purpose of having this rule?

My take is that the elastic is used to restrict the leech line from snagging the spreader in overpressed conditions when the aft end of the boom may lift. I can not see any performance gains in whether the elastic is used in line, or connected to the boom.

Brad Gibson

yorkke · Post by **yorkke** » 19 Jul 2004, 14:41

I also use the rubberband and brought 250 bands for $1.50 aud.
Cheapest thing on my boat!!
I would go as far to say that it would be a waste of time for the techical committee to even look at it.

Regards
Keagan

Brad Gibson · Post by **Brad Gibson** » 19 Jul 2004, 15:37

Hold up a minute Keagan,

The technical comitee is comitted to look at the interpretation as an interpretation has been asked for by an NCA.
It's important that we as skippers, do adhere to the findings of the technical comitee.

The objective of my post was to ask for reasoning as to why the rule may have been formed as to not allow (in my opinion), an inexpensive leech line retention method with no aparent performance gain.
Then maybe when the rules are up for revision next, we could look at all options.

Im sure if we look hard enough, we could cheapen many things on the IOM, this is not the basis of my post so lets stay on the topic.

An apology to anyone taking my below post out of context & it was not meant to offend in any way.

Cheers
Brad Gibson

Steve Landeau · Post by **Steve Landeau** » 19 Jul 2004, 17:48

I agree, Brad.
Without the "closed rule", we probably would not be where we are now. Sometimes we'll have to deal with little things like this that look meaningless, but it keeps the class in check in the long haul.
I don't think it was deliberately written to prohibit this type of restraint. I think it was simply overlooked. Also, as we have seen in the past, the TC may decide that it should be legal, and could effectively change the rule within the interpretation.
If in fact a band under the boom becomes illegal, this would be a rule change that should certainly be accepted in the future.

cfwahl · Post by **cfwahl** » 19 Jul 2004, 19:46

Steve Landeau wrote:

I don't think it was deliberately written to prohibit this type of restraint. I think it was simply overlooked. Also, as we have seen in the past, the TC may decide that it should be legal, and could effectively change the rule within the interpretation.

In making interpretations concerning elements of the class (closed) rule, the TC has quite a latitude of action, from a simple clarification of (supposed) intent to "effective change" of a rule. Where they're operating in this spectrum depends, of course, on your individual point of view. Even something like correction of a "typo" (ahem) may seem natural and obvious to some, and appear to be active revisionism to others. This leads me to have two questions:

1. Can interpretations by the TC be checked or overturned by some other body or authority (short of an outright change in the rules)?

2. The bigger question, really. Should the interpretations by the TC be codified within the rules (or at least attached to them), so that a person seeking guidance does not have to search rules text and then review texts of all the various interpretations? Some interpretations are made void by changes in the rules, including simple changes involving section renumbering; while other interpretations endure, I suppose, through successive versions of the rules. At the very least, there should be a document (preferably indexed by subject matter of interpretations) that is kept current, and lists the current effective interpretations. If this exists, I don't know where to find it. The ISAF-RSD site simply lists documents in reverse chronological order, but there's no document of the type I'm describing.

Unless there is some serious effort at "housekeeping," at some point the weight of interpretations will match or exceed the bulk of the rules themselves.

Post by **Chairman** » 19 Jul 2004, 21:32

bgrcyachting wrote:What is the purpose of having this rule?

Hi Brad

I've spoken to some of the guys involved in the 1991 class rules amendment, which is apparently when a restraint line was permitted for the first time. In the early days of IOM racing it was common for the topping lift to snag on the spreaders. The restraint line was not a permitted item of rigging. By end of 1991 it was obvious that it would be a good idea if the class rules permitted the restraint lines that were being used in other classes. This item of rigging was not known in full-size yachts and had no accepted name. Attempting to permit it by name and expecting that its use could be limited to what was intended because of a common understanding of what the thing did was, therefore, not an option. The nature of the IOM class rules meant that the restraint line needed to be carefully controlled and/or limited. I think this is the key point. Hence, the rule was written to limit what a restraint line could be attached to, and the list of items it could attach to was specifically limited to exactly and only the minimum of what was required. The idea was that the restraint lines commonly in use at that time in other classes would be permitted by the new rule. The wording has been amended slightly since. Since then we have seen some development of IOM restraint line design within the rules and some, it seems, outside the rules.

The bottom line, I think, is to say that the IOM class is a "closed class" by policy and intention. That is, the idea of the class is that there should not be any significant development in the rig and sails, and only limited development of the hull and appendages. (The point of this is to make sure that IOMs have longer competitive lives and lower overall lifetime costs of ownership, and give racing that is far closer than you get in any other international class.) In line with this policy, then, the rules were written to permit only the absolute minimum necessary to perform a desirable restraint function, and to continue to prohibit anything and everything outside of that.

Post by **Chairman** » 19 Jul 2004, 21:52

Hi Charles

Some perspicacious comments, as ever. Thanks.

cfwahl wrote:In making interpretations concerning elements of the class (closed) rule, the TC has quite a latitude of action ...

Erm, not really. In principle, an interpretation is supposed to be a circumscribed and limited "clarification", because it is not allowed to change a rule, "effectively" or otherwise:

RSD Regulations wrote:... interpretations shall not be used to change an existing rule.

Where they're operating in this spectrum depends, of course, on your individual point of view. Even something like correction of a "typo" (ahem) may seem natural and obvious to some, and appear to be active revisionism to others.

