|
|
|
ISAF International Umpires Newsletter
|
|
Introduction
|
Welcome to the new issue of IU News.
Over the last couple of years, we have seen several developments that have influenced our activity as umpires. A notable development has been the introduction of medal races in the Olympics and many other fleet racing events, including the Grade 1 events for Olympic classes. It is my clear impression that the medal race has been very successful and improved the image and awareness of our sport.
At the annual ISAF conference, held in Madrid in November 2008, there was especially one decision that will influence the activity for many of us in this and the following years. It was decided that in the next Olympics, we will have match racing for women. As a consequence, we have already seen match racing in the second event of the new ISAF Sailing World Cup series, that was the Olympics Classes Regatta in Miami in January. I was pleased to learn that this first event was very successful. In this issue, there is an article about that event. Several of the other world cup events will already this year follow Miami, and some will even use the Elliott 6 that was chosen as the boat for the Olympics in 2012. I look forward to this new challenge.
With the turn of the year, we faced another important development; the new rule 18. It has surely resolved some of the problems in the old rule, but many of us are still learning what the words actually mean. I'm sure this will be keeping us busy for the next year.
The turn of the year also gave us a whole new set of ISAF committees. In this issue there is a presentation of the new IUSC.
This issue has been put together by Neven Baran, Marianne Middelthon, Maria Torrijo-Moll and me. They are also the authors of the individual articles unless the name of another author is stated.
I hope you will find the contents of this issue useful
Jan Stage
Chairman, IUSC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Old and the New IUSC
|
ISAF committees are appointed for a four-year period that follows the Olympic cycle. Therefore, we had to say goodbye to the previous IUSC after the November 2008 meeting.
The members of the old IUSC were:
Jan Stage DEN (chair)
Alfredo Ricci ITA (vice-chair)
Eva Andersson SWE
Neven Baran CRO
Kirk Brown USA
Jack Lloyd NZL
Henry Menin ISV
Marianne O. Middelthon NOR
Lorenz Walch GER
I am very grateful to all of them for their contributions over the last four years. Eva and Kirk left us, while Jack, Henry and Lorenz continue on other committees.
The new IUSC was appointed with the following members:
Jan Stage DEN (chair)
Flavio Naveira ARG (vice-chair)
Miguel Allen POR
Neven Baran CRO
Shane Borrell NZL
Bruce Hebbert GBR
Ricardo Lobato BRA
Marianne Middelthon NOR
Alfredo Ricci ITA
Peter Shrubb BER
Maria Torrijo Moll ESP
We all look forward to work with you for the next four years. Towards the end of 2008, the old IUSC set up a work plan for the first two years. The plan includes areas where existing practices should be maintained and improved:
• Administration of the International Umpires (IU) programme
• Training, testing, assessment and continuous development of IUs, to continue a committed corps of umpires with extensive international experience and expertise
• Grouping of IUs in accordance with their performance
• Recommendation to ROC about appointment of IUs
• Providing relevant information to IUs
• Support the development of national programmes for consistent training and education of national umpires to a uniform standard
• Work with suggestions for development and interpretation of the rules
• Maintenance of main documents and manuals
The work plan also identifies areas for new developments:
• Monitor and improve the performance reporting system.
The current IUSC has introduced a reference form and contributed to the new regulation 34 that have replaced previous means to collect information about new and existing IUs. A new on-line event report system that will be developed also needs to be integrated in the IUSC's procedures.
• Develop techniques for performance assessment and efforts to improve performance during events.
The IUSC has initiated a mentor system in 2008. But there are several other means to support in-service training and continuous development that could be employed to improve the performance of existing IUs.
• Reconsider the training and development system.
The aim is to have clear, uniform and transparent standards, teaching methods and practices to produce consistent officiating throughout the world. This also includes making materials available to IUs and MNAs to help promote uniform best practices and consistent calls.
• Improve cooperation between MRC, TRSC, RMSC and IUSC on issues related to organization and race management at match racing and team racing events.
Notice of race, sailing instructions, certain policies, some event practices and parts of the IU manuals fall between these committees, but there is no forum for collaboration on them.
• Compile a collection of policies that IUs are expected to employ at events.
There is not a single catalogue with the policies that IUs are expected to uphold at events. This causes problems for the individual IU.
