Our club prohibits crossing the start / finish line except to start or
finish. The entire area, including nearby extensions of the start /
finish line, are navigable. Our sailing instructions do not modify
RRS 28.1 (the "string" rule) in this regard, so "unwinding" is
permitted.

A handful of sailors had a lively discussion over beer one night
regarding whether the prohibited start / finish line ranks as an
obstruction. It is clearly not a mark - boats can (and do) leave this
area to either side depending on individual polars or tactical
circumstances.

The RRS definitions state that an obstruction is "an object that a
boat could not pass...", but the line is not an object. Further, the
definitions state that "...an area so designated by the sailing
instructions (is) also (an) obstruction...".

Does the prohibition of crossing the line in the sailing instructions
make the "area so designated by the sailing instructions" an
obstruction, or would the SIs have to specifically state that the line
ranks as an obstruction?

Thanks,

Jim Williams
Willoughby Racers
Norfolk, VA

Hi Jim,

There are several different issues in this topic.

The string rule is irrelevant. The start/finish line marks do not begin
or end the leg in question, and they do not have a required side.
Therefore they are not "marks" according to the definition. The string
rule does not prohibit multiple roundings of a required mark, and it
says nothing at all about objects that are not marks.

The prohibited area is clearly an "obstruction" if the prohibition is
properly written into the sailing instructions. Typically this sort of
sailing instruction would be used to prevent potentially dangerous
shortcuts, avoiding commercial traffic, and so on. If written carefully,
with particular attention to the definition of the exact prohibited area
and the time in which the prohibition is in effect, it should be
possible to use this approach.

The prohibited start/finish line, or closed gate as it is sometimes
called, is full of problems. It potentially makes life easier for the
RC, but it creates strategic headaches for the competitors. It is not
allowable for the RC to simply toss a violator unless the rules are
modified. Rule A5 requires a protest hearing to "worsen a boat's score"
for all but a couple of specific reasons. The rule modification is
possible, but it requires adjustments to at least rules A5, A4.1, 63.1,
and 28.1.

It does not make a lot of sense to have a prohibited area that can be
violated and then "un-violated" as you seem to indicate. If the area is
prohibited for good reason, then protest and toss the perps. If the
transgression can somehow be undone by unwinding the course, then it
would not appear that the prohibited area made much sense in the first
place. The rules are generally unforgiving with regard to "innocent
mistakes".

Been there, done that, got burned, learned, etc.

Regards,
Gene Fuller

ProjectPro wrote:
Our club prohibits crossing the start / finish line except to start or
finish. The entire area, including nearby extensions of the start /
finish line, are navigable. Our sailing instructions do not modify
RRS 28.1 (the "string" rule) in this regard, so "unwinding" is
permitted.

A handful of sailors had a lively discussion over beer one night
regarding whether the prohibited start / finish line ranks as an
obstruction. It is clearly not a mark - boats can (and do) leave this
area to either side depending on individual polars or tactical
circumstances.

The RRS definitions state that an obstruction is "an object that a
boat could not pass...", but the line is not an object. Further, the
definitions state that "...an area so designated by the sailing
instructions (is) also (an) obstruction...".

Does the prohibition of crossing the line in the sailing instructions
make the "area so designated by the sailing instructions" an
obstruction, or would the SIs have to specifically state that the line
ranks as an obstruction?

Thanks,

Jim Williams
Willoughby Racers
Norfolk, VA

"ProjectPro" wrote in message
om
Our club prohibits crossing the start / finish line except to start or
finish. The entire area, including nearby extensions of the start /
finish line, are navigable. Our sailing instructions do not modify
RRS 28.1 (the "string" rule) in this regard, so "unwinding" is
permitted.

A handful of sailors had a lively discussion over beer one night
regarding whether the prohibited start / finish line ranks as an
obstruction. It is clearly not a mark - boats can (and do) leave this
area to either side depending on individual polars or tactical
circumstances.

The RRS definitions state that an obstruction is "an object that a
boat could not pass...", but the line is not an object. Further, the
definitions state that "...an area so designated by the sailing
instructions (is) also (an) obstruction...".

Does the prohibition of crossing the line in the sailing instructions
make the "area so designated by the sailing instructions" an
obstruction, or would the SIs have to specifically state that the line
ranks as an obstruction?

If it is desired to treat the line as an obstruction, that is, creating
an entitlement to room under RRS 18, then the SI should explicitly
designate the thing as an obstruction.

But by designating start/finish lines as obstructions, you are
destroying the principles that allow one boat to force another over at
the start.

