Will this be used at ST events next year ?
Will there be much difference in practice ?

This is on the agenda for the next committee meeting.

Is it optional if you race under ISAF Rules?
If so are other rules "optional"?
Could one for instance make hitting marks or other things a mandatory retirement?

Rules are/can be modified by Sailing Instructions. It is common for instance for a river club with a lot of stream to modify the rule regarding hitting a mark from a 360 pentalty to 're rounding', at the 360 penalty is scant punishment if you take it in light winds running with the current.

You could have sailing instructions making hitting a mark a mandatory retirement, but then you probably would find travellers wouldn't bother going to that event, as the punishment is a bit out of aligment with the possible advantage gained. I, and many others, wouldn't want to spend £80 on petrol, £20 on entry fees to find my racing shortened at the first mark because I misjudged my boom by a few inches.

I realise this is a tricky subject, every one will have a view, everybody will be right! 
I would simply point out that I do not think the possibility of being disqualified should deter anyone from entering a regatta, to accept that it might is to admit people intend to; at least; push their luck, perhaps more. 
In days gone by when fleets were far bigger, fuel was proportionately at least as expensive, even briefly rationed,journeys were longer (Lower speed limits, far fewer Motorways and dual carriage ways.), and penalties were draconian. It didn't stop people attending regattas. 
I would welcome a return to the old days in respect mark hitting if not the other offences on the water,where turns or time penalties seem to be a good thing. 
I welcome the three length rule, in all classes the port tack chancers have been making life unnecessarily difficult for too long.
I would value Barry Dunnings view.

My point was mainly that if one venue had draconian punishment and others didn't that event may be unfavoured.

In my experience, people tend to hit the mark less in the Medway, for instance, where the rather solid navigation bouys are used, than where soft orange inflatable bouys are used.

Despite that, I would suggest, in the majority of instances, hitting the mark is
1 - accidental
2 - no advantage is gained (except in the light wind strong stream river scenario)

There are far more dangerous activities than mark hitting that require attention. The one I encounter the most is inside boat trying to sneak a last minute overlap, just at the point when the boat ahead should be dealing with the approach to the mark. I encountered that twice last season and both times required massive avoiding action to stop serious damage occurring.   I support the change

"The working party concluded - as we all do with the current rule - that two lengths was a too small an area for that. Spinnakers are lowered and course is adjusted before entering the two lengths zone. Most boats are already busy with the rounding well before. Without the "about to round" part of the rule, the zone could not stay two lengths. He stressed that in most classes, three lengths should work on the water the same as the current rule, with the added bonus that the 'border' for rule 18 was now fixed."

article continue "There are classes and circumstances that the three-length zone may be too large or too small. The working party wanted to give race committees the ability to deal with that. In the current rule book two-lengths is in the definitions and cannot be changed. In the new rule it is specifically allowed to change it in the sailing instructions. But the working party wanted it to be an exception, only to be done for very specific classes or circumstances.

"

I would suspect that “draconian punishments” or not like everything else it is the adherence to the rules by those that play the game, and the certainty of being caught for those who do not that rules.
There are sanctions for persistent offenders.
Whether or not it is “accidental” hitting a mark is against the rules and a boat handling error or error of judgement at best.  If not: why have physical marks at all?
I don’t think Alan F and anyone else who actually races dispute the need to sort out overlaps, mark rounding and perhaps most pertinently first mark rounding when as it usually is it is marks to port. Earlier this year I sailed in a regatta in Denmark where they tried rounding marks to starboard to put off the port tack chancers. It was not a success to the effect we asked the committee boat to change it for the next races. They agreed! 
There is no doubt that some of the current problems have been caused by a set of one size fits all ISAF Rules the working party seem to have recognized this and this change recognizes that but if it has gone far enough experience and time will tell. One can but hope that if it does need tweeking again we shall not have to wait four years for a correction.