Indeed! This is something that the class is getting to grips with, but where a rule needs to be changed, there is a separate mechanism to do this, and it doesn't use an interpretation to do it. It is possible to have an "emergency" class rule change for those urgent situations where this seems desirable.

1. Can interpretations by the TC be checked or overturned by some other body or authority (short of an outright change in the rules)?

Well, for the IOM class, the process leading up to an interpretation involves quite a bit of checking and consultation, particularly now that we have the World Council, an independent Technical Sub-Committee, and an effective communications medium in the IOMICA Web site. But, an interpretation, once issued, is as firm and as fixed as any class rule.

2. Should the interpretations by the TC be codified within the rules (or at least attached to them), so that a person seeking guidance does not have to search rules text and then review texts of all the various interpretations? Some interpretations are made void by changes in the rules, including simple changes involving section renumbering; while other interpretations endure, I suppose, through successive versions of the rules. At the very least, there should be a document (preferably indexed by subject matter of interpretations) that is kept current, and lists the current effective interpretations. If this exists, I don't know where to find it. The ISAF-RSD site simply lists documents in reverse chronological order, but there's no document of the type I'm describing.

All previous interpretations are cancelled every time a new Class Rules document is issued. The latest Class Rules are dated May 2003, for example, and so every interpretation prior to May 2003 is null and void:

RSD Regulations wrote:... rule interpretations shall have the status of a class rule and shall remain valid for a maximum period of 2 years or until superseded by a class rule change

The idea of issuing a new set of class rules is, partly, to collect together all existing interpretations and straighten it all out again. The limit of two years on the life of an interpretation is to, erm, encourage the class to update its class rules properly and in a timely manner.

cfwahl · Post by **cfwahl** » 21 Jul 2004, 05:59

Thanks to Lester for his informed and thoughtful response.

All previous interpretations are cancelled every time a new Class Rules document is issued. The latest Class Rules are dated May 2003, for example, and so every interpretation prior to May 2003 is null and void:
RSD Regulations wrote:
... rule interpretations shall have the status of a class rule and shall remain valid for a maximum period of 2 years or until superseded by a class rule change
The idea of issuing a new set of class rules is, partly, to collect together all existing interpretations and straighten it all out again. The limit of two years on the life of an interpretation is to, erm, encourage the class to update its class rules properly and in a timely manner.

If this is to be so, then each version of the rules would have to include "disambiguating" (from the "Legacy Students Hardly Passing at Yale Dictionary") language treating each of the questions that had been posed and interpreted. Is this really possible? Some (most?) of the questions asked refer to specific conditions or configurations that it doesn't seem appropriate to reference explicitly in the text of the rules. (Take the interpretations surrounding the acceptable methods of implementing sheets/control lines as an example.) So the legality or prohibition of these would still depend on the "case law" of the interpretations, or one's recollection of them. No?

Or are you saying that all these issues _will_ be covered adequately by rules recast in language that makes acceptable practices explicit?

Post by **Chairman** » 21 Jul 2004, 09:04

cfwahl wrote:
All previous interpretations are cancelled every time a new Class Rules document is issued.
If this is to be so, then each version of the rules would have to include "disambiguating" (from the "Legacy Students Hardly Passing at Yale Dictionary") language treating each of the questions that had been posed and interpreted. [...] Or are you saying that all these issues _will_ be covered adequately by rules recast in language that makes acceptable practices explicit?

Hi Charles

I would expect that the next issue of the class rules, as in previous issues, will not treat interpretations directly. Instead, the idea will be to integrate all the current interpretations into the rules and then re-state the rules. Usually this involves more careful choice of words, but sometimes involves a new rule and sometimes involves the disappearance of an old rule. Looking at the re-issues of the class rules in 1995, 2002, 2003, and so on, they all by and large integrate their current interpretations into the new rules but without any explicit explanation or rationale.

The intention, as I understand it, is in fact not to build up case law or case lore, since this would involve long-term administrative maintenance which is not really possible within the parameters of a volunteer part-time association.

Steve Landeau · Post by **Steve Landeau** » 12 Jul 2006, 07:28

Re-kindling an old topic that is sure to be looked at in our upcoming rules evaluation;
F6.2(b) allows for the use of a topping lift restraint line.
F6.3(a) allows for terminations that pertain directly to the running rigging.
As an example, the termination for a headsail tack control line is not specific, so why would a topping lift restraint line be treated any different? They are both allowed pieces of rigging, and fall under the same rule #, F6.2(b).They should be treated the same when being sent to Technical.
I obviously did not look at this very closely when this interpretation was looked at before. I'm curious as to why our TC did not see that terminations are allowed for the above pieces of running rigging.
Any comments?

Bruce Andersen · Post by **Bruce Andersen** » 12 Jul 2006, 07:39

I suggest you propose verbage that specifically allow, in addition to the jib boom uphaul line (jackline), a second elastic line attached both to the jib boom and the uphaul line.

That way, there will be no bickering about its interpretation.

awallin · Post by **awallin** » 12 Jul 2006, 07:48

Hi,

The interpretation is at
http://www.radiosailing.org/pdf/Interpr ... -IOM-5.pdf

So... the problem is

C 7.7(c)
"(c) A headsail boom topping lift restraint line attached to, or passing around, the topping lift may be attached to and/or passed around any or all of the following: topping lift; headsail; headsail halyard; headsail stay.
"

To allow a rubber band attached to the topping lift and hooked around the boom I think we could simply add "headsail boom" to the list at the end of the above rule.