December 2015 - It Is Legal – But Is It Right… And Should It Be Legal?
I ran into several situations during the past season where the questions above were asked. All of these scenarios are based on situations that took place on Lake Ontario this summer. I have adjusted them to change the fleet and event and sometimes to simplify the explanation. I would be interested in feedback and what people think of these scenarios. I can be reached at kyrules@alberti.ca.
Strategic Retiring After Finishing
In a multi-race series, two boats are in close contention for the season championship. In the last race, Atlantic has to beat Baltic and put another boat between them to win the series. On the water she does this. She finishes ahead of Caspian, who finishes ahead of Baltic. Soon after the finish Caspian goes to the race committee and says that she broke a rule during the race, so she is retiring. This puts Atlantic only one place ahead of Baltic, so Baltic wins the series.
Is it fair that Caspian decides to retire after she has finished? It is certainly legal. There is a scoring code specifically for it, “RAF” or “Retired After Finishing”. You are encouraged to use it if you discover that you broke a rule, unless there is some alternative penalty available. What if it is clear, however, that Baltic and Caspian are close friends? Does it make it different if Atlantic had actually hailed “protest” in an incident that Caspian later cited as a reason to withdraw?
Not Trying Hard Enough
In a youth championships that will qualify the top two boats to advance to the next level, Darien has won the series before the final race. Euphrates and Fraser are in contention for second place. Fraser needs to beat Euphrates by two places to finish second. Fraser is ahead of Darien and Darien is significantly ahead of Euphrates when they round the last mark. If the fleet stays in this order, Fraser will finish second in the series. Fraser and Darien go to opposite sides of the course. Euphrates follows Fraser. After Fraser finishes, she looks back and Darien still seems to be ahead, but she sailing slowly. Euphrates passes her, finishing second. Did Darien try hard enough? Is there a way to be sure? Is it right to not try hard enough? How could we ever judge or enforce it?
Covering hard
In another class in the same youth championships, Great Bear is leading going into the final race. There is only one boat that can catch her for first place. Hudson has to finish in first with Great Bear in last in order to win. Great Bear covers Hudson very aggressively from the start of the race. The two of them end up in last and second last. Great Bear wins the series. Ionian wins the race and since Hudson is in last, Ionian ends up in second place in the series. Is it fair that Great Bear covered Hudson so aggressively that lonian beat Hudson in the series? If Hudson had been one point worse in the previous races, then Great Bear wouldn’t have covered her and she could have finished second in the series.
There has been a lot of discussion over the years about some cases similar to this last one. How much can Great Bear do to cover Hudson? There is a situation described in ISAF Case 34. In that case, boat A with a scoring situation similar to Great Bear was OCS. She was hailed and deliberately didn’t come back. Instead she hindered B, a boat who was in Hudson’s position. A eventually retired from the race but by that time B was back far enough in the fleet that A would still win the championships. The race committee protested A for breaking rule 2, the fair sailing rule. The protest committee (and eventually the appeals committee) agreed that A’s actions had broken rule 2. The appeals committee went further and suggested that rule 69 (Gross Misconduct) might apply as well. A disqualification under rule 2 cannot be dropped and this was enough for B to win the championships. ISAF Case 65 discusses a similar situation with a similar conclusion. ISAF Case 75 digs further into this question through a series of questions and answers. It says that as long a boat does not deliberately break another rule and her actions are aimed at helping her own position in the race, the series or other related series, she is allowed to hinder another boat. If she does it just to assist another boat, for reasons unconnected with sport or breaks a rule deliberately, then she breaks the fair sailing rule (rule 2) and possible rule 69.1 (Gross Misconduct).
If we look back at our case, Great Bear was hindering Hudson to assure Great Bear’s own final result, so this is legal.
2 FAIR SAILING
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated. A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat’s series score.
69 ALLEGATIONS OF GROSS MISCONDUCT
69.1 Obligation not to Commit Gross Misconduct
(a) A competitor shall not commit gross misconduct, including a gross breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, or conduct bringing the sport into disrepute. Throughout rule 69, ‘competitor’ means a member of the crew, or the owner, of a boat.
(b) An allegation of a breach of rule 69.1(a) shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of rule 69.
ISAF Case Summaries
(ISAF Cases can be found on the web at http://www.sailing.org/documents/caseandcall/case-book.php)
Case 34
Hindering another boat may be a breach of rule 2 and the basis for granting redress and for action under rule 69.2
Case 65
When a boat knows that she has broken the Black Flag rule, she is obliged to retire promptly. When she does not do so and then deliberately hinders another boat in the race, she commits a gross breach of sportsmanship and of rule 2, and her helmsman commits a gross breach of sportsmanship.
Case 78
In a fleet race either for one-design boats or for boats racing under a handicap or rating system, a boat may use tactics that clearly interfere with and hinder another boat’s progress in the race, provided that, if she is protested under rule 2 for doing so, the protest committee finds that there was a reasonable chance of her tactics benefiting either her final ranking in the event or her chances of gaining selection for another event or for her national team. However, she breaks rule 2, and possibly rule 69.1(a), if while using those tactics she intentionally breaks a rule.
© Copyright 2015 Andrew Alberti
Posted: 12/1/2015 12:47:13 PM
by Andrew Alberti