• Technology development:
Be involved in development of technology like the like the USS system (used in AC 32) and more advanced radio technology that allows a better understanding by the media of the calls made on the water. This in turn allows the media to communicate in real time with the broader viewing audience.
• Consider efforts in new areas:
Continue the branding of ISAF through means like clothing, gear etc. Involvement in other areas, e.g. raising awareness of environmental issues.
|
|
Click here to view the new Sub-committee members
|
|
|
Race Officials Opportunities at the ISAF website
|
In the past ISAF received reports from event organisers about their difficulties in finding race officials for events. Since 2007 ISAF offers the possibility to advert event invitations on the ISAF website.
Unfortunately a very small amount of event organisers made use of this service but those invitations advertised on the website were accepted almost immediately.
We will continue with the service and look forward to receiving more event invitations in future. If you want to advert an event opportunity please complete the application form published in the IU library: http://www.sailing.org/22175.php
Helmut Czasny
|
|
|
|
|
The Umpire Appointments in 2008
|
At the meetings in November 2008, the IUSC and the Race Officials Committee (ROC) processed the applications for first-time appointment and re-appointment.
There were 12 first-time applicants of which 8 were appointed. There were 17 re-applicants that were all renewed, one of them subject to passing the test. Finally, two IUs who were up for renewal decided to retire. The decisions made by the Race Officials Committee implied that we ended up with a total of 117 IUs.
The Umpire Groupings for 2009
The Grouping Panel finished the grouping of IUs for 2009 in the beginning of February. The result is summarized in the following numbers (with the numbers for 2008 in the rightmost column):
2009 2008
Total number of IUs 117 111
Group 1 20 20
Group 2 77 63
Group 2a 18
Group 2b 49
Group 2c 10
Ungrouped 20 28
The number of Group 1 umpires remained the same, but there was one IU who moved from Group 1 to Group 2 and one who moved the other way. The number of Ungrouped IUs include the first-time appointed (8) as well as umpires doing only team racing, those who did not want a grouping, a few that the Grouping Panel had no information about and some that the panel decided should be in this category.
The Grouping Panel that makes the groupings are appointed for one year. This is stated in the description of the Grouping System that is available on the ISAF website. There are usually 10-12 members of the panel. Their names are published on the ISAF website when the groupings and the requested feedback have been completed. From year to year, there is rotation in the panel, in the sense that a couple of members are released and replaced with new members.
|
|
|
|
|
Whose Game is it?
|
There was an interesting observation on one of the many blog sites that seem to be springing up these days. It reads
"Already today, we have two worlds: one of yacht racers (often with their own local interpretations) and one of rules scientists. And they are growing apart fast."
This comment was made more towards fleet racing, but it also applies to match racing to some extent.
Last year we had several submissions to the Rapid Response panel, which were highly technical, and in at least one case, probably impossible scenario. All these submissions were rejected for various reasons but they do illustrate the above comment. It is also interesting that these calls were submitted in the last year of the rules cycle and sought to change something that the majority had been happy with for the previous three years.
As umpires, we are there to Umpire, i.e. make decisions, and mostly only when asked, on what we see on the water, and to apply the rules. Is it really our job to dream up highly technical scenarios that not only complicate the game, but in many cases also confuse our fellow umpires?
Most umpires will, at least at times, come into the category of 'rules scientists' but we must be careful to make sure that we remain close to the sailors (our customers) and ensure that we umpire the game that they want to play.
On the same website a couple of scenarios have been posted recently. Both are interesting from a rules point of view but I believe the chances of seeing either manoeuvre at a match race event will vary between Buckley's and never. I wonder why we spend our time dreaming up these cases.
Of course we have a responsibility to respond to competitor's queries and to develop the rules to make them easier to umpire, and hopefully, one day, easier to understand for the all too small number of people who come to watch what we do.
Whilst it is important that we do not stifle discussion on 'hypotheticals', as this can lead to discovering flaws in the rules that can then be fixed, I think we need to be careful that we do this in a way that is not going to be disruptive to the way the game is currently being played.
We must not forget that this is a competitor's game, without them we will not have a game to play and it is important we do not allow the two games to drift apart.
