Great intro to RRS video by our friend Patrick Rynne from the Miami RC Sailing Squadron using DragonForce 65s.
Effectively uses drone footage, video, animation, and easy to understand explanations to illustrate some of the basic situations we encounter in radio sailing.
Great for beginners to the sport!

Intro to Racing Rules of Sailing (RC Version) (22 min 18 sec)

In the you tube comments (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=if2mlruL4lY) someone questions Patrick's interpretations. Would be interested in a second opinion.

My opinion is that for the 15:15 time stamp question, Blue breaks R 16.1 later in the incident when she alters course while the boats are very close - no room given for Yellow to keep clear.

For the second query at 18.36 the boat with mark room is allowed to sail close to the mark as her proper course is close to the mark, and Green coming in from astern gets between Blue and the mark at her own risk. The question was about R 11 and the overlap - and Yes, R 11 will apply, but it is Green that is the (windward) keep clear boat. In this case, Blue as ROW and with mark room R 18.2(b) and (c) breaks R 16.1 by altering course, but is exonerated under R 21.

So I agree with the commentary.

John

Here's an interesting redress scenario that I read about. It happened in keelboats but could just as easily happen in RC boats.

Boat A is hailed as OCS, and is about to turn away to return to the start line. Before that can happen, Boat A and Boat B are involved in a collision which disables Boat A. Boat B accepts responsibility for the incident and retires from the race. Boat A files for redress, a request that Boat B supports.

You're the protest committee. What redress do you give? Go.

Deleted.

Originally Posted by Crunchy Frog

You're the protest committee. What redress do you give? Go.

My first reaction is that there is a trick in the question - what is meant by getting ready to return? If he was clearly returning, then he would be the keep clear boat - yet the info is that Boat B was guilty, so Boat A was not yet returning to start.

If Boat A wan not returning, then she was racing, and eligible for those benefits.

As the incident was at the start of a race, there is no indication of where Boat A could have finished , so redress could be average points of races sailed in this series.

If A was slowing down to get ready to return. it is possible that action helped cause the incident with boat B. If the PC found that boat A's actions contributed to the collision and damage, the the PC could refuse redress.

John

Here's one Boat A is rounding the windward mark to port followed by Boat B a half a boat length behind boat b misses the mark and hits boat A mid ship who is at fault

Originally Posted by BAJAN SAIL 51

Here's one Boat A is rounding the windward mark to port followed by Boat B a half a boat length behind boat b misses the mark and hits boat A mid ship who is at fault

Here is a diagram as I understand your description.

Boat B (red) is at fault. Boat A (Yellow) has mark room which includes the right to round the mark to sail her course. See the definition of Mark Room, especially part (b)

John

Originally Posted by hiljoball

My first reaction is that there is a trick in the question - what is meant by getting ready to return? If he was clearly returning, then he would be the keep clear boat - yet the info is that Boat B was guilty, so Boat A was not yet returning to start.

If Boat A wan not returning, then she was racing, and eligible for those benefits.

As the incident was at the start of a race, there is no indication of where Boat A could have finished , so redress could be average points of races sailed in this series.

If A was slowing down to get ready to return. it is possible that action helped cause the incident with boat B. If the PC found that boat A's actions contributed to the collision and damage, the the PC could refuse redress.

John

In the scenario as it was described, contact between A and B happened in the brief seconds after the start but before boat A was identified as over early. The point of the question was not whether there was a foul, or which boat was at fault, but what redress to offer. Average score is the first thought, but given that boat A was over early and required to return, that boat was already starting behind their average starting position. Average score seems generous given their requirement to return to the start line, had they been able to continue sailing.

One of the first questions that a Protest Committee should ask in a Redress hearing is "What redress are you asking for"?
I was on PC for a redress hearing where a boat was called over early by the RC in error - the boat came back and restarted and took the time that they lost. So their redress request was that that amount of time be subtracted from their finish time.

That was a reasonable request, and that redress was awarded and the boat was given points equal to her adjusted new finish position.

The problem here is that the boat was damaged and did not restart nor finish the race - so any redress adjustment is a pure guesstimate.

There is a case in the case book, Case 116 that describes a collision before the start, and awarded redress of average points for races sailed so far, in the event.

