BI Star Fleet

ISAF Rules Submissions 2011

2011-10-22T22:02:00.000-07:00

The rules will be updated after the Olympics in 2012. There are constant changes to the rules that occur to try to improve and fix things that don't work. And to fix the unintended consequences of previous changes to the rules. Since there were wholesale changes to Section C - At marks and Obstructions in the last cycle, the ISAF working party on Section C that was responsible for the current rules, is still at work trying to improve the rules in this section of the rule book. What follows are the submissions of the that might make it into the next version of rules. ISAF will be voting on these and other proposed changes to the rules in November 2011.

Proposal
Delete the definition Mark-Room and replace with:

Mark-Room Room for a boat to leave a mark on the required side. Also,
(a) room to sail to the mark when her proper course is to sail close to it, and
(b) room to round the mark as necessary to sail the course.
However, mark-room does not include room for a boat to tack unless she is overlapped inside and to windward of the boat required to give her mark-room and she would be fetching the mark after her tack.

Current Definition
Mark-Room Room for a boat to sail to the mark, and then room to sail her proper course while at the mark. However, mark-room does not include room to tack unless the boat is overlapped to windward and on the inside of the boat required to give mark-room.

Reasons
This revision corrects flaws and removes ambiguities from the current definition as follows:
1. The current definition includes room to sail to the mark when the mark is a passing or finishing mark that is nowhere near the boat's proper course. That provision is unnecessary, and gives the boat entitled to mark-room more power than she needs to pass the mark in a seamanlike way. The proposed definition removes this flaw.

2. The word "at" in the current definition and the change of rights during the transition from "to" to "at" the mark have caused difficulties in interpretation. The proposed definition does not use "at" terminology and avoids the “to” to “at” transition. It replaces these by rights that depend on a boat's proper course and the rounding necessary to sail the course. This is easier to judge, less ambiguous, and takes other boats into account.

3. The current definition grants room to sail a proper course while at the mark, which is a broader right than is needed for orderly mark roundings. Under the proposed definition, the right of the boat that has mark-room is always to sail a seamanlike course (to or round the mark).

4. The current definition's provision for room to tack can be interpreted to give rights to tack in situations where the tack is not to fetch the mark, which was not intended. The proposed definition clarifies when that provision should apply.

5. Because of 1 and 2 above, an extra rule 18.2(c)(2), covering the situation when a boat required to give mark-room establishes an inside overlap, is proposed in a separate submission. That separate submission is integral to this submission.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Proposal
Delete the definition Keep Clear and replace with:

Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat
(a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and,
(b) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact.

Current Definition
Keep Clear One boat keeps clear of another if the other can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and, when the boats are overlapped on the same tack, if the leeward boat can change course in both directions without immediately making contact with the windward boat.

Reasons
When two same tack boats are sailing alongside each other, the windward boat must give space, commonly known as "wriggle room", for the leeward boat to change course both towards her and away from her. In the same circumstances it is logical, consistent and has safety advantages to allow the same space to a starboard tack boat sailing downwind alongside a port tack boat.

____________________________________________________________________________________________
Proposal

Modify the definition of proper course as follows:

Proper Course A course a boat would sail to complete the course and finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term. A boat has no proper course before her starting signal.

Reasons
The current definition does not define ‘proper course’ in the way that competitors use the term. The proposal aligns the wording with what competitors think the definition currently says – that is, a proper course is one a boat would sail to complete the course and then cross the finishing line as soon as possible, in the absence of other boats referred to in the rule. The problem with the current definition is that ‘finish’ is a defined term that makes no reference to sailing the course, only to crossing the finishing line from the direction of the last mark. Strictly speaking, a boat’s proper course under the current definition is to sail directly to the finishing line without completing the course. Adding the words ‘complete the course and’ brings the definition into agreement with current usage of the term among competitors.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Proposal

Modify the preamble to Section A of Part 2 to read as follows:

A boat has right of way over another boat when the other boat is required to keep clear of her. However, some rules in Sections B, C and D limit the actions of a right-of-way boat.

Current Wording
A boat has right of way when another boat is required to keep clear of her. However, some rules in Sections B, C and D limit the actions of a right-of-way boat.

Reasons

The preamble’s current first sentence can be interpreted to mean that, when Boat A is required to keep clear of Boat B, B has right of way over all other boats. The intended meaning is that, when A is required to keep clear of B, B has right of way over A. The proposal states clearly what is intended.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
Proposal

Modify rule 14 as follows:

14 AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-ofway boat or one entitled to room or mark-room
(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and
(b) shall be exonerated if she breaks this rule and the contact does not cause damage or injury.

Reasons
Replacing "shall not be penalised" with "shall be exonerated" simplifies the rule and makes it consistent with the principle that a boat breaking a rule shall be exonerated or penalized.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Proposal
Modify the preamble to Section C of Part 2 and Rule 20 as follows:

SECTION C
AT MARKS AND OBSTRUCTIONS
Section C rules do not apply at a starting mark surrounded by navigable water or at its
anchor line from the time boats are approaching them to start until they have passed
them. ~~When rule 20 applies, rules 18 and 19 do not.~~

20.1 Hailing and Responding
When approaching an obstruction, a boat sailing close-hauled or above may hail for room to tack and avoid another boat on the same tack. After a boat hails,

(a) she shall give the hailed boat time to respond;
(b) the hailed boat shall respond either by tacking as soon as possible, or by immediately replying ‘You tack’ and then giving the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her; and
(c) when the hailed boat responds, the hailing boat shall tack as soon as possible.
(d) From the time a boat hails until she has tacked and avoided the hailed boat, rule 18.2 does not apply between them.

Reasons
The current rule does not clearly limit itself to interactions between the hailed and hailing boats, which raises the possibility that rules 18 and 19 can be unintentionally dis-applied with respect to another neighboring boat. It is also not clear when rule 20 starts and ceases to apply. The proposed language clarifies both questions.

There is no need to “switch off” rule 19 when rule 20 applies. A boat hailing at an obstruction under rule 20 is either leeward or clear ahead of the hailed boat. Because she has right-of-way, rule 19.2(a) gives her the right to choose to pass the obstruction by tacking. This resolves the common situation where two port-tack boats approach a starboard-tack boat: the windward port tack boat’s claim to room under rule 19 to pass to leeward of the starboard-tack boat is invalidated when the leeward boat chooses to tack. This is exactly what is needed. Therefore rule 19 should apply when rule 20 applies. It is also essential that rule 19 does apply in some rule 20 scenarios when there is more than one obstruction.

Rule 20 can come into conflict with rule 18.2 when a port-tack hailing boat needs room to tack and avoid a starboard-tack boat inside the zone. If the hailed boat has mark-room because she is the inside boat the rules must, for safety, give priority to the hailing boat’s need to tack over her obligation to give mark-room. The proposed rule makes this clear.

There are no conflicts between rule 20 and other parts of rule 18. In fact it is desirable that rule 18.3 is clearly in force, as situations at windward marks involving rule 20 often also involve rule 18.3.

Preambles are less often read than rules. Placing this sentence within the rule where it arises will make Section C simple and easier to understand. The proposed rule will not arise unless rule 20 is part of the incident, so sailors will find this exception to rule 18 when they need it.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Proposal

Modify rule 18.2 as follows:

18.2 Giving Mark-Room
(a) When boats are overlapped the outside boat shall give the inside boat mark-room, unless rule 18.2(b) applies.

(b) If boats are overlapped when the first of them reaches the zone, the outside boat at that moment shall thereafter give the inside boat mark-room. If a boat is clear ahead when she reaches the zone, the boat clear astern at that moment shall thereafter give her mark-room.

(c) When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b),
(1) she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins;
(2) if she becomes overlapped inside the boat entitled to mark-room, she shall also give that boat room to sail her proper course while they remain overlapped.
However, if the boat entitled to mark-room passes head to wind or leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

(d) If there is reasonable doubt that a boat obtained or broke an overlap in time, it shall be presumed that she did not.

(e) If a boat obtained an inside overlap from clear astern or by tacking to windward of the other boat and, from the time the overlap began, the outside boat has been unable to give mark-room, she is not required to give it.

Reasons
The new rule18.2(c)(2) prevents a boat required to give mark-room from acquiring any rights or obstructing the boat entitled to mark-room if she becomes inside the other boat. It also puts a limit on the action that the boat entitled to mark-room may take when the boat required to give mark-room attempts to take advantage of space left between her and the mark by the boat entitled to mark-room. The (1)(2) sub-division of rule 18.2(c) is added to make the rule easier to read.
* It makes clear that the first line applies equally to both (1) and (2)
* It helps clarify that the 'However' sentence applies to all earlier text in the rule
* The rule can only apply when rule 18.2(b) applies as the first line is specific to that rule; therefore it is not necessary to turn off 18.2(c) in the last line.

The extra words at the end of the first line of rule 18.2(e) address scenarios when a boat tacks inside at a windward mark, after passing either in front of or behind the other boat. Team racing call E6 (Q2) also refers but these scenarios can occur in fleet races with boats of differing speeds.

This is a combination of 2 submissions prepared by the ISAF Section C Working Party. It is integral with the submission to change the definition Mark-Room.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Proposal
Delete rule 20 and replace it with the following:

20 ROOM TO TACK AT AN OBSTRUCTION
20.1 Hailing
When approaching an obstruction, a boat may hail for room to tack and avoid a boat on the same tack. However, she shall not hail if
(a) she can avoid the obstruction safely without making a substantial course change,
(b) she is sailing below close-hauled, or
(c) the obstruction is a mark and a boat that is fetching it would be required to respond and change course.
20.2 Responding
(a) After a boat hails, she shall give the hailed boat time to respond.
(b) The hailed boat shall respond even if the hail breaks rule 20.1.
(c) The hailed boat shall respond either by tacking as soon as possible, or by immediately replying ‘You tack’ and then giving the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her.
(d) When the hailed boat responds, the hailing boat shall tack as soon as possible.
20.3 Passing a Hail to an Additional Boat
When a boat has been hailed for room to tack and she intends to respond by tacking, she may hail another boat on the same tack for room to tack and avoid her. She may hail even if her hail does not meet the conditions of rule 20.1. Rule 20.2 applies between her and the boat she hails.
20.4 Exoneration
When a boat is taking room to which she is entitled under rule 20.2(c), she shall be exonerated if she breaks a rule of Section A or rule 15 or 16 with respect to the hailed boat.

Reasons
Rule 20 has received less attention in previous rules cycles than the other rules of Section C. This proposal is the result of an extensive discussion and submissions in 2010, followed by revisions in 2011 to respond to input from the Racing Rules Committee, the Section C Working Party, and others.

The current rule mixes hailing and responding rules into one section, goes on to exoneration, and
then returns to restrictions on hailing in its final section. The proposed rule has been reorganized into a more logical structure. The first section brings together the requirements and restrictions for a boat hailing for room to tack. The requirements for responding to the hail are together in the next section. Passing on a hail to a third boat is covered in its own section, and the rule concludes with a section on exoneration. This structure will make the rule easier to learn and use and more straightforward to cite in decisions.

The proposed rule largely and as far as possible retains the wording used in current rule 20. It also adds language to clarify the hailed boat’s obligation to respond and covers multiple-boat situations much more comprehensively than the current rule.

There are three ways in which the proposed rule differs from the submission made by US SAILING
in 2010:
1. Rule 20.1(c), which deals with hailing a boat that can fetch an obstruction which is also a mark, has been reworded to be simpler. The 2010 version was over-complicated in an attempt to cover multiple boat situations where, for instance, only the windward boat can fetch. After extensive discussion it was decided that this feature is important, so better wording has been developed. As a side benefit, the new wording improves the fairness of the rule in two-boat situations:
when two boats, L and W, approach an obstruction that is also a mark which W is fetching, if L hails for room to tack and W replies “You tack”, L does not break rule 20.1(c) unless W needs to make a course change to give L the room she has requested. Under the current rule, L would be penalized even if W has to make no change of course.
2. Rule 20.2(b), requiring response to a hail, was, in the 2010 proposal, less logically located at the end of rule 20.2.
3. The 2010 proposal contained a stand-alone sentence at the end of rule 20.1 permitting a boat, once she has been hailed for room to tack, to “pass on” the hail to another boat when she herself needs room to tack. In this proposal this issue is handled in a separate new section, rule 20.3. This change was made for two reasons. First, these situations are less common; moving them out of rule 20.1 simplifies the narrative of the rule, making it easier to understand and learn. Second, it is important for safety that such a “middle” boat is free to hail without risking a penalty for violating the normal restrictions on hailing contained in rule 20.1. It is easier to give relief from these restrictions in a separate sub-rule than in the rule containing the restrictions.

Relationships between the Proposed Rule and the Current Rule
Proposed rule 20.1 is constructed from parts of current rules 20.1 and 20.3, using almost identical wording. It makes clear when a boat may hail.

Proposed rule 20.2 follows current rules 20.1 (a), (b), and (c), with virtually unchanged wording. It takes the reader step-by-step through the sequence of events following a hail.
Rule 20.2(b) has no equivalent in the current rule. It adds an important safety feature by making it clear that the hailed boat must respond when she has been hailed under either rule 20.1 or rule 20.3, even if the hailing boat does not qualify to hail under those rules. This avoids dangerous disagreements on the water, in situations where delay can result in damage or injury. The hailed boat must respond; her remedy for an improper hail is to protest. This change embodies a principle expressed in Match Race Call MR 38 and in Team Race Call B7.

Proposed rule 20.3 handles hailing in multiple-boat rule 20 situations, as described above in the section on changes from the 2010 submission.

Proposed rule 20.4, Exoneration, is very similar to current rule 20.2. It adds the words 'with respect to the hailed boat' at the end. This restriction limits exoneration so that it is only available for interactions between the hailing boat and the hailed boat. The current rule can be read as permitting exoneration for breaking a rule with respect to a third boat that just happens to be close by but is not involved in the rule 20 interaction.

Here are some examples of the numerous multiple-boat situations which are not well resolved by the current rule but would be handled by the proposed rule. In each, the middle boat is in an impossible situation, with no safe option that complies with the current rule.

Three boats are overlapped approaching an obstruction. The middle and windward boats can fetch the obstruction, but the leeward boat cannot fetch. The leeward boat hails the middle boat for room to tack. Under current rule 20, if the middle boat hails the windward boat for room to tack in order to comply with her obligation to the leeward boat, she would break rule 20.3.

Three boats are overlapped approaching an obstruction. The leeward boat hails for room to tack. The middle boat is sailing below close-hauled. Again, if she passes on the hail to the windward boat, she will break the first sentence of current rule 20.

Three boats are overlapped approaching an obstruction. The obstruction is a mark that only the windward boat can fetch. The leeward boat hails the middle boat for room to tack. Under current rule 20, if the middle boat hails the windward boat for room to tack in order to comply with her obligation to the leeward boat, she breaks current rule 20.3. However, under proposed rule 20.3’s second and third sentences the middle boat’s hail does not break rule 20 and the windward boat is required to respond. The leeward boat breaks rule 20.1(c) and she is not exonerated
.
Note that the proposed rule is consistent with the conclusions of a recent Case (Case 113); all boats that can hear a hail of room to tack and need to respond must do so, but that does not relieve intervening boats of the obligation to pass on the hail.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Well these were the most significant changes that I found in sifting through the submissions to ISAF for the next cycle. They will vote in November as to which will be incorporated in the new rule book. Any comments?.

Arbitration Old Corvus Bow #33 vs Jazz Bow #02

2011-08-16T11:09:00.000-07:00

Arbitration Old Corvus vs Jazz Summer Series 1 Night 3, August 1st, .Race #1

Facts:

The wind was light (2-3 knots) and had shifted to the right so that the race became a reach to the windward mark and then a reach back to the finish.
Old Corvus was to leeward of Jazz both on port tack approaching Starlight on Starboard
As Jazz approached Starlight at position 3 she changed course to leeward to clear Starlight's boom.
Old Corvus altered course to avoid Jazz and protested Jazz for not keeping clear. In addition, Old Corvus said Jazz changed course without hailing him and he wouldn't have had to change course to clear Starlight's stern.
There was no contact between Jazz and Starlight or Jazz and Corvus.

Rules That Apply: Rule 19, Room to Pass an Obstruction

Decision: No rule was broken.

Starlight on Starboard tack is an obstruction by the definition because both Old Corvus and Jazz must keep clear of her. Although Old Corvus can keep clear without altering her course, by rule 19(b) she must also give room to Jazz to clear the obstruction once she has decided, as right of way boat, which side she will pass the obstruction. Finally, Jazz is not required by the rule to hail Old Corvus for room at the obstruction. It is perhaps a prudent thing to do, but it is not required by the rule and Jazz does not break a rule by not hailing to Old Corvus for room.

