The new ISAF RRS 2013-2016 are out

[Hiljoball]

On the ISAF web site

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/ ... 376%5D.pdf

I see two changes that can affect us. I'll post more once I have read through them.

I will also look to see if the 'change annotation' version is available.

John

[Hiljoball]

These are the main changes I have noticed that may affect RC sailing..
The definition of Mark Room has changed. Need to research more to understand if any change of intent. Seems to work in conjunction with R 18.2.c.2 which has also changed.

18.3 wording change seems to be for clarity only.

18.5 has been deleted and a new R21 created which contains similar purpose.

R 20 Hailing for room has been reworded. R 20.1 and 20.2 seem to hold the same intent as before.

There is a new R 20.3 which may have significant impact. This seems to create a cascade of hails if multiple boats are involved. The issue is the time for all the hails as things happen fast in RC sailing. Currently, there is a published appeal case that provides that all boats hearing the hail and affected by the hail were included. So the impact will be greater if this case is deleted (new case book not yet published).

R 21 is new and replaces old R 18.5. The good news is that it reintroduces the concept of the pre-2004 R 31 on course exoneration if wrongfully forced into a mark.

R 28.2 Sailing the course has been reworded but no obvious change of meaning.

R 44.1 Taking a penalty has been reworded but no obvious change of meaning.

Appendix E 6.6 (replaces E5.5 due to renumbering). The concept of ‘entangled’ is replaces by the word ‘disabled’.

John

[Hiljoball]

R 20.3 Further comments.

The major change in R 20.3 is to allow a hailed boat in turn to hail a third boat, even though the hailed boat may not yet met the conditions of R 20.1.

In other words, she is going to need room herself to give room to the first boat to tack, even though she has not yet reached the obstruction herself and the first boat is not yet an obstruction.

It also would seem to exonerate the second boat if the first hailing boat hailed improperly.

John

[Lester]

Good to start a discussion on the new rules. I'm particularly interested in the Appendix E rules.

One thing I've noticed is that E3.8(a) deletes 30.2, the scoring penalty for an OCS boat. Can't for the life of me see why, I've run more than one event using 30.2 very successfully, much better than going to the black flag rule of 30.3 immediately after the first general recall. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable from IRSA can say.

Notice that E3.8(c) also says that courses shall not be shortened. Hmmm...

And, E3.8(d) allows a race to be abandoned because of foul weather or thunderstorms. Previously, only thunderstorms could allow this. More importantly, though, 32.1(c) is re-instated. Previously, a race could not be abandoned due to insufficient wind; now it can.

E4.2 deletes 41(d), "(d) unsolicited information from a disinterested source, which may be another boat in the same race." I can understand why we might not want unsolicited anything from another boat in the same race (though its not a sure thing, I often tell a boat that she touched the mark, but I have no intention of actually making a formal protest), but I can't see why we really want to prevent unsolicited information from a disinterested source, especially since a boat has no control over some spectator yelling out, "Wow, will you look at that wind shift!"...

RRS 44.1 requires a boat to retire if she gained a significant advantage by a foul. But E4.3(b) says the boat is welcome to her significant advantage, she only need take a further one-turn penalty. Hey, who thought that was a good idea?

There are probably other significant chages to Appendix E. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable from IRSA can say, I understand that the Appendix E changes arose from an IRSA sub-committee, I guess they will have an authoritative list and might care to share it.

Good news that the new RRS allows exoneration for being forced to touch a mark. I'm confident that our lobbying for this change had some effect on the rule-makers...

[Hiljoball]

R 61.1.a.3 is new. If a boat misses a mark and so fails to sail the course, now you SHALL protest a boat before she finishes or as soon as possible after she finishes.

This allows you to protest the boat while it is still racing with out yourself being accused of giving outside help. You still don't have to tell the boat why you are protesting them, so they still have to figure out what they may have done wrong.