The effect of your local SI is a rather ham-fisted attempt to do what
the Flag I, Flag Z and Black Flag starting options in RRS 30 provide in
a carefully thought out way (with effective penalties, that won't
require a protest hearing). Why not use the carefully developed rules
provided?

The RRS don't provide a specific rule to keep the finish line clear, but
if this is really a problem, bearing in mind that the SI probhibition
will require a protest hearing to deal with an infringer, then it can
probably be dealt with better by:

* _requesting_ boats not to cross or re-cross the finish line except
when finishing (in the SI, or general notices), (this works fine with
several clubs where I race) and

* locating the finish line sufficiently away from nearby rounding marks
so that boats that are racing do not come near it, for example, 200 m to
windward of the windward mark of the course, or to leeward of the
leeward mark, if a downwind finish.

John

Thanks, Gene and John. Our ham-fisted attempt wasn't to recreate the
RRS 30 system, it was to keep boats out of the finishing area on laps
of the course between starting and finishing. We have boats of widely
differing speeds sailing different courses, and could end up with a
boat under spinnaker hauling butt to finish, only to have to deal with
a slower close hauled boat going back to the weather mark. The intent
is to keep the slower boat out of the finish line for safety purposes.

The reason that we allow someone to correct an error of going through
the line is that the Southern Chesapeake Bay gets some crazy currents
at times, and is possible for a boat to drift across the line without
the helmsman being able to prevent it. Under those drifting
conditions we are less concerned about the posibility of collision.

We are constrained by the shape and size of our Willoughby Bay and
cannot offset the starting line. I'm also not an favor of
"requesting" that competitors do something - there needs to be a
consequence.

It is not a problem that the RC would have to protest a competitor for
violating the line. It doesn't happen often enough for that to be an
issue.

The main question is whether the SIs have to use the word
"obstruction" in defining the area to be avoided, or is the fact that
it is a prohibited area enough to make it an obstruction for the
purposes of Rules 18 and 19?

Gene - Best of luck with the Lakefest Regatta next weekend. I wish I
could be there. It is a wonderful event!

Jim Williams
Willoughby Racers
Norfolk, VA

Allan" wrote in message u...
If it is desired to treat the line as an obstruction, that is, creating
an entitlement to room under RRS 18, then the SI should explicitly
designate the thing as an obstruction.

But by designating start/finish lines as obstructions, you are
destroying the principles that allow one boat to force another over at
the start.

The effect of your local SI is a rather ham-fisted attempt to do what
the Flag I, Flag Z and Black Flag starting options in RRS 30 provide in
a carefully thought out way (with effective penalties, that won't
require a protest hearing). Why not use the carefully developed rules
provided?

The RRS don't provide a specific rule to keep the finish line clear, but
if this is really a problem, bearing in mind that the SI probhibition
will require a protest hearing to deal with an infringer, then it can
probably be dealt with better by:

* _requesting_ boats not to cross or re-cross the finish line except
when finishing (in the SI, or general notices), (this works fine with
several clubs where I race) and

* locating the finish line sufficiently away from nearby rounding marks
so that boats that are racing do not come near it, for example, 200 m to
windward of the windward mark of the course, or to leeward of the
leeward mark, if a downwind finish.

John

Hi Jim,

I understand exactly what you are trying to do, because we tried the
same thing for many years in both TSC club racing and in open events
such as Lakefest.

As you know, we get some really high level officials on board for
Lakefest, with national and international race officers and judges. To a
person they told us the closed start/finish line was unworkable. The RRS
do not really accommodate this closure, and anyone appealing a DSQ would
probably win.

If your club is willing to go along with a valiant attempt to modify the
rules it may work, but perhaps not if you have genuine sea lawyers
involved. I agree that a "request" is not a good idea.

We gave it up for Lakefest to avoid the pitfalls. To maintain sanity of
the RC we have changed all the courses to remove the need for a closed
line. Any boat crossing the line other than starting or finishing is way
off course, so the number of incidents is very small.

As to your question of wording the SI's, the definition seems pretty
clear. An "area so designated by the sailing instructions [is] also an
obstruction". There is no mention of why the area might be selected,
such as being a prohibited area. There is no automatic designation other
than one that is safety related. It is not allowed to change the RRS
definitions. Therefore the SI's must explicitly designate the area as an
obstruction.

Regards,
Gene Fuller

ProjectPro wrote:
Thanks, Gene and John. Our ham-fisted attempt wasn't to recreate the
RRS 30 system, it was to keep boats out of the finishing area on laps
of the course between starting and finishing. We have boats of widely
differing speeds sailing different courses, and could end up with a
boat under spinnaker hauling butt to finish, only to have to deal with
a slower close hauled boat going back to the weather mark. The intent
is to keep the slower boat out of the finish line for safety purposes.

