2010 Inland Championships & Gill Series

[John Meadowcroft]

Oh, and great pictures too.  Thanks!

[Kevin]

We did turns - port and starboard with Gerry and Liz before one of the starts.
Kevin

[Jane Wade]

We did turns at the start of race three on Saturday - we hit Gerry and Lis just before the start.  Our fault - hence some spins and the last boat to cross the start line!

[andymck]

Yep I can admit the plane stupid bit, not the only time round that mark too.
What did concern me was the mark roundings, and not just the ones in the pictures.
The rules are quite clear in the point of onus over water. If you are trying to gain a late overlap, you have to be able to prove it and therefore should go around the outside if someone calls no water, just as when you are trying to break an established overlap, you have to be able to prove that you did. Except when we have had on the water umpiring, I have never seen anyone win these protests when it has been touch and go, and I have sat on a lot of committees. (you need two perfectly placed witnesses)
We are generally a very well behaved class, which is why I sail a 12.
My advice is to anyone is to think about the onus, and yield, as even if you did get or break the overlap just as you entered the zone, you will not win in the room, dont push it.
Andy

[Jeremy C]

Just being pedantic... but under the new rules... there is no phrase  with the rules about 'water or no water' so technically calling these phrases is worthless!
 
You should however be using the phrase 'room or no room' instead.
 
A technicality I know but under the rules water does not exist!

[nigelf]

Jeremy. You have opened something of a hornet's nest. A skipper might require either "room" or "mark room", which are quite different requirements and either might elicit a negative response. Since we may be wearing smart new 75th anniversary ties, we should expect suitably dulcet tones to accompany any request. Now that really would be pedantic! By the way in Bryan Willis' book " The Rules in Practice" there is at least one passing reference to a call for "water" so perhaps the recent rule revisions have not changed well-entrenched practice, even at the highest echelons of the sport.

[Steve (Guest)]

As this thread appears to have been taken over by a discussion on the rules I thought I would throw in my comments, but first of all before my comments get taken the wrong way I would just like to say that given the wind conditions Richard and his race management team generally did an excellent job and the turn around times on the back to back starts were as short as I can recall. However, as a recipient of one of the Black Flag disqualifications in race 3, I was somewhat dismayed to see on the start of race 4 that the pin end of the line was being moved with just 1 minute 30 seconds to go before the start. Some might say so what there's still plenty of time to get behind the line before the 1 minute and remain there til the start and that might well be true for those who have such good line judgement that they just eye up the line as they approach and know whether they are on the line or not, but for those of us who rely on taking transits before the warning signal and check them at the preparatory signal we are completely buggered. The rule 27.2 states "No later than the preparatory signal, the race committee may move a starting mark."  Now I don't know whether in race 3 this was factor. At the time my transits suggested it was a fair cop and I had just got myself in the wrong place just above some over keen luffers, but now I'm not so sure. Was the line shifted late?
I know the pressure is on the OOD to get the races of quickly, but if the line as set is not good enough just put up the postponement square up the line and go for a new start sequence. I'm sure we can all wait the few minutes extra.
Regards,
Steve Sallis
N3531

[sam293]

Sorry to further the pedantic comments but this has to be said.

Nigelf,
As far as i can see there is no mention of water in the new Rules in practice book, but as im sure you are very aware being an experienced race officer, that you would never follow this book to the letter, as it is only an interpretation of the rules.
From your many talks you have done, I am sure you will of used the "official" rule book, as opposed to an interpretation of them. 
In the "official" rules book, the water rule is gone and it is room now.

theres my rant over anyhow

[nigelf]

Sam293. You are quite right, basically, but for better or for worse, we all, competitors, race officers and members of protest committees are obliged to make interpretations of the Rules from time to time. My understanding (and interpretation) for what it is worth, is that the Rules provide an entitlement to the facility but do not say how that facility is to be obtained. In other words, if there were a few magic words which are required to claim your entitlement, the Rules might have provided them.I am not aware of any appeal decisions on this point to date but if anyone can enlighten me I shall be delighted to put their information in my bottom drawer for future use. Interpretations made at the highest level effectively become part of the Rules and the four-yearly review of the Rules have regard to appeal decisions made in the interim. I think we can all agree that racing is much better fun than poring over rules but unfortunately our Rules are complicated, otherwise we would not have so many books on the subject and for most I suspect that the books of explanation on the Rules are as useful as the Rules themselves.
Nigelf

[nigelf]

By the way, the passing reference to "water" in Bryan Willis' book is on page 64, but the whole question is much wider than what he was commenting on at that point.
Nigelf