To me, the more interesting point to concentrate on is not the amount of redress - which will be arbitrary - but rather to look at whether or not the boat contributed to affecting her finish position by her own actions. For example, was the damage sufficient that she could not repair and continue in the race. Did she contribute to the collision by her actions, even though she was ROW?

John

The question of Redress posted above has a parallel in RC racing for big multi-heat events raced using HMS - how to award redress for an incident in Race 1 - a seeding race.

For those of you who race a popular class with big regatta turnouts, you will be familiar with using Heat Management System (HMS) to organise and score the heats in a multi-heat event. Occasionally there will be an incident in a seeding race in a big HMS regatta that generates a request for redress. However the issue for awarding Redress for a seeding race is that the 'score' for any other race has no resemblance to the 'score' for Race 1 and offers no value to help determine redress.

Here is my suggestion for how to go about awarding Redress for an incident in Race 1 Seeding race. This is just my idea and has no official standing, but any Protest Committee may find this offers a solution to the quandary.

For normal multi-heat races, we accept a mathematical model for redress - eg AVG points for some number of races - if later in the regatta, then AVG of races already sailed - but early in the regatta may be based on some selected range of future races. But how to assign redress for that seeding race, where the fleet make up and size of heat are quite different from the heats of Race 2 and beyond?

So I am extending that philosophy to race 1. But we cannot use the scores of future races as the fleet make up and size are different, so I am suggesting a different approach - use the boat's fleet position rather than the boat's score as the basis for a mathematical model – a pro-rated approach rather than and averaging approach.

Say we have a 48 boat fleet - 6 up/down. So we have three fleets, A.B.C. with 20 boats racing in a heat and 14 already assigned to the other heats just awaiting the promo/relegations. But the seeding heats for Race one would be 16 boats each. And the make up of the seeding races is to spread the top ranked sailors across the heats, followed by the intermediate, and then the lower ranked sailors.

Now we have a valid request for redress in a heat in Race 1. My suggestion is to award redress based on the boat's position in the regatta after some number of races to be set by the Protest Committee (more is better as it provides more accuracy).

Now ask yourself - if a boat was in the top one two or three spots at the end of the regatta, where would that boat be expected to finish in the seeding race? - probably first or second. So a good redress for that boat in the seeding race would be a score of 1 or 2.

Now ask, if the boat was at the bottom of the fleet at the end of the regatta, where would that boat be expected to finish in the seeding race? - probably near the bottom. So a good redress for that boat in the seeding race would be a score of 15 or 16.

Now ask, if the boat was in mid- fleet, around 24th at the end of the regatta, where would that boat be expected to finish in the seeding race? - probably near the middle, so a score of 8.

So I developed a simple formulae to support that logic. The mathematics for pro-rating a boat’s score in a seeding race uses the formulae

X =ROUNDUP(A/B*C)

where X is the boat’s redress points for Race 1,
A is the boat’s place (not score) in the regatta after a number of races set by the protest committee (eg after two or three discards or end of event, which ever comes first)
B is the total number of boats at the event
C is the number of boats in the seeding race.

I have a simple excel spreadsheet with the formulae if anyone wants it - send a PM with your email address - cannot attach here as xls is not accepted

John

At the UK IOM Nationals, this weekend, 25 August, at Eastbourne, there was a protest by the race committee (or maybe it was an observer, drawn from non-heat competitor?)that two boats made contact and neither raised a protest and neither took penalty turn. The protest committee decided to allow both boats to hold their positions (which would have otherwise meant a demotion to lower heat) and each must do a penalty turn after the start of the next race. This also meant that at least one, maybe two, lower heat competitors were denied opportunity for promotion. Is this legal? Have you come upon this? The event is still on till Monday 26 August, so perhaps you should wait till end of event before comment?

It sounds like they may have been applying E7(b).

I will not comment on the findings on a protest committee.

John

Yes, I guess that's it. But if there was contact, surely ""other than a rule of part 2 3 or 4" applies. Seems another competitor is now protesting the Race committee decision.

Just for completeness - the protest against the committee by other competitors (in C heat) resulted in the two original competitors (from B fleet) being disqualified and the C heat competitors being promoted. There were 2 reruns of the C fleet (total of 3 C heat races) and hours of racing lost.