John Standley
|
|
|
|
|
How to prepare as umpire for an event with unknown boats?
|
As a match race sailor you often come to an event where you are presented to boats never tried or even seen before. Preparation for an event in these boats normally consists of two hours of practice the day before the event starts. In these two hours the team needs to get a feeling of how the boat reacts to all maneuvers with body weight, rudder, maneuverability and sail trim as well as the local wind, wave and current conditions.
For umpires it is different. There is no practice time, it is from the beginning of first flight very important that umpires have a feeling of how the boat reacts and the main boat characteristics, so that in fight can be assessed correctly and the right decisions of flags can be made. First match in first flight occasionally determine the winner of the event.
Practice sessions are something sailors make quite an effort to get the most out of. I have spoken with some umpires, and suggested that the umpires are given the same opportunity as sailors to get a feeling of the boat. Perhaps even by going on board the boats and test sail it in the same manner as sailors. Currently it is rarely seen that umpires are on the water during the practice sessions to get an assessment of the boat from the sailor's perspective.
I have tried to sum up some of the most relevant factors that we, as sailors are very aware of during the practice session. And some additional things that umpires could help the RC and sailors being aware of.
Sailing equipment/boats:
One of the main characteristics of each type of boat is how much control you have with the rudder with respect to size, type and location on the boat.
- The rudder angle can be limited with rudder stops so movement is limited to an angle of e.g. totally 90 degrees. This is very important for the prestart maneuvers. This means that a boat need to take action to avoid contact much earlier than in a case with full rudder angle.
- If the rudder is very short or small the boat is out of control very easily in luffing duels or during dial-ups in pre-starts.
- When assessing rudder movements the length of the stern (behind the rudder) is of importance of how close and abrupt rotations can be made.
- If the rudder is at the stern of the boat all changes can be seen directly compared to a boat with wheel where most rudder movements are invisible. For a boat with the rudder at the stern overlap condition change very quickly and is difficult to assess from outside the boat.
The width of the keel determines how easily the boat drifts side ways. Some boats start drifting immediately they are head to wind and therefore very close situations head to wind is a result. Some boats can be moved considerably side ways by backing the main sail while others immediately just starts backing. If a boat has been backed the keel determines how well forward movement and speed are gained. How fast can you get it moving forwards again and how easily can you get it to turn using the genoa/jib.
At some events the used equipment is privately owned and there can be big differences between two boats. Differences are often easily seen from an outside boat and umpires should be aware of the importance of these differences. If e.g. rigging, hiking straps or rudder movement does not appear equal, it should be mentioned and equalized, especially if one boat performs very poorly or extremely well compared to the rest of the fleet.
Crew:
In all conditions hiking and roll tacking/jibing can be an object of umpire-initiated penalties. All competitors try to test how to hike in the best way, within the rules. How much influence weight has on the boats performance, and of course a lot of other boat handling issues not too important from the umpiring perspective.
Race committee:
The race committee boat differs in size and anchoring for every event. At some events the RC boat can be several times bigger than the match race boats and hence some interesting luffing scenarios in the prestart can be found and could be discussed by the umpire team before the event. The anchor line(s) can be determining for the distance needed to pass the RC and can change many times during the day depending on water level, current, waves and wind. Some venues use moving RC boats, which can give very unpredictable situations for competitors, RC and umpires.
To round/pass marks at an appropriate distance depend on the shape of the mark. If slim, tall cylinder marks are used large unpredictable movements must be expected and distance to round is larger than in case of smaller heavier marks.
Venue:
The venue is important with respect to the hydrographic and meteorological conditions. Especially in tidal areas there can be an extreme current limiting the maneuverability of the boats and having huge influence on the maneuvers close to marks and obstructions. A cross current of maybe 1 m/s can make the boats suddenly seem very close to or very far from obstructions or marks. Sailors try to get a picture of the current speed and direction around the entire course before each start by measurements at the marks.
In strong tidal areas water level might also change the conditions on the calls for land/obstructions. Especially in rocky, tidal areas call for room can be critical for the result of the match.
Lobster/crab pots in the area should be marked when noticed. One of the most unsatisfactory losses is when the keel getting stuck on a line causes it.
I hope that this short note on some preparations that sailors try to do before an event will inspire umpires to also test the boats before the event start. It could either be by setting up an umpire team and go sailing or by coming on board the sailor's boats during practice. I'm sure that you are all welcome.
