What’s
New in the 2001–2004 Edition of Appendix E
Information
for Radio Sailors
Note: the information in this
article is in no way to be taken as rules or interpretations. Reference shall
always be made to the Racing Rules of Sailing as well as any official interpretations
or appeals.
The new version
of Appendix E has been adapted to work with the 2001–2004 edition of the Racing
Rules of Sailing (RRS), and as such, has some minor changes in terminology. In
addition, there are several modified rules intended to solve existing problems,
and in a number of cases, the wording has been changed to try to eliminate
ambiguity. The appendix also tries to more closely follow the RRS wherever
possible and appropriate. The rules are available on the web at www.sailing.org
This paper will
not attempt to examine the entire appendix in the interest of brevity, but will
try to give an overview. I would also like to suggest that every rule in the
appendix, and further, every rule in the RRS is an attempt to solve a problem.
To understand a rule, it is important to understand and consider the problem
that was being addressed.
E1 – TERMINOLOGY, RACE SIGNALS, DEFINITIONS AND FUNDAMENTAL RULES
This section is
changed from the 1997–2000 edition of the appendix. It now includes in one
place a number of rules that have to do with basic issues.
E1.1 Terminology
Because the new
version of the RRS makes the use of Appendix A optional, the confusing
modifications that were found to be needed for RSD and other events are no
longer required. Therefore, the definitions in this section are essentially
unchanged from the previous appendix. Refer to rule 88.3(a).
E1.2 Race Signals
This section was
added to solve a number of issues where the rules in the body of the RRS
require the use of flag signals. The previous edition of Appendix E deleted
rule 25 because of the requirement to use visual (flag) signals, but in so
doing, inadvertently omitted the requirement to make the sailing instructions
available to each boat before the racing begins. This rule solves that problem
and others. The ‘other sounds described in this appendix’ are not further
specified except for their time of use, to allow for flexibility. A horn or
whistle signal would be desirable, but race committees may use their
discretion.
E1.3 Definitions
The addition to
the definition of ‘interested party’ is intended to solve a problem in the last
edition of the appendix. According to rule 60.2(a), a race committee cannot
protest a boat as a result of information from an interested party, with a new
exception mentioned below. Since frequently our only source of observers has
been from the pool of competitors, there was at least a technical problem,
because those ‘observer-competitors’ met the definition of ‘interested party’.
I might mention
at this point that the 2001–2004 RRS contains a new rule, (60.4) that allows a
protest committee to protest any boat involved in an incident when it receives any
report of an incident that may have resulted in serious damage.
There is a
slight change in the wording regarding the ‘two-length zone’. This was done in
part to minimise fundamental changes to the body of the RRS. Although rule 18
is no longer mentioned, the effect is exactly the same as in the current
appendix.
E1.4 Personal Buoyancy
After
considerable discussion of options, this rule remains unchanged from the
1997–2000 appendix. It follows the lead of the RRS in making the competitor
responsible for wearing adequate floatation. It is not someone else’s
responsibility.
E1.5 Aerials
The new rule
gives the protest committee the option of warning a competitor who violates the
requirements of the rule.
E2 PART 2 – WHEN BOATS MEET
Capsized or Entangled
This is a new
addition to the appendix that requires boats to avoid entangled boats if
possible, as well as boats capsized. In addition, this rule serves to define
entanglement in the same manner that rule 21 defines ‘capsized’. The
modification of the body of the RRS is felt warranted because while full size
boats rarely become entangled, radio-sailed boats do so more commonly.
PART 3 – CONDUCT OF A RACE
E3.1 Races with Observers
The revised rule
on this subject adds the requirement that observer hails shall be made from the
control area and that observers must remain in the control area while boats are
racing. It was felt inappropriate for observers to be stationed far from the
control area and perhaps near a distant mark, and to be allowed to make hails
which might not be heard, and which could not be corroborated by those
restricted to the control area. The wording also ensures that observers cannot
make such observations outside the control area and then run over to the
control area to make the hail.
