2009 Rules Changes Final Draft

[Tom Elsen]

OK everyone

Here they are. If you have questions and / or suggestions, please post 'em asap. Thanks

2009 Proposed Rule Changes

#1 – Modification to the Penalties required by the Racing Rules of Sailing
Proposal - Add the following text as Rule 3.2.1, and change the title of Class Rule 3.1 to “For Class Sanctioned Regattas” from “General”:
To be considered a ‘Class Sanctioned Event’, including the Class Championship Regatta, the Sailing Instructions shall contain the following prescription, (approximately) as follows: Penalties For the S2 7.9 Class – When a boat that may have broken a rule of Part 2 of the Racing Rules of Sailing, where (a) the entire incident occurs outside the three boat length length Zone, and where, (b) there is no contact between boats involved, and where (c) the incident takes place after both boats have started, that boat may take a penalty at the time of the incident. Her penalty shall be a Turns Penalty including one tack and one jibe. Such a turn shall be completed in the same manner (continuously) and under the same obligations as the penalty described in Rule 44.2. This modifies but does not replace Rule 44.1.

#2 Allowing Roll Tacking / Clearing Confusion as to application in Rule #49
Proposal: Add the following as class rule #2.11 “Allowed Actions”:
Roll Tacking is specifically allowed and shall be considered a “necessary action” within Racing Rule of Sailing #49. However, crew shall not use the sidestays to hang outboard, with torso outside the lifelines, during roll tacking.

#3 Allow Roller Furling
Proposal: Add as class rule # A.2.C.16 (Allowed Modification) “Roller Furling”
Any brand of roller furling headstay may be used, provided that the sail is carried either (a) fully unfurled or (b) unfurled to a dimension of not more than that of a “Working Jib” or (c) fully furled. When fully unfurled all requirements of rule 2.5.B shall be in effect. When unfurled to the dimension of a "Working Jib", all requirements of rule 2.5.C. shall be in effect. Any other ‘partial deployment’ of a roller furled headsail is prohibited, except as that sail is being furled or unfurled.

#4 Allow non-wire lower lifelines
Proposal: Add the following text to class rule # A.2.B.12.
Lower lifelines may be of any material, provided that it stretches less than one inch over its entire length at a 200 lb load, and has a breaking strength of at least 500lbs.

#5 Allow a more fair ‘sails substitution’ policy
Proposal: Replace 3.7.B.1 “Substitution of Sails” with the following
Substitutions are allowed only when a sail has been damaged to the point that it may reasonably be expected to completely fail in the conditions present at the time. The substitute sail may not be a ‘new’ sail. In addition the substitute sail must measure, in each dimension, within 5% of the sail being replaced.
(Please note that this section 3 rule applies to the Class Championship only. Should we switch it to a section 2 rule so that it applies to any sanctioned regatta? Or leave it for the CCR only?)

#6 Clear up confusing wording in A.2.C.15 RE how the new backstay must be rigged
Add the following wording to A.2.C.15, and delete the “Note” in same:
Any type of cascade or system of purchase is permissible with a non-wire backstay.

[dave]

Tom, I still disagree with #1. Just because there may not be a collision doesn't mean the the ROW boat didn't have to take heroic steps and make MAJOR course alterations to avoid it ! Such actions are grounds for a full two turns penalty. I STRONGLY disagree with competitors being able to choose which penalty they think is appropriate for the infraction, no matter if it's the give way boat or the ROW boat. The simple fact that the two drivers may or may not get along on shore is enough to make the whole enterprise subject to further protests, deliberations and bad feelings on shore.

[fleck]

Toe rail?

[507]

Tom, I kind of agree with Dave. The two turns penalty is certainly a lot more lenient than when we had to quit and go home after commiting a foul. A single turn penalty is not much of a deterent to taking a chance on a crossing. Don B.

[dixonwj]

I oppose #1 along with Dave and 507. I hope that class events will support sailing by the rules that everybody else sails to the rest of the year.

[Tom Elsen]

Here's why #1 was proposed last year in Nashville. I happen to agree, but it isn't my proposal.
The rationale is this: It encourages people to deal with a foul on the water.
When the penalty is a 720, competitors choose too often (IMHO) to take it to the room. They say, what the heck, our race is toast anyhow, we'll battle it out off the water.
A tack+jibe is not a light penalty. (Remember, this is only for non-contact violations.) I think it's a much better balance. You can still take it to the room. But if it's close you can do your penalty, and at least hope to stay in the game.
Last item - PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN THE RULE TEXT
Someone pointed out to me that we likely do not want this rule to apply in the pre-start. That's when a violation can produce an unfair gain. So, I added a condition to the proposal.

