rule 44.1b question significant advantage

The Racing Rules prescribe certain things. It's wise to know them, at least the basics. This area discusses the finer points of the racing rules for sailing fast.

Moderators: Capt. Flak, bigfoot55, Chuck Luscomb

rule 44.1b question significant advantage

Postby s vernon » Mon May 16, 2011 12:06 pm

44 PENALTIES AT THE TIME OF AN INCIDENT
44.1 Taking a Penalty
A boat may take a Two-Turns Penalty when she may have broken a rule of Part 2 while racing or a One-Turn Penalty when she may have broken rule 31. Sailing instructions may specify the use of the Scoring Penalty or some other penalty. However,
(a) when a boat may have broken a rule of Part 2 and rule 31 in the
same incident she need not take the penalty for breaking rule 31;
(b) if the boat caused injury or serious damage or gained a significant advantage in the race or series by her breach her penalty
shall be to retire.

Red boat gets fouled at a distant mark by Orange and tied up for a while. Oramge does his turn, rounds the mark and off he goes. Red gets hit again and tied up again as he tries to round the mark.

Orange says the fact that I am half way down the next leg and you are still back at the mark is your problem not mine.

The fact is that without the first foul and tieup the seoond one would not have occurred. Should it be that Red can call a 44.1 on the orange boat and require him to retire?

Scott
User avatar
s vernon
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:18 pm
Location:

Postby gcobley » Mon May 16, 2011 3:54 pm

Scott, I was in this position as you may remember in one of the early races.
I misjudged a rounding and fouled. I did my turn and slipped from second to about fifth. Unfortunately the boat I fouled got caught up with the oncoming fleet and ended up well behind me.
So...
My interpretation is that I lost several places due to my foul, and did not gain an advantage.
I understand that it was unfair on the other boat, and I did in fact retire, but I believe it is not about gaining an advantage on the boat you foul, but about "gaining a significant advantage in the race or series".

I think the rule is there to penalize intentional fouls where the alternative to fouling is something bad like missing a mark or ducking the whole fleet, and the temptation is to foul and take a turn because it is not as bad.

In your case it would depend if orange would have been better off to avoid the foul in the first place. In that case 44.1 probably does not apply.

Gerry
2125
gcobley
Site Admin
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:58 pm

Postby s vernon » Thu May 19, 2011 8:54 am

Gerry,
The thing about people trying to come in right at the mark on port tack and then tack over to starboard when they end up fouling a starboard tack boat is that even after the foul, the call and the turn, the boat that fouled (even tho it "lost several places" may still have gained an advantage in the fleet because the skipper of that boat chose to go right to the head of the line in his mark rounding rather than joining the boats that were sailing on the starboard layline.

And precisely or approximately how many places were gained or lost is impossible to document as too much is happening too fast. We just know that boats coming in on port and tacking at the mark and fouling or forcing other boats to slightly change course to avoid them which is still fouling, but often does not get called, is a big problem, and one way to deal with it is to call 44.1(b) if the boat that fouled ends up well ahead of the boat that got fouled, whether that is a correct call or not. It does simplify things in our world.

Sometimes the boat that fouled might not deserve a dsq in the race, but most of the time (when he tacks right at the mark) he is going to do okay in the race. And because the odds in his mind are in favor of him either not fouling and gaining several places at the mark or doing well even after fouling, that is why people insist on coming in on port and tacking right at the mark.

I really wrote this about a couple of boats that kept having the same thing happen over and over at the windward mark, and one of the cases was pretty much as I described it.

Scott
User avatar
s vernon
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:18 pm
Location:

Postby tag1945 » Thu May 19, 2011 7:45 pm

Scott, Gerry

This is a major problem. I sent an e-mail to several rule officials to try and answer this situation.
You should recognize the names:

Question asked:

I have another question regarding "significant advantage."

If a keep clear boat fouled a right-a-way boat, which caused the right-a-way boat raft up with
several other boats, and the fouling boat cleared the area and completed her penalty turn and
was able to become "clear ahead" of the the boat, or boats fouled, and gained an advantage because of
her foul, require the fouling boat to retire or can she complete her penalty turn and stay astern
of the boats she fouled until the boats she fouled can continue racing.