Lotte Meldgaard Pedersen
|
|
|
|
|
More about Redress, Postponement or Abandonment
|
In the previous issue of IU news, there was an article named 'When the Race Committee Postpones or Abandons a match'. The article was a result of several redress cases and the IUSC gave some advise about such circumstances.
The conclusion of the article was that the decision to postpone or abandon a match is solely with the race committee, and that redress therefore is not available for the competitors.
Following the article, a couple of umpires came back with a different view, and they were requested to provide input for IU news in order to have a discussion about the matter. No such input was received.
Probably as another way of following up the matter, a Q&A (2009-15) was submitted to ISAF, and after a very long time it was officially answered.
The question asked described a rather special situation where the race committee abandoned a race on request from the organizing authority because the local sailor did not win!
The conclusion drawn by the Q&A Panel was:
'The 'any reason' provided in the sailing instructions can be anything the race committee sees as contributing towards a practicable, fair and equal competition and allows the race committee to handle issues as they arise as expeditiously as possible.
The decision to abandon lies solely with the race committee, although they are required to consult with the match umpires when practical. Provided the race committee acts impartially and in good faith when deciding to abandon a match, that action cannot be considered to be improper.'
In the example given in the Q&A, the race committee clearly had not acted impartially or in good faith, and because that was both improper and unfair to all other competitors, redress would be available.
The chief umpire should then include details about such incidents in the ISAF report, and that report should include the identity of the race officer.
On the other hand, this is the extreme example, and in as good as all other cases when the race committee postpones or abandons, they do it in good faith and because they believe that is the best solution at the moment.
As discussed in the previous issue of IU news, this may not always appear to be fair to the competitors, and one way of avoiding too hasty decisions by the race committee in unexpected situations is to make sure to discuss those situations and alternate solutions with them before racing starts.
Consistency is important for our sport. If sailors get redress at one event - they will quickly follow up with new requests at the next event. And if they then learn, and we all need to be consistent in that
There is an ongoing discussion within ISAF whether redress should be eliminated completely from the sport of sailing, but that is a whole different discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Umpiring at Rolex Miami OCR 2009
|
Once again I was fortunate enough to attend yet another regatta that's now on my list of 'one of my most enjoyable'.
It happens all too often that you go to an event thinking that things may go seriously wrong only to find that you've had a great, rewarding week of umpiring.
I'm not sure what went on during the planning stages of the event but I think perhaps the organizers were concerned about the costs and technical problems that may have negatively impacted the running of the first leg of the ISAF World Cup Women's Match Racing.
It definitely had potential for 'problems'. For many of us it would be our first regatta under the new rules, we would be using the new Laser SB3s for the first time, the Race Committee hadn't run a great deal of match racing events and some of the umpire team were going to be rotated out with members of the Jury in order to give the judges a chance to get umpire time. How would this all work out?
At our first meeting we discussed the issues and it became pretty clear that with this umpire team we could deal with just about anything. Not only did we have a wealth of knowledge in 9 IUs and an aspiring NU, we had 10 fun-loving people with a laugh a minute. Everything would be just fine.
You know things are starting to go well when you arrive at the regatta centre - the Key Biscayne Yacht Club - and the PRO greets you with a great smile and a warm handshake.
Then you see the familiar faces of the sailors. Giulia Conti, who I first started umpiring years ago at the St. Petersburg Yacht Club when she was just a whippersnapper, recognized me and immediately came over for the traditional kiss on each cheek. The two Alesssandras were with her. Lotte Pedersen (who kept reminding me that I always mispronounce her name) said hello. Lucy Macgregor, who I had watched win the Women's European's a few months earlier, was there. I don't think she recognized me other than one of those guys in the umpire boat. Debi (Capozzi) and Katy (Lovell) said hello and we discussed a recent regatta in St. Thomas. I met some new sailors - Mary Rook, Rebecca Marriott (I wondered if she owned the hotel chain), and Liz Rushall. Carol Cronin kept a close eye on me because I forgot to put sun block on the first day and went beet red. Every day after that asked if I had remembered it. By the end of the week I think we had met everybody personally and we were certainly the better for it. I nicer group of sailors you'll never find.