Protest Corvus vs Elentari

2011-07-31T22:27:00.001-07:00

Protest of Elentari (bow #18) by Corvus (bow #33) first leg in Race 4 of the BISF Second Summer Series Night 1 on July 11, 2011 .

Facts Found:

The wind was light (2-3 knots from the West) and the current was flooding ½ knot from right to left
Both boats are Star Class sailboats
Elentari entered the zone at the windward mark clear ahead of Corvus.
Elentari was just below the starboard tack lay line, and Couvus had slightly over stood.
At the mark Elantari headed above close hauled to clear the mark and there was approximately ¾ of a boat length between Elentari and the mark as she rounded the mark (position 3).
Corvus moving faster than Elentari obtained a late overlap inside at the mark and both boats gybed to port tack (position 4).
Elentari luffed Corvus and Corvus promptly responded to the luff up to or slightly above close hauled between positions 4 and 5.
There was no contact between the two boats, or between Corvus and the mark.

Rules that apply:

Rule 11- On The Same Tack, Overlapped; Rule 12-On The Same Tack, Not Overlapped; Rule 16-Changing Course; Rule 18-Giving Mark Room.

Conclusions:

When Elentari entered the zone clear ahead she was entitled to mark room by rule 18.2(b), which includes room to sail to the mark and then room to sail her proper course while at the mark. In this case when Elentari rounded the mark at position 3 she left approximately ¾ boat lengths between her and the mark and her proper course at this time was to sail to the next mark at position 4. When Corvus obtained the inside overlap at position 3 and gybed to port at position 4, she provided adequate room for Elentari to sail her proper course while Elentari was at the mark, and thereby complied with rule 18.2(b). Between position 3 and 4 Elentari changed course to above her proper course, and provided Corvus adequate room to keep clear while she changed course as required by rule 16.1. Corvus kept clear as required by rule 11.

Decision:

No rule was broken and the protest is dismissed.

Port Starboard At The Finish

2011-05-11T20:04:00.000-07:00

Last night there was an incident at the finish that is worthy of discussion. The facts as described to me were:
1. The wind was approximately 8 knots
2. Yellow was on starboard and Blue was on port approaching the finish line near the middle of the line
3. Approximately 2 lengths from the finish Yellow hails starboard to Blue
4. After Blue finishes but before she completely clears the line Yellow bears away to avoid Blue

There was no protest filed but Yellow asked my opinion as to what rules apply.

Clearly the rule that applies is rule 10 that a boat on a port-tack must keep clear of a starboard-tack boat. The question is if Blue can be penalized for breaking the rule. To determine this lets look at the preamble to the rules of Part 2 which says.

"The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 23.1."

The rules apply if you are in the racing area and intend, are, or have been racing, but you can only be penalized only if you are "racing".

We need to go to the definition of racing to determine if Blue can be penalized. The following is the definition of racing.

"A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and clears the finishing line and marks...."

So, although Blue has finished at position 2 she is still racing because she hasn't cleared the finish line yet, and should be penalized. However, if Yellow is forced to alter course after Blue has cleared the finish line, then although Blue breaks rule 10 she cannot be penalized because she is not racing.

Sugar Magnolia's Appeal Decision

2010-12-05T19:07:00.000-08:00

The Appeal of Sugar Magnolia is now decided. Pardon the date from last year on this post, but I pulled the original post at the request of PIYA until it was decided by US Sailing and now it has.. This post is to provide an update of the appeal and show how it was finally decided. To start with the appeal was lost for a period of months after it was filed. Because Sugar Magnolia filed two appeals for the same race involving the same two boats, US SAILING thought it was the same appeal sent twice. We asked the status of the second appeal after the first had been decided by PYIA and found out PYIA AC was never was sent the second appeal by US SAILING. The appeal that was lost was the appeal posted in my previous post Show time vs Sugar Magnolia.

At first blush it seemed to be a rather easy appeal to decide, but there were several question asked by the PYIA AC that indicated they were struggling with the decision because we never found as fact whether Sugar Magnolia sailed her proper course after she passed the leeward mark boat. What follows is the correspondence between the PC and the PYIA-AC and the final decision by US SAILING.

Below is a letter from the PYIA AC with questions and the responses from the PC in italics. In addition, you will see some clarifications on the diagram requested by the AC.

October 14, 2010 Letter from PYIA-AC with PC Responses to Questions

Re: SOUTH SOUND SAILING SOCIETY 2010 FIRST WEDNESDAY RACE #3
PIYA APPEAL No. 1004

The PIYA-AC requires certain additional information in order to decide this Appeal. Please provide us with your answers to the following questions and amend the PC's diagram as requested:

1. After SM rounded the leeward mark, was the next leg of the Race a beat to windward or a free leg of the course? If the latter, please indicate on the PC's diagram the direction of the course to the next mark.
PC Response – This was a leeward mark, and the next mark was to windward.

2. Please show on the PC's diagram what SM's proper course – in the prevailing wind, sea state and current conditions – would have been (not necessarily the course she actually sailed) from the time that her bow was abreast of the leeward mark until SM would have accelerated up to speed on her course to the next mark. SM's proper course to the next mark would depend on whether or not the next leg of the Race was a beat to windward.
PC Response – We have modified the diagram to show the direction of the wind and the direction to the next mark. The next leg was a beat to windward so proper course was close hauled. We have added an arrow to the diagram showing the close hauled course for SM.

However, we didn’t find as fact whether SM was sailing her proper course or not between positions 5 and 6 only that she was below close hauled. We didn’t consider her to be “at the mark" when she broke rule 11 so we didn’t consider her proper course to be relevant to the decision. We could reopen the hearing to determine if it was her proper course, but our decision would be unchanged.

3. Did SM have her dagger board fully lowered by the time SM was at the leeward mark and began altering course to windward while rounding the mark?
PC Response – We do not know if her dagger board was fully lowered. The status of the center board was not a fact found.

4. What was the nature and extent of the damage to each of SM and ST?
PC Response – According to the testimony there was no damage to SM and ST had fiberglass damage at the point of contact possibly exceeding $200 to repair

Please reply to the foregoing questions and send the PC's amended diagram, to the PIYA-AC as well as both parties to the Protest, at your earliest convenience.

Yours very truly,
PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION APPEALS COMMITTEE

November 23, 2010 Letter from PIYA-AC

Re: SOUTH SOUND SAILING SOCIETY 2010 FIRST WEDNESDAY RACE #3

PIYA APPEAL No. 1004

Thank you for providing us with some additional information and with a revised diagram in response to our letter to your of Oct. 14, 2010.

When SM entered the zone overlapped inside ST, ST was required by rule 18.2(b) to give SM mark room (defined terms in italics). One of the fundamental issues involved in this Appeal is for how long rule 18 applied during the period of time from when SM had passed the leeward mark – the stern of the RC signal boat – until the moment of contact between SM and ST. Per the definition of mark room, SM was entitled to sail her proper course while SM was "at the mark." In our opinion, unlike how rule 18 applied prior to 2009, under the current rule a boat is "at the mark" from the moment in time when her bow is first alongside the mark until she is sailing on her proper course (in this incident, close hauled on port tack) to the next mark. This means that, at a leeward mark when the next leg is a beat to windward, a boat is still "at the mark" while completing a proper course rounding from her previously offwind course until she is on a close hauled course to the next mark, which for most keelboats would be a period of time beyond when she would have left the leeward mark astern.

Acting under rule F6, Inadequate Facts; Reopening, we are writing to ask that you provide the following additional facts. Please show on the your diagram of the incident what SM's proper course – in the prevailing wind, sea state and current conditions – was (not necessarily the course SM actually sailed) from position 3 until SM was no longer in the zone. According to the materials you have provided to us, the only other boat involved in this incident was ST. Therefore, what we are requesting is an addition to your diagram showing the course that SM would have sailed (from position 3 until she was no longer in the zone) to finish as soon as possible in the absence of ST. We expect that this will necessitate your reopening the protest hearing, to take additional testimony in order to be able to find additional facts, so as to provide this information.

After you have concluded the reopened hearing, please send the PC's additional findings, amended diagram and conclusions to the PIYA AC as well as both parties to the Protest, at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your help with this matter.

Yours very truly,

PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL YACHTING ASSOCIATION APPEALS COMMITTEE

November 26, 2010 Letter from the SSSS PC Reopened hearing

As requested we have reopened the hearing and have found the following additional fact:

SM rounded up to just below close hauled at position 5 and sailed below close hauled between positions 5 and 6 to gain speed and would have sailed this course in the absence of ST to finish as soon as possible, making it her proper course.

The course shown in the diagram provided previously was found to be her proper course so I did not resend it.

Our conclusion is that SM should be DSQ regardless of if she was sailing her proper course from position 5 to 6. SM is required by rule 11 to keep clear throughout the rounding, but does not. The question is if she can be exonerated by rule 18.5 for breaking rule 11 because she is still “at the mark” and entitled to mark-room. We do not consider her “at the mark” when she breaks rule 11 because the mark is no longer influencing the course she is sailing from position 5 to 6. She has rounded the mark at position 5 and is sailing low to gain speed to position 6, which has nothing to do with the mark. Rule 11 requires her to keep clear so she is not entitled to sail her proper course from position 5 to 6, but must keep clear. ST gave SM room to sail her proper course “at the mark” when she was in position 5 and as right of way boat changed course in compliance with rule 16.1. SM did not respond to the change in course by ST and took room to which she was not entitled from position 5 to 6.

If you decide ST broke 18.2(b) for not providing mark-room, we would then ask you to consider if it was reasonably possible for SM to avoid contact as required by rule 14 once it was clear that ST was not providing mark-room. If it was reasonably possible and there is damage, then she should be penalized since rule 18.5 does not allow exoneration for breaking rule 14. If the facts we found do not convince you that SM broke rule 14, then again the decision should be overturned.

We look forward to your decision,

SSSS Protest Chair

Note:

We decided not to challenge the assertion in the protest by SM that she was sailing her proper course throughout the rounding. The parties were not close to agreement as to if SM made a seaman like rounding, or was below her proper course. In any case we didn't believe they were "at the mark" when the foul occurred, so it didn't matter. Also, in reviewing the ISAF Cases and US SAILING Appeals, the boat entitled to mark room was generally sailing below her proper course after the rounding, making the decision obvious. There is no case that tells us when is a boat was no longer "at the mark" after a mark rounding. The PYIA-AC seemed to be saying in their letter of November 23rd that a boat's proper course during the rounding defined and extended the period when a boat is "at the mark". If this is true, then when can a right of way boat begin to take a boat above her proper course after rounding the mark needed to be clarified by way of an appeal.

January 9, 2011
PYIA-AC overturned our decision and found the SM was entitled to mark room and also found that SM did not break rule 14 so they reinstated SM. However, they forwarded the decision to US Sailing for them to review since they were concerned with the result. PIYA-AC requested that I not publish their decision as they believe that only final decision of US Sailing is relevant and I want to respect their request.

March 29, 2011 US SAILING completed their review of the appeal and the following is the text of their decision.

This is the US SAILING Appeals Committee’s decision on the Pacific International Yachting Association (PIYA) Appeals Committee’s request for confirmation or correction of its decision on the protest Sugar Magnolia vs. Showtime, arising from an incident in Race 3 of the South Sound Sailing Society First Wednesday Night Series on June 16, 2010, conducted by the South Sound Sailing Society.

The primary issues in this incident concerned Sugar Magnolia’s right to mark-room and whether she
held that right at the time of the contact between her and Showtime. Rule 18 applied as long as at least one of them was in the zone. Rule 18.2(b) required Showtime to give Sugar Magnolia mark-room as soon as Sugar Magnolia reached the zone. However, the definition Mark-Room introduces another consideration. After Sugar Magnolia had finished sailing “to” the mark, and was “at” the mark, she was entitled to “room to sail her proper course,” the course she would have sailed to finish as soon as possible in the absence of Showtime. The critical question in this case is whether Sugar Magnolia was still “at” the mark when the contact occurred. In our judgment she was beyond the mark, not “at” it. Between positions 5 and 6 she had left the nearest part of the mark vessel astern, and the mark was no longer relevant to her course to the next mark. As the protest committee chairman commented, “We do not consider [Sugar Magnolia to be] at the mark when she breaks rule 11 because the mark is no longer influencing the course she is sailing from position 5 to 6.” We agree.

Since Sugar Magnolia was no longer at the mark when contact occurred, she was no longer entitled to room to sail her proper course. The fact that she was sailing her proper course (slightly below close-hauled to regain normal speed) did not extend the time she was “at” the mark. We therefore cannot agree with the PIYA Appeals Committee’s statement that “under the current rule a boat is ‘at the mark’ from the moment . . . her bow is first alongside the mark until she is sailing her proper course . . . to the next mark.”

At the time of the contact between the boats, the only rules of consequence were rules 11 and 14. (Although rule 18.2(b) still applied, it did not specify any rights or obligations after Sugar Magnolia was no longer at the mark.) Rule 11 required Sugar Magnolia to keep clear of Showtime but she failed to do so. She would have been entitled to exoneration under rule 18.5(a) had she been taking markroom, but she was not; therefore she is not exonerated from breaking rule 11. Had Sugar Magnolia been unable to keep clear of Showtime immediately after she was no longer at the mark, that could have been evidence that Showtime failed to provide mark-room, but in this case Sugar Magnolia could have kept clear of Showtime after she was no longer at the mark.

Concerning rule 14, Sugar Magnolia was required to avoid the contact “if reasonably possible.” She could have kept clear of Showtime after she was beyond the mark. Furthermore, she had been hailed by Showtime at position 5 and must have been aware that the boats’ courses were converging. She therefore had enough time and space to change course and avoid the collision, but failed to act soon enough, so broke rule 14. Showtime also broke rule 14. Although rule 14(a) provided that she did not need to act to avoid Sugar Magnolia until it was “clear” that Sugar Magnolia was not keeping clear, that fact had been evident for some time because Sugar Magnolia was not changing course as Showtime approached.

In summary, Sugar Magnolia broke rules 11and 14, and Showtime broke rule 14. Accordingly, the appeal of Sugar Magnolia is denied, and the decision of the protest committee to disqualify both boats is upheld.

Some Appeals Committee decisions are published in the US SAILING Appeals Book because of their educational value. They may be simplified or otherwise modified, and the version to be published is sent to the parties and committee chairmen involved.

Very truly yours,

US SAILING Appeals Committee

This incident took place approximately 9 months ago and is now finally decided. It has been an interesting process and an interesting discussion of the mark room rule and when is a boat "at" a mark. Perhaps in the near future there will be a new published appeal using this incident. from a Wednesday night race in Budd Inlet.

Showtime vs. Sugar Magnolia

2010-07-25T19:37:00.000-07:00

South Sound Sailing Society - First Wednesday Series Race 3 on June 16, 2010. Leeward mark at the end of the second lap.

Facts Found:
1. Wind was from Southwest at 5-8 knots.
2. The leeward mark was the RC boat to be left to port.
3. Showtime is an Olsen 25, 25 feet long and Sugar Magnolia is an S2 7.9, 26 feet long.
4. Sugar Magnolia reached the zone first, inside Showtime and on starboard tack; Showtime was on port tack (position 1).
5. Sugar Magnolia gybed to port tack and was sailing lower and slower than Showtime. Sugar Magnolia was sailing at approximately 3 knots and Showtime was sailing at approximately 4 knots approaching the leeward mark (position 3).
6. Sugar Magnolia was approximately 5 feet from the RC as she passed the stern of the RC boat and Showtime was approximately 10 feet to leeward of Sugar Magnolia (position 4).
7. After Sugar Magnolia passed the stern of the committee she rounded up to just below close hauled and her sails were not completely set for a close hauled course (position 5).
8. Showtime rounded up to close hauled and was on a converging course with Sugar Magnolia and she hailed Sugar Magnolia to come up (position 5 to 6).
9. Approximately 15-20 seconds after Sugar Magnolia passed the stern of the RC boat and at approximately 2 boat lengths from the mark, Sugar Magnolia headed up to close hauled and her stern struck the side of Showtime (position 6).
10. There was damage to Showtime at the point of contact.

Rules that apply:
Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped; Rule 14, Avoiding Contact; Rule 16, Changing Course; and Rule 18.2, Giving Mark Room; Applicable case, ISAF Case 25.

