Which is correct, the Rules published on the RYA web site (see link) or the 2010 Yearbook?

Rule 4 n iii is different as is Rule 5 b .....

I know that the RYA only recently updated the Rules in March 2010 - the previous edition being issued in 2003, so it is nearer to reality, but what is going on?

One suggestion I had was that the class manage the rules, and the RYA only then need sign-off and publish them. In effect there will then only be ONE master copy. Otherwise keeping the wording of two versions perfectly in check is bound to lead to some mistakes from time to time.

This is similar issue to other thread of keeping the club membership list on a master database so things like the yearbook are produced from source. Managing the ST results, I have to check at end of the seaon to ID new members during the year (otherwise cross them out from results.) Access to a secure online members database would allow committee members to access 'live' data as needed.

What is wrong with a simple word doc' transposed into a published PDF like other classes do why all this data base complication?

Word is fine for the Rules, as long as we have the master copy and provide to the RYA. The trouble is they have a copy and we have a copy that goes in our year book. They are independent of each other, hence how they can become out of sync.

My other point was to address things like the members details in the year book being handed down from the treasurers membership list, and updates being made manually. If it was in a DB you could export a report with the required data/format to go straight in the year book. The other advantages being live access to the data for committee members.

That's the point create a PDF and send them a copy to publish once it's a PDF no one can fiddle with it, you just produce another PDF next time you ammend the rules and publish that.

For what it is worth, having gone through the lengthy process of bringing the B14 rules into line with the present layout of other ISAF classes, the B14 World Council, found that, though it became very involved, was a fairly straightforward process. Communication was the key to keeping all on side.

I would suggest that the class drive the rules as the RYA is there to serve the members as a central governing body and is unlikely to be in touch (unless they sail the boat) with the latest issues arising in class, that need addressing. As many will know, if something is proven to be well managed, the upper tier of management will often opt to step back and take on the roll of co-ordinator rather than detailed administrator. I find it strange that they will not do this with the Merlin Class Association which has depth and talent in this field.

new to me as I thought there was only one central set of rules!!

As just the 'Magazine man' - I can't really speak with authority on this matter. But I know it has been excercising your committee's time over the last year or so.
I thought that any issues regarding the RYA version of our rules and the Yearbook version had been resolved. So I looked at Andy Hay's examples and the differences seemed to me to be very insignificant. Although I do agree that there should be no differences.
We too are committed to changing the rules to fit into the ISAF format and Dan Alsop is in charge of the new draught.
So, hopefully, when that process is complete we should be able to resolve everything.
Certainly we should have a system that keeps both versions up to date in future and your suggestions seem helpful to me

Sorry Pat, I do not believe that the discrepancies are insignificant. The two rules that I highlighted (and they were the most immediate to leap out, I am sure that there are more) relate to modifications to the hull mould greater than 10mm and the weighing of boats with "one string" systems included in the weight.

If the RYA Rules are the primary set, then our scruitineering process at the Champs was wrong and I imagine that most modern boats are underweight - i.e. the boats should have more lead in if you remove the one string systems. There also opens the possibility that the mods to the Winder mould might be out of class. I am not advocating a protest of course, but back to my original post - which set of Rules are correct?

I appreciate that this can appear overly pedantic, but if we are to have Rules, should they not be published consistently?

Remember also, that the class is a restricted development class where people can try and obtain advantage. There are a number of projects ongoing around the country where people are actively looking at the Rules and coming up with different approaches. If we do not know what Rules to work with, then why should anyone bother with doing the development work? I am sure that Dan is already exasperated with the number of questions that I ask him, and I am sure I am not the only one ...

A slightly further complexity is created when we (or more likely the MROA) ask for an interpretation from the RYA. What Rules do they base their opinions upon? I bet it is "their" copy.

We have a number of contentious issues on the table at the moment - bilge keels, tape drive to name but two.

Still insignificant?

Andy - I owe you an apology.

Now I see what you mean – there is a whole new part of Rule 4 (iv) which I think was voted on and changed at fairly recent AGM
It doesn’t seem to be on the RYA version at all – and the same applies to the weight rule. That change came in 2004 I think?

I was looking at the numbering which is wrong on the RYA version and there are some omissions of the word ‘or’ – that’s what I meant by fairly insignificant.

I agree with you – these are important issues.
And I will just stick to the magazine in future!

Pat - no worries. It just gets a bit difficult when you try and work things out and you don't know which playing field you are on! It also makes a bit of a mockery of the AGM and any Rule changes ...

Personally, I am going to work with the Yearbook Rules and be damned. Would be good to have an official position from the MROA though.

The rules management is now the responsibility of Dan Alsop.  There is a change to the way of doing things and moving to a standard ISAF format.  This is in progress.  I am surprised that there is still a difference between our Year Book and the RYA.  The Committee will investigate.

Regarding the rules in MROA and RYA.  At the AGM in 2008, it came to light that there was no updated version of the voted rules on the RYA site. Effectively, there were several years with no updated on the official RYA held version.  This was despite the proper MROA administration of the voted  rules changes to the RYA. Therefore, the intent of the MROA had not been officially recognised by the RYA. Fortunately, investigation by the Committee raised no serious rule issues during those years.    At that AGM meeting, we agreed that the proper way to continue was the use the voted upon version of our rules for the conduct of the Class affairs.  This principle still remains the case so the year book version, assuming it is the correct document content, should prevail.  To do otherwise would be inappropriate to the operation of the Class.

Regarding the scrutineering, it was conducted with significant greater weighing accuracy than any time previously. The principles of the Nationals scrutineering are passed down from year to year and those adopted in 2010 were the same as my mentor Rob Heath taught me in previous years.  It is not a formal measurement weighing but a threshold check whereby any boats that are deemed by the scrutineers to be borderline cases (should a formal weighing actually take place) have additional weight to satisfy that threshold check.  Chris Martin even brought a Derbyshire church roof with him to help out.

Some three boats were required to add further lead to exceed our threshold.

Far more boats were required to correct their measurement data on masts and booms.

You see, I like the RYA version; but I also like the MROA Yearbook version.  There is only one way to decide...   FIGHT!

Pistols for two coffee for one!

Surely the rules should be those agreed by members and published by the committee of the MROA. The RYA appears to have little interest in them, as they don't keep the published rules in line with the MROA set. Trouble is, the RYA used to be run by members for its members, and now (like the AA, RAC etc) it's a business. As further evidence of this, have you looked at your measurement certificate? - There is a statement at the bottom which says that MERLIN ROCKET is a trade mark of the RYA!

Can of worms this one, sometimes you wish you had kept your mouth shut.

Keith is right, the RYA have the trademark and copyright to the Rules. The MROA have kept them informed of the changes to the Rules as agreed at the AGMs. Unfortunately, until the changes are rubber stamped by the RYA, they are not actually incorporated into the Rules. Commence arguments about we said this, they did nothing, etc.

Dan is aware of the issue, as is the RYA. Hopefully we will get a revised set of RYA official Rules that reflects what the class voted on over the last umpteen years in due course and a better / quicker protocol for getting amendments incororated.