On the water we did endure some setbacks. Our Laser repair guy worked tirelessly to get through some teething pains associated with a fleet of new boats. And we did have a few 'interesting' moments with the R/C. Not the least of which was watching a course-change mark slowly deflate and sink as the sailboats approached it. Luckily thanks to Liz Baylis (great sailor and now assistant PRO/OA) we managed to get the mark boat to the location with the appropriate flag just in time to allow the race to continue without the dreaded abandonment.
We also witnessed some amazing examples of sportsmanship and comradery. The losers were so gracious in defeat and the winners so humble in victory. Not a race went by without support, mutual respect and a sincere 'well done' from competitors - winners and losers. Fortunately, this type of genuine reverence is becoming more commonplace in the sport that started the phrase - the Corinthian Spirit - that especially high standard of sportsmanship that's engrained in sailing.
I'm not sure if it's something that has always been there and I've just started to notice it more recently or whether it really is something that was lost and is now being re-found. Whatever the case, it certainly was at Miami OCR Women's Match Racing in 2009. May it long continue!
We ended the regatta with, oh, just the usual 2 all in the finals with the 5th and final race being won by less than a meter in 20 knots of breeze. Lotte pipped Giulia at the line in a hard fought battle. It was fantastic racing. And we, the umpires, were just privileged to be there and witness it.
Back at the Club it was all smiles. Everybody celebrated. Everybody was happy. Everybody was exhausted.
Then, all too suddenly, the celebrations turned to the inevitable 'good-byes' - always the big downer at an event. You have to say good-bye to the Race Committee, the OA, the volunteers and worst of all the sailors. It's like saying good-bye to family.
On the bright side, luckily, we get to do it all over again soon at a future event. We'll once again re-acquaint with friends, coaches, umpires and sailors. We'll meet some new faces and miss some old ones.
The joys of being an International Umpire!
Peter Shrubb
|
|
|
|
|
IU Regatta Reports... Do we need them?
|
A small group within IUSC, actually Peter Shrubb and myself, have the task of reviewing the second page of IU Regatta Reports that are submitted to the ISAF office. Second page contains comments from umpires about various aspects of a regatta they have served on.
Not many reports contain comments on the back page, and an average of 20 of them are received annually.
We are focused on those boxes having comments regarding: Cases thought to be new or interesting; Decisions unpopular with competitors; Black Flag penalties and actions under Rule 69; Details of hearings thought to be of interest; Comments on race management.
What umpires mostly include are suggestions for rule changes, (un) popular OA procedures, umpire procedures and rules questions. Below are some recent examples.
Umpires are put in a difficult position when the rules don't give them clear answers:
There was a situation where one boat had a sick crewmember and was not going to start. The boat was anchored outside the 'wrong' end of the starting line. The opponent, however, was sitting on her coach' boat, so that during the pre-start there were no sailboats racing, but multiple penalties were given and offset, and after the start and some discussion, both boats were black-flagged.
There seem to be no provision under the rules for this situation. Rule C8.5 require that one boat starts before you can black flag the other, and although rule C11.2 indicate that there may be a 0-0 score in match racing, rule 90.3(a) makes it clear that a race where no boat sails the course and finishes cannot be scored.
There seem to be a need for a sailing instruction or a call about how to handle such a situation.
New procedures reported:
Used "7", "5" and new "1" signals in lieu of "F" & "P". Additional signal at 1 minute was particularly useful.
Used Pink flag to signal blank starts. Worked well to inform all of what was happening and better than no signals during blank sequence.
Comments about jury on-the-water hearings at special events:
Use of Appendix C in America's Cup style racing to resolve protests was a success for on-the-water derived issues and didn't put too much strain on the small team of Umpires but it needs a further procedure for dealing with the procedural aspects of this type of racing, i.e. protocol breaches, measurement issues SI interpretations etc. This should be incorporated in any other App C revision to be used if there are further ISAF special events like this.
New rules require briefings for consistent interpretation:
Competitors had difficulty understanding the concept of "room to sail to the mark" and "proper course at the mark" as required by Definition Mark-Room, and briefings were held between the umpires and competitors both before and during the regatta to ensure consistency of interpretation.