The reason that we allow someone to correct an error of going through
the line is that the Southern Chesapeake Bay gets some crazy currents
at times, and is possible for a boat to drift across the line without
the helmsman being able to prevent it. Under those drifting
conditions we are less concerned about the posibility of collision.

We are constrained by the shape and size of our Willoughby Bay and
cannot offset the starting line. I'm also not an favor of
"requesting" that competitors do something - there needs to be a
consequence.

It is not a problem that the RC would have to protest a competitor for
violating the line. It doesn't happen often enough for that to be an
issue.

The main question is whether the SIs have to use the word
"obstruction" in defining the area to be avoided, or is the fact that
it is a prohibited area enough to make it an obstruction for the
purposes of Rules 18 and 19?

Gene - Best of luck with the Lakefest Regatta next weekend. I wish I
could be there. It is a wonderful event!

Jim Williams
Willoughby Racers
Norfolk, VA

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



On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:26:34 UTC, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Hi Jim,

I understand exactly what you are trying to do, because we tried the
same thing for many years in both TSC club racing and in open events
such as Lakefest.

As you know, we get some really high level officials on board for
Lakefest, with national and international race officers and judges. To a
person they told us the closed start/finish line was unworkable. The RRS
do not really accommodate this closure, and anyone appealing a DSQ would
probably win.

If your club is willing to go along with a valiant attempt to modify the
rules it may work, but perhaps not if you have genuine sea lawyers
involved. I agree that a "request" is not a good idea.

We gave it up for Lakefest to avoid the pitfalls. To maintain sanity of
the RC we have changed all the courses to remove the need for a closed
line. Any boat crossing the line other than starting or finishing is way
off course, so the number of incidents is very small.

As to your question of wording the SI's, the definition seems pretty
clear. An "area so designated by the sailing instructions [is] also an
obstruction". There is no mention of why the area might be selected,
such as being a prohibited area. There is no automatic designation other
than one that is safety related. It is not allowed to change the RRS
definitions. Therefore the SI's must explicitly designate the area as an
obstruction.

Regards,
Gene Fuller

ProjectPro wrote:
Thanks, Gene and John. Our ham-fisted attempt wasn't to recreate the
RRS 30 system, it was to keep boats out of the finishing area on laps
of the course between starting and finishing. We have boats of widely
differing speeds sailing different courses, and could end up with a
boat under spinnaker hauling butt to finish, only to have to deal with
a slower close hauled boat going back to the weather mark. The intent
is to keep the slower boat out of the finish line for safety purposes.

The reason that we allow someone to correct an error of going through
the line is that the Southern Chesapeake Bay gets some crazy currents
at times, and is possible for a boat to drift across the line without
the helmsman being able to prevent it. Under those drifting
conditions we are less concerned about the posibility of collision.

We are constrained by the shape and size of our Willoughby Bay and
cannot offset the starting line. I'm also not an favor of
"requesting" that competitors do something - there needs to be a
consequence.

It is not a problem that the RC would have to protest a competitor for
violating the line. It doesn't happen often enough for that to be an
issue.

The main question is whether the SIs have to use the word
"obstruction" in defining the area to be avoided, or is the fact that
it is a prohibited area enough to make it an obstruction for the
purposes of Rules 18 and 19?

Gene - Best of luck with the Lakefest Regatta next weekend. I wish I
could be there. It is a wonderful event!

Jim Williams
Willoughby Racers
Norfolk, VA

"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.

This is good advice, but assumes it's possible. Some fleets race in
constricted waters where geography (hydrography?) force you to set
courses that you might otherwise prefer not to, especially when using
fixed marks.

I've become a big fan of the setup R.G. suggests, when it's possible.
We set a start/finish line square to the wind and a windward mark dead
upwind. Then, we drop the leeward mark about 100 yards to windward of
the RC boat, and have a downwind finish. This gives you a couple of
advantages:

1) If the wind shifts, you only have to move one mark (the windward
one). Unless the shift is really radical, the leeward mark can stay
where it is, and it's not critical that it gets set exactly. The chase
boat can just toss it over the side on the way up to set the windward
mark and forget about it. This really helps out when the RC is
shorthanded and you've only got a single chase boat.

2) The spinnaker drops all happen right in front of the RC boat. This
not only adds to the RC's entertainment factor, but makes for great
photography as well.