There are other
important facets to this rule too. Race observers, as the term is used in this
appendix, have one specific function. They hail when they note contact, either
between boats, or between a boat and a mark. This means for example that a line
judge responsible for calling boats over early at the start is not acting as an
'observer' when completing this task. The race committee in some way must
appoint the observers, and they may be competitors not racing or they may be
race committee members, or perhaps others. Simply being a member of the race committee
does not automatically make one a race observer. In other words, race committee
members who are not serving as observers may be outside the control area while
boats are racing.
To expand
further on the function of observers, consider the case where an appointed
observer sees an infraction other than contact, and reports the incident to the
race committee. I would interpret this action by the observer to be outside the
scope of his or her appointment per E3.1, and thus not functioning as an
observer in making this report. Therefore, the person does not meet the
exclusion granted to observers in E1.3(a). If the person is a competitor, he or
she reverts to an interested party, and the race committee may not protest, per
rule 60.2(a). This reinforces the limited role assigned to observers.
The requirement
for race observers to report ‘unresolved incidents’ is unchanged from the
previous appendix. This requirement presupposes that the observer knows how
incidents are resolved; concepts that may not be immediately apparent to those
less experienced. If a boat did a turn, did it meet all the requirements of the
applicable rules? Did she get not only clear, but ‘well clear’, and did she do
so as ‘soon as possible’ after the incident? Did she keep clear of boats not
doing turns? In order for the observer to answer these questions, he or she
must understand the concept of getting or keeping clear for example. Keeping
clear is a strictly defined term. This serves to emphasise that skilled
observers are very desirable.
E3.2 Course Board
This rule begins
the introduction of a new approach; the launching area or areas. In addition to
the requirement to show the control area on a course board, there is now a
requirement to show the launching area(s). Note however that the size of these
areas is not specified, thus giving considerable freedom to the race committee.
This is vitally important with respect to the function of launching areas.
The reason for
adding launching areas will be discussed in conjunction with the next rule, but
at this point please do not try to picture them as perhaps small roped off
areas where the boats are commonly launched. Doing so will lead one astray. The
new wording also requires that the information on the course board be clearly
visible to competitors as they are racing instead of just the course board
itself being visible.
E3.3 Control and Launching Areas
This rule has
several significant changes. It requires that the control and launching areas
be defined in some manner in the sailing instructions, and it limits where a
competitor may physically go while actively racing his or her boat. It also
affects competitors not racing.
The new wording
requires that skippers who are racing stay within the control area, except that
they may briefly go to and from a launching area to do such things as
launching, adjusting, repairing, removing entangled objects (which would
include another boat) etc., per rule E4.5. It means that skippers actively
racing may not man a rescue vessel that is outside the launching area(s), nor
may such skippers wade or swim out beyond the launching area(s). Note however
that competitors who are not racing are allowed in the rescue
vessel that is outside of the launching areas.
The launching
area concept is a tool for use by the race committee to solve a number of
potential problems. For casual racing, the size and locations of launching
areas can be adjusted to suit the event. However, not using them as intended
can lead to the sort of abuse that has been noted in the recent and not so
recent past.
While still
racing, some skippers have been manning the rescue vessel (sometimes without
permission) in order to row out to disentangle or repair their boat, but in so
doing, disrupting the rest of the fleet. There have been instances where
skippers were able to wade out well into the racing area in order to work on
their boat. And a few skippers, while racing, have apparently been swimming to
their boats under dangerous conditions. The ISAF–RSD Racing Rules Committee
worked extensively on a number of possible solutions. This one allowed the
greatest flexibility. However, for the concept to work the race committee must
properly define the launching area(s). Think of the water outside the launching
areas as what is desired to be a ‘racing skipper free zone’.
Besides the
obvious areas where boats may be launched, the launching areas should include
all areas that are too shallow for boats to sail, but where boats might
possibly go aground without the possibility of re-launching by the crew of a
rescue vessel. Care should be taken not to include areas whose use might
interfere with racing. In some cases the control area may need to be adjusted
so that it is compatible with use of the launching area. Launching areas need
not be contiguous. Rescue vessels should not have a draft so great that they cannot at
least get close to the outer margins of the launching areas. In that way, all
areas are covered.
The launching area can be used to address safety (and liability) concerns too. Say there is a steep embankment on one side of the pond that is not safe to traverse. That location should not be included in any launching area and the rescue vessel crew should rescue boats stranded there. Notice too that the current wording should prevent skippers from swimming out to their boats, provided that the launching area concept is properly applied.
E3.4 Non-applicable Rules
This rule now
ensures that there is an official requirement to make the sailing instructions
available to each boat before a race begins. For the technically minded, the
word ‘race’ actually becomes ‘heat’ per E1.1.
E3.6 Starting Penalties
The deletion of
the word ‘crew’ is housekeeping. The wording in E3.6 also allows the race
committee to use one of the options in rule 30 without displaying a flag
signal.
E3.9 General Recall
This rule now
requires that the general recall hails be made along with two sound signals.
They are not further specified. Especially at large events, horn or other
suitable signals have been found to be effective in cutting through all the
noise so that the intentions of the race committee are clear. Also, this rule
now more closely follows the RRS with respect to signalling a general recall.
E3.10 Shortening or Abandoning After the Start
After the start,
this rule has an effect slightly different from the past E4.7. Again, heats may
not be abandoned because of too much wind per se, however insufficient wind is
now a permissible reason to so abandon. It should be noted that the appendix
does not modify the permission in rule 32(e) that allows the race committee to
abandon a race (or heat) ‘for any other reason directly affecting the safety or
fairness of the competition’.
This means that
the race committee cannot abandon a heat simply because it is stormy, but they may
so abandon if the ‘safety of the competition’ is felt to be compromised. It can
be maintained that a radio sailing competition is a test of both a skipper and
his or her boat. Therefore, if the safety of the boats is in jeopardy, the race
committee may abandon the heat under rule 32(e).
In a significant
change from the current appendix, this draft does not modify rule 27 (which
applies before the start), as did E4.7. Therefore, the race committee may now
postpone a heat because of too much or too little wind. Forcing the race
committee to start a heat when there is essentially no wind or during storm
conditions could conflict with the permissions in rule 32(e).
E5.10 also
removes the new permission in rule 32(f) that allows a race committee to
abandon a race ‘to enable further races to be sailed’. Such a rule does not
quite fit with our sport.
E4 PART 4 – OTHER REQUIREMENTS WHEN RACING
E4.1 Non-applicable Rules
A few additional
rules have been added to the list in the 1997–2000 appendix, in the interest of
making the appendix shipshape.
E4.2 Outside Help
This rule has
been reworded for greater clarity. It deals with both giving and receiving
help. As in the current appendix, competitors may not give advice to those
racing. In general, the new rule follows the RRS in restricting the receiving
of outside help except in a few instances.
Before
discussing actual physical assistance or help, I would like to briefly comment
on receiving advice. Because the issue of receiving advice is not fundamentally
different in radio sailing as compared to full size racing, it is not addressed
in the appendix. Admittedly, receiving advice is somewhat of a grey area. Many
advisory hails are common and accepted practice both our level and on big
boats, and even though they may have the effect of helping the other boat, they
are not considered to be a violation of rule 41. At the other extreme, I
believe that private voice communication for example, say with an aeroplane
overhead spotting wind or perhaps with a person standing on a high bluff
overlooking a radio sailing event, would be considered inadmissible outside
help.
Now to hands-on
assistance. If the launching area concept is used properly, a skipper may not
go out into the area where other boats are racing to fix his or her boat while
racing. If there is a problem beyond the launching area, outside help (supplied
by a rescue vessel crew) is limited only to disentangling boats, or freeing
those aground. If the boat’s battery goes dead for example, the competitor will
be forced to retire. This can be thought of as the rights of the many (to have
an unencumbered racecourse) vs. the rights of the individual skipper. In the
case of the dead battery, most likely the boat is out of control, and would be
obligated to promptly hail and retire according to rule E4.9. Note the word
‘promptly’ in that rule.
If the boat is
not able to continue racing because of the improper action of another boat,
redress can and should be granted if appropriate. If the boat is disabled and
was at fault, one would be hard pressed to consider that the boat deserves
outside help in the racing area beyond what is allowed by this rule so that it
may continue with the heat. It has most likely violated rule 14 along with its
other infraction. If the damage requires the intervention of a rescue boat, one
could reasonably conclude that the damage was serious, and that the boat is
required to retire per rule 44.1.
At higher level
events where it is expected that the launching area will be most useful, boats
should be prepared to complete heats. When racing full size boats, if say a
winch breaks down, crews are not allowed to have a tender come alongside with
spare parts. So the new appendix can now be used to more closely reflect the
RRS with respect to a boat receiving outside help.
Some may wonder
why the RSD Racing Rules Committee did not propose a rule that would penalise
skippers racing who physically interfere with other boats racing. Speaking only
for myself, I think that this solution would be problematic. Proving
interference would be difficult and contentious. A potential violation would
require a hearing, and later the consideration of redress for all those who may
have been interfered with. I think it would be analogous to having a speed
limit that said ‘don’t go too fast’.
The new appendix
allows competitors not racing and others to help do the same things a skipper
is allowed to do within a launching area. However, it requires that a boat
aground or entangled outside a launching area only be freed by a ‘rescue vessel
crew’. This wording allows a person in a rescue vessel to temporarily step out
to retrieve a boat in an area not included in a launching area. Such wading
should be a fairly uncommon, and only at ponds with unusual features that are
not included in a launching area. Examples of such unusual race sites might be
ponds with islets in the middle, or perhaps sites with docks on pilings under
which boats could get stuck, but where the rescue vessel itself could not go.
Again, the
effect of a properly designated launching area will be to keep the skipper who
is racing physically out of the racing area. If his or her boat is entangled
beyond a launching area, someone else (a race committee member, a competitor
not racing, or other helper) must solve the problem. It is hoped that such help
will be given in a prudent manner, and not impede the progress of the other
boats. Imprudent help could lead to requests for redress, based on an
allegation of improper action by the race committee in directing the rescue
vessel.
E4.3 Propulsion and Prohibited Actions
This new rule is
in the nature of housekeeping.
E4.5 Launching and Re-launching
This rule, along
with others in the past appendix, has been relocated so that it follows in the
sequence of the rule in the RRS that it changes or replaces. In a significant
addition, boats are now required to be launched or recovered from a launching
area. This of course is needed to make the concept of the launching area work.
See above.
You will note
the exception in E4.5(b). This was included because some might have seen an
apparent contradiction with this rule, which says that all boats shall be
launched from within a launching area, and E4.2(b)(1). On close reading you
will see that E4.2 refers to ‘relaunching’, not launching. Relaunching should
be understood to mean ‘launch again’. To prevent confusion or misapplication of
the rule however, ‘except as provided by rule E4.2(b)(1)’ was added E4.5(b).
E4.6 Person in Charge
Rather than
delete rule 46 as did the previous appendix, it has been adapted to our use.
It’s an administrative issue linked to rule 75.
E4.7 Moving Ballast
In the previous
appendix, the rule on ballast changed rule 51. Rule 51 still
existed; it was just changed some. The problem was that rule 51 is in Part 4 of
the RRS, and rules of Part 4 only apply while boats are actually racing.
‘Racing’ is used here in the defined sense.
Now we ‘replace’
rule 51 with the intent that the sea lawyers cannot claim that they have the
right to change ballast while they are not actively racing, based on the logic
above.
E4.7(d) has a
very minor word change, replacing the word ‘and’ with ‘but’ to avoid an
apparent contradiction that some have perceived.
E4.8 Radio
In the 1997 –
2000 appendix, the ‘radio transmissions’ of a competitor were not to interfere.
Although probably ambiguous, this could have been understood to only regulate
the skipper’s transmitter. The new wording covers all radio signals that a
competitor might cause to be transmitted; for example those generated by 2-way
radios, or perhaps even a cell phone.
This rule now prohibits a competitor who has
been found to have caused interference from racing again until the problem is
proven to have been fixed. Although the rule does not specify how this is to be
done, the customary method is to have all skippers who will be racing together
turn on their transmitters one by one, while each watches for signs of
interference. If there is an allegation of interference from other sources, a
similar procedure could be used.
E4.9 Boat Out of Radio Control
This rule is
slightly reworded. In the old rule (E5.6), a boat out of control was required
to retire. It ‘shall’ retire, but the requirements for retiring are at the
discretion of the race committee. It is common to require some form of
notification. Imagine that your boat was out of control and that it sailed
across the pond. You make the proper hails. As you quickly walk around to
retrieve your boat, the rest of the boats finish. If you did not retire
properly, it is possible that you could have been protested by a rule nut for
not doing so!
With the new
wording, once you hail ‘out of control’ and your boat’s number twice, the race
committee should automatically consider you retired.
E5 PART 5 – PROTESTS, HEARINGS, MISCONDUCT AND APPEALS
E5.1 Right to Protest and Request Redress
This rule
continues the requirement that a boat wishing to protest an infraction of a
rule of Part 2, 3 or 4 must have been scheduled to race in the heat in which
the incident occurred. It now also requires that the protestor must have been
in the control or launching area at the time.
Note that this
rule makes reference not only to allegations of violations of Part 2 rules, but
also to violations of Parts 3 and 4. This ensures that those spectating and not
racing cannot file protests if they think a boat was over the starting line
early, or touched a mark, etc. The new rule also helps clear up a past problem
with observer reports.
E5.2 Informing the Protestee
The rule now
reverts to the practice of Appendix B7, which was in effect from 1993 to 1996.
It requires that a boat intending to protest another boat must hail her own
sail number, followed by ‘Protest’ followed by the other boat’s number. The
1997–2000 rule did not require that the protestor identify herself, and that
caused significant difficulty. Admittedly, the return to the requirements of B7
is more complicated, but it is with cause, especially for major events.
Some have felt
that the word ‘protest’ in this context is not grammatically correct. Because
of the long history of the RRS requiring the exact word ‘protest’ and because
of consideration for those who are not native English speakers, the draft uses
the word ‘protest’.
E5.2 omits all
but the first sentence of the revised rule 61.1(a) in the new RRS. That first
sentence is very important. It requires that a boat intending to protest
another boat shall always inform the other boat at the first reasonable
opportunity. If the protestor does not do this, it is not a valid
protest. The new wording in the RRS is now more clear – more definite – about
the much abused requirement for timely notification of intent to protest.
E5.5 Redress
It is now
possible to get redress for having been forced aground by a boat breaking a
rule of Part 2, as well as having been entangled. However such redress should
not be considered automatic. All the requirements in rule 62.1 must be met.
E5.7 Taking Evidence and Finding Facts
This rule
requires careful reading. In the old rule, evidence about an alleged breach of a
rule of Part 2, 3 or 4 was accepted only from witnesses who were within the
control area at the time. A person outside of control area could not give
evidence.
In the new rule,
it is evidence given by competitors that is so regulated. A competitor is one
who has met the appropriate requirements in the Notice of Race and Sailing
Instructions, and is eligible to compete in the event. Therefore this rule does
not prevent testimony at a protest hearing by race committee members or other
non-competitor witnesses who were outside the control area at the time of the
incident, including those with video evidence.
I might briefly
touch on video evidence and the concept of evidence being ‘given’. With the
common use of video cameras both by competitors not racing, and by spectators,
it is very likely that a skipper involved in a protest may be shown video of
the incident in question. Under the wording of this rule, it is possible for
the skipper to take the video camera in hand (the evidence) and ‘give’ it at
the hearing, even if the video was actually shot by a competitor who was not
racing at the time. This result was specifically intended. Of course the
protest committee is expected to understand the nature and problems with video
and other image-based evidence.
E5.8 Penalties and Exoneration
This rule now
gives the protest committee a few more options when certain rules specific to
this appendix are broken. Instead of a DSQ per rule 64.1(a) the race committee may
do one of the three things listed. The intent is to allow either a DSQ in the
race in which an incident happened, or one of the other 3 options. These are
important in order to deal with non-racing violations, such as giving advice,
causing radio interference, etc.
E5.9 Decision on Redress
This rule has
the effect of causing a slight change in granting time to repair. In the
previous rule (E4.11), a boat that was damaged while having the right of way
could be granted time to repair unless she was disqualified under rule 14.
Omitted was the idea of granting redress to a boat that may not have had ROW
status, but nonetheless, should have been given room. Also, it was not clear
from E4.11 how the determination of ROW status should have been made. At the
highest level, the only proper option would have been to hold a hearing.
The new rule
approaches this differently. In order to get time to repair, redress must be
granted. In order to get redress in this circumstance, there must have been the
possibility that the boat’s finishing place was made significantly worse
through no fault of her own. She should have broken no rule that she was not
forced to break by the improper action of another boat. Also, the damage must
have been caused by the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2, or
of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear. This solves the issue
of ROW vs. keep clear in the past rule.
At local and
perhaps regional events, skippers may not wish to hold hearings to decide on
time to repair. At these events it is common and accepted for race committees
to grant short delays for this and other problems facing skippers, and the
rules do not prevent such action. If desired, race committees or Division
Members can formalise rules that suit them for such ‘holds’ in the racing at
local events.
E6 APPENDIX G – IDENTIFICATION ON SAILS
This is a
somewhat complex rule with a simple result, which is achieved by modifying
Appendix G. That appendix divides boats into two groups; ISAF classes dealt
with in G1, and all others dealt with in G2.
E6 changes only G1,
so it applies only to the four ISAF–RSD International classes (unless other
classes choose to make reference to it). It is the goal of ISAF and ISAF
International classes to remove sail number specifications from the class rules
and include them in the racing rules. The appendix follows this principle, and
the result is a major simplification in the specifications for these classes.
The RSD Permanent Committee has recently adopted changes to all the
International class rules to make this so.
In the recent
past, these specifications were contained in the 1997 International Class
Administrative Rules (ICAR) and included requirements on height, width,
thickness, radius at the junctions and ends of strokes, spaces between marks on
opposite sides of the sail, and spaces between sail numbers and other marks.
Because ICAR only modified the old Appendix H (now Appendix G), the readability
requirement in H1.2(a) still applied. This could be regarded as overkill.
In E6 the
requirements are greatly reduced, but the result should be essentially the
same. A table gives the minimum height of the characters, and the minimum space
between the characters and the edge of the sail. This is augmented by the
readability requirement in Appendix G, unchanged from the past Appendix H, as
follows:
G1.2(a)
National letters and sail numbers shall be in capital letters and Arabic
numerals, clearly legible and of the same colour. Commercially available
typefaces giving the same or better legibility than Helvetica are acceptable.
This wording
implies a simple readability test in case of a dispute about sail markings. One
places the sail in question next to one properly configured using Helvetica
font, (which is very similar to Ariel Bold), and begins walking away. Note
which text becomes unreadable first. For your interest, I understand that ISAF
chose Helvetica as a standard because it is not the easiest font to read. The
goal was to make sure that the standard was not too hard to meet.
Importantly, all
proper sail markings per recent ICAR standards will still be completely legal.
No changes in correct current practice should be required.
Likewise, no
changes should be required for any other radio-sailed class that specifies sail
number specifications in its class rules. The appendix does not change G2.
Unless the class has formed a class association or unless the appropriate ISAF
National Authority has applicable sail marking rules for radio-sailed boats,
application of G2 does not dictate how sail identification should be done.
However, boats are required by the RRS to comply with class rules, and
therefore if ‘other classes’ do not somehow specify sail identification in
their class rules, they should.
For non-RSD
classes that may have formed class associations, boats are required by G2 to
follow the rules of the class association, but ‘such rules shall, when
practical, conform to the requirements of G1’ (which is modified by the
appendix). I do not think this requirement should be a burden for any such
classes, whether they find G1 as modified practical or not.
Larry Robinson
ISAF-RSD Publicity Officer
February 21, 2001