Before this change, you should wait until they finish before protesting them, as only then was it clear that they were no going to correct the error and to tell them sooner could be construed as giving them help.

John

[Hiljoball]

Lester wrote in part

One thing I've noticed is that E3.8(a) deletes 30.2, the scoring penalty for an OCS boat.

Notice that E3.8(c) also says that courses shall not be shortened. Hmmm...

RRS 44.1 requires a boat to retire if she gained a significant advantage by a foul. But E4.3(b) says the boat is welcome to her significant advantage, she only need take a further one-turn penalty. Hey, who thought that was a good idea?

..

Hi Lester, Good points. I cannot imagine why someone would press to remove the ability to shorten course. And I agree with you that retiring from a 'significant advantage' is still needed.

One thing to note is that R 86 restricts which rules may be modified in the SI. The good news is that R30.2 and R32 are in Part 3 and can be modified in the SI. R 44 may also be changed in the SI. So we can put back in those sensible provisions where it is appropriate to the regatta and sailing conditions.

John

[Lester]

I've assembled a list of all the changhes I could see to Appendix E, http://www.onemetre.net/Race/RRS2013/2013AppE.htm

Highlights include:

E4.2(b): Boats receiving help from the safety boat or safety crew must retire, having received outside help which is not permitted according to this rule. Submission 202-11 to the ISAF RRC reads in part, “If help from a safety boat is allowed this will often favour some boats and disadvantage others dependant solely on the proximity of the safety boat at the time. Radio controlled boats are relatively light and easily disturbed by the wash of a safety boat. Eliminating the urgency of re-establishing entangled boats back in a race would reduce the speed of safety boats and thus ensure less wash to impede boats still racing. It will be fairer to all competitors if help from a safety boat is not permitted.”

E6.5: The new allowance is 10 minutes after the last boat finishes to protest or request redress (previously 15 minutes). Notice that there is now no specified time limit by which a boat shall inform the Race Officer of an intention to protest. Previously, this was 5 minutes; now it is simply as soon as reasonably possible. This is a subtle, and welcome, change. Under the old E5.3 of RRS 2009-2012, technically, no heat could be started until five minutes after the end of the previous heat. Now, the next heat can be started as soon as the Race Officer is satisfied that he will not receive any intention to protest from any boat in the previous heat.



I've also suggested some Sailing Instructions which might be helpful for events starting in 2013 which run according to the new RRS and Appendix E, http://www.onemetre.net/Race/RRS2013/2013AppESIs.htm

Highlights include:

Replace E4.3(b) by, “(b) if the boat gained a significant advantage in the race or series by her breach despite taking a penalty, her penalty shall be to retire.”

Discussion. E4.3(b) allows a boat which gained a significant advantage to exonerate herself by taking an additional penalty turn. This was not the intention; instead, the intention was that a boat which gains a significant advantage by breaking a rule should be required to take as many additional penalty turns as may be needed until that advantage disappears.

An alternative SI to solve this problem reads, ‘Replace E4.3(b) by, “(b) if the boat gained a significant advantage in the heat or race by her breach despite taking a penalty, the boat shall take additional One-Turn Penalties until the significant advantage no longer holds;”’

Add before paragraph (a) of E8, “Rule E8 applies to sails measured after 31 December 2012. Sails whose date of last measurement is before 1 January 2013 may conform to the rules applicable at the time of measurement.”

Discussion. The changes to the sail numbering rules introduced by E8 are far-reaching, and many already-measured sails would not be able to be brought into compliance without significant damage. This SI grandfathers old sails.

Replace E8(b)(3) with, “A single-digit number shall be prefixed with a ‘0’”. Delete E8(b)(4). Add to E8(b)(5), “A sail number with ‘0’ as its prefix shall not have ‘0’ as a second prefix.”