Conclusions:
1. By rule 18.2 Sugar Magnolia was entitled to mark-room. Based on the distance between Sugar Magnolia and the stern of the RC and between Showtime and Sugar Magnolia, adequate space was provided for a seaman like rounding in the prevailing conditions. Therefore, Showtime fulfilled her obligation to provide mark-room.
2. After passing the mark and Showtime changed course to close hauled the boats traveled approximately 2 boat lengths in 15-20 seconds as the gap between the boats was reduced from approximately 10 feet to 1 foot. Therefore, Showtime provided adequate room for Sugar Magnolia to keep clear in accordance with rule 16.
3. Sugar Magnolia as the windward boat did not keep clear as required by rule 11.
4. It was reasonably possible for Sugar Magnolia to have avoided contact if she would have responded sooner to Showtime’s change in course to close hauled.
5. It was reasonably possible for Showtime to have avoided contact if she would have born away when it was clear that Sugar Magnolia was not keeping clear.

Decision:
Sugar Magnolia broke rules 11 and 14 and is disqualified from Race 3 in the First Wednesday Series in accordance with rule 64.1(a).

Showtime broke rule 14, and because there was damage, is disqualified from Race 3 in the First Wednesday Series in accordance with rule 64.1(a).

Protest committee – Norman Smit, Don Waterhouse and Bill Sheldon

The Protest was appealed and it is pending a decision. The following is the appeal submitted to US Sailing by Sugar Magnolia.

I wish to appeal the decision in the Protest Sugar Magnolia vs. Showtime South Sound Sailing Society First Wednesday Series Race 3 on June 16, 2010. Leeward mark at the end of the second lap.
I am appealing because the protest committee did not apply rule 18 correctly.

You can see from their findings that the protest committee seems to mistakenly believe the outside boat’s obligation to allow inside mark room ends at the stern of the mark boat. The committee found (italics added): “1. By rule 18.2 Sugar Magnolia was entitled to markroom. Based on the distance between Sugar Magnolia and the stern of the RC and between Showtime and Sugar Magnolia, adequate space was provided for a seaman like rounding in the prevailing conditions. Therefore, Showtime fulfilled her obligation to provide markroom. ”

That satisfies only half of Showtime’s obligation, giving room to sail to the mark. The committee seems unaware that mark room is not only room to sail to the mark, but also room to sail one’s proper course at the mark (the definition of mark room). To determine if rule 18 was violated we also need to know, Was Sugar Magnolia given room to sail her proper course at the mark?

However the committee does not address this question. This is clearly a mistake. No one can know that rule 18 was satisfied if they do not know if the inside boat was allowed to sail her proper course at the mark. The committee’s failure to address this pivotal question led them to misapply rule 18 and judge the protest on rules that did not govern.

While the committee made no formal pronouncement as to whether the boats were at the mark or whether Sugar Magnolia was or was not sailing her proper course, their findings of fact do give us answers. Their findings show that Sugar Magnolia was sailing her proper course at the mark
.
The diagram clearly shows that both boats were in the zone at the time of contact. The finding of facts tells us they were two lengths from the mark. ISAF Case 2 tells us “Rule 18.2(a) applies … while boats are overlapped and at least one of them is in the zone.”. So rule 18 applied as they were “at the mark”.

That leaves the question, was Sugar Magnolia sailing her proper course? ISAF Case 25 tells us what the proper course for a boat at a leeward mark is, in italics which I added (as well as outside’s obligations for the rounding). “Rule 18.2(b) required OL to give IW room to sail to the mark and then room to sail her proper course while at the mark. Clearly, between positions 1 and 2 OL gave IW room to sail to the mark. At position 2, IW was ‘at the mark’ and between positions 2 and 3 she was entitled to room to sail her proper course. Her proper course during that time was to luff onto a closehauled course, ...”

The committee found that Sugar Magnolia did luff up to closehauled. They tell us she went from beam reaching at the stern of the mark boat to close hauled in 1520 seconds and two lengths. That is her proper course as defined in Case 25.

The committee found:
“7. After Sugar Magnolia passed the stern of the committee she rounded up to just below close hauled …” [Bow down when slow. It is her proper course that governs.]

“9. Approximately 15 20 seconds after Sugar Magnolia passed the stern of the RC boat and at approximately 2 boat lengths from the mark, Sugar Magnolia headed up to close hauled …”

Look at the diagram provided by this protest committee. You see the classic “U” turn around the mark: a course to round as fast as possible (only the mark is too close to the bottom of the turn). That is her proper course.

Clearly Sugar Magnolia was sailing her proper course at the mark, as was her right under rule 18. The collision demonstrates that Showtime did not give her room at the mark, in violation of rule 18.

Sugar Magnolia was exercising her rights under rule 18, and so did not violate rule 11.

As Sugar Magnolia was fouled, her obligation under rule 14 was different than the committee thought. As a boat required to keep clear under rule 11, she would have been required to take action well before the collision was immanent. As a boat with a right to sail her proper course under rule 18 and doing so, she is not required to take action to avoid a collision until it is apparent that the fouling boat was not going to. This means she had considerably less time to take avoiding action than the committee credited her with.

The committee found:

“2. After passing the mark and Showtime changed course to close hauled the boats traveled approximately 2 boat lengths in 15 20 seconds as the gap between the boats was reduced from approximately 10 feet to 1 foot. Therefore, Showtime provided adequate room for Sugar Magnolia to keep clear in accordance with rule 16. …

4. It was reasonably possible for Sugar Magnolia to have avoided contact if she would have responded sooner to Showtime’s change in course to close hauled.”

This clearly assumes that Sugar Magnolia was obligated to take action when Showtime first changed course, which we now know was not the case. They say her mistake was in not taking action earlier than, we now know, she was required to. The implication of point 4 is that once it became apparent that a collision was immanent, at the point she was required to act, it was too late for Sugar Magnolia to have avoided it.
The committee’s findings of fact show that Sugar Magnolia was trying to avoid the collision, by turning to weather, away from Showtime. One is only required to make a reasonable attempt to avoid the collision; turning away from a boat charging at one is a reasonable attempt.

Showtime should be found in violation of rule 18 Sugar Magnolia should be exonerated and reinstated.
Case 25 is an example of a boat sailing below her proper course.

Note:
1.the importance of the fact that she was sailing below her proper course. That was the first issue addressed, as the out come would have been different had she been on her proper course.

2. Sugar Magnolia sailed a very different course than the boat in Case 25. This is obvious by comparing the diagrams. Two lengths from the mark the boat in Case 25 had not come up even 30 degrees; at two lengths Sugar Magnolia was closehauled and on her proper course.

How do you think this will be decided by the appeals committee? Did the PC not properly interpret rule 18? I've attached Case 25 which was referenced in both the decision and the appeal.

2010 High School Sailing

2010-06-20T19:21:00.000-07:00

This years high school sailing team had a great time on and off the race course. This is a little slide show of pictures taken throughout the season. The music is chosen by Laura.

Elentari vs. Puffin

2010-06-03T21:54:00.000-07:00

On June 1, 2010, we had another arbitration hearing. This time between Elentari (#18) and Puffin (#35) in the second race, at the leeward mark. The Arbitrators were Bill Sheldon and Joe Downing.

Facts found:
1. The wind was 4 to 6 knots out of the southeast
2. Puffin was on port tack and Elentari was on starboard tack approaching the RC boat which was the leeward mark to be left to port.
3. Puffin was sailing a course toward the mark at approximately 90 degrees to the course of Elentari and Elentari was heading dead down wind by the committee boat.
4. Puffin reached the zone first and was approximately ½ to ¾ boat lengths ahead of Elentari at the mark.
5. Elentari gybed to round the mark and could not sail her proper course at the mark as Puffin rounds close to the committee boat and there is not space for Elentari to round inside at the mark.
6. To avoid contact Elentari ducked Puffin’s stern and rounded behind and to leeward of Puffin.

Rules that apply:
Rule 18.2, Giving Mark Room

Conclusions:
Puffin did not give Elentari mark-room as required by rule 18.2(b) and is assessed a 30% penalty per SI 11.4c in the second race on June 1, 2010.

Because Elentari and Puffin were sailing courses that were approximately 90 degrees form each other as shown in the diagram, Puffin owes mark-room by rule 18.2(b) to everyone on the right side of the course. The only question is can they get there in time for it to matter. There are two parts to the definition of mark-room. The first part is room to sail to the mark, and the second part is room to sail her proper course while at the mark. Puffin did not prevent Elentari from sailing to the mark, however, because Puffin did not provide space for Elentari to sail her proper course while at the mark she did not provide mark-room as required in rule 18.2. At position 3 in the diagram Elentari’s proper course is to gybe and to sail by the mark. If Elentari were to have done this, she would have hit puffin at the chain plates and perhaps cause some serious damage. Her only course of action was to duck Puffin’s stern and protest.

What Puffin could have done is not sail as close to the mark as she rounded and allowed room for Elentari to sail her proper course at the mark. How much space is enough space depends on the conditions. In the light conditions in this case I would say 2 widths of a Star is adequate for Elentari to do a seaman like rounding. In more wind and seas it would be more space than that, and In a blow you want enough space to avoid the mast as it comes down after her gybe; especially if you’re giving mark-room to those of us in the order of the mangled mast.

Crew Race Proposal

2010-05-31T19:17:00.000-07:00

Dave B. has made a proposal that we have a designated crew race each night to give race time to those practicing for the Barbara Stuart Memorial, and to help developing the skippering skills of the crews that sail with us. I would suggest we change the SIs to accommodate this in our racing and score it separately.

I propose we change Section 5 of our sailing instructions to read as follows:

5. DIVISIONS
The Fleet may be scored in the Wood Division if they are sailing in a wood Star. The Divisions might be designated using color flags. If attendance warrants, the Divisions may be started separately. When sailing as a combined fleet the overall finishing place will be used in the scoring for both Divisions. A race on any night may be designated as a Crew Race where the crew will race as skipper. The Crew Race will be signaled with a yellow flag flown before and during the starting sequence. The crew race will not be included in the night or season scoring for a boat and will be scored under the name of the crew. The crew races for the season will be scored as the Season Championship Series is scored. If the crew of a boat is not participating in the designated crew race they will notify the RC and not be scored.

This proposal is intended to encourage more participation and leaning to race in our fleet without the pressure of jumping into the boat and sailing with the more experienced sailors without impacting the score of a boat. If you have any other suggestions please comment. Laura* says she would like to learn to skipper a Star in this way and would make it easier to give it a try. I would like to get your input so please leave a comment and indicate your bow number, name with the comment.

*A note from Laura: This is actually a comment sanctioned by me. If you happen to get an email or any sort of message from my dad mentioning me, it is very likely that he was using my name liberally and without my permission. Don't hold comments like these against me. It's all him.(ex. boat numbers)

Starlight vs. Bow #23

2010-05-30T09:47:00.000-07:00

Another week and we had another arbitration hearing this time between Joe and Joseph in the 2nd race of Spring Series 2 Night 2. The arbitrator was Norm Smit.

Facts found:
1. Wind was 5-8 knots from the south.
2. On the first down wind leg of race 2 on May 24th, Starlight was on starboard tack approaching Bow #23 on a converging course.
3. At between 4 and 5 lengths from the leeward mark, which was to be rounded to starboard, Bow #15 had to alter course to avoid contact with Bow #23 amidships
4. Bow #23 did not alter course to keep clear of Starlight.

Rules that apply:
Rule 10, On Opposite Tacks; Rule 18, Mark Room.

Conclusions:
Rule 18 did not apply per rule 18.1 because the incident took place before at least one of them reached the zone. Bow #23 did not keep clear as required by rule 10.

Decision:
By SI 11.4c Bow #23 is assessed a 30% penalty in race 2 on May 24th

This is a case where it must be determined if the boats were at the zone. Clearly Starlight is entitled as right of way boat to sail her course as she pleases if they are both outside the zone. If they are on opposite tacks outside the zone, there is no limitation requiring starboard to sail directly to the mark and give mark-room until one of them reaches the zone. Because of rule10, port must keep clear even if it means she is forced to sail further from the mark than she would like. Bow #23 would have been better served to gybe and keep clear. She could have worked to maintain her inside overlap at the zone when they gybed back toward the mark. This would have been a better play even if she felt they were at the zone. I suggest when you are burdened boat, when there is a doubt keep clear, don’t force the right of way boat to alter course.

By the way I think everyone should give their boat a name and send them to me. I like writing these summaries with boat names rather than bow numbers. I don’t have names for Bow numbers 2, 19, 23, 24, 26, 30, 32 and 34.

High School Team Racing

2010-05-23T22:19:00.000-07:00

If you want to see some high school team racing. The Backer Trophy high school national championship was contested at Sand Point in Seattle this last weekend and this was probably one of the best races of the regatta.

Sailing Videos on Sailgroove

Alcor vs. Corvus

2010-05-23T09:11:00.000-07:00

We had our first arbitration hearing at Tugboats after the racing on Monday May 17th. The arbitration panel was Norm Smit and Bill Sheldon. If you look at the sailing instructions for this year Section 11 on Protests has been modified. Go to the SSSS Star Web page to see the full text regarding arbitration.

There were two protests Corvus protested Alcor and Alcor protested Corvus for two separate incidences on the course. The Corvus protest was heard first. When asked if Corvus hailed protest to Alcor at the first reasonable opportunity the answer from Corvus was no. Therefore, the Protestee was not informed in accordance with 61.1(a), so the protest was not deemed valid and was not heard. Next was the Alcor protest. It was found that Alcor did indeed hail protest and informed the RC of her intent to protest as required in the sailing instructions, so her protest was deemed valid and was heard. This is an important requirement of the rules that the word PROTEST is hailed. I recommend that this is the only thing you say when you believe someone has fouled you. This way if it goes to a hearing it will be a valid protest provided you inform the RC after that race as required in our sailing instructions.

For the protest of Alcor vs. Corvus the following facts were found.

1. The wind was from the west at about 15 knots
2. Alcor was approaching the windward mark on port tack and Corvus was approaching on starboard tack just above the starboard lay line (position 1).
3. Alcor tacked inside the zone in front of Corvus. After her tack was complete Corvus luffed to avoid Alcor’s stern, but not above close hauled (position 2).
4. Courvus remained overlapped to windward as they approached the mark (position 3).
5. Alcor rounded the mark wide leaving about a half boat length between her and the mark. Corvus ducked Alcor’s stern and established a late overlap between Alcor and the mark (position 4).
6. Alcor could not sail her proper course by the mark and had to haul in her main to avoid contact between her boom and the shroud of Corvus. Alcor hailed protest (position 5) for not giving mark-room.

The rules that apply:

When the boats are on opposite tacks at the windward mark rule 10, Opposite Tacks, applies and rule 18, Mark Room, does not apply by rule 18.1(a). Therefore, Alcor is required to keep clear and is not entitled to mark-room. As Alcor passes head to wind she must keep clear of Corvus until she is on a close hauled course by rule 13, While Tacking, and once her tack is complete she must provide room for Corvus to keep clear by rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way.

After Alcor completes her tack Corvus must keep clear by rule 12, On the Same Tack not overlapped, and after she becomes overlapped to windward she must keep clear by rule 11, On the Same Tack Overlapped. Because Corvus obtained her overlap to leeward at position 4 from clear astern, she must not sail above her proper course by rule 17, On the Same Tack; Proper Course, while they remain on the same tack and overlapped .

Because Alcor was subject to rule 13 in the zone, and Corvus was “fetching” the mark rule 18.3 applies and 18.2 does not apply. Rule 18.3 requires the boat that tacks in the zone to not cause the other boat to sail above close hauled, and she must give mark-room to the other boat if she becomes overlapped inside her.

Conclusions based on the facts found:

Alcor completed her tack inside the zone in compliance with rules 13 and 15 and Corvus complied with rules 12 and 11 after the tack was completed by keeping clear. When Corvus became overlapped inside at the mark Alcor provided mark-room by sheeting in her main and avoiding contact as required in rule 18.3. Corvus did not sail above her proper course and complied with rule 17. Therefore, the protest was disallowed.

As you can see this one incident at the windward mark encompassed just about every rule in the book and the entire event probably took at most 10 to 15 seconds. An important side note, which was a point of discussion during the arbitration hearing; if the fact had been found that Alcor tacked outside the zone, then Corvus would have been penalized for not giving mark-room as required by rule 18.2, Giving Mark-Room. So it is important to have a clear understanding of where you are tacking when approaching the windward mark.

