Hi Geoff,

This is probably beating a dead horse, but here goes.

Your anti-sea-lawyer solution won't work. The definition of "mark" says,
"An object the sailing instructions require a boat to leave on a
specified side . . . ." There is no option to allow a "mark" to have
anything but ONE specified side. Changing definitions is not allowed.
Rule 28.1 could be changed to modify "sailing the course", but it would
need to avoid the use of "mark". Sounds like a real mess.

Mid-course start/finish lines can be useful in several situations.
However, it is necessary to either leave the line "open" or jump through
a bunch of hoops in the SI's to try to "close" the line.

Regards,
Gene Fuller



R. G. Newbury wrote:
A closed line only makes sense where the line lies between the
windward and leeward marks. To avoid the problem entirely, just ensure
that leeward mark is either upwind of the line, level with the line,
or uses the non-RC end as the leeward mark. However, it is easier to
separate boats by just dropping a finish mark a short distance to
starboard (usually) of the RC boat. If any line needs to be 'closed'
it can be that one, unless your conditions are such that you may still
be starting boats while prior starters may be transiting the area
(presuming you still have the leeward mark to leeward of the line).

If all this fails or cannot be done, there is one method which will
beat the sea-lawyers:

You must define each non-starting/finishing leg as requiring that BOTH
of the RC and the Start mark must be left, (at the helmsman's option)
either to port or to starboard.
'... from mark 3 to mark 4 leaving both of mark 1 and the Race
Committee vessel to starboard, or both of mark 1 and the Race
Committee vessel to port...'

This allows 'un-stringing' in case of error and protest ("did not
string") in case of failure.

In the Toronto area we gave up on this sort of idiocy about 20 years
ago....It is MUCH simpler to restructure things to completely obviate
any need for.

Geoff