Discussion. There is a significant change to the required hail of a sail number, as specified in E2.1(b), where a sail number shall be hailed as a sequence of digits. The problem comes when the start line judge hails, “Recall one, nine, five”. Which boats have been recalled? Two boats, 19 and 5? Two boats, 1 and 95? Three boats, 1, 9, and 5? Or one boat, 195? Until we have a better solution, sail numbers comprising two digits should continue to be the norm, and ‘0’ placed in front of single-digit numbers.

[Olivier Cohen]

Thanks for the heads up Lester, especially on last point...

I am not sure this was noticed by RRS comitee.
E21b could also be changed by SI to avoid that issue.

[Hiljoball]

Is there any update on the conflict displayed by Lester? Around the world, National Authorities are starting to work on developing standardized sailing instructions for their countries for the new RRS. It is a challenge how best to deal with this item. It would be great if the IRSA would act with (or instead of) the ISAF and issue an emergency modification to Appendix E to remove the problem.

What is the problem? It is an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The problem is caused by two unrelated changes in Appendix E.

E.8 changes G1.1.c.3 to use a single digit for a sail that would have begun with zero, eg Hull 209 used to show 09, will now show 9.

This causes problems when combined with the new hailing instruction E.2.1.

Each change, on its own has merit and was intended to solve a problem. What we need is to remove one of the changes, either delete the sail number wording

3) When the sail number is in the range ‘00’ to ‘09’, the initial
‘0’ shall be omitted and the remaining digit positioned to
allow space for both a prefix and a suffix.

or delete the change on hailing numbers.

(b) The individual digits of a boat’s sail number shall be hailed; for
example ‘one five’, not ‘fifteen

My opinion is that the best one to eliminate is the removal of leading zero for single digit sail numbers - that way existing sails are still valid and we are no worse off that we are now.

But we cannot do that on a country by country basis as some boats would be legal at home, but attending international events would not be in compliance of the new wording.

John

[Marko Majic]

Hi John,

I'm not quite sure what the problem is?

If you're referring to Lester's example below..

Discussion. There is a significant change to the required hail of a sail number, as specified in E2.1(b), where a sail number shall be hailed as a sequence of digits. The problem comes when the start line judge hails, “Recall one, nine, five”. Which boats have been recalled? Two boats, 19 and 5? Two boats, 1 and 95? Three boats, 1, 9, and 5? Or one boat, 195? Until we have a better solution, sail numbers comprising two digits should continue to be the norm, and ‘0’ placed in front of single-digit numbers.

I would imagine that a hail of "Recall one, nine, five" is pretty clear and specific in recalling a boat 195. Should boats 19 and 5 had needed to be recalled, I would imagine that the hail(s) would have been "Recall one, nine. Recall five.". Similarly, for 1 and 95, the hail(s) would have been "Recall one. Recall nine, five." All quite specific and unambiguous if a little more verbose than, perhaps, we're used to (although, one could argue that presently a hail like "Recall fifteen, seventy-three, eighty-nine, eleven" technically only recalls fifteen and lists a bunch of numbers with no verb )

Establishing a standard for calling out numbers as a sequence of digits is probably a good idea since, with the abundance and variety of English accents on the racecourse (mine included, of course ) sometimes it's quite difficult to distinguish between #-teen and #-ty...

Marko

[Hiljoball]

Hi Marko,

It is great to see some additional input on this issue.

Hails of fifteen or forty five are no longer legal - they must be single digits ie. one five and four five.

On your suggested hail of “Recall, sail number. . . recall sail number. . over early”. In over 50 years of racing, I have never heard the use of Recall as a separator with each sail number. Maybe that is a good solution to (part of) the problem.

The problem is how to parse a string of numbers into individual sail numbers.

Under the 2008-12 rules, IOMs had two digit sail numbers, or occasionally, three in the case of conflict, where a prefix is added. Under the new 2013-16 Appendix E, IOM sail numbers may now be one, two, or occasionally, three digits, when a prefix is added.

Why is this an issue?