My Starboat Sail

2010-05-07T23:22:00.000-07:00

This was sent to me by Sherwood. Mac Hancock went for a ride with Eric Egge on Stella and wrote the following note

My Star boat sail was just wonderful. It was about 3:45 in the afternoon. The day was bright and sunny. Air was maybe 65 or so. When we pushed off there was practically no air movement in the marina (West Bay), but we put up the sails and kind of sailed/sculled out of the marina and into lower Budd Inlet. The masthead fly indicated air movement out of the south so we set up on a kind of east bound reach. There was no indication of air movement at all on the water surface, but as I glanced at the water, by noticing stuff floating just below the surface I could see that we were moving right along, maybe two knots or so. It was amazing. In short order an afternoon breeze came up and we just moved out at a wonderful clip. At times the breeze may have been 8 to 10 kts in little gusts and the boat almost instantly shot forward. I had on my Polaroid sunglasses and as I looked at the masthead the sail with it's red star was a brilliant white and the blue sky was so polarized that it literally looked black when juxtaposed with the whiteness of the sail. That's the upside of the event. A star is a very powerful and brilliant performer.

Then there're the "other" aspects which I lump into two categories:

Complexity:
1. The mast is controlled by several mechanisms. It can be physically ratcheted fore and aft on a track using a lever mechanism. It can be bent using the vang. It can be bent by using the primary running backstay. It can be bent by using the secondary running backstay. It can be bent using the cunningham. The effect on sail draft is instantly visible from the cockpit and the range of draft is considerable; more than I've ever experienced in any other sailboat. The effect of sail draft is also instantly felt in the tiller and the ability to keep the boat on it's best angle of heel. This doesn't take into account the adjustments available for "tuning" all manner of other mechanisms like the vang, the cunningham, the location of the jib fairleads, the hiking straps and much more. Adjustment lines are all over the place.

2. The boat is the most uncomfortable, anti-ergonomic device that was ever invented to float. The boom sweeps across at about 8" above the deck/cockpit. There is a rigid post in the center of the cockpit atop which is the main-sheet blocks/cleat. This post divides the cockpit neatly in half. The helmsman occupies the aft half and the crewman the forward. In order to tack it's necessary to crouch down into the cockpit so low that visibility of the water around the boat is completely lost for a moment. Getting my old frame into such a crouch is possible but I don't do it as rapidly as racing conditions would call for. As helmsman one is obliged to call out the tack, begin to turn, wait in an upright position long enough to be confident that the windward backstay(s) are unloaded, release them (at which point they're pulled forward by bungees under the deck), duck into the cockpit crouch, continue steering (blind) for a bit whilst the boom passes overhead, arise as quickly as the boom allows in order draw the erstwhile leeward running backstay(s) into taught position before the wind loads the mast on the new tack and finally to continue the turn onto the new tack, stopping it without going unnecessarily far beyond closehauled.

It is a magnificent thing to sail, but the insistent, continuous physicality is way beyond what I'm interested in doing. I suppose that speaking personally there's a parallel between Star sailing and flying. I just love to fly low and slow in a small plane. However piloting an airplane demands constant attention to the operation of the plane; especially when flying low. The level of attention, even after becoming a skilled pilot, detracts markedly from what I find so enchanting about flying ... the ability to look out and observe the earth from that vantage point.

Anyhow, after Eric and I got the boat buttoned up, we went upstairs to Tugboat Annie's and had an excellent beer and burger which was a delightful way to end a great afternoon sailing.

That was my Starboat sail.

Ciao,
mac

More Alcor

2010-03-29T22:11:00.000-07:00

Those of you that were at the first launch saw Alcor find her way into the water for the first time in some 30 years. I've sent the Alcor story on to the Star Class and in the process found a few bits of her history. Scott Rohrer, who is familiar with the boat and had crewed on her sent a few messages that I thought I would pass on.

Scott -

I got this from the Budd Inlet Star fleet in Olympia. It mentions that Star 924, Alcor, was sailed in 1939 at the NAs in San Francisco by F. Hissock. You probably remember Sally Hiscock who went to St. Nick with me and did a lot of sailing - ended up marrying Cappy Clarke who had a Lightning (long divorced) . Her father was Frank Hiscock. I'm wondering if they are the same. I think he was a SYC member.

Perhaps you recognize others in this story, too.

Best,
Melinda

Alcor is the leading boat - photo from 1939

Wow. Alcor. That's something. Sure, Frank was Sally's dad but I knew nothing about his Star history. Cappy is still a member at SYC and sends me notes about my history column from time-to-time. I lost track of Sally but remember her as fun, bright and cheerful. A couple of things; Some accounts of the '48 silver stars report that Sunny sailed Alcor in the practice race on Lk. Washington and won it by a mile. Question is, did Frank own her then or did he charter her from Sunny for the '49 gold stars?

The most frequently-told Alcor tale here is about the time Sunny sank her during a fall race over by Medina. She sat on the bottom for a while but was finally recovered. John Graham bought her then and gave her to daughter Barbara and son Tommy to sail. Tommy didn't like Stars so I got out with Barb a number of times - so, yes, I am a past Alcor crew.

Thanks Melinda. above is a photo of some early Blanchard-built Stars here, including Norman C. Blanchard's Blue Boot.

All the best,

Scott

Scott also passed along the following article he wrote about the 1948 Star North Americans in Seattle.

SEATTLE CREW WINS STAR CHAMPIONSHIP REGATTA

In the late Nineteen-Thirties, the International Star Class Yacht Racing Assoc. (ISCYRA) introduced a new series for the North American class championship, the winner entitled to the silver sail insignia as a prize. This allowed Star sailors on this continent to meet and race at a top-level regatta when the Worlds (Gold Star) and, as in ’48, the Olympics were held in Europe.

The 1948 North Americans sailed off Golden Gardens marked only the second time the title had been contested. Eleven boats entered after winning elimination series’ in their home fleets. Larger fleets qualified two boats and the entry included a striking number of sailors who would become sailing icons in later years. Gerry Driscoll (with 1944 Gold Star winner Dream) and young Lowell North (his undefeated North Star) came up from San Diego and Bill Ficker’s Chaser II was one of two Newport Harbor entries.

The Canadian contestants were both from English Bay; C. D. Helmer’s Totem, and the Miller brothers, Sid & Phil, in Clear Sky. Two Puget Sound boats qualified; Bjarne Jensen’s True Luff, and Cene sailed by the Ross brothers, Charles and Robertson.

Our area had never hosted such an important championship and Seattle Yacht Club extended itself in every possible way to run a first class event, despite some sizeable challenges. Regatta Co-Chairmen Jack Warburton and Sunny Vynne were ably assisted by Race Comm. Chair Roy Corbett, and Cully Stimson, Protest Committee. Fittingly, Lawrence Calvert’s 46’ Starlight served as Committee Boat. .

There was no marina at Shilshole Bay, in 1948, no breakwater. The Stars were launched and rigged at the SYC Star hoist (where else?) and towed out through Ballard Locks to the racecourse each morning. To offer varied conditions, and stay based at the Club, the final two races were to be sailed on Lk. Washington, the fleet towed to Madrona Park daily.

Racing began in earnest on August. 23, and most of the sailing was in medium-to-fresh southerlies and under gray, sometimes drizzly skies. While no one was becalmed, several racers ran aground in the stretch of shallows south of Meadow Point. Protests, groundings and a dead heat (Ross and Driscoll) in the first race highlighted three closely-fought daily races. Heading into the Lake, Charlie and Bob Ross held a slim lead over Dean Morrison’s Yellow Jacket from Oakland.

The social schedule for the regatta was lavish with parties at SYC, the Washington Athletic Club, Seattle Tennis Club, and at Lawrence Calvert’s Lk. Washington home. On the lay-day following the first three races, all of the visitors were taken up in a United Airlines DC-4 for a scenic ride around the Sound and Mt. Rainier.

Winds on the lake were less than hoped for and only a practice race was completed there. At the end of the week, Cene became the North American Star Champion. She was the oldest boat in the fleet and was designed, within generous class tolerances, by Phil Spaulding when he was a Naval Architecture student. The success of this old boat, her local crew, and the presence of so many great Star sailors, inspired a young Bill Buchan, Jr. to join the class, build his own boats and go on to win the top titles in the class.

The prizes were given out at a grand dinner at the club on the 28^th. Trophy Chair N. C. Blanchard got old friend mark Mayer to produce 32 beautiful silver trophies including a Mayer Bros. tea service, awarded by the Seattle Times to the winner, and sterling souvenir sugar spoons for every skipper and crew.

Despite the disappointing conditions, Seattle had distinguished itself as the place where top-flight regattas could be supported and done well.

If anyone has photos, or recollections of this page of our history, they are encouraged to contact the author.

J. Scott Rohrer

As Scott mentioned in the article, Sonny Vynne in Alcor didn't participate in the North Americans because they were 3rd in the Seattle fleet that year. He did participate in, and won the practice race before the regatta. I found the following article from the Seattle PI in 1948.

VYNNE TAKES RACE

Saturday's warm-up race for the Stars was won by Sonny Vynne in Alcor. Sonny, co-chairman of the committee handling the championships. who missed by the proverbial hair's breadth of being in the series. Failing, he went to work.

Saturday he outsmarted the boys. Turning the second buoy off Evergreen Point he was only a good seventh. But, where the rest of them headed for mid-lake, Sonny headed directly south into the wind and along the shores of Mercer, Island, then tacked across to the finish line. That maneuver moved him into first place by 37 seconds over Chaser II, the Newport, Calif. entry handled by Bill Flicker and Bob White which served notice definitely that it must be considered in Monday's starting event. All but three of the Stars entered in the championship regatta took part in the Saturday Warm-up.

NOW FOR THE RACING— Lowell North, Star boat skipper, passes down the stick with which he and his crewman Jim Hill (left) hope their trim North Star will win the North American Star boat title here next week.

Seattle Post-Interlligencer, Sunday, August 22, 1948, p 22

I'll pass along any other information about our oldest boat in the fleet as I find it.

Racing Program Thoughts

2010-01-16T19:25:00.000-08:00

Three thoughts on improving our race program.

1. I am in the process of listing on the web everyone racing with SSSS who won something this summer. That led me to question what we are doing with the Stars. I seem to be turning out volumes of paper that no one wants. Maybe I miss something, but I see Bill has to find the people to give them their awards; they do not seem to want it enough to stop by his truck, let alone ask after it. So why are we doing it? Should we stop handing out certificates? Should we do something else? Should we even worry about awards? I do not have answers. But we should find some. At present it seems like the awards are a waste of time.

2. Our “gate course,” is not working as planned. The starting line makes a gate way too long. It does not function like a gate one would experience at a well run regatta. It is not good practice for sailing a gate at, say the Worlds. I was one who said the start/finish would work; I was wrong.

A gate is suppose to cut down on crowding at the leeward mark by offering an alternative way to round. Our course does not succeed in doing so. The marks are so far apart that the difference in course sailed to round the other mark is too far to count on getting it back with a clear rounding. So most everyone goes the same way and the mark is crowded.

Your choice as to which side of the gate to round should be more tactical, made closer to the time you want to round. Our marks are far enough apart the decision is more strategic: you often choose your side as you round the windward mark. That changes the game and does not give us experience with a gate as one will see it else where.

Again I am better at raising questions than at supplying solutions. A gate set mid line, downwind of the line? Would it get in the way of the start?

3. I think we talked about this already and agree, the offset mark at the regattas was too far from the windward mark. The courses became triangles; not Olympic triangles, but triangles still. This time the answer is obvious.

Steve

Approved Bottom Paint

2010-01-08T20:19:00.000-08:00

The Technical Committee of BISF has met and reviewed the options for bottom paint since Boaters World closed and the paint we have been using is no longer available.

In accordance with PART II BISF RULES, Section 1 – BISF Star Definition, Rule 5, the Technical Committee approved bottom paint for the upcoming season is Interlux Epoxycop (link to paint specs). This paint is hard modified-epoxy paint in compliance with DOE rules on in-water cleaning. So scrub away without the worry of John’s $10,000 fine. The paint comes in blue, black, red and green. Anyone not complying with Rule 5 will be protested by the Technical Committee and disqualified from any race that they participate in with unapproved bottom paint.

If you purchase the paint through the fleet the cost is about $70/gal (only black and blue will be available through the fleet). If you purchase it on your own it will cost approximately $100/gal. I suggest you start thinking about when you plan to get your boat ready for the season.

The following are the tentative launch dates:

First Launch - March 20, 2010
Second Launch - April 3, 2010
Third Launch - April 17, 2010
Season Champion’s Clinic – April 18, 2010
Black Star Regatta – April 23rd – 25th 2010

You need to contact Bill if you want to work in his shop and I suggest you plan early.

Stupid Wet Sailors

2010-01-06T20:53:00.001-08:00

It could only happen in Olympia. That’s what I thought to myself as I huddled damply in the driver’s seat of the boat. Not a place you would want to be while the sky poured a never ending flow of water.

Not only was it freezing out on the first Monday in May, which can be expected, if not liked, but it was pouring a rain so thick that it was nearly impossible to see even a few feet in front of the boat. But none of this would have mattered to me if I was actually on a sailboat instead of huddled on a tiny motor boat with a sunshade that, instead of repelling water like it was supposed to, actually seemed to drench me more than I would have been if I was not under it. And if there had been, you know, wind.

No, the water was as smooth as glass, or, more correctly, it would have been as smooth as glass except for the rain. This was a sight that would strike fear in the hearts of sailors everywhere. Without wind, the simple fact is, there’s no sailing.

Only in Olympia would racing in these conditions take place. Only here would six stupid sailors get drenched in freezing rain in hopes of getting a few measly races off. It would be a good start to the season for them. With only three boats out, they would have a huge lead over those who weren’t so dedicated to the sport. I still couldn’t forgive them for showing up. If they hadn’t been there, I would be nice and comfortable at home where it was dry.

I couldn’t help but glower at them under my damp hair. Finally, time to go in. Soon I would be in the warmth of Tugboats, sipping hot chocolate with feeling in my hands again. Only in Olympia would people be so stupid.

Laura
Star 7094

Sailing - The Best Thing That Ever Happened

2009-11-26T12:39:00.000-08:00

I met my wife, Joan, in New York City in the 1980’s. If it were not for sailing I’m not sure she would have dated me.

She was someone who grew up near the Puget Sound in Olympia Washington, but her family was not boat centric like mine. She was exposed to sailing on her neighbor’s boat in the 70’s and raced some on it but longed to do it more than her circumstances allowed. Taking sailing classes through a city parks program got her started but not satisfied, because she never had the chance to own a sailboat and spend as much time as she pleased on the water.

On the other hand, I grew up in Michigan in a family of boaters. We were not strictly sailors, but we had boats of every shape and size: row boats, ski boats, cabin cruisers for cruising the Great Lakes and also sailboats for racing. Fortunately for me there was a sailing club on the lake where we had a cottage. I spent my summers racing sailboats, water skiing, exploring the connecting chain of lakes in a small boat with a 3 horse engine and fishing. Life in a boat was second nature to me.

When I moved from Michigan to New York, the first thing I looked for was a sailing club, and I bought a beat up old Thistle sailboat before I had a car. I had never seen a Thistle before, but I chose it because I could afford it, and there was a strong fleet of Thistles in the sailing club I joined in Connecticut. To me it wasn’t the boat that mattered as much as the fact I could race and be on the water.

When I met Joan I had a motorcycle so that I could get out of New York to the sailing club in Connecticut. Joan was more than eager to jump on the back and come Thistle sailing with me. I’m not sure Joan would have done this if she didn’t have a strong desire to sail and get out of the city for awhile on the weekends. If you’ve never sailed in a Thistle, it is great fun, but a painful experience, with a narrow rail to sit on and diamond stays on the mast that gave her so many bruises on her legs and arms that it looked like I was abusing her. I never truly understood how much sailing meant to her until one day she told me that one of the main reasons she was attracted to me was that I was a sailor. I offered her something that she didn’t have, but wanted: sailing. If I was a little smarter I would have found a less painful boat for us to sail sooner in our relationship! But, I’m not that smart.

When we moved west to Olympia in 1990, we brought our Thistle with us across the country. But the Thistle was not the best boat for our new circumstances. We took it out once when Joan was pregnant with our first daughter, and it reminded us of why we needed to move on. Pregnant and bruised is not a good combination. We sold the Thistle, and it was the end of that era. I can honestly say that every boat we have owned since the Thistle was Joan’s doing. She just needed to be on the water, and it has been my pleasure to help make it happen. I take it for granted; she doesn’t. I’ve always had boats; she has always wanted them. It is an important part of the bond between us.

