Thought you all might like to see this new directive.
ISAF Racing Rules Question and Answer Service
A 001 Q&A 2011-022
Published: 28 November 2011
This Q&A replaces old Q&A A 001, withdrawn on 18 November 2011.
In a fleet race, Boat A adopts tactics that clearly interfere with and hinder Boat B's progress in the
race. While using those tactics, boat A does not break any rule, except possibly rule 2.
In which of the following circumstances would Boat A’s tactics be considered unsportsmanlike
and a breach of rule 2?
(a) Boat A’s tactics benefit her series result.
(b) Boat A’s tactics increase her chances of gaining selection for another event.
(c) Boat A’s tactics increase her chances of gaining selection to her national team.
(d) Boat A and Boat C had agreed that they would both adopt tactics that benefited Boat C’s
(e) Boat A was attempting to worsen Boat B’s race or series score for reasons unconnected
In circumstances (a), (b) and (c), Boat A would be in compliance with recognised principles of
sportsmanship and fair play because there is a sporting reason for her actions.
In circumstance (d), both Boat A and Boat C would clearly break rule 2. In addition, by receiving
help prohibited by rule 41 from Boat A, Boat C would also break rule 41.
In circumstance (e) Boat A would break rule 2 because, with no good sporting reason, her actions
would clearly break recognised principles of sportsmanship and fair play.
Hi Barry. Some interesting answers from ISAF a few months before the Olympics.
Think you have summed it up as no doubt the on the water judges would be requiring clarifictaion to be given to competitors and their coaches. Nothing seems to have changed, just nice simple layman clarifiaction of the situation.
The grey area is if a number of competitors bounce a race favourite to the unfavoured side of the course. Finns/Lasers are slow and an excellent example of where this could occur.
How can you prove any motivation of any boat. Anyone accused of a breach would plead that this interpretation did not apply in their case. Very difficult tp prove otherwise.
I think this ruling in its original form was mainly triggered by the notorious protest at the 2005 International 14 worlds when a boat was DSQd for match racing another boat down the fleet to the benefit of a third, who IIRC were part of the same "works team". The boat that was DSQd made claims about their motivation that the IJ clearly didn't believe. There was lots of noise at the time about this one: doubtless still searchable via google. That one affected the destination of a Worlds trophy.
Remember a protest hearing isn't a criminal case with "innocent until proven guilty". Its more like a civil court case when either side could be in the wrong (and perhaps, to an extent, both are) and the court has to make a decision as to which way the case goes on the balance of evidence.
Just wonder if this may have been instigated, by an incident that happened during Oulton Week (Rather, than the event you are all assuming!)
In a Broads River Cruiser race, a cruiser was coming up to lap a slower cruiser, the slower cruiser, apparently, weaved, to prevent the faster cruiser passing. Protest was lodged, and I declined to be involved, as when a student, I shared digs with one of the parties. The rules say, a boat on one leg of the course may NOT interfere with a boat, on another leg of the course... They were on thesameleg of the course - just a lap apart... The slower boat retired after hearing the protest had been lodged. The PC chairman, was not sure what they had retired for, and as Trevor Lewis is local called him in... Even he was not sure of the verdict, so did say he would talk to the other rules experts... I think this may have prompted the clarification rather than the one you are all assuming. It could have got tasty rule 2 and possibly rule 69...