Under the 2008-12 rules, at a start line, the RD hails ZERO FOUR, ONE FOUR ONE over early. To me that is clear, and two boats are hailed, 04 and 141.

Under the new rules, the RD hails FOUR, ONE FOUR ONE over early. Given slight pauses, that hail could be interpreted by the skippers as two boats, 4 and 141 over early, or three boats 4,1,41 or a different set of three boats 4, 14, 1 or even 41 hailed twice.

The problem could be even worse at a crowded finish line where the RD hails sail number in quick succession and a recorder writes down the string of numbers. Now someone has to figure out how to parse – (or decode)- those numbers into individual boats.

To me the solution is to (quickly) rescind the sail number change that drops the leading ZERO in sails numbered 00-09 and stay with the current two digit format for sail numbers. As this is effectively a change to the class rule on format of sail numbers, it cannot be over-ridden in individual regatta sailing instructions. We need to undo the change to Appendix E.

John

[Robert Grubisa]

To me the solution is to (quickly) rescind the sail number change that drops the leading ZERO in sails numbered 00-09 and stay with the current two digit format for sail numbers. As this is effectively a change to the class rule on format of sail numbers, it cannot be over-ridden in individual regatta sailing instructions. We need to undo the change to Appendix E.

John

John,

Format of sail numbers is not defined in IOM Class Rules. See IOM CR C.8.3:
Identification shall comply with the RRS....

[Hiljoball]

Hi Robert,

not to quibble, but the IOM class rule refers to RRS Appendix G and as modified in Appendix E and has the same effect as if it were a class rule when completing the rig measurement form.

So the new Appendix E creates the possible problems under discussion. The challenge is 'how to fix it'.

If the change was in the class rule, we could change it as a class, but as the sail number change is external to the class rule, we need the cooperation of IRSA and ISAF to make any change.


John

[Robert Grubisa]

Hi Robert,

not to quibble, but the IOM class rule refers to RRS Appendix G and as modified in Appendix E and has the same effect as if it were a class rule when completing the rig measurement form.

So the new Appendix E creates the possible problems under discussion. The challenge is 'how to fix it'.

If the change was in the class rule, we could change it as a class, but as the sail number change is external to the class rule, we need the cooperation of IRSA and ISAF to make any change.


John

John,

Ok. I agree that, if this is the problem, we need to fix it.

I take this opportunity to clearly point out to any others visiting this Forum that identification on sails is not an IOM Class Rules matter. Also, certification control of sails and completing of the rig measurement forms should be done without checking sails identification (except class insignia). So, regardless of the latest changes in RRS Appendix E, there is no change in certification control process.

[Hiljoball]

Hi Robert,

Agreed. . .the sail number must be in place and comply with RRS and ERS when checking Part C (ie at event measurement check).

John

[Marko Majic]

Hi John,

On your suggested hail of “Recall, sail number. . . recall sail number. . over early”. In over 50 years of racing, I have never heard the use of Recall as a separator with each sail number. Maybe that is a good solution to (part of) the problem.

Well, as I'm sure you know, in "big" boat racing they don't say anything at all - they just hoist the X flag (signalling the individual recall) and it's up to the competitor to figure out whether they're talking about HIM or other guys (who actually WERE over the line )

In radio sailing, as per E3.8, "Recall ###" x 2 is precisely what the hail is supposed to be...

Under the 2008-12 rules, at a start line, the RD hails ZERO FOUR, ONE FOUR ONE over early. To me that is clear, and two boats are hailed, 04 and 141.

Under the new rules, the RD hails FOUR, ONE FOUR ONE over early. Given slight pauses, that hail could be interpreted by the skippers as two boats, 4 and 141 over early, or three boats 4,1,41 or a different set of three boats 4, 14, 1 or even 41 hailed twice.