During the 90’s at Joan’s urging we bought a small runabout with a 90 horse outboard that we used to explore the South Sound. We had a radius we could go from the ramp at Boston Harbor—the distance we could travel before the kids would make us crazy. The radius was small at first and we discovered a small beach at Hope Island, a local State Park accessible only by water, where our daughters would play and eat the sand. When they got a little older we could make it as far as Lake Bay on the Key Peninsula where the kids could explore and swim in the warm, shallow tidal water. During the 90’s I would occasionally sail in the Wednesday night races with friends, and Joan would not be happy about it. I figured she was being selfish for not wanting me to sail. What I should have known was that what she wanted more than anything was to sail with me. How stupid can a guy get?

During our power boating days, we would borrow a C&C 35 from Joan’s brother for a week long summer sailing trip to the San Juan Islands. We would spend a week exploring the islands and watching for whales. This was a terrific family activity, and it got us out in a sailboat together again, reminding me of what a pleasure it was to be out on the water with the entire family for an extended period. It was like the trips in Michigan I used to take on the Great Lakes as I was growing up. But a boat of this type was not in the cards for us just yet.

In 2004 in the local paper, she read about a Star fleet that was starting on Budd Inlet. She decided it was time to get a sailboat that we could afford and race together. It was something that she wanted to do with me. I got in touch with the Fleet Captain, and he got us in contact with someone in LA who had a boat that met our needs: not too much money and the promise of not too much work to get it race ready. We took a family road trip to Southern California to pick it up in the spring of 2005. We sailed it together that summer, and I can say that it was fantastic racing with her again. She just wanted to be on the water sailing again with me. And for me it was as much about being on the water sailing with her as it was racing. As it happened, both our daughters wanted to try racing Stars with me the next year, and as a mother she wanted them to have the experience of sailing that she never had growing up. This left her on the shore without sailing again. This would never be acceptable and would lead to the next boat, something big enough for the family to sail together.

With her determination and prodding we found a Catalina 36 in Seattle that was perfect for the family to sail, but when we finally made an offer it was already sold. The disappointment was palpable and caused us to give up on the search for about year. I was working in Oregon and this was a low point for me being so far from Joan and the girls. But Joan really wanted a boat for us to sail together. For her it was as much a symbol of our relationship as it was a boat. We needed something to call our own, a sacred space where we could be totally together. Face it, she just likes being out on the water, and I’m lucky enough to be able to make that happen. We started looking again, and to our surprise the Catalina we were looking at the year before was back on the market. Apparently the new owner was transferred out of town and it was just waiting for us to be ready to buy her. After we bought it we made a vow that the boat was just for the two of us and we would never sail it without the other. When I’m out on the water with Joan I can talk more easily or not talk at all; I’m at peace.

Life without sailing for me would be desolate. The connection it gives me to my wife and daughters would be lost. But it took me along time to realize how much it meant to her. Because of her we have boats of every shape and size just like how I grew up. They represent freedom and togetherness. I’m not any good at finding meaningful gifts; I’m not much of a shopper and could never buy jewelry or a trinket that has any meaning. The one thing I can do is give her the gift of sailing, something that touches my soul, and I can share it with her. The wind, the water, and conversation on a summer day…I can’t think of anything better as long as she is with me.

2010 Rule Changes

2009-11-25T22:14:00.000-08:00

As you might have seen previously during our discussions on the new rules there were a few cases where the new rules didn't work. You might recall Rules 18 Scenario 4 It didn't make sense that a boat not entitled to mark room could pass head to wind at the leeward mark and turn off Rule 18.2(b). ISAF agreed and this rule was modified. I don't recall this happening in any of our races, but I'm glad they are changing it for next year. See the new wording below.

Rule 18.2(c):

(c) When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b), she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins. However, ~~if either boat passes head to wind or~~ if the boat entitled to mark-room passes head to wind or leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

Rule 18.2(c) will be changed to prohibit a newly discovered and potentially dangerous tactic that was an unintended consequence of the current wording of this rule. The revised rule will no longer permit a boat to tack just before she reaches a mark and, as a result of her tack, become entitled to mark-room from boats that had been clear ahead of her when they reached the zone. A parallel change in rule B3.1(c) outlaws a similar tactic in a sailboard race.

Another issue we saw with our review of the rules was that there were problems with both Rule 18 and 19 turned on at a mark. There seemed to be too many confusing circumstances that occurred. ISAF decided to take care of this by changing the definition of obstruction. I'm not completely sure this solves the problem and I'm a bit concerned there might be unintended consequences with changing this definition. You will recall the post in September Possible Change in Rules for 2010 that presented this proposed change. We will see how this works out as it takes effect next year..

Definition Obstruction:

Obstruction An object that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially, if she were sailing directly towards it and one of her hull lengths from it. An object that can be safely passed on only one side and an area so designated by the sailing instructions are also obstructions. However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her, ~~give her room or mark-room~~ or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her. A vessel under way, including a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction.

The definition "Obstruction" will be changed so that a boat racing will no longer be an obstruction to other boats that are required to give her room or mark-room. This change will simplify the analysis of some situations near a mark in which both rules 18 and 19 apply, and it will not otherwise change the ‘game’.

Here are a few other rules that are changing in 2010, but they will not effect our racing as far as I can tell:

Definition Party:

Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested by the race committee or considered by the protest committee under rule 60.3(b); a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); a boat or competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee or an organizing authority in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).

Additions will be made to the definition Party to correct unintended omissions. The revised definition will mean that, whenever redress is requested for a boat by the race committee or considered for a boat by the protest committee, that boat will be a party to the resulting hearing. Also, a race committee that requests redress for a boat will also become a party when its request is heard.

Appendix B, Rule B3.1(c):

Rule 18.2(c) is changed to:
When a board is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b), she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins. However, if ~~either board~~ the board entitled to mark-room passes head to wind, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

Appendix C, Rule C2.12 (a new rule):

C2.12 Rule 18.2(e) is changed to ‘If a boat obtained an inside overlap and from the time the overlap began, the outside boat has been unable to give mark-room, she is not required to give it.’

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Sailing

2009-11-23T21:53:00.000-08:00

Sailing is a rush. When winds exceed 15 knots, our deck slants almost vertically and chop splashes over the bow and low side, drenching me, the crew sitting in the forward position. My dad and I sit next to each other on the side of our Star (a low, slick racing boat), Tantalus, ready to fling our combined weight over the side to level the deck as much as our 300 pounds can. I hook my feet into the hiking straps and lean out in a sustained sit-up for the length of the tack. Anyone who says sailing is not a real sport does not understand the meaning of work--strength, focus, and strategy combine during a race to form the ultimate recreation.

Julia

More for Less

2009-11-23T18:30:00.000-08:00

Sailing at its best sailing gives you more pleasure for so much less. No fuel burned, no noise and nothing but the wind to push you along at sometimes amazing speeds. When you look around the landscape of possible sailing experiences no boat can compare to the Star for classic beauty and pure sailing excellence. For a new Star we get so much more for less in our fleet.

With our fleet rules limiting the boats to only old boats, used sails and the spirit of helping all comers that our Fleet Captain, Bill Brosius, demonstrates each year as he opens his shop to the fleet and helps us get our boats ready for the season.

The cost of sailing in our Star Fleet is much less than sailing Lasers.

Norm

Bringing Alcor Back to Life

2009-11-21T01:35:00.000-08:00

Bill Brosius, of the Budd Inlet Star Fleet in Olympia Washington, is deeply involved with his latest Star resurrection project of Star 924 named Alcor. And I do mean resurrection, because she was a mess and left for dead when Bill found her about a year ago in a garage in Spokane. In fact, to my untrained eye it looked to me like what she needed was gasoline and a match. But, this boat is not just any boat to Bill; it is the first Star he ever fixed up and owned. He just couldn’t let her die.

Star 924 was born in 1932 in Blanchard Boat Company on Lake Union in Seattle Washington. The earliest regatta recorded for Alcor was in the 1939 Star North Americans in San Francisco when she was sailed by F. Hissock from the Puget Sound Fleet finishing 12th. She has a connection to more than just Bill in our Fleet. She was shipped from the Puget Sound to Chicago in 1949 and sailed in the Star World Championships that year. She was skippered by a Puget Sound icon Sunny Vynne and crewed by our own Vicky Sheldon’s father Robert Watt. They were sailing against other Star greats of the time like North and Lippincott. Lowell North was first or second in every race in 1949, but didn’t win the regatta due to a disqualification in one of the races. I guess even the sailing greats break a rule now and then. Vynne and Watt finished 18th in Alcor. The following are their results for the regatta:

18, 924 Alcor, E. Vynne Jr., R. Watt, Puget Sound, 14 27 14 14 26

You can read the full regatta report and see the results at the following links to the Star Class website:

http://www.starclass.org/history/1949worlds.htm
http://www.starclass.org/history/1947-worlds.htm#1946

Because of all this history, Bill couldn’t take my advice and make a bonfire of 924 at our next fleet meeting. The last time Bill had his hands on Alcor it was the early 1970’s when the boat was donated to the Sea Scouts in Tacoma. The boat was old then, and in need of repair. Bill being Bill offered to fix Alcor up for the Scouts so they could learn to sail Stars (some things never change). A few years later he purchased Alcor from the Seas Scouts and he sailed her with the Tacoma Fleet in the 70’s. Bill, wanting to upgrade to the new fangled fiberglass boats at the end of the decade, sold Alcor and she went east in about 1979 to be sailed in a feet on Lake Coeur d’Alene. When participation declined in the Lake Coeur d’Alene fleet, Alcor disappeared into a garage somewhere in Spokane Washington. She might never been sailed again if someone hadn’t purchased her at a garage sale, and thought it might be fun to fix up an old wood Star. The new owner, realizing it was more work than expected to restore her, put Alcor on Craig’s List with an asking price equal to the value of the trailer on which she sat, $200.

Bill, seeing the advertisement, decided to head to Spokane to see his old friend Alcor. She wasn’t much to look at, but as Bill told of her history the owner realized that she was worth more to Bill than to him, so he gave her to Bill with the understanding she would be restored and raced again. This was a promise Bill could easily keep. It was not a question of if she would be restored; it was only a matter of when. Finally, with all the fleet put to bed for the season, Bill has had a chance to get going on the restoration. About a year after Bill was reunited with Alcor, and 77 years after she was built, she is rising from the ashes to be sailed on Puget Sound again.

With specs from the 1971 Star Log and an original set of plans to guide each step of the restoration, what follows are the messages and pictures that Bill has sent as he has worked on this labor of love. Some of the pictures were taken by Dave Roe as he helped Bill with the restoration. Also, Jim Findley has helped on this project as his wood Star was in Bill’s shop to get a face lift, and no one can resist lending a hand when asked by Bill.

August 17, 2009
I should have the boat all rough sanded this morning and some of the smooth sanding done. I have located all the planks I need for the bottom [Port Orford cedar as specified in the specs] and I will hunt down some oak to finish making the frames I need. It’s possible I could have all the new frames and planks in place by Labor Day weekend. Bill

September 7, 2009
I made and installed five sets of knees and will get the wood to make the other 6 sets tomorrow. I started fairing out the dings in the wood and filled all the screw holes that I’ve uncovered so far. I will still have a bunch when I install the rest of the knees. In the morning I will sand the fairing compound and the hull with the DA, and fill any remaining spots. I will be down at the marina around noon and then go to Hardel’s for my lumber and come home to cut out the rest of the knees, which I will install Wednesday. I hope to finish cleaning out and installing all the wedges in the seams between the bottom planks that will be left in place. All I will have left to do will be to install the new bottom planks and wedge them then I will be ready to fiberglass the bottom and sides to within 2 inches of the gunnels. I will be ready to start on the deck by the beginning of October. Bill

September 13, 2009
I just finished installing the last knee piece and am now ready to start installing the bottom planks that need replacing. I picked up the planks Friday. If I can get my camera working I will take some pictures before installing the bottom planks. I probably won't start on the planks till tomorrow or Tuesday since I need to mow my lawn yet today. I will finish filling the screw holes with fairing compound so I can sand before doing the planks. Bill

September 27, 2009
I finished sanding the bottom tonight, will feather the edge of the glass I put on the bottom. Then I’ll wrap the bottom to side area and put the second layer of the bidirectional cloth at the mast step area. I will be down in the morning to bring some flowers for Hanna. See you or Dave then. Bill

October 2, 2009
I just finished flipping 924 right side up and it is sitting on some tires on the floor. Bill

November 5, 2009
A note to update you on Jim’s and my boat restoration progress. Jim's boat will be ready to put the finish varnish on his deck next Monday or Tuesday. Then he and I will start planking the deck on 924 Monday. It should be completed by next Friday and ready to finish out. I installed the new transom today and glassed the keelson. Tomorrow I will sand and fair the transom into the rest of the hull and put the two part varnish on the keelson. I will also make and install the two cockpit end pieces tomorrow or this weekend so everything will be ready for planking the deck Monday. Bill

November 11, 2009
This picture is showing the deck planked. Now it is just a matter of doing all the screws around the gunnels, plugging the screw holes, sand the edges as well as the deck and it will be ready to finish. Bill

November 18, 2009
Alcor now has a new deck and there is no doubt she will be racing with us in the spring. He has the original wood mast and boom and 1940's era sails for show, but mostly she will be raced in our fleet using the latest hardware and rigging. Thanks to all of Bill’s work on restoring these forgotten wonders, we have the largest fleet of active racing wood Stars anywhere in the world. There could be 7 boats sailing in the wood division of our fleet including: 924, 2362, 2876, 3331, 4078, 4817, and 4916. Bill tells me there could be a couple of additional wood boats out there that want to join in the fun. I have no doubt the wood division of the Budd Inlet Star Fleet will continue to grow. How could it not, when there is an opportunity to actually race these classic beauties.

For more pictures of the restoration go to the following link:
MORE PICTURES

Rule 17 Review

2009-11-08T12:05:00.001-08:00

One of the limitations in the rules on the right-of-way boat is contained Rule 17, ON THE SAME TACK; PROPER COURSE, which reads as follows:

If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above her proper course while they remain on the same tack and overlapped within that distance, unless in doing so she promptly sails astern of the other boat. This rule does not apply if the overlap begins while the windward boat is required by rule 13 to keep clear.

This rule is in Section B of Part 2, and is put in place so that a boat on the same tack as you can’t establish an overlap to leeward from clear astern and luff you above her proper course. Remember it is the proper course of the boat that has established the overlap to leeward that matters to this rule. Another important point about this rule; if you are a boat that has been overlapped to leeward and believe that the leeward boat is sailing above her proper course, you are still required to keep clear. Your only option is to keep clear and then protest. If you don’t keep clear you will be disqualified even if it is found that the leeward boat did indeed break Rule 17.

I’ll show a couple of cases that demonstrates how the rule works. In the first case a boat on the down wind leg gets an overlap from clear astern and luffs above her proper course, she breaks Rule 17. In the second case two boats are sailing different courses because perhaps they are in a PHRF race and they are different types of boats and sail different angles down wind. In this case even though the windward boat is sailing higher than her proper course it is the proper course of the leeward boat that matters, so Rule 17 is not broken. In the third example before the starting signal you are permitted to establish an overlap to leeward from clear astern and luff head to wind because by the definition of proper course, there is no proper course before the starting signal. However, after the starting signal she needs to head down immediately or she will break Rule 17.

This is the basics of Rule 17. If you want to get more in depth you can review US Sailing Appeals: 4, 13, 43 and 70. Also take a look at ISAF Cases: 7, 13, 14 and 46. If no one protests next month I’ll look at another rule.

Star Cunningham Rigging

2009-10-25T14:10:00.000-07:00

As you might be aware Joe Downing was able to visit with Mark Reynolds who was a Gold Medalist in the Olympics in the Star class. During his visit he was able to pick up some information on how a Gold Medalist rigs the boat. You will find with this post the Reynolds Cunningham. Sherwood has written the the posted paper for your information.

What It Should Be About

2009-10-17T15:41:00.000-07:00

I found this story and it says it all. This is what our sport is all about. Competition without sportsmanship is meaningless.

Megan Six was also recognized by US Sailing as the sailor of the week for her Corinthian spirit.

Sailing Videos on Sailgroove

Possible Change In Rules for 2010

2009-09-07T09:32:00.000-07:00

As some of you might remember we ran into a bit of trouble understanding how the rules with obstructions work when the rules for mark room are in effect. I sent a query to the US Sailing rules group and I'm sure we were not the only one to do so. It appears to have resulted in an emergency change in the rules for next year. Below is a reprinted article by Rob Overton on the proposal to redefine obstruction to take care of the problem.

What do you think of this proposed change?