[dave]

Taking a penalty before the start can be almost nothing, depending on timing. We are racing at our prep signal which is 4 minutes before the start. A foul anywhere within the first 3 minutes costs almost nothing: there's usually plenty of time to get clear, do the turns and get to the line on time. Conversely, trying to take the turns in the last minute on a crowded line could leave one wallowing in bad air and water for a great while AFTER the start, because in many starts it takes a while to get CLEAR before starting the penalty.

I stand by my opinion given months ago that only having to do one tack and one jibe for a non contact foul [which would include about 90% - 95% of the fouls!!!! ] might ENCOURAGE some folks to take more chances on the water because there is much less to loose when compared to the possibility of gain. That's getting closer to throwing the dice than being encouraged to play fairly.

[Tom Elsen]

Dave (and all)
The reason I modified the proposal is in the interest of fairness and better sailing. If somebody fouls you, say by not turning up immediately prior to the start, they have potentially gained a lot. That, IMHO, is worth a two-turn penalty. Hence the change.
Most of the fouls that would come under this proposal are accidental, inadvertent fouls. We had one just two days ago. A port-starboard. No contact. We were on starboard. We had to turn up, but not a gigantic amount. The guys who were at fault absolutely did not deserve to have their whole race burned. In a very competitive regatta, they might well have chosen to try it out in the room with the argument that they turned in time to miss us. Plus, they were sailing really well and they didn't deserve (IMHO) the end result.
Again though, this wasn't my proposal.

[dave]

Tom, I understand your point but simply disagree. Close port/starboard incidents aren't accidental!!!! I've been racing cats, dinghies and keelboats since 1976 and have yet to be in an accidental port/starboard, on either side. Rules are rules and both parties know that [or darn well should] going into the race. If I push it too hard or make an error in judgement, I have no problem taking a two turns penalty. IMHO, the ONLY way that this encounter could be termed as "accidental" would be if either boat was unaware of the others presence, in which case they BOTH should take the blinders off and start paying attention to what's going on around them! I find this second instance more of a grievance than the first and if the first deserves a 720, then the second SURELY does!!!

My goal here isn't to argue with you or belittle your hard work on all of this, only to hopefully keep things fair for everyone involved. Having said that, I'm not legally a class member yet because my freeking dues payment was returned from Pay-Pal, as is described in another thread. That was no fault of mine though and I made an honest attempt at joining the class weeks ago, so I hope that my views at least carry some water here.

With all due respect, your example of the starting situation also leaves me underwhelmed. I have done 720's on the line on more than one occasion and still won the race. Doing a 720 is more damaging to one's score when it happens LATER in the race for the simple reason that you have less time and distance to make up for it! If someone is truly relying on the start as the main component of their final outcome [a low score] I would suggest that they are putting far too much emphasis on that one aspect of the race at the expense of great boatspeed and sound, conservative, well thought out AND practiced strategy and tactics.

[dixonwj]

I love to read Dave's posts, sometimes I disagree, sometimes not. Today is not.. I respect all the work you have put into the class and I thank you also , but, I am not in favor or a one turn penalty. In the 30+ years I have raced, I have been on both sides of a surprise port-starboard confrontation and both times both boats were guilty of not keeping an adequate watch. Two turns is the IASF and US ailing penalty. Why should we be different?

[Tom Elsen]

It's fine to disagree guys, especially in the respectful manner which (I believe) is a hallmark of this class. I certainly respect your opinion, and understand the very reasonable rationale which generates your POV.

Just so that we're clear --
This proposal applies ONLY to class-sanctioned regattas and it must be included in the SIs for the event. So it does not affect any PHRF racing, any Wednesday-night-beer-can series or anything else. Only class-sanctioned events. And, again, it only applies to Part 2 fouls (a) after the start (b) outside the zone (c) where there is no contact.

Me - I think this is much fairer than the current penalty. This penalty fits the crime. I think it also restores the balance in close fleet racing. I mean let's face it, the lee-bow has ceased to exist as a viable maneuver... unless you have on-the-water judges present. Finally, it also makes regatta management easier.

Dave, your racing career and mine are almost identical in span. The vast, vast majority of P/S incidents that I've witnessed were accidental - knock-downs, auto-tacks, spinnaker wraps, wave round-ups, winch overrides, busted tiller extensions, head-inside-the-boat, mainsheet fouls, etc etc. These are anything but a we're-trying-to-screw-you fouls.