Just to make it clear - I am not advocating that hitting a mark is acceptable, as clearly rule 31 says it is not, unless of course you are racing a windsurfer where rule 31 is changed to ‘A board may touch a mark but shall not hold
on to it.’.

I am just advocating that the 'punishment should fit the crime', and the punishment of a 360 for misjudging the mark, in my opinion is appropriate. 

If you barge in on port and cause the stb board to alter couse AND you hit the mark, the punishment is a 720, the same as any other port and stb infringement. Now, again in my opinion, perhaps the 'waiving' of the extra 360 is a bit generous and the punishment should be a 1080.

Stb board should read stb boat in the above post !

I believe that the new rules that come into force January 1 2009 will improve the racing. Alan is quite right that sailing instructions can change the penalties incurred for particular infringements but I think the ISAF rules have about the right balance. If you hit a mark and gain from it then you must retire. If you hit the mark accidentally then a 360 is about right. If you have a rule 10 incident (port & starboard)and there is no injury or damage then a 360 is appropriate. If you do damage a boat or injure someone then you have to retire, which is reasonable.
A new term has come into being and that is Mark room. That will be 3 boat lengths. 42 feet for the merlin fleet. If you are racing in a handicap fleet then it is 3 boat lengths of the boat in front of you. i.e. 36 feet for a 12, 30 feet for a Mirror etc. 
Remember there is no such call as No water or no room. If someone asks for room you are obliged to give it and then protest. I have always found that by using the phrase 'I will give you room but will protest' has made the hailing boat think twice about his call.
Use the rules to your advantage and remember that we are expected to follow the rules and enforce them Dont be afraid to protest. If you protest, everybody learns and gains. I hope more fleets will use the arbitration facility.

Thanks for this Barry. 
Goodness its getting complex though for weekend sailors!
I do not expect many to agree but there is I feel an argument for a simpler set of rules for those with a day job.

If i'd said you can have room but i'll protest at wembley this year for each time somebody barged we'd have all still been there at 7:00!

That part of the rules is i'm afraid utterly abused, and it's become more of a free for all in light winds when the breeze fills in from behind. The only losers are the boats in front who have their race ruined through no fault of their own and end up sitting in the dirty wind of the bargers who come screaming in with no rights. This must apply also to other fleets, and while yes you should protest we all have homes to go to and if every boat that did this had been protested we'd never have got away. Specific circumstances i know, but if someone calls for water and blatently doesn't have it why should they be let in?

I disagree with changing the "default" length of the zone on a number of counts. Firstly people have enough trouble judging how long 28 feet is on the water in the heat of the moment. Incresing that distance is going to mean more of a test for our estimation skills. 

Secondly i know of a number of clubs that have marks 6 boat lengths apart. This has obvious implications depending on the angles involved of the boats coming in.

Thirdly is this change really necessary for a conventional 14 ft dinghy? For the boats that go much faster than us i can the need to sort things out sooner, but for us room at the mark and even the "port tack chancer" are important to the tactical side of our sport, a side that seems to be being eroded with every new edition of the rules published (Proper course downwind, mast abeam etc). In the case of the chancer on port the penalty for getting it wrong is often higher than a 720 and involves insurance but this happens extremely rarely in our class, and you don't hear about damage often from others either.

Provided people who infringe do their penalty i think all is well. Changing the rules to make it harder to infringe, or as in the case of the giving water scenario making it harder to prove, damages the tactical and thinking aspect of sailing and i think this is a bad thing.

I read this>>: "You could have sailing instructions making hitting a mark a mandatory retirement" as "a mandatory requirement".

The rest of the post didn't make sense, but it did raise a smile on a Friday afternoon....

Chris, you seem to miss my point. Protest and the guys screaming for room without rights will be disqualified. Let them get away with it and they will offend time after time. Remember, you have a duty to enforce the rules as well as abide by them. Try a weekend of arbitration. It works and it saves time. Decide, one weekend to really enforce the rules you will be surprised how the fleet behaviour will improve. Let them get away with rule breaking and you will end up with anarchy.