About bow sprit:
We amended the appendix C of the Standard SI regarding the Bowsprit. After a long discussion with competitors of WMRT (the top match racers in the world) we decided as follow: "The bowsprit shall not be extended before the boat has started a leg of the course to a leeward mark or the finishing line and shall be retracted at first reasonable opportunity when not in use. A breach of this point is not open a protest by boats, but is subject to the action by the umpires in accordance with RRS C8.2, this changes RRS C6.2 and C8.2
I want also to underline that in case the bowsprit is still marginal extended we recommend using a warning, like we usually do when a competitor display two flags or the wrong one on the stern. This point could be insert at follow in the SI appendix C.
What are we to do about these reports? The procedure is that we collect all we consider important, summarise it and make a report at the IUSC meeting at the annual ISAF conference. If we find something that we think would need immediate action, we report it (through the IUSC chair person) to relevant group within ISAF like the Rapid Response Panel, the Q&A Panel, Race Officials Committee etc. for consideration. Examples could be event calls or rule problems or procedures thought to be undesirable that need prompt attention and/or action.
Reports are not just buried in the ISAF office. They are being read and contribution from umpires with their thoughts lead to constant improving of the umpiring system. There is no need anymore to send it in the mail. Just complete the form (as a word document) and email it to ISAF Race Official Secretary - Sarah Johnson (sarahj@isaf.co.uk). Hopefully in the near future an electronically on-line reporting system will be possible.
Neven Baran
|
|
|
|
|
ISAF Team Racing World Championship 2009.
|
What an experience! The first month of the year, with the new Racing Rules of Sailing, a new rule 18 and coming directly from umpiring match racing.
This time I was the Chairman of the International Jury, which made the whole picture more challenging for me.
Luckily, all the umpires spent one day before the event doing a workshop where we were instructed about typical calls in team racing and how the new rules influenced the decisions. This kind of warm up is very interesting. It contributes to add more pressure on your mind, getting very concentrated and building up for an excellent job when umpiring.
The sailing conditions in Perth (Australia) were fantastic, who doesn't know the Fremantle Doctor (the local name for the sea-breeze, that shows up like clock work every day)? The race management was excellent and hundreds of races were sailed. That means, hundreds of flags were displayed and...twenty-six hearings were heard ashore. In any case, much more cases than expected in an umpired event.
Almost 80% of the hearings were requests for redress from competitors:
• In 60% of the cases the competitors were claiming that:
- they lost a match because of a wrong decision of the Umpire.
- an umpire boat interfered with a competitor because the umpire boat created small waves.
- they didn't see the umpire flag and didn't hear the whistle.
- they had completed a penalty when the umpires claimed it didn't happen.
All these requests were denied, simply because rule D2.4(c) says: "There shall be no request for redress or appeal by a boat arising from a decision, action or non-action by an umpire..."
• In 20% of the cases competitors requested for redress against the Race Committee because of OCS. This is different because they are able to ask for redress for that reason. However, can you imagine the situation? A maximum of six boats on the starting line, all of them identified by a sail number made up by 1 digit. It was not easy for the competitors to prove the Race Committee made an error or omission. Again, requests denied.
Finally, we upheld the remaining 20% of the hearings, which were all initiated by the umpires of the match displaying the black flag, hopefully at the right moment.
Since we were umpiring a team racing event we were supposed to solve almost all the situation on the water, and it didn't happen like this. The waste of time was huge during the hearings because the competitors requested redress under circumstances where Appendix D clearly spells out that redress is not available.
How can we solve that problem? Is it possible to minimize the number of hearing in a team racing event? And the question that makes me more worried: Is this flurry of requests for redress caused by competitors actually succeeding in getting redress under similar circumstances, thus giving the competitors the wrong feedback - or are they simply 'trying it out'?
Maria Torrijo.
|
|
|
|
|
Working with the New Rules
|
Working with the New Rules
After a few months with the new rules, questions about interpretations of them are rising to the surface at what appears to be a steadily increasing speed.
The last 3 years we have been told to expect new, simplified rules for marks and obstructions. Not an easy task to create for a complex sport as sailing!
Drafts were made available, and the working party kept working to the very last time limit for including new rules in the rulebook. Last summer, a final draft was circulated to known writers of books about the Racing Rules of Sailing, and shortly after to all MNA's, in order that they could start preparations for translations and/or printing. Different PDF files were then posted on the ISAF website - for all to download and study, including files clearly showing all changes from the previous edition of the rulebook.