In the current rules...a guy makes a small mistake, doesn't gain by it...and his race is toast? That (to me) is why we abandoned the (very) old commit-a-foul-and-you-must-retire rule.

To me, the proposal makes for better fleet racing at class-sanctioned events (only). And that's the reason to be different.

[dave]

"Dave, your racing career and mine are almost identical in span. The vast, vast majority of P/S incidents that I've witnessed were accidental - knock-downs, auto-tacks, spinnaker wraps, wave round-ups, winch overrides, busted tiller extensions, head-inside-the-boat, mainsheet fouls, etc etc. These are anything but a we're-trying-to-screw-you fouls."

Tom, we agree to disagree. Everything that you brought forth is an example of poor seamanship: less than adequate for the situation as far as crewing or driving or both combined. Have I made or been on boats that have made these SNAFUs? Surely, and some if not all of them may happen again, that's part of learning and getting better at the game but as you said, EXACTLY why the rule makers came up with something besides mandatory retirement for any foul. Some of the "accidents" that you site come from lousy to no maintenance and bad to no practice. Why should someone get a BENEFIT when they commit a non contact foul for such things???? Also, the rules specifically state that contact is to be avoided, period. So again, why should someone gain from being let of the hook when they foul someone else and there was no contact....................................... just as the rules say that there shouldn't be?

I stand by what I said about accidents and I also know that doing a 720 doesn't move even a moderately successful team to the back of the fleet, and lets be honest here: The REAL penalty part of doing a two turns penalty IS the second turn because you are THEN down speed from the first one. IMHO doing one turn is less than even a slap on the wrist unless you happen to have the chute up, and even then it's not a huge deal breaker. As a perfect example of my point: We had 3 races yesterday and I was driving a Flying Scot. It was blowing maybe 5-8 mph. At one windward mark we rounded about 2 boat lengths behind the leader but the sag of my mainsheet brushed the top of the mark, so I did my tack and jibe to clear myself, set the chute, and by the time we got halfway down the leg we already had caught back up with the leader AND had the inside for the rest of the leg and at the bottom mark!

That was a one turn penalty and it cost us almost nothing in the end.

[Tim Bosma]

Dave,
how long were the legs in the Flying Scott race? How fast were you going? how many boatlengths behind were you when you finished your turn? If you were going .2kts faster than the leader, and ended up 4 bl apart after your turn, then you need 3.357 minutes to close the gap, in about a 1200 feet your bow should be even, and another 600 ft to get past him. now if we scale that up to 7.9s, it would take about 2800 feet to pass the boat ahead.

usually in our 7.9 fleet, a single turn penaly will cost you 2 or more places in line, and the difference in speed between boats is rarely over .2kts.

[dave]

The leg was maybe 3/4 of a mile and as I said, they were about two boat lengths ahead of me at the rounding. I will fully admit that we sailed better than they did downwind but cripes, that's part of the game: One is SUPPOSED to try to sail better than the competition!!! If the lead boat had sailed the same as I did I MAY not have caught him but the following boat ALWAYS has the advantage downwind, especially if it's puffy and shifty [which it was] so anything is possible. That's also why I think that racing in very steady breeze is just boring. Full disclosure, I was using one of my chutes which is very fast and low, he was using one of the Big name brands. Flying Scots don't have speedos and I already said that the wind was blowing about 5-8 mph, so you make the call on speed.

The point remains that a "penalty" is supposed to be just that, not a slap on the wrist, and if you fouled someone for WHATEVER reason, you should have to fight back from more than at LEAST "1-2 places"!!! My goal isn't to argue for the sake of argument, it's just my strong opinion, I'm sick to death of everything in our world being made "easier" for us. Air conditioning is GREAT but some things are SUPPOSED to be hard: therein lies the satisfaction when one pulls it off, especially after something unforeseen throws a wrench in your gears, including one's self, which I still do all too often even after all this time sailing!!!!

[Tom Elsen]

This is, IMHO, about making the punishment fit the crime. I think that makes for better racing in this fleet. There isn't a political component here.

Dave, if this were the Flying Scott or the Laser class I likely wouldn't support the change. Cripes you can rip off a 720 in a FS like a Ducati on an ice sheet. The 720 fits the crime. Doing the same thing on a 4600 lb S2 with about another 1000 lbs of crew and gear aboard...that's another matter. Nobody gets a benefit from committing a foul here. Nobody gets let off the hook.

However, do people think that a '360 degree turn, including at least one tack and one jibe' is a better option?