There are two points really, yours and mine. Yes, myself and the others wronged at that event should definately have protested. Yes it would have deterred future offenders if we'd won the protest. I don't doubt that, only that i'd have got home before midnight!

My point is that taking away the right to shut the door on these people is wrong. They will not protest if they know they are wrong and will hardly want to damage their boats so will avoid you if they can. A quick call of "no water" and a movement across was also a good deterrent!

At least three boatlengths will give you time to discuss the merits of your protest ...

The call of no water or room was never in the rules. The new rules have changed the Mark room to three lengths which should lead to better mark roundings. i.e. more time and space to sort things out. I have sailed with the new rules in place and they do work.

Perhaps borrowing from Barry's lead of protest a couple of days of on the water umpiring with a post race wash up the umpire explaining decisions might help the smaller clubs with less experienced sailors and not take up so much time.

Then it seems people can't all share your interpretaion. People do call "no water" all the time, myself included.

My understanding was that if you call water on somebody and there is reasonable doubt that the overlap existed it would be presumed it did not (this is mentioned in the old rules).  In the event of a disagreement the burden of proof was therefore on the boat claiming water.

I can't ever recall seeing that if a boat asks for room they shall receive it in the old rules, is this hidden away at the back (like the new defintion of the zone)?

My understanding was that if a boat asked for water when he didn't have it and you said "no water" you still had to let him in and then protest.
Do the new rules change that?

My understanding was that if a boat asked for water when he didn't have it and you said "no water" you still had to let him in and then protest.
Do the new rules change that?

Barry Dunning answered this in advance of your question see above!

I've just re-read the new rules in section 18
If you are clear ahead at 3 boatlenghts, then a boat clear astern has no rights to get between you and the mark.

In case of doubt, the preumption is that the overlap did not exist - this is where the "No Water" hail comes from. It's not in the rules, but if you shout "No Water" loudly, you're announcing that he other guy has to show (i.e. external witness) that he has establishes to overlap...

In all cases, there is the section "e" -if unable to give room - get out.
I'd argue that in a drifting match, where there's a pile of boats at a leeward mark all near the mark, but with no steerage way, anyone trying to barge in does so at their own risk -remembering that a rukle infringement can be protested and lead to a DSQ - without any contact...

Colin

Thats excactly how i interpeted it.

There doesn't have to be contact for an infringement to have occured. In some regattas, a DSQ has to be counted in your results where as a RET can be discarded. This is an incentive to help competitors abide by the rules and retire rather than going to protest. If you infringe, a penalty (ie. turns) should be taken. The idea of a weekend set asisde for racing and protests would be quite educational and bebificial to all concerned, I have learnt more from protesting and being protested than just racing around the marks. There should be no anamosity involved and it should be done in a friendly way. With this in mind everyone will benifit. Which brings me on to rule 42!

This has the opportunity to become as obscure as the offside rule in soccer! 
If you understand it you do not understand the game!

If you play by the rules, you understand the game.

By asking for ' water ' one is surely asking the leading boat to leave enough room for you to round the mark . If however the leading boat has left you so much room so that you can round without  asking for ' water ' surely one is entitled so to do .

Not as I understand it but it would be very dog in the manger to even moan about it!
Barry mentions rule 42 another example the need  of a few days dracoinian on the water umpiring?
That would leave people in no doubt about what was and was not legal.

Obviously you can only ask for 'room' if you have established your inside overlap, and maintained it, long before you are three boat lengths from the mark in question. If you only just establish your overlap at the three lengths then it will be assumed by the protest committee that you did not. Conversely if the outside boat breaks the overlap which was in existance just before the three boat lengths it will be assumed that he did not. If you ask for room to round the mark, the give way boat must respond by giving you that room, however it is down to the hailing yachts to prove that he indeed did establish his overlap in good time. The spirit of the rule has not really changed only the distance from the mark in which the decisions must be made. But be very careful!! If the outside boat does not respond and does not give the room asked for then he could be diqualified for not giving room and the inside boat without an overlap could be disqualified for claiming room when he was not entitled to it.