Expectations were high, some expected the new rules to simplify difficult situations, others expected them to create new problems - but all seemed to have expectations. Who were right? We probably have to wait a while for an answer to that question, and the answer is not likely to be a clear black and white one. The new rules ARE different, but even then, most of the time on the water the differences will hardly be noticed.
The current situation is that we have a new rulebook and we should all do our best to make the new rules work. As umpires, we are exposed to the rules in a different way than those who do fleet race only. The rules are being explored in our special parts of sailing - and quite often that leads to future changes in the main body of the rulebook.
Acknowledging match- and team racing as different from fleet racing; we have Appendices C and D where we can make the changes needed for our disciplines. Almost unanimously, the sailors requested to keep the two-length zone for match and team racing due to sailing being umpired. There are other differences too. However, the goal is to keep the basic rules for sailing as consistent as possible irrespective of discipline. The sailors are the same, and most umpires do fleet racing as well.
The maybe biggest change for match racing has to do with obstructions, as obstructions frequently play an important part in match racing in close-to-shore, spectator friendly pre-starts. There are some significant game changes there, and we have to try it out to see whether new rule 19 will work for match racing.
Without a zone round obstructions and the old 'freezing' of rights and obligations, the rules game has been brought closer in and the test before establishing an overlap at obstructions has now become simply: Can the other boat give room from the overlap begins... (Another judgement to be made.)
Without one rule taking precedence over another, having right of way will be more important at obstructions. Unlike rules 18 and 20, both with an exoneration clause in order to allow boats their rights under those rules, there is no exoneration clause in rule 19. For obstructions, we need to look at rule 64.1(c), and a consequence is that only if a keep-clear boat was compelled to break a rule when taking room at an obstruction will she be exonerated. We may be looking at many more situations where both boats will be breaking a rule in the same incident, and that could end up in more umpire initiated penalties as well!
The new rules in general are aiming at avoiding contact, and that in itself is good for match racing - with mostly borrowed boats! Rule 14 always applies!
Marks, yes there are changes there too. There are interesting limitations in the rule, and there are several new concepts introduced. Sailing to a mark, being at a mark (or an obstruction), giving or taking mark-room, to mention the most important ones... They cause discussion and many proposals for answers...
So what to do?
This newsletter is not the place for interpreting the rules. The ISAF Regulations are limit interpretations to the domain of the Racing Rules Committee, which includes:
The Case Book and the two Call Books, but also the rapid response call system and the Q&A systems.
It is important that when situations occur at events, and in particular when event calls are being made, they are sent to ISAF for an answer. (See also article in IU Newsletter 1 2008 about event calls.)
The panels working on Q&A's and calls are kept very busy this year and little by little questions will be answered.
You may think that Q&A's and the Case Book are irrelevant for match and team racing, but this is not the case. Yes, many of the cases and questions are, but others apply to all disciplines and should not be ignored. There has been a complete review, and even old Q&A's have been updated to new rules (some have been deleted as a result of that review, and they are all listed as deleted).
All questions submitted are being published. So far this year there have been 29 Q&A's submitted and at the time of writing this 25 of them are answered on the ISAF website. In order to make the Q&A's more accessible for all, ISAF is now frequently updating a PDF file including all Q&A's, so there is no longer a need for downloading them one by one. That particular file includes bookmarks and you will find an abstract for quick reference.
For calls, the system is slightly different in that not all submitted calls will be published. However, if rejected, feedback is given to those who submitted the call, with the reason for rejection and sometimes including suggestions for changes. It is then expected that this information be distributed to those who have been involved in the event call.
Currently about 14 calls have been submitted and many more are expected.
For all of us, once a call or Q&A have been posted, it will help largely on consistency if all IU's help distributing them and also umpire in accordance with the procedures or interpretations presented in them. Remember, sailors and NU's may not search the ISAF website for answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recently Updated Race Officials Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright ISAF/ISAF UK LTD. All Rights Reserved. Please read our Disclaimer and Copyright Notice.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list click here
|
|
|
|
If you cannot see this email correctly, click here
|
|
|
|
|