By Rob Overton

The Section C Working Party, consisting of Ben Altman, Chris Atkins, Dick Rose, Richard Thompson and myself, have made two submissions to ISAF that deal with rules 18 and (indirectly) 19. One is an "emergency" change in the definition of Obstruction, to go into effect January 1, 2010, and the other is a proposed ISAF Case dealing with the meaning of Room.

Before we get into the submissions themselves, let's look at the perceived problem. There are a number of scenarios in which Rule 18, Mark-Room, and Rule 19, Room to Pass an Obstruction, appear to conflict. Consider the following scenario, taken from a team-race call suggested by Matt Knowles. The boats are at a reach mark to be followed by a run:

Black is clear ahead of both Grey and White when she enters the zone, and Grey is inside White when they the zone. Grey and White are sailing faster than Black. Grey sails to pass to leeward of Black, and White elects to sail between Grey and Black. In doing so, White forces Black to luff up. Black protests White under rule 18.2(b) for not being given mark-room, and White protests Grey under rule 19 for not giving her room to pass to leeward of Black.

White's argument is that Black is an obstruction to both Grey and White because they both owe Black mark-room (see definition 'Obstruction'). So when Grey elects to go to leeward of Black, she must give White room to do so, too. By sailing up toward White between positions 1 and 2, Grey fails to give White room, causing White to sail too close to Black and thus forcing Black above her course to the mark. White admits she broke rule 18.2(b) with respect to Black but claims she was compelled to do so. She points out that when it became clear that Grey was not going to give her room under rule 19, she could not avoid both Black and Grey. So that means Grey should be disqualified, and White exonerated under rule 64.1(c) for her breach of rule 18.2(b).

Grey sees it a different way. White is required to give mark-room to both Grey and Black, and from positions 1 through 3 that means giving them room to sail to the mark. White could easily have seen that she would not be able to go between Black and Grey and still give mark-room to both of them, so she wasn't "compelled" to break rule 18.2(b). Therefore White should not be exonerated. Grey says she herself broke no rule; she was entitled to room under rule 18.2(b) and was simply taking the room to which she was entitled.

(Note that Grey can insure she is blameless by bearing off toward the wrong side of the mark to give White room to pass between her and Black, and protesting White. Now White has clearly broken rule 18.2(b) by not giving Grey room to sail to the mark, and Grey has given room as required by rule 19.)

This apparent conflict between rules 18 and 19 is caused at least in part by the fact that Black is an obstruction to both White and Grey. This is because the definition of Obstruction says a boat racing is an obstruction only if they both "required to keep clear of her, give her room or mark-room or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her." If those words " give her room or mark-room" were removed, then White's case disappears. Black would only be an obstruction as long as both Grey and White are clear astern of her, and after that, Grey would be under no obligation to give White room to pass to leeward of Black.

This is the substance of the submission the Section C Working Party has put forward to ISAF. The definition Mark-Room would say "… However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her. …"

But wait; think about the following scenario:

Under the current definition, PW is an obstruction to both PL and SW because, even though she has right of way over neither of them, they both owe her room to pass Yellow. This means that SW must give PL room to pass between her and PW. Under the proposed definition, neither PL nor PW would be obstructions to SW. SW would still be required to give PL and PW room to pass SL because SL has right of way over all those boats; but why should SW give PL room to avoid PW?

The answer is a basic principle, not explicitly stated in the Racing Rules of Sailing, but nonetheless clearly implied: It is not seamanlike to break the rules. Because SW owes PL room to pass between her and SL, and because PL cannot do that without giving room to PW, thus SW must give PL room to give PW room.

Because this is not explicit in the rules, nor in the ISAF Cases, the Section C Working Group has proposed a new ISAF Case that makes this principle explicit.

So how does this pair of submissions solve problems as in the first example above? Well, under the proposed new definition of Obstruction Black would not be an obstruction to either Grey or White, so rule 19 does not apply. End of problem.

Before making these submissions, the working group spent a lot of time thinking of scenarios where the change to the definition of Obstruction might cause problems. Despite our efforts, we could think of none. Can you think of any place on the racecourse where the words "give her room or mark-room" are necessary in the definition of Obstruction? If you can, please let me know by commenting on this blogsite or contacting any of the members of the Section C Working Party. E-mail addresses for Ben Altman, Dick Rose and I are on the US SAILING website, at http://raceadmin.ussailing.org/Rules/Committee.htm.

Living On The Edge

2009-08-15T17:09:00.000-07:00

For those of you (the entire fleet) that chickened out last Thursday just because it was a little stormy. I thought you might need a little inspiration.

Interfereing With Boats Racing

2009-07-14T21:06:00.000-07:00

I have had several comments about boats having trouble with boats that are milling around in the starting area interfering with them as they are trying to finish or have just finished. There are rules that address this. Be aware that if you are not racing and interfere with a boat that is racing, you have broken Rule 23.1 and are subject to protest and disqualification. The rule reads as follows:

23.1 If reasonably possible, a boat not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.

Racing is a defined term as follows:
A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and clears the finishing line and marks or retires, or until the race committee signals a general recall, postponement or abandonment.

The most common situation described to me is that boats that are still racing, trying to finish and clear the finish line, are being interfered with by boats milling around waiting for the next sequence to start. Rule 23.1 tells us that it doesn’t matter if you have right of way over the boat that is racing, if you are not racing and force them to alter course, you have fouled them. There is no way for you to exonerate yourself for this foul by taking a two turns penalty because that is only an option while you are racing.

Rule 64.1(d) says the penalty is as follows: “If a boat has broken a rule when not racing, her penalty shall apply to the race sailed nearest in time to that of the incident.” Therefore, if you are found to have broken Rule 23.1 you will be disqualified from the race you have just finished or the following race depending on the timing of the incident.

I suggest that we all avoid the starting area until all the boats have finished. It is rude to the competitors that are still trying to finish, it makes it difficult for the RC to spot finishers and you might be subject to disqualification by Rule 23.1. If you find yourself being interfered with by boats that are not racing as you are trying to finish, please don’t hesitate to protest.

Rule 18 At The Windward Mark

2009-07-11T20:20:00.000-07:00

There have been few questions about Rule 18 at the windward mark during our Monday races, and a bit of confusion when it turns off and on. I have been asked to explain Rule 18 at the windward mark. The rules writers have made it so that Rule 18 only applies between boats on the same tack and that when on opposite tacks the normal right of way rules of Parts A and B apply. Also, Rule 18 makes it quite difficult on those that approach the mark on the port lay line and tack at the mark. This appears to be popular in our fleet when we have a westerly and the left side of the course is favored, but it needs to be done with caution because you have very few rights and many responsibilities when you approach the windward mark on port and tack in the Zone.

The figure on the left shows Yellow on the starboard lay line and Blue 1.5 lengths below the port lay line. Let’s walk through the rules that apply during this encounter. At positions 1 and 2 Blue is port and must keep clear of Yellow. If you look at Rule 18.1 it gives 4 cases when rule 18 does not apply. The first one of these is Rule 18.1(a) which tells us that rule 18 does not apply when boats are on opposite tacks on a beat to windward. Therefore the normal right of way rules apply and Blue must keep clear.

As soon as Blue passes head to wind while she is tacking, she must keep clear of Yellow until she is on a close hauled course by Rule 13 just like anywhere else on the course. Rule 18 begins to apply as soon as Blue passes head to wind and is on the same tack with Yellow, but what section of Rule 18 applies? Because Blue tacks inside the zone Rule 18.3 applies and 18.2 does not, so Blue is not entitled to mark-room. But, she is leeward boat so she has right of way and Yellow must keep clear as windward boat. But, rule 18.3(a) limits Blue’s luffing rights because she cannot cause Yellow to sail above close hauled. In the diagram Blue breaks Rule 18.3 and fouls Yellow because Yellow was forced to sail above close hauled.

The middle diagram illustrates Rule 18.3(b). If Blue tacks inside the zone and Yellow gets a late overlap inside at the mark, then Blue must give Yellow mark-room. Yellow is entitled to luff to round the mark and Blue must keep clear. One thing Yellow must be careful of is to turn down and not sail above her proper course at the mark. This is because she has established her overlap from clear astern and Rule 17 says she must not sail above her proper course while they remain overlapped on the same tack.

The diagram on the right shows an interesting quirk in the rules. If you read the definition of mark-room it does not include room to tack unless the boat entitled to mark-room is overlapped to windward of the boat required to give it. In this case Yellow enters the zone clear ahead and to leeward of Blue. Therefore, she is entitled to mark-room but not room to tack at the mark. She must not break Rule 13 as she tacks or Rule 15 when she acquires right of way on starboard tack. So you need to be careful when you are on the port tack lay line with a boat clear astern of you on your hip. You are entitled to mark-room but it doesn’t include room to tack. Yellow can luff head to wind but better not pass head to wind or she will probably foul Blue.

Finishing Quiz

2009-06-02T23:48:00.000-07:00

Facts Found:
1. When Blue enters the Zone Green and Yellow are clear astern of Blue.
2. When Green enters the Zone she is overlapped to leeward and inside of Yellow.
3. At position 1, Blue luffs head to wind to finish and tacks to port to clear the finish mark. Blue stalls and is moving slowly away from the mark on port tack.
4. If Yellow continues on a straight line course she would clear Blue’s transom by 2 feet.
5. When Green is ½ boat lengths from the mark, she luffs sharply head to wind to sail her proper course at the mark and finish.
6. Yellow responds to the luff, but is forced into Blue’s transom.
7. Yellow keeps clear of Green and both Green and Yellow clear the finish mark.

Determine the rules that apply, your conclusions and decision based on the above facts.

An interesting problem and a real situation that happened to my daughter in her last regatta of the high school sailing season. There was no protest so we will never know how it would have been decided by a PC. The following is how I would decide it, and to be frank I'm not sure it is correct:

Rules that apply: 16.1, 18.2

Conclusions:
1. When Green, the right-of-way boat and a boat entitled to mark-room, changed course she did not give Yellow room to keep clear. Green broke rule 16.1.
2. When Yellow, the right-of-way boat, changed course she did not give Blue room to keep clear. Yellow broke rule 16.1.

Decision:
1. Green is exonerated under rule 18.5(b) because she is rounding the mark on her proper course.
2. Yellow is exonerated under rule 64.1(c) because she was compelled by Greens breach of Rule 16.1 to foul Blue.

I sent this case off to higher authorities within the sailing community to get their input as to the application of the new rules and I'll share with you what they say if I get a response.

As to Dick's contention that Blue should be DSQ for a Rule 10 violation. I would suggest you look at these same facts in the middle of the line nowhere near a finish mark. When Green luffs to finish she breaks rule 16.1 by forcing Yellow into Blue. Yellow also breaks 16.1 by heading up and hitting Blue. But I would exonerate her because she was compelled to hit Blue by Green breaking Rule 16.1. Blue was minding her own business keeping clear by a good two feet if they don't change course. Even if she were not stalled there is no maneuver she could make to avoid the contact and keep clear. Therefore, I could not DSQ Blue. I would DSQ Green if it were in the middle of the line. The only thing that saves Green is the fact that there is a mark, she is entitled to mark-room and to sail her proper course at the mark, and therefore entitled to exoneration by 18.5(b) for breaking rule 16.1.

2009-05-25T16:51:00.000-07:00

At the starting signal both Yellow and Blue are over early, and it is an I flag start (Rule 30.1 is in play). At about 4 boat lengths Blue gybes and Yellow tacks back toward the pin end of the starting Line. When Blue reaches the Zone at position 5 Yellow is overlapped inside and to windward of Blue. At position 6 Yellow hails for "mark-room" and Blue hails "no room". At position 7 Yellow's boom hits Blue and Yellow hits the mark. Yellow files a valid protest against Blue and there is no damage or injury as a result of the contact.

What rules apply and how do you decide this case?

Intended Answer:

Rules that Apply - Rule 11 windward keep clear, Rule 14 avoid contact, Rule 31 touching a mark
Rules that don't apply at a starting mark when approaching it to start - Section C (rules 18, 19 & 20). See the preamble to Section C of the rules.

Both boats were circling back to start and were approaching the starting mark to start. Therefore, Rule 18 does not apply to the mark, Yellow is not entitled to mark-room and must keep clear of Blue by Rule 11 (windward boat keep clear). Blue does not change course so Rule 16 does not come into play. Yellow also breaks Rule 31 by hitting the mark, and both Break Rule 14 for not avoiding contact.

DSQ Yellow for breaking Rules, 11, 31 and 14. Blue is not penalized for breaking Rule 14 by Rule 14(b) because there is no damage or injury.

As for exonerating Yellow for breaking Rule 31 for being compelled to hit the mark by Blues breach of Rule 14. I don't see this as Dick does. Yellow would have missed the mark if she had gone on the wrong side and stayed clear of Blue, so it does not look to me that she was compelled to hit the mark by any action of Blue. I do agree that Blue might have been better off avoiding the contact and then protesting, because if there was damage she would be DSQ also.

The question of how many circles one must do for braking more than one Rule. The guideline by US sailing is that it is one penalty per incident regardless on the number of rules broken if breaking the other rules was an inevitable consequence from the incident. I've attached the US Sailing Appeal 65 that addresses this and it explains the principal far better than I can. I find no similar ISAF Case so I do not know how this is defined in other jurisdictions.

Starting Quiz

2009-05-17T18:50:00.001-07:00

Using the diagram above, and assuming none of the Rule 30 penalties apply, answer the following:

1. Assuming that the starting guns sounds when Yellow, Blue and Green are at position 1, which boat(s) have started properly?

2. Answer the same question if the starting gun sounds when all three boats are at position 2.

The intended answers are:
1. All three boats meet the definition of starting, however, blue does not sail the course as required in Rule 28.1 Sailing The Course. Blue's string when pulled taught does not pass on the required side of the starting mark after she starts. Green's string loops around the starting mark and it does pass it on the required side as well as the wrong side, but there is no restriction on the string passing on the wrong side as long as it also passes on the correct side. I've attached Case 90 that explains it better than I can. Yellow of course starts properly and complies with Rule 28.1

2. If the gun sounds at position 2 for all three boats only Yellow will meet the definition of Starting. Both Blue and Green fail to be on the pre-start side of the line at or after the starting signal and cross the starting line. Yellow is on the pre-start side after the starting signal and crosses the line so Yellow is the only one that starts if the gun sounds at position 2.

BSR Protest 23 vs. 14

2009-05-03T18:47:00.000-07:00

Below is the decision from the protest committee for the protest in race 3 of the Black Star Regatta for your information.

Facts Found:
1. Bow #14 (Yellow) rounded the windward mark clear ahead of Bow #23 (Blue).
2. #23 overtook #14 between the windward and offset mark and became overlapped to leeward of #14.
3. As #14 rounded the offset mark there was no room between #14 and the offset mark for #23 to pass the mark.
4. #23 hit the offset mark and did not take a penalty.

Rules that apply: 11, 12, 18, 31 and 44

Conclusions:
1. There is reasonable doubt that #23 established an overlap before #14 reached the zone. Therefore by Rule 18.2 (d) it is presumed that she did not.
2. #23, clear astern when #14 reached the zone, did not give #14 mark-room to sail her proper course at the mark. #23 broke rule 18.2(b).
3. #23 hit the offset mark and broke Rule 31 but did not exonerate herself as allowed by Rule 44.
4. As #14 rounds the offset mark to her proper course, as windward boat she did not keep clear of #23 and broke Rule 11.

Decision:
By Rule 64.1(a) #23 is DSQ from Race 3 of the Black Star Regatta for breaking Rules 18.2(b) and 31. #14 is exonerated for breaking Rule 11 by Rule 18.5(b).

Season Champion's Clinic

2009-04-18T16:27:00.000-07:00

Today was a glorious day to be out on the water. Derek DeCouteau, last year's season champion, walked us through how he sets up the boat in the various wind conditions. One of the things I like about our fleet is that if you have a question about the boat all you need to do is ask. If you got nothing else from his talk, remember to use the lower back stay as a throttle in the light to medium wind we sail in on Budd Inlet. Pull it on to power up and ease it to de-power, but don't forget to get it off as you head down wind or you'll join our order of the mangled mast. Joseph Donnette helped with the demonstrations of the various controls by setting up his boat at the dock.

We had a large group for the shore talk. So many in fact, the floating dock at Westbay Marina was at the limit with the water near the top of the dock. I think Derek's advice was good to look at the Tuning Guides for North and Quantum and the technical articles on the Star web site. these are links to the various sites where the information can be found.