To answer whitstable pros question: If the boat clear ahead leaves enough foom for you to pass between the mark and himself then of course you can do so. Your obligation would be to keep clear of him and the mark during the rounding.

If you are the boat ahead, and possibly vulnerable for a "water call", get your "no water call" in earlier before the barger hails!

You've still got to give it him if he asks though? Then protest if you think hes pushed his luck?

If you are the boat ahead with a boat overlapped on the inside, your hail of 'no water' has no value at all. Its not a case of who hails first, it is a matter of 'does an overlap exist or not.' If one does then you must give room.

I agree with Barry in all his thoughts and as also a judge would like to echo hi plea to protest more. Yes I know no one wants to go home late but arbitration can save a lot of time. It is no good complaining about those who have no regard for the rules if we do nothing about them. As judges we have the gun but you have to give us the bullets to fire.

There are plenty of judges who would be happy to spend a day with some active on the water judging and a review of rule 42! We just need asking.

David you know our feelings on the Thames and rule 42!! Bring on the judges.

From my reading of the rules 3 boat lengths will be the standard unless it is specifically altered in the sailing instructions beforehand. Personally I believe most clubs won't bother so we need to learn to estimate three lengths.
Also the only place in the rules I find calling is needed is for water at an obstruction. We are an open equal opportunities sport so what happens if the sailor is a mute??

I am keeping my mouth shut on this one!

Give it a rest Pat2121

It would be far better if some sailors were mute!
Pat2121 is entitled to his/her view but have they ever protested?
Coupled with the attention drawn by allleeezz to Brian Moores articles in the Daily Telegraph apart from the considerablr personal tragendy that led to his article it does seem that there is a common thread of people not sticking to the rules in lots of sports, how long before a Merlin gets T-Boned? Hardly on the same level of tragedy but real enough.
The message from those who administer our sport is protest or shut up.

In some ways I agree on the protest or shut up side of things - and I'm probably more vocal on the water than many at my club when trying to make someone do their turns. 

Having said that I can't remember a protest in the past 15 years at my club, and they are in fact fairly rare elsewhere. It is after all a sport often played amongst life long friends and while not doing your turns isn't particularly friendly, escalating it is probably socially worse - and a hell of a lot of hassle (it's not a quick process and the OODs etc are very often volunteers). Protesting does create bad feeling and I think that saying everyone learns and gains from them is simply wrong (particularly when the club hasn't held a protest comittee for so long). While we need rules that can cover all levels of sailing, you have to apprieciate that there are rules and degrees of strictness that apply at the top level but not in club/social sailing.

If a boat on whom I have no right to room makes a poor rounding, and leaves a gap through which I think I can creep,- with the obligation to keep clear,- how high is he allowed to point if he is keen to catch me out,- close hauled or luffed up to wind?

Why don't you just sail faster? The answer is not beyond head to wind is he is that sad.

In the current rules, the second part of 18.2 c is fairly clear "If the boat clear astern becomes
overlapped inside the other boat, she is not entitled to room. If the
boat that was clear ahead passes head to wind, rule 18.2(c) no
longer applies and remains inapplicable."
so the implication is that the boat clear ahead can go head to wind - but can't tack to close the gap

In the new rules it is 18.2 b & c, which say a similar thing but include what happens the outside boat goes outside the zone

The main issues arise in leeward mark roundings in wind and waves I think as the problem is that the boat preparing to round the mark is going so much slower than one surfing in under spinnaker, difficult to judge the distance in those conditions and claiming a late overlap is the most likely situation to cause a T-bone of a boat that has started a wide and fairly slow rounding.  3 boat lengths will help as it is a more reasonable approximation of the "about to round" distance for getting the kite down and all settled to round the mark.  Giving room is all very well but with another boat outside to call for room as well if you are the meat in the sandwich it all takes time and having an extra 4.27m should help a good deal.