On 11 Apr 2004 07:41:59 -0700, in message

(ProjectPro) wrote:

The main question is whether the SIs have to use the word
"obstruction" in defining the area to be avoided, or is the fact that
it is a prohibited area enough to make it an obstruction for the
purposes of Rules 18 and 19?

If you are writing the sailing instructions and you want it to be
treated as an obstruction, then be sure to use the word "obstruction"
in your declaration as well as "prohibited". That way the SIs will
communicate clearly to the racers that it is to be treated as an
obstruction. It may or may not be a legal requirement, but it never
hurts to be explicit.

Ryk

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

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message

Hi Jim,

I understand exactly what you are trying to do, because we tried the
same thing for many years in both TSC club racing and in open events
such as Lakefest.

As you know, we get some really high level officials on board for
Lakefest, with national and international race officers and judges.
To a person they told us the closed start/finish line was unworkable.
The RRS do not really accommodate this closure, and anyone appealing
a DSQ would probably win.

Could you elaborate in general terms why the international jurists have
said this is so?

What would be the problem with the following SI based on RRS 29.1

"If, other than when a boat is _finishing_, any part of a boat's hull,
crew or equipment is on the side of the finish line farthest from the
last mark, the boat shall sail completely to the side of the finish line
nearest the last mark before _finishing_. This modifies RRS 28.1"

This could be elaborated along the lines of RRs 30.2/3 to provide for a
percentage penalty or a DSQ (and also allow it to be "switched on/off"
by a flag signal depending on the conditions).


If your club is willing to go along with a valiant attempt to modify
the rules it may work, but perhaps not if you have genuine sea lawyers
involved. I agree that a "request" is not a good idea.

OK, the "request" situation works to keep already-finished boats clear
of the finish line. If the prospect of a "little chat' with a flag
officer about sportsmanship and co-operating with the RC isn't enough to
induce people to co-operate, then I'm sorry for you. Obviously,
district regattas are a little different.

We gave it up for Lakefest to avoid the pitfalls. To maintain sanity
of the RC we have changed all the courses to remove the need for a
closed line. Any boat crossing the line other than starting or
finishing is way off course, so the number of incidents is very small.

If you can't get longitudinal offsets as illustrated in RRS Appendix K
Addendum A, then maybe you could try a lateral offset as shown in the
Match Racing SI 10.1 at

http://www.sailing.org/matchrace/mrssi.doc

Maybe this is what RG is suggesting.

As to your question of wording the SI's, the definition seems pretty
clear. An "area so designated by the sailing instructions [is] also an
obstruction". There is no mention of why the area might be selected,
such as being a prohibited area. There is no automatic designation
other than one that is safety related. It is not allowed to change
the RRS definitions. Therefore the SI's must explicitly designate the
area as an obstruction.

But I think the discussion in this thread indicates that you don't want
to make the line an obstruction, and confer rights to room.

Regards,
Gene Fuller

ProjectPro wrote:
Thanks, Gene and John. Our ham-fisted attempt wasn't to recreate the
RRS 30 system, it was to keep boats out of the finishing area on laps
of the course between starting and finishing.

Sorry, on offence intended.

Thanks for clarifying that it's just the finish that needs to be
attended to.

We have boats of
widely differing speeds sailing different courses, and could end up
with a boat under spinnaker hauling butt to finish, only to have to
deal with a slower close hauled boat going back to the weather mark.
The intent is to keep the slower boat out of the finish line for
safety purposes.

Well, boats meet in this situation all the time on the race course away
from the finish line: why is it any different? You've got the whole of
RRS Pt 2 to take care of it. It might be different if your finish line
was in some narrow channel, not surrounded by navigable water.

The reason that we allow someone to correct an error of going through
the line is that the Southern Chesapeake Bay gets some crazy currents
at times, and is possible for a boat to drift across the line without
the helmsman being able to prevent it. Under those drifting
conditions we are less concerned about the posibility of collision.

See my suggestion above.

We are constrained by the shape and size of our Willoughby Bay and
cannot offset the starting line. I'm also not an favor of
"requesting" that competitors do something - there needs to be a
consequence.

See my comment above.

It is not a problem that the RC would have to protest a competitor
for violating the line. It doesn't happen often enough for that to
be an issue.

See my comment above: by making the SI an amendment to RRS 28, you can
provide for exhoneration, percentage or DSQ without a hearing.

The main question is whether the SIs have to use the word
"obstruction" in defining the area to be avoided, or is the fact that
it is a prohibited area enough to make it an obstruction for the
purposes of Rules 18 and 19?

I think we've all said that, if you want it to be an obstruction, the SI
have to say "it's an obstruction".

snip

John