Well, as I said above - as per E3.8 the hail SHOULD be "Recall 4. Recall 141." x2 - pretty clear and unambiguous. If we're going strictly by RRS - your example "FOUR, ONE FOUR ONE over early" is perhaps a statement of facts but not a valid hail...

The problem could be even worse at a crowded finish line where the RD hails sail number in quick succession and a recorder writes down the string of numbers. Now someone has to figure out how to parse – (or decode)- those numbers into individual boats.

Well, technically (and practically) at the finish line the RD is NOT hailing the boats that are finishing - he/she is just making a record of a finishing order and, as such, is not restricted in any way on how to go about it (providing he/she can reconstruct it correctly after the fact)... So, write, yell, record - "one-seven", or "seventeen" or "blue boat followed by red boat" - anything goes...

To me the solution is to (quickly) rescind the sail number change that drops the leading ZERO in sails numbered 00-09 and stay with the current two digit format for sail numbers. As this is effectively a change to the class rule on format of sail numbers, it cannot be over-ridden in individual regatta sailing instructions. We need to undo the change to Appendix E.

As per the above - I don't think it is quite as critical as that... And, frankly, dropping 0s (especially from numbers like 1 or 8 ) DOES seem like a good idea since, with most sails, it's difficult to distinguish between 01 and 10 or 08 and 80 (it's NOT, strictly speaking, ambiguous - since you should be able to decipher it based on the height of digits - but definitely hard...

Marko

[Xabier]

it's difficult to distinguish between 01 and 10 or 08 and 80

and between 18 and 81 especially if number 1 is shown as I (I8 - 8I)

[Xabier]

Under the 2008-12 rules, at a start line, the RD hails ZERO FOUR, ONE FOUR ONE over early. To me that is clear, and two boats are hailed, 04 and 141.

Under the new rules, the RD hails FOUR, ONE FOUR ONE over early. Given slight pauses, that hail could be interpreted by the skippers as two boats, 4 and 141 over early, or three boats 4,1,41 or a different set of three boats 4, 14, 1 or even 41 hailed twice.

the problem is fixed by adding "and" between sail numbers (four and one four one)

[Hiljoball]

deleted

[Xabier]

ok

[Xabier]

For those who do not speak English (like me) it is much easier to understand 'five three' than 'fiftythree'.

[Lester]

as per E3.8 the hail SHOULD be "Recall 4. Recall 141." x2 - pretty clear and unambiguous. If we're going strictly by RRS

An interesting view I hadn't thought of! I confess that I have previously understood "the race committee shall promptly hail ‘Recall (sail numbers)’" to mean that the hail "Recall 14, 141" meets the rule.

I'm looking forward to a protest hearing where the sailor says, "Yes, I am 141, I did not return to start, the hail was invalid because I did not hear the word 'Recall' before my sail number, as required by old E3.8 now E3.5."

Reminds me of the protest hearing where the hail "95 protests 44" was dismissed, because, as per E5.2 (now E6.3), the hail should have been "95 protest 44".

BTW, the new E3.5 does not requite the hail be made twice. It only says, "repeat as appropriate".

[Marko Majic]

An interesting view I hadn't thought of! I confess that I have previously understood "the race committee shall promptly hail ‘Recall (sail numbers)’" to mean that the hail "Recall 14, 141" meets the rule.

Well, the first part of the rule references a boat (singular) ("When at a boat’s starting signal any part of the boat is on the course side...") so it stands to reason that the rest of the rule refers to that one boat (and, therefore, in case of multiple boats the whole thing must be repeated)... Though, I confess, I'd be more certain of my interpretation if the last part of it didn't mix in the plural (sail numbers). Either way, this way removes a potential ambiguity so it's probably better...

I'm looking forward to a protest hearing where the sailor says, "Yes, I am 141, I did not return to start, the hail was invalid because I did not hear the word 'Recall' before my sail number, as required by old E3.8 now E3.5."

Reminds me of the protest hearing where the hail "95 protests 44" was dismissed, because, as per E5.2 (now E6.3), the hail should have been "95 protest 44".