Thanks for your help
Tom

**********************************************************************
E-mail from Dave Perry

Hi Tom - sorry for the delay in responding to this interesting question...

I heard that Mary Pera (a highly respected rules expert) once said that the
advantage gained in the foul and subsequent penalty turn can be given back
by letting the fouled boats pass by. Seems logical to me. But I know of no
appeal or other precedent that supports that. So it will be up to a protest
committee to apply their common sense and rules interpretation to an
incident, and then that can be appealed if desired.

Dave

**********************************************************************
E-mail from Ulrich Finckh
Dear Tom,

If you read RRS 44.1(b) you find, that a boat that breaks a rule and
therefore gained a significant advantage in the race or series shall retire. If the fouling boat after taking her two turn penalties is in front of the fouled boat, she has a significant advantage in the race. If, in this case, the fouling boat wait until the fouled boat continues to race and regain a lead, that is it not in compliance with the rules because RRS 44.1(b) requires her to retire, but the fouled boat may forget to protest and clear this incident at the bar.

Kind regards
Uli

**********************************************************************
E-mail from Bill Worrall

Hi Tom,

In my columns in Model Yachting 147 & 153 the subject of "significant advantage" was discussed, but not in depth and certainly not looking at "giving back the significant advantage."

I tend to be a "look at the facts" kind of a person. When I look at the rules, appeals and cases I generally see "commit a foul, gain a significant advantage, retire from the race." That's what the rules say and there are not any appeals or cases that say otherwise.

However, I also feel one should "never say never." I agree with Dave Perry and feel that if a situation involving "significant advantage" warrants filing an appeal, one should be filed.Until that happens and changes my thoughts, I believe we should expect a boat gaining a "significant advantage" to retire from the race.

I think encouragingfouling boats to take a turn penalty and then hang back to give back the "significant advantage" falls into the same category as allowing marks to be touched. It just opens the door to another avenue for aggressive sailors to beat the rules in a way that was not intended by the rule writers. It seems to defy common sense and good sportsmanship to think a boat that fouls (perhaps intentionally) and gives back the gain, should be able to come back and perhaps win the race or series.

Later, Bill

**********************************************************************
E-Mail from Ken
Hi Tom,

Normally my reply from a judges point of view would be to follow the
letter of the rule. However, after reading Dave Perry's comments and
knowing Mary Pera quite well I might temper my judgment somewhat, but
this would be a most unusual case. I also think that, if a boat fouled and gained significant advantage but then slowed her own progress to assure that the boat or boats she fouled sailed to a position ahead of her, there would probably be no protest filed and the situation would be moot.

You also must consider that her foul against one boat may result in her gaining a significant advantage over more boats than just the one she directly fouled.

Aloha, Ken Morrison

Scott, you suggested if a skipper retired, that skipper would receive a DSQ. He would only receive a DSQ if he did not retire! If you download a copy from the AMYA website of the (Heat Management System 2007) and read 3.4, you will see that if a boat receives a DSQ that boat will be scored one more point than the last boat, in the lowest heat, would have scored if all the boats competing in the <u><b>event</b></u> had finished correctly. If the skipper retires the skipper would be scored last place + 1 for the heat. 44.1b is a very good rule and should be followed.


Tom
User avatar
tag1945
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 3:22 pm
Location: The Villages, Florida

Postby Fred Maurer » Thu May 19, 2011 9:56 pm

From my position on the side lines, and with no credentials to back up my opinion, I still have an opinion. By allowing the port boat gambler to repent for his sin by simply waiting until the boats that he fouled have regained their rightful position ahead of him, he suffers no real penalty. Suffering no real penalty, he will continue the practice as he can hardly loose over the long haul. He either is successful in his attempt to slide into a favorable position, or ends up pretty much where he would have been. I rather like Bills look at the facts point of view. Or during the next break, we could burn his boat. [;)]
Fred Maurer
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: State College, PA

Postby s vernon » Mon May 23, 2011 5:30 pm

Tom,

I believe you told me at the JAX regatta that Ulrich is the person who wrote the rule and also you told me that what matters is what the rule writer meant to say as he wrote the rule.