After the shore talk 12 boats went out in ideal conditions for a sailing clinic. The winds were about 4 knots from the north, with occasional puffs up to 6 knots. Perfect for trying out our lower back stay throttles. Derek and Bill put us through down speed tacking and gybing drills, and it was a bit like herding cats trying to get us all in line for the start of the tacking drills, but they got it done.

Thank you Derek for putting this on for us. I know it will help us all as we get ready for the Black Star Regatta next week. Those of you that didn't make it to the clinic, watch out!!!

Fun Scenario 2

2009-04-07T20:13:00.001-07:00

What do you think of this one.

The Intended answers from US Sailing are:
1. Yellow breaks Rule 10.
2. Blue breaks no rule
3. Yellow is not exonerated for breaking Rule 10 because she does not do her turns in accordance with Rule 44.2.

The explanation given by US Sailing is that Yellow must first get well clear and then do two uninterrupted turns. If this were to occur in one of our races I do not believe I would be compelled to protest Yellow unless there was some sort of advantage gained. In the scenario shown I see no advantage to Yellow. It is not always easy to anticipate what others are going to do in a race and as the boat doing the turns you are required to keep clear of others and if that obligation requires you to sail clear I'm satisfied if you interrupt the turns to keep clear. If the turns were done as shown in the absence of other boats then I would protest.

Fun Scenario 1

2009-03-28T23:46:00.000-07:00

Yellow and Blue sailing dead down wind approximately ¾ boat lengths apart. Yellow’s helmsmen looked away for a moment at position 3 and blue gybed without altering course causing their booms to touch. There was no damage or injury.

Who should be DSQ if no penalties are taken?

Intended Answer:

Like it or not Yellow is DSQ for rule 10 in this case.

Unlike tacking (rule 13) there is no rule that says that you must keep clear while gybing. Rule 15 does not apply in this case because Blue is ROW at both position 2 and position 3. She is not aquiring ROW by gybing. Rule 16 does not apply because Blue does not change course. However, I would argue that even if Blue changes course away from Yellow as she gybes she will not break rule 16 if thier booms touch because the course change would not have caused the contact or prevented Yellow from keeping clear. In fact, she would prove more difinitively that Yellow was not keeping clear since even though Blue was moving away from Yellow there was still contact.

The moral of the story here is that if you are Yellow you need to give more space between you and Blue and concern yourself with her boom should she gybe.

Rule 19 Scenario 2

2009-03-18T20:33:00.000-07:00

Yellow and Blue were sailing toward the finish and Yellow was sailing faster and overtaking Blue. At the zone Yellow was clear astern of Blue. At 2 lengths from the mark Yellow became overlapped with Blue and asked for room at the committee boat. Blue hailed protest and sailed on her course until just before she finished and turned up to give Yellow enough room so that her hull could clear the committee boat but Yellow’s boom hit the committee boat and she hailed protest.

I have posted the definitions on the side bar for your reference when looking at the scenarios.

I have to admit that I called this a rule 19 scenario to highlight that when an obstruction is a mark that rule 18 not rule 19 applies unless it is also a continuing obstruction. In this case the RC boat is not a continuing obstruction so 19 does not apply. I did catch one commenter on this, but most were not fooled.

The Intended answers are as follows:

1. At position 1 who has right of way? - Blue by rule 12

2. At position 1 who is entitled to mark-room? - Blue by rule 18.2(b)

3. At position 2 who has right of way? - Yellow by rule 11

4. At position 2 what rule(s) does Blue break and what rule(s) does Yellow break? - Blue Breaks no rule; Yellow breaks no rule. My reasoning here is that Blue is initially allowed room to keep clear by rule 15 so she is not breaking rule 11 at position 2 because she has not yet had time to react to Yellow gaining right of way, and Yellow is not so close at position 2 that Blue can't keep clear. We can disagree about when exactly when Yellow breaks 18.2(b), but my interpretation is that it will occur when Blue can no longer sail to the mark, and Blue has not yet altered course to avoid Yellow at position 2.

5. At position 3 what rule(s) does Blue break and what rule(s) does Yellow break? - Blue breaks rule 11 and Yellow breaks 18.2(b) and rule 31. Blue did not keep clear of Yellow at position 3 and Yellow did not give Blue mark-room.

6. Who should be DSQ, Yellow, Blue, or both? - Blue is exonerated for breaking rule 11 by 18.5(a) because of Yellow's failure to provide mark-room. Yellow is DSQ for breaking rule 18.2(b). She was compelled to hit the mark by Blue breaking rule 11 and can be exonerated for this by rule 64.1(c), but not for breaking rule 18.2(b)

On the subject of losing exoneration. I do not agree that it is lost when Blue finishes. It is clear that Blue breaks rule 11 because of Yellow's failure to give mark-room even after she finishes. Rule 18 does not have a specific time when it turns off and as long Blue needs mark-room she should be given it by Yellow. I am relying on Dick Rose's paper for this interpretation where he says (see the link on the side bar):

"When rule 18 ceases to apply: The old criterion for rule 18 ceasing to apply (when the boats ‘have passed’ the mark) has been deleted and not replaced. The new rule’s principal obligation, for one boat to give another mark-room, applies until it is no longer needed."

In this case mark-room is no longer needed when Blue clears the finish mark.

Rule 19 Scenario 1

2009-03-09T19:05:00.001-07:00

We will now review at a few cases looking at how the new Rule 19 works.

Yellow, Blue and Green were sailing on a run with Yellow and Blue approximately a boat length apart. At position 1 Green is clear astern of both Yellow and Blue. At position 2 Green, sailing faster, obtains an overlap with both Yellow and Blue. When the overlap starts there is not adequate space for Green to pass between Yellow and Blue. After the boats travel approximately 2 hull lengths Yellow must alter course to keep clear of Green. At no time does either Green of Blue alter course.

Questions:
1. At position 1, who has right of way Yellow or Green?
2. At position 2, who has right of way Green or Blue?
3. At position 3, what Rule(s) were broken by Green?
4. At position 3, what rule(s) were broken by Yellow?

CASE BOOK NOW READY!

2009-02-26T20:13:00.000-08:00

You can now get a copy of the new 2009-2012 Case Book. I'll keep a link on the side bar for your use.

For the fun of it I've posted the old and new Case 75 that is key to the understanding of new Rule 18. Take a look at the two and see how the new rule works as compared to the old. The outcome is the same but there are some differences to note.

Rule 18 Scenario 6

2009-02-24T19:09:00.000-08:00

Answer the questions as a starting mark as given in the question, then answer the same questions assuming it is a finish mark.

This scenario was right out of the case book. I've attached ISAF Case 28 from the 2009-2012 Cases for your reference, and it explains the rules involved better than I could. As for the case where it is a finish, Rule 18 does not apply per 18.1(a) since they are on opposite tacks on a beat to windward.

Rule 18 Scenario 5

2009-02-12T00:42:00.000-08:00

Let's see how the rules work with a down wind start.

Well our fleet has gone sailing and not giving answers, any takers on the following: This situation is changed to a downwind finish. Answer the same questions.

The point of this exercise was to think about how the rules and result are different when Rule 18 doesn't apply when approaching the starting mark surrounded by navigable water when approaching to start, and when you apply Rule 18 when it is a finish mark. You should have noticed that the resulting boat being DSQ can be different in the 2 cases depending on the facts. Let's look at this again with the next scenario.

Rule 18 Scenario 4

2009-02-08T21:00:00.000-08:00

At 3 boat lengths Blue is overlapped inside Yellow on a course directly to the mark. At position 2, Blue heads up slightly to make more room to make a tactical rounding. At position 4 as Blue heads down to gybe Yellow heads up to pass head to wind and tack. At position 6 Yellow hails, “I NEED ROOM!” and Blue hails, “NO ROOM!” At position 7 there is contact between Yellow and Blue and Yellow hits the mark. There is no damage or injury as a result of the contact.

1. At position 1 who is entitled to mark-room?
2. At Position 6 who is entitled to mark-room?
3. At Position 7 what rule(s) does Blue break?
4. At Position 7 what rule(s) does Yellow break?
5. Who should be DSQ: Yellow, Blue, Neither, Both?

Rule 18 Scenario 3

2009-02-02T21:42:00.000-08:00

I've add ISAF Case 75 for reference. I have it on good authority that this will be in the new case book with updated rule citations.

At 3 boat lengths Yellow is overlapped inside Blue on a course directly to the mark. At position 2, Yellow heads up slightly to make more room to round wider and sail close hauled at the mark. At position 3 Blue hails Protest! You’re taking too much room! At position 4 as Yellow gybes her stern swings into Blue’s boom. There is no damage or injury as a result of the contact, but Yellow’s daughter, who is crewing, nearly has a heart attack and vows never to sail with her father again unless there is money involved!

1. At position 1 who has right of way?

2. At Position 3 what rule(s) does Yellow break?

3. At Position 4 what rule(s) does Blue break?

4. At Position 4 what rule(s) does Yellow break?

5. What Rule limits the room Yellow can take?

6. Who should be DSQ: Yellow, Blue, Neither, Both?

7. What redress is Yellow entitled for his daughter’s psychological 'damage'?

I've moved the intended answers to the comments to save space.

New Appeals Are Published

2009-02-01T12:18:00.001-08:00

Although ISAF has not published the cases yet, US Sailing has published their appeals updated for the 2009-2012 rules. These appeals complement the ISAF Cases but they only have standing in the US, although I'm sure others use them as well. Until ISAF publishes their case book these are the most definitive interpretation of the rules that we have. Above I've posted Appeal 20 both old and new. This is similar to our scenario 2. Read the two cases and you will see how the rules have changed in nuance, but not in the result on the water. Also note the difference in the Rule 14 determination in the two decisions.

If you are a member of US Sailing you can download a copy of the new appeals at http://www.ussailing.org/appeals/ If you are not a member of US Sailing, but a member of our Star fleet, contact me and I'll get you a copy of the appeals.

After reading the appeals above answer the following questions:

1. How are the facts the same or different between Appeal 20 and Scenario 2?

2. Does this appeal impact how you would decide the case in scenrio 2?

Rule 18 Scenario 2

2009-01-30T19:10:00.001-08:00

Facts of the Scenario:

At 3 boat lengths Yellow is overlapped with Blue. Blue is sailing on a course toward the mark. She continues on this course until she reaches 2 boat lengths and then turns down to give room to Yellow at the mark. At position 3 Yellow turns down to sail to the mark and her boom makes contact with Blue. They round the mark without further contact.

1. At position 2 who has right of way
2. At position 2 what rule(s), if any, does Blue break
3. At position 2 what rules(s), if any, does Yellow break
4. At position 3 who has right of way
5. At position 3 what rule(s), if any, does Blue break
6. At position 3 what rule(s), if any, does Yellow break
7. Who should be DSQ; Blue, Yellow, neither

In response to Dick's comments and to stimulate conversation about Rule 14, I add the following facts to the scenario: Yellow's boom hit Blue's hull scratching it, requiring buffing to remove the scratch.

Does this constitute damage requiring disqualification under Rule 14? If yes, who should be disqualified? If no, why not?

Rule 18 Scenario 1 Poll

2009-01-29T12:10:00.000-08:00

Okay it's time to decide this case. Vote on how you would decide this case in the poll on the sidebar.

1. DSQ Yellow

2. DSQ Blue

3. DSQ Both

4. DSQ Neither

Rule 18 Scenario 1

2009-01-24T13:48:00.000-08:00

I am going to post a series of Rule 18 Scenarios to highlight some of the issues to think about at the leeward mark. There are no cases published yet, so we will need to rely on what we have been told by Dick Rose at the seminar and the paper he has published for the correct way of interpreting new Rule 18. I have emailed the paper to you all. For those of you that did not get a copy of the paper, I've added a link to it on the side bar.

Here are the facts of this scenario:

Blue, Green and Yellow are sailing on starboard tack toward the leeward mark to be left to Starboard. The waves 1-2 feet, and the wind is 10 knots. When Green and Blue reach the zone Green is overlapped inside Blue and Yellow is not overlapped with either boat. At position 3 Yellow is sailing with more speed, sees a space and moves inside Blue. At position 4 Blue luffs head to wind to stay out of Greens bad air and to “close the door” on Yellow. Yellow immediately responds to avoid Blue, but is forced into the mark and Blue is forced to bear away to avoid contact with Yellow. Blue protests Yellow for breaking Rule 18.2(b) and Rule 11. Yellow protests Blue for breaking Rule 16.1.

How do you decide this case?

A good discussion and I will summarize the issues and give you how I would decide it based on the facts in the Scenario.

1. You should notice that there is a major change in the rules that applies to this scenario. Under the old rules rule 16 did not apply to a right of way boat that was changing course to round a mark (Rule 18.2(d)). In this case the right of way boat is Blue and she changed course head to wind to round the mark so Rule 16 didn’t apply under the old rules. Yellow would be DSQ under Rule 11 because she forced Blue to bear away to avoid her and she was not entitled to room by Rule 18.2(b). There was no need to discuss proper course because the rule was just turned off. The new rule has a new Section 18.5 Exoneration that says a boat will be exonerated by part (b), “if, by rounding the mark on her proper course, she breaks a rule of Section A or Rule 15 or 16.” Now you need to determine if the boat was rounding to her proper course to be exonerated for breaking a rule of Section A or rule 15 and 16.

2. Did Blue break Rule 16? Rule 16.1 says, “When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear. Room is, “The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while maneuvering promptly in a seaman like way.” When Blue forces Yellow into the mark Yellow was not able to maneuver in a seaman like way so clearly Blue breaks rule 16.1.

3. Did Blue sail her proper course? Because Blue was clearing her air I believe this can be considered her proper course and she should be exonerated by Rule 18.5. If you take Green out of the scenario, I would not exonerate Blue under 18.5 because luffing head to wind can not then be justified as a proper course.

4. This last issue was pointed out to me by my 13 year old daughter. Wasn't Yellow compelled to break the rules by Blue’s breach of 16.1, so shouldn’t she then be exonerated by 64.1(c)? Has my daughter found a flaw with the new rule structure of not turning off certain rules but just exonerating a boat for a breach of the rules? I frankly can’t find a way out of this. Anyone else have any ideas? perhaps 64.1 needs to be rewritten so as not to apply 64.1(c) when the other boat is exonerated by another rule.

My decision, until convinced otherwise, is to exonerate both Blue and Yellow. Blue under 18.5 and Yellow under 64.1(c).

I have been convinced that Yellow still breaks 18.2 (b) and cannot be exonerated under 64.1(c) for that. She can be exonerated for hitting the mark but would still be DSQ for 18.2(b). And, if we decided Blue didn't sail her proper course then Blue would be DSQ for 16.1 and Yellow would not have broken 18.2(b) and would be exonerated under 64.1(c) for hitting the mark. Oh well it was fun while it lasted.

Rules Quiz #5

2009-01-21T09:51:00.001-08:00

I posted this quiz to highlight a change in the rules. If you were not aware 17.2 is deleted in the new rules. This rule didn't allow yellow to sail below her proper course. Therefore, under the old rules at both position 2 and position 5 yellow would have broken old rule 17.2. As I think this scenario demonstrates this rule is completely unnecessary. There are plenty of rules to protect the leeward/clear astern boat on a run. I can honestly say I routinely ignored 17.2 coming into a leeward mark when trying to make sure there was no overlap at the zone.

As for the correct answer all were correct that Yellow should be DSQ. I think the writers of the question failed to give us an important piece of information. Was there an overlap established when yellow turned down between positions 4 and 5? Since the question did not indicate an overlap, I would say technically the correct answer is Yellow breaks Rule 16.1, and Blue breaks Rule 12 and is exonerated. However, practically looking at the diagram it is hard to see how yellow can turn down as she did and not create an overlap. So a Rule 11 violation for Yellow and 16.1 for Blue with Blue being exonerated, is also a reasonable answer. Either way Yellow is DSQ and Blue is exonerated.

Rules Quiz #4

2009-01-16T21:54:00.000-08:00

I think this has been an interesting discussion the answers given by Dick and Brass were spot on. We all have to remember that although they haven't defined continuing obstruction, they have defined what it is not, "a vessel underway including a boat racing is never a continuing obstruction". This has changed a few things in the rules and some of the cases and appeals will need to be updated for this change. Under the old rules Vicky's interpretation could have been correct with yellow being a continuing obstruction. But, not with the new definition of obstruction.

If you get a chance go to the SA post by Brass. It is evident that the way that rule 20 is now structured has many confused as to what are the responsibilities of the hailed boat when there is an improper hail. In the old rules the rule didn't apply in certain circumstances and the hailed boat could safely ignore the hail without breaking the rule in those cases. This does not appear to be true any more. It seems that the hailed boat must respond to the improper hail and then protest. I assume this was changed due to concerns over safety if the hail is ignored.