That's precisely why I am not a big fan of specifying the exact verbiage that must to be used with certain hails as we are prone to doing in R/C sailing. Sure, it enforces consistency but, at the same time, opens up the door for all kinds of odious circumventions of the "spirit of the rules" by those suitably unscrupulous!

As I mentioned before - in "big" boat racing, RC just raises the X flag which tells everyone that there's an individual recall and it's up to every skipper to make the decision on whether or not their boat is on RC's "shit list"... Now, in our informal, weeknight racing RC might radio something extra - like "Hoochie Koo you're over again" and we might radio back something like "Thanks for nothing you blind moron" (as we turn back towards the line) but, at all times it's understood that radioing the offenders is a courtesy and cannot be protested based on the semantics (or even outright omission of) a call - you were either over or you were not...

Now, I would not advocate that we should apply the same in R/C sailing... It is much more difficult (in most cases) to know whether you were over or not (or whether you are thought to be over by the RD) at the IOM scale - so it makes sense that RC hailing the offenders be mandatory. But it would, IMHO, be a better idea to just leave it at something more general like "race committee shall promptly notify them by hailing their sail number" instead of providing the exact (quoted) verbiage that must be used.

Same goes for protesting another boat for an infraction... I see absolutely no reason for the second sentence of E6.3 (other than providing a potential way out to the unscrupulous).

BTW, the new E3.5 does not requite the hail be made twice. It only says, "repeat as appropriate".

Yes, of course... My bookmarked link is, evidently, still pointing to 2009-12 PDF... Time to rectify that...

Marko

[Olivier Cohen]

The problem here is to have in new rules at the same time single digits on sails and single digits during hailing.

It seems that single digits hailing was created for non english speakers going to international events.

My opinion is that ALL non english speakers going to an international event know how to say their number in english. And they learn quickly how to hear it !

So my opinion is not to put back the 0 in front of 0 to 9 sail numbers as some propose above, but to remove rule E2.1.b about hailing.

Besides, are we really allowed to change identification on sails by SI ? As appendix G can't be changed...

Thanks for your inputs.

[Hiljoball]

Hi Olivier,

I think you are going in the wrong direction. To me, the hail is not the issue. Dropping the leading zero is what leads to possible confusion.

The new hailing change and eliminate leading zero can give
deux trois or two three (is that 23 or 2 and 3)

Cancel the the new hail but eliminate leading zeros
Vingt trois or twenty three - is that 23 or 20 and 3?

However if we keep the zero in sail numbers and use the new hail.
deux trois, two three can only be 23 and deux zero, zero three can only be 20 and 03.

Cancel the new hail and also cancel the change for leading zero
Vingt trois, twenty three can only be 23 and Vingt, zero trois or twenty, zero three can only be 20 and 03

I agree that we cannot fix this in the SI of a regatta - that is why I am pushing this to try to get the change to Appendix E8.b.3 withdrawn.

John

[Olivier Cohen]

Good point.

Any others on that?

[Lester]

Besides, are we really allowed to change identification on sails by SI ? As appendix G can't be changed...

As far as I know, Appendix E can be changed by SIs, including E8.

[Xabier]

My opinion is that ALL non english speakers going to an international event know how to say their number in english. And they learn quickly how to hear it !

The problem is that there are other languages ​​than English and French.
I will propose that, in the races that take place in the Basque Country, Basque is the official language. What do you think is easier to remember for number 71: zazpi bat or irurogeitaamaika?
I remember once in Fleetwood, I did two penalty turns (for nothing) because someone protested 17 (my number was 70).

[Xabier]

.

[Xabier]

Cancel the new hail and also cancel the change for leading zero
Vingt trois, twenty three can only be 23 and Vingt, zero trois or twenty, zero three can only be 20 and 03

Try now with 73 in french (soixante treize, something similar to sixty thirteen )