Ulrich's attitude seems to be "take no prisoners". If the boat that commits the foul is able to do his turns before the other boat (even if that boat then got tied up with other boats in a separate incident) is able to do his turn or turns before that boat gets going again in the race, he can wait on the sidelines and then follow in the fouled boat's wake, but even then he is than at the mercy of the fouled boat to not protest him and hand him a DSQ.

He is saying that rule 44.1(b) has big teeth. Following in the wake of the fouled boat is absolutely necessary in order for the fouling boat to even hope to stay in the race if he thinks the fouled boat might be inclined to protest under 44.1(b).

I do not think all of that was clear in your post as you presented various people's opinions and did not state that the only "opinion" that really matters is Ulrich's. I hope I have stated it correctly. If not please correct me.

Thank you, Tom.

Scott
User avatar
s vernon
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:18 pm
Location:

Postby Capt. Flak » Mon May 23, 2011 5:58 pm

We had an interesting thing happen this weekend in Jacksonville were a skipper sailed into the windward mark on Port and fouled a whole bunch of other boats. They spun around and some missed the mark because of it. I think it was 4 or 5 boats that were effected by this one boat's GOOF. And it was a big GOOF.

However; the fouling boat came out of the mess in last place and did his turn. He was well back in last place with all the effected boats getting back in the race. For most of them their overall position was not changed, but they were much further away from the rest of the fleet at this point.

So after the foul, and after doing his turn, the fouling boat had gained no advantage at all and you could say that he had gained a significant DIS-advantage.

But what happened next, while it seems unfair, was not. He sailed very well to get back up to the fleet and passed all the boats he had fouled over the next several legs. So in this case he did not gain a significant advantage, but he did end up past all the boats he had fouled.

Should he retire for that. The answer is NO.

Joe Walter #24
User avatar
Capt. Flak
 
Posts: 2069
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:30 am

Postby tag1945 » Tue May 24, 2011 7:10 am

Scott

The Opinions that I posted are just that, Opinions. For actual Interpretations of the rules, you must look for Appeals and Cases that address you question. I have not been able to find any Cases or Appeals that address this rule that would clear up your questions.

The one thing I would say about your question is that we need to understand one of the primary reasons for the RRS, is safety. In big boats, very expensive boats would be damaged or the lives of the crews put in danager without the rules. In our hobby, the cost of our boats is our main consideration and the rules are ment to prevent damage to our boats. Fairness is another consideration. We need to remove the stigma of "Retiring" when a skipper screws up. I've screwed up and retired and would like to see more of our skippers do it.

I disagree with Joe in that a boat that sails into the weather mark on Port tack, with serveral other boats fetching the mark on starboard tack, can be labeled a "GOOF." This situation is probably the most fustrating situation for a skippers. This happens far to offen. In most cases the port tacking boat will break several rules, 10, 18.3, 13, 14, 15, and a strong possibility that he will break rule 44.1b. This cannot be bumper boat sailing..... With the cost of our boats reaching $3000, I suspect that we will have a very difficult time keeping skippers in the future if we don't start enforcing the rules.....

Just like Dave Perry stated, until someone appeals a "Significant Advantage" ruling, and an official interpretation is produced, Ulrich reading of the rule is the rule.........

I hope this help you
Tom
User avatar
tag1945
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 3:22 pm
Location: The Villages, Florida

Postby Capt. Flak » Tue May 24, 2011 9:54 am

Tom, I used the word GOOF in place of the expletives I wanted to use. I was not excusing this skippers actions. What he did was very bad. I was only making the point that in this case he did not gain an advantage from his recklessness. So he did not need to retire under 44.1(b)

Joe Walter #24
User avatar
Capt. Flak
 
Posts: 2069
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:30 am


Return to Sailing with the RRS

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron