360 rule question?

Surely

take a penalty

are the operative words?

So are you asking where on the course to

promptly

make the penalty turn? i.e. sail on straight above the mark, make the turns, then round? Or, are you asking is it OK to round first and then do your turn for hitting the mark? Definitely rounding from port, although it's a tack and gybe, does not

count

as the penalty turn.

I believe he is asking whether the gybe around the mark would constitue part of the penalty turn.

Imagine you are on starboard tack, heading downwind into the leeward mark, to be rounded to port. You must therefore gybe onto port to round the mark. If you end up hitting the mark while on starboard tack (before gybing to port), does the gybe to port to round the mark count as the gybe portion of your 360deg turn? If you then round upwind and tack over to starboard, does that count as the tack part of your 360deg turn? Thereby completing the penalty turn.

My inclination (and hope) would be no, however, the way the rule is written, it looks like that may be legal exoneration.

One point that I would bring up:
The rule for exonerating yourself states that you must take your penalty turn

after getting well clear of other
boats as soon as possible

. So, if you are not near any other boats when you round and you enter the rounding on starboard tack close enough to touch the mark, you are going to be so wide on your turn after you gybe, that it's going to be a lousy rounding anyway.
The only case where you should be that close to the mark would be on a crowded rounding where you are trying to be the inside boat. And in that case, However the stipulation of

after getting well clear of other
boats as soon as possible

comes into play.

sm

I have a problem with this rule too. The

rule benders

may think this is OK, and may get some judges to agree, which is why one could make the case that it's a poorly written rule. But, for it to have

teeth

it may need more clarification than it's worth.

I would like to think most people would agree that since the intent of the rule is that it's a PENALTY, all turns should be in ADDITION to any turns you need to take to sail your course.

I'm glad I'm not a rule-writer...

Mike

what Im saying is, could this hold up in the protest room for the cheaters? The rule sure is fuzzy, and we all no what the right thing is, a seperate turn clear from everyone, but still the rule is unclear.

What I'm saying is, it's sort of a gray area. I've been on RC boats with certified judges who were counting tacks and gybes. The folks I've been around don't always consider whether the tack or gybe is part of normal maneuvering.

Based on that, if it were me, I wouldn't waste my time in the room unless the rule gets clarified.

Hope this helps.

Mike

I think that you have to clear the mark before you can start taking your penalty. If you are maneuvering in a tack or a gybe and hit the mark that is not part of you penalty as you have not cleared the mark before starting the maneuver. You do not actually have to do a complete 360 though. You are only required to perform one tack and one gybe (either one first) in the same direction, clockwise or counter clockwise. Sometimes it will look like a 270 like this:

From Dave Perry's Book

Later,
Dan

Hi Dave -

I am pretty sure your two scenarios fail the litmus test that judges have described to me in extremely similar situations. In both cases, the boat continued to sail the course - the maneuvers made were part of the proper course in leaving the marks to begin with. Every time I've seen this

gray area

taken to the room, the skipper got DSQ'd based on the fact his actions were construed to be a continuation of racing rather than an action intended to get clear and accept the alternative penalty of a turn. In your descriptions, the skippers aren't

doing a penalty turn

as much as they are

rounding a mark of the course.

there you go, some experience with this situation, hope it wasnt you John...I really didnt mean cheaters in a bad way...

I think we all agree that is the right way to go. I honestly don't think it's overly vague, but I've been amazed at some of the tactics that are taught at seminars using varying interpretations of the

simple

rules.

I personally would avoid the room on this, not because it should go either way, but because it could. If this in the case book, that should eliminate the question.

Mike

If you were to include the tacks and gybes that you had to make by sailing the course (in your penalty), theoretically you would never have to make any 360's as simply by sailing around the course (buoys) you are effectively

sailing in circles

.

A penalty

is just that. It is completely separate from all other sailing manouver requirements of the course, and required to be made at the earliest possible time after the infringement, and not something to be addressed simply “at your convenience, and/or by your self interest, “interpretation” of the rules

I think this does it...

Appendix C7.3:

(b) No part of a penalty may be taken within two of a boat’s hull lengths of a rounding mark.

sm

Never mind, Appendix C is for match racing.

I wonder why that rule isn't for general racing too.

sm

John,

I agree with this; However I am sure I have read somewhere that the following WOULD count as an acceptable 360.

1, Strong tide down the course
2, rounding the windward mark on stb.
3, your rudder touches the mark
4, to exonnerate you can then tack, gybe and then sail off

That sounds a lot like what Dan posted (Dave Perry drawing)...

This sure was a lot less ambiguous when the penalty was re-rounding the mark. I'm sure that led into a lot of traffic issues (asking someone who couldn't get around correctly the first time to try again and get in the way of more people who are sailing correctly)... <img src=

alt=

/>

Mike

Well, the rules for match racing also state that a boat can wait until she's about to finish to take a penalty, or force an offsetting penalty. They also allow the umpires to impose as many penalties as they want for a single infraction. Point being - match racing is different.

That aside, I think this situation is not as complicated as people are making it. If you touch a mark, you may exonerate yourself by getting well clear, and promptly doing a single turn (consisting of one tack and one gybe in the same direction). You don't have to reround the mark, nor make any other manouvers (except in the case of a finish mark).

It's pretty clear in Dave Perry's diagram above (which is generally taken as authoritative) that the boat did one tack and one gybe while rounding and still exonerated herself.

Those who insist that there should be

more penalty

are just reading their own desires into the rules. The only time the rules require a greater penalty is if a boat gained a

significant advantage

as a result of breaking a rule. In this case, I don't see any advantage from hitting the mark at all.

Regards,
Eric

I agree that the Dave Perry drawing is probably what is intended, and what most people have been told to do. But in reading rule 31.2, I don't see that explicitly spelled out. Actually the Dave Perry drawing doesn't really fit this situation anyway because the boat in that diagram does not have to tack or gybe to finish rounding the mark.

In any case, the rule doesn't call out anywhere (at least I don't see it) that you have to clear the mark before taking the penalty. Or that the penalty turn can not be part of your normal course. It only states that you have to be well clear of other boats before doing the turn.

If the stipulation were added to the general rules that penalties can not be performed within the 2 boatlength circle, that would make the whole thing a non-issue.

sm

... And we're now full circle... <img src=

alt=

/>

This is why, in my opinion, it's a poorly written rule. Most of us here seem to think it is clearly intended that you should go away from the mark and make a distinct set of turns, but it can be argued that since it doesn't explicitly call that out, it's not required.

The RRS are different than the Hobie Class rules, for example, which have a basic rule that says, unless the (class) rules say you CAN do it, you CAN'T. Not sure if that would be a good thing or not for the RRS, but they surely could clarify this rule a bit.

At the end of the day, I don't want to go to the room, and most people I've met would agree with that. However, it's there for a reason. If I saw this happen, my first option would be to discuss it with the person on the beach, preferably with a few friends (and a copy of the Dave Perry book). I'd probably let it go at that, unless the person insisted they were right, and I saw them do it again.

Mike

I think it's important to distinguish between what:
1) the rules say, and
2) what one thinks they should say.

Regardless of one's perception of the intent behind the rules, we must apply them as written. Different people infer different intent. To apply the rules based on one's opinion of the intent behind the writing invites chaos.

Nothing in rule 31.2 states that the turn must be contrary to a boat's proper course. If a boat manages her turn to minimize the penalty, that is simply good tactics.

For example, if a boat touches a finish pin while racing, she may do a quick spin (including one tack and one gybe) around the pin (provided she stays well clear of other boats) and finish again. That maneuver also satisfies the requirement to return to the course side of the finish line. There is nothing in the rule that says the turn and the return must be separate.

Please, if you are on a protest committee, apply the rules as written - not how you think they should be written. I was once disqualified in a protest at a national competition. I asked the committee chair what rule I broke and he said

I don't know - I just know you were wrong

. That is the kind of thing that really undermines the protest process. As a judge, I will not penalize a boat unless I can point the skipper to the rule and explain exactly how it was broken.

Personally, I'm very impressed at how well the rules are written. Granted, there are a few pathological cases resulting from unforseen course configurations, and sometimes the wording could be a little clearer, but they do very well overall and I have yet to find any case where there is a contradiction between rules.

Regards,
Eric

Wow Eric, you definitely said that better than I was able to.

If I were you, I would have appealed the chowder head who DSQd you without a rule citation. No offense if that chowder head is on this forum... <img src=

alt=

/>

Mike

It took me a long time to get over that DSQ. I did request a copy of the protest and was intending to appeal. I never did get the paperwork though, and eventually decided just to let it go.

The real kicker is that the protest chairman actually was right. It took me a lot of study to find the relevant rules, work out the connections, and discover just what I did wrong. If the PC could have explained the rules to me, it would have saved me a lot of grief. That's something I promised myself to do when I set out to get judge certification.

Regards,
Eric

That's pretty funny. It's interesting to see what motivates us do things. The only reason I started learning RC (and I made it a point to go out of my way to learn from the best) was because of all of the complaints I heard during my first year of racing.

And, ask anyone who knows me, I've done some things that would qualify as chowder-headed... I hope the guy at least apologized.

Mike

Well, I should probably admit that I often learn new things about the rules - so I might have a different opinion tomorrow.

I thought I had a good understanding of the rules when I went into the hearing. I was so confident of winning that I passed up the opportunity to get the protest thrown out on a technicality. I just knew that as middle boat, I was safe - protected from leeward by RRS 16.1 and from windward by RRS 11. In the end analysis, however, that was not the case.

I started doing a lot of RC because my wife was. My wife started doing a lot of RC because my sailing skills weren't up to par when I began racing. We quickly discovered that there wasn't enough room on the boat for both of us. She stepped off my boat and onto the RC boat for the first year. She learned how to run races while I learned how to sail, lol.

- Eric

Well, lots of times these things aren't easy. If they were all simple, people would admit they were wrong, and do circles or retire, and there would be no need for judges.

In some ways (I'm too much of an idealist?), I hate when protests get thrown out on technicalities, especially if someone who is clearly guilty is walking. On the other hand, there are rules that need to be followed to make the protest valid, so take every advantage you can!

Mike