Bring your questions to the seminar tomorrow and we'll see what insight Dick Rose can give us.

I've posted a case and an appeal for a response to Dick's comment.

Meeting Notes/Bill Receiving US Sailing Leadership Award

2009-01-14T10:53:00.000-08:00

Bill Honored by US Sailing

Bill Received the US Sailing Leadership award. You can go to Tugboat Annie's to view the award in the trophy case.

Bill Buchan wrote a nice letter that Steve read at the presentation. Go to the link below to read it.

http://www.ssssclub.com/a/billaward.htm#link

Meeting Notes

On Wednesday January 14th we had a meeting to discuss the upcoming season. We had to relocate the meeting to the TYLI conference room due to a scheduling conflict with the Viewpoint Room at Westbay. The following is an outline of the discussion:

1. Schedule - A proposal was made to modify the racing schedule to race every Monday rather than the current alternating Monday-Thursday schedule. The first race will be Monday May 4th with two series running concurrently so that on alternate Mondays will be different series. If you can't make it every week you can pick a series to attend on alternate Mondays. The motion passed and the racing schedule will be modified on the SSSS website.

2. Race Fee - A proposal was brought to charge a $20 race fee to help cover the cost of race management. The fee is to be paid by the end of the first series or you will not be scored in the series. It would be preferable to pay the race fee at the launch. The treasurer (Myra) will collect the fee. The motion passed.

3. Launching and Moorage - There will be two launch dates the last week in March and 2 weeks later April 11th. The Launch fee is $25 and the moorage fee is $25/month ($150 for the summer). Same as last year, what a bargain!!

4. Black Star - Myra will be heading up the effort for the Black Star again and the first meeting will be January 26th at George and Betty Hanson's house. The raffle will be scaled back this year because of the effort involved, and she would like to raffle some items at the SSSS meetings and just have a few nice items to raffle at the Regatta. Jack De Meyer as offered to do RC again this year. Thanks Jack!! We have had some ideas floated for the T-shirts, and we need them brought to the first meeting for discussion.

5. Districts - BISF is hosting the Star District Championships this year on August 8th and 9th. We are going to make it similar to the Black Star with various divisions. Awards will be given for each division, but to be eligible for the district championship you will need to meet the requirements of the class. Derek was concerned about the wind in August and Bill appointed him wind czar for the regatta. An organizing committee will be formed later this year after the Black Star.

6. Sailing Instructions - Without objections the sailing instructions will remain essentially the same as last year with the Rules being changed to the current RRS 2009-12.

7. Sailing Instruction - Some indicated that they would like to have another sailing clinic and perhaps something once a month like the video that John Thompson showed last year. Norm will try to arrange the Visser Clinic again this year, and we will try to get something for February and March.

Please comment if you have anything to add to the notes

Rules Quiz #3

2009-01-09T13:00:00.000-08:00

This is a typical situation. Let's see how the new rules apply and if there are any game changers. There is one additional question I would like to add.

7. At position 3 who has right of way White or Blue?

If you got your new rule book you will have noticed that there are some important differences in the structure of the rules at marks. In the old rules your position was set at the zone but the rule didn't turn on until you were "about to round or pass the mark" and room was only defined as the room necessary to pass the mark. Now mark-room is defined as "room to sail to the mark and to sail your proper course at the mark" and the rule is turned on when the first boat reaches the zone (which is now 3 boat lengths) not when you are about to round or pass a mark. So as an outside boat, the requirements for providing mark-room starts much earlier in the rounding in the new rules.

Another important difference is that previously the rules of Part C took precedence over the rules of Parts A and B (read the preamble to part C in the old rules). This is no longer the case. In effect the rules in Part C now act more like limitations to the right of way boat rather than changing who has right of way. In this way the Part C rules now act more like the Rules in Part B. This is semantics in some ways, but it makes the new rules more consistent than the old Part C rules.

I think in the end most got the correct answers. I've posted Case 59 that covers the situation in this quiz for your reference. Note that the cases have not yet been published for the new rules so the rules called out in the case are for the old rules.

Here are my "official" answers to the quiz:

1. No - Orange reaches the zone and White does not have an overlap so White must give Orange mark-room per rule 18.2(b).

2. Yes - White has is overlapped with Blue when she reaches the zone so Blue must give mark-room to White.

3. Yes - Same reason as 2 above.

4. Blue - Green is clear astern at position 2 so by Rule 12 Blue has right of way.

5. Blue - Green is overlapped to windward of Blue at position 3, so by Rule 11 Blue has right of way.

6. No - Green must give Blue mark-room because there was no overlap at the zone so she better be careful to give Blue room to sail her proper course at the mark.

7. Blue - Blue is leeward boat and has right of way by Rule 11. But she
is limited by Rule 18.2(b) and must give mark-room to White.

Rules Quiz #2

2009-01-05T19:55:00.000-08:00

This was an interesting question because of the part that said that Yellow admitted to breaking the rules purposely to help her position. This is a clear violaton of Rule 2, Fair Sailing. Also, as Dave pointed out Rule 41.1(b) is pretty clear that if you break a rule and it gives you an advantage, then you must retire. So in this case Yellow breaks Rules 2, 11 and 41.1(b) and should be disqualified with the score not being excluded from her series score (DNE). Vickie’s Answers were spot on.

Now to the question of Rule 69 and “Gross Misconduct”; Case 65 demonstrates what is required to constitute a violation of Rule 69. In Case 65 the individual knowingly broke a rule and went out of their way to hurt another competitor. I’ve Posted Case 65 for your reference. Rule 69 involves a serious allegation of cheating, which I do not think is applicable in this case.

The other outstanding question is if we can we take a scoring penalty in our Star Racing. The answer is no. The Scoring Penalty must be specified in the Sailing Instructions to be in effect (read Rule 44.1). Also our SI specifies the “Two-Turns Penalty” for a violation of the rules of Part 2 (read Section 10 of our SI).

Rules Quiz #1

2008-12-28T11:01:00.000-08:00

To get you all ready for the for the Dick Rose Rules Seminar on January 21st, I will post a series of questions from US sailing Judges test. Click on the question to make it larger.

Post your answers or questions for discussion as a comment, and I'll post the "Official" answers after you have had a chance to ponder the questions. Down load the new rules using the link to the right.

Answers

Green: Green is on starboard, Blue on port Green has right of way. Rules 11 or 12 don’t apply because they are not on the same tack.

Green: For the same reason as in question 1 Green has right of way over Yellow.

Yellow: Both Yellow and Blue are on port tack so rule 11 applies between them. At position 3 Yellow is leeward boat because she is on the same side as Blue’s mainsail. The trick going down wind is look at the side the mainsail is on, and that is the boat’s leeward side. This is in the definitions given in the RRS.

Blue breaks two Rules: 10 and 14. She doesn’t keep clear of Green who is on starboard (Rule 10) and she doesn’t avoid contact with Green (Rule 14). Blue doesn't break Rule 11 only because Green is in the way.

Yellow breaks the same 2 rules.

Green breaks Rule 14 avoiding contact. However, it’s hard to see what she could have done to avoid the contact. She will be not be penalized per Rule 14(b) because there was no damage or injury, or she would be exonerated per 64.1(b) even if there was damage or injury.

Both Yellow and Blue should be disqualified.

One of you felt Rule 19.2 applied to Blue. This is an interesting question. However, Rule 19.2 does not apply in this case because Yellow is not an "obstruction" to both Green and Blue she is only an "obstruction" to Blue. Read the definition of obstruction to see how a boat racing is an obstruction. If the question was changed so that both Yellow and Blue were on the same side of Green, then Rule 19 would apply between Yellow and Blue. Think about how the Rules are different between Yellow and Blue depending on which side of Green they are.

Yellow and Blue didn’t “break” Rule 44.1 because you are never required to take a penalty, although you are allowed to exonerate yourself by doing so.

If I were Yellow or Blue in this case, I would gybe to starboard before Green is overlapped. Green is not in such a good position then. If you are Blue you would have right of way over both Yellow and Green, and if you are Yellow Green would be limited to her proper course by Rule 17 provided you gybe before Green is overlapped. If you gybe after Green is overlapped, then the limitations of Rule 17 do not apply to Green, so gybe early if you are Yellow.

Star Hats

2008-11-11T22:14:00.000-08:00

Judy is wearing one of the new Star baseball caps Sherwood and Judy have acquired. They ordered them from an embroidery business in Bend, OR.

These are really good quality caps, with which we have previous experience, and which are a pleasure to wear on or off the boat; perhaps other members of the fleet might feel the same.

The cost is $19.00 apiece, plus shipping, for an order of two caps, though the price on a group order would drop proportionally to the number of caps ordered. For example, an order of 12 caps would drop the price to about $16.00 each, plus shipping, an order of 24 to about $15.00 each, and an order of 36 to $14.00 each. Your cap number would be individualized to your hull number. Hats are available in a variety of colors, and the embroidery color could be changed to match the hat color.

Colors Include:
Black, Cardinal, Forest, Gold, Lilac, Lime, Maize, Maroon, Moss, Navy, Olive, Orange, Plum, Pottery, Red, Sage, Sky, Steel Green, Stone, Storm blue, White

Two Tones: (Crown / Visor)
Forest / Black; Metro Blue / Stone; Navy / Stone; Olive / Stone; Sage / Black; Stone / Navy; Stone / Plum; Stone / Olive; Stone / Black; Stone / Steel Green; Stone / Storm Blue

The website for eye-of-the-needle with the Harbor style caps is: http://www.driftcreekoutdoors.com/headwear_classics.html

Let us know if you would like to make an order for hats. We will determine the cost after we know how may to order. Leave a comment with the number of hats and the particulars of color, etc.

Celebration for Barb

2008-10-31T20:12:00.000-07:00

Come and Celebrate Barb's Life

Date and Time
Sunday December 14th
Between 1:00 – 4:00 PM

Logistics
Barb’s celebration will be potluck, so please bring one of the following:
1) main dish
2) side dish (salad, desert, appetizer, etc.)
3) beverage (beer, wine, soda, etc.)

Location
Carlyon Beach Homeowners Association Club House
2719 Island Drive NW
Olympia, WA 98502

Directions to Carlyon Beach Club House
From I-5 take exit 104 (Hwy 101 N toward Aberdeen/Port Angeles).
Go approximately 6 miles on Hwy 101. (At the junction Hwy 101 and Why 8 stay right on Hwy 101).
Take the Steamboat Island Rd. turn off (This is the first exit after the highways split).
Go left at the T and proceed past the 76 station and Tavern (on the right) stay on this road until you come to a Stop/Yield sign.
At the Stop/Yield sign, go right. This is now Steamboat Island Rd NW.
Stay on Steamboat Island road for approximately 8 to 9 miles.
Take a right on Island Drive (just after the speed limit drops to 20 mph)
Parking is available at the club house parking lot, which is at the uphill side of the Park (the park will be on your left)

Note: If you want to come by boat from Olympia, guest moorage is available.

Thanks,
Jenny

On the crisp fall day that was Wednesday, Barb Stuart began her next journey. She was surrounded by family friends. We encircled her bed and her spirit with our love and wished her fair travels.
She was taken off the respirator and the extra paraphernalia was removed. She visibly seemed to relax into the bed. Believe it or not she began to snore. (Those of you who have been lucky enough to travel with Barb – know she snores when relaxed and resting peacefully). We stayed with her throughout the day, telling Barb, Barbara, and Mom stories and laughing together. Barb remained at peace and in no pain.

As the day wore on her blood oxygen levels continued to drop as was expected and consistent with her body shutting down. By evening, we decided to give Barb some time on her own and started our goodbyes. Jenny and Alex took a break - got some dinner and returned later in the evening for some last time alone with Barb. Barb passed away early this morning in the CCU. It was her body that stopped this morning. Her spirit was in that room with her friends and family, and has been nourished by all the love and care her friends and community have been sending her.

Barb made it clear she wanted no funeral or memorial. She wanted to be cremated and her ashes spread someplace remote and wild. She wanted no mourning only celebration. So Jenny has asked that we her friends, help plan a suitable celebration of Barb and her time with us. We are tentatively looking at a time early in December and will for Westbay and her home neighborhood. As more plans develop I will let you know.

Jenny and Alex are busy with the details or pulling the corners of a loved one's life together. You can send cards or your own memories of Barb to Jenny at her Seattle address:

Jenny Stuart
2613 E Aloha Street
Seattle, WA 98112

As I get more information I will continue to pass it on. You can continue to reach me via email:

ginny_stern@yahoo.com

Thank you for letting me be part of your connection with my dear friend Barb (Barbara or Mom). It has been an honor, a blessing and a gift I treasure..

Ginny

New Rule Changes

2008-10-19T13:12:00.000-07:00

I found some information on the new rules I thought I would share it with you all. Follow the links below to some a presentation on the new rules and the Rules showing the edits.

EDITED RULES RRS for 2009–2012

Presntation 2 - Changes to RRS for 2009-2012

Hope Island Race

2008-10-06T21:29:00.000-07:00

Race Time 1200 October 11, 2008

As most of you know the Hope Island Dash is a race that is usually sailed by an individual when the spirit moves them and starts and finishes along a line that is the extension on the shoal mark and mark 4.

The full instruction are at the following link: http://www.ssssclub.com/race.htm#start

Starting and Finishing
We will not be doing the race at exactly the same way as given in the instruction since we will all be starting together. I will be on my Catalina 36 to start you using our normal 3 minute sequence at 1200. I will be on the extension of the line as described in the Hope Island Dash sailing instructions. You need to start between the committee and the shoal marker but you can finish on either side the committee boat from one side of Budd Inlet to the other. We will take your times based on the staring time and when you cross the line to finish.

Shortening Course
We will see what the conditions are for the race day. If there is little wind or it is from a direction that would make the race less than fun, I will take the temperature of the fleet and we could do some buoy races or we may drop a mark to round in lieu of going around the island. Look for Bill's boat it will be a mark boat should we shorten. The idea is to have fun racing and not bobbing around Budd Inlet all day and night.

Communication
If you have a cell phone, please have it on board so that you can contact me if you need a tow or other help during the race. I will ask you to call me on my cell at 360-239-8706 before the race so that I have your number. Gary Pedigo will be out on his boat out to help if you need it, and Jim Findley will be in Bill's boat as support. Please sail by the committee boat so that I can get your bow number and your names before the race, and contact me should you retire so that we don't have to look for you should you not finish.

Please comment if you have any questions or concerns.

Star Meeting Notes 9/21/08

2008-09-21T21:06:00.000-07:00

Race Schedule / Program
We had our fall meeting and there was a good group of us that discussed and voted on the proposition to change the racing program to have sailing on a single night of the week. After much discussion it was decided to keep it as we currently have it with Sailing on every other Monday and Thursday. Although the poll seemed to indicate otherwise, the difficulty comes in choosing a day that isn't in conflict with another SSSS activity or racing program. In the end those present decided to keep it as is.

In discussing what we could do better, the main issue was shortening the course and seeing the 'S' flag. We will look for ways to make it more visible and make sure that the sound signals are made when it is hoisted. If you want to make a comment about what we can do better next year for the racing program please do so on this page.

Black Star Chair
We need to have a committee chair for the Black Star next year. Since Myra wasn't at the meeting she was nominated and voted unanimously by those present. Thank you Myra for the work you have done in the past and we hope you will do it again.

District 6 Championships
Bill volunteered to chair the District 6 championship regatta committee. We will be looking for others to help with both the Black Star and the Districts. Tentatively we are looking at August 8 and 9. We will confirm the tides and make it official at the annual meeting next year.

Haul Out
We discussed the haul out dates. There will be one haul out the week after the Fall Regatta and another after the Hope Island Dash. We will be setting specific dates and asking all to indicate the date they want to haul out in the next few weeks.

Shop Dates
Bill asked that if you are going to have any major work done on your boat to schedule it early so that you will have enough time to get it done. Staring in January he wants to have the shop free to start bottom painting.

Bill Nominated
Steve Worcester announced that he has nominated Bill, on behalf of the Star Fleet, for the US Sailing Leadership award for this year. If anyone deserves this award it is Bill. Let's hope US Sailing agrees.

Comment if you were present at the meeting and I left anything out.

Race Night

2008-09-17T21:26:00.000-07:00

I have had discussions with some of you and have heard that it may be desirable to race on a single night rather than alternating between Monday and Thursday. Some have said they think it would increase participation.

What do you think? Vote in the poll on the right and let's see the will of the fleet.