Having now read the rules (new rules 18.2 (d) If there is reasonable doubt that a boat obtained or broke an
overlap in time, it shall be presumed that she did not. old rules 18.2 (e) .. similar ..)

Both the chancers that surfed in on me last year, in what I thought was a dangerous and reckless way (as per my earlier post), would have surely lost a protest. A lesson there about knowldege of the rules. Perhaps I'll spend the winter months reading the rules and cases.

I have just done some maths, I think that normally at sea in reasonable winds, a Merlin would be dropping its spin at or before the 3 boat length.  This is my thoughts - on a reach
- A  merlin travels at appox 10 knots on the plane - I make that 5.14 m/second
- A dispacement merlin travels at approx 5 knots - make that 2.57 m/s 

So assuming displacement mode, at two boat lenghts the Merlin has only 3.36 seconds to drop the spin, stow and get ready for the rounding - that is a very fast drop. At 3 boat lengths they have 5.01 seconds, which is more like it, but still fast - without a 'super crew' I would anticipate a 'count' of 10 (approx 7 seconds)to go through the full sequence, which puts my typical drop at about 4 boat lengths out.

If they come in on the full tilt plane at 10 knots, and drop at two boat lengths, (not accounting for the deacceleration as that is too difficult for me today), they have 1.6 seconds, to get the board down, pole off, kite down, cunningham on, kicker on and sit out.

I reckon the 3 boat length rule would have saved several "raft ups" at looe this year when we did the "sausage" first. There were several times when there was a load of boats piled on top of each other at the leward mark - having 3 boat lengths may have given them more opportunity to sort out who was right and who was wrong and try to avoid each other. maybe not but worth a shot. Can't be any more difficult to estimate 3 boat lenghts than 2 boat lengths really... 

on the training front, I remember at University when I did the student yachting nationals we had Jim Saltonstall (spelling?) out on a rescue boat videoing things every day. After the racing he'd do some post race analysis pointing out things which people did well and not so well and also pointing out rule infringements. very useful...

we also arranged a session with him where he came down and went through the most common scenarios with model boats and demonstrated what was and wasn't allowed. Also very useful - cleared up a lot of "mis interpretation" of the rules. When I was a bit younger we had a similar session with someone at BCYC. On both occasions it generated a lot of debate and some of the seasoned sailors went home with a different understanding of what they can and can't do. might be worth organising something like this too...

Alan and others seem to assume that preparing for a mark rounding is compulsorarily not before 3 boat lengths! Quite simply if you leave it too late and end up in a "situation" then you deserve it the sadness is you may ruin someone elses day too. 
Like a lot of things anticipation of situations steering clear of trouble is quicker, pushing your absolute rights whilst slowing yourself and opening upopportunities for your rivals is happily common, because it helps those who do not! Sit back a bit and look for the quick way is better.
The contribution people like Jim & Barry make is great, and adds enormously to our understanding, its what they are paid to do. But there is a massive difference between University Team Racing and big fleet racing,where you are racing the fleet not a couple of other boats. 
Clear wind, clear water concentrate on fastest and best way between marks no distractions.

If you go to www.sailing.org there is the pdf download for the new rules 2009 - 2013
The RYA on rya.org.uk have a powerpoint presentation which helps to explain them.

www.sailing.org

www.rya.org.uk

dot dot .... if you read my posting correctly - you will see quite clearly that I do not think the two mark limit is anything to do with preparing to round. Please re-read my post.

If I'm reading Bryan Willis and the new rules correctly, there are two parts to it.

First is change to the zone (3 boat lengths) - which should give a fraction more time.
The second is that the new rules require some anticipation before the 3 length zone. The older rules didn't require the anticipation - i.e. you only needed to start giving room to an inside overlapped boat at 2 lengths. On a fast moving dinghy that may not be physically possible...

Colin