"Rules is rules whatever , they are not open to interpretation"

[TallBuoy]

MarkHomer made this comment in the Hamble Winter Series thread, so rather than cause a massive drift, I thought I would lift it out and start a new discussion.

Its not always that black and white, IMHO.

The RRS are written in relatively plain english so lots of people can understand them around the world without lawyers having to dissect and explain them. The Rules are used by club sailors on gravel pits, with one of them acting as RO for the day, up to major international regattas with Judges and Umpires basing decisions on them.

As such, there is some requirement for interpretation, not least to ensure compliance with Rule 2 - Fair Sailing which itself requires interpretation i.e. "recognised principles of sportsmanship and fair play".

The ISAF Case Book is entitled "Interpretations of the Racing Rules of Sailing".
It's fascinating reading material ...... so I'm told ! http://www.sailing.org/news/34206.php

 

[DFL1010]

I think if you're going to quote the chap, probably best to provide some context.

Starts with Flaming's post here about a video:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?441542-2015-Hamble-Winter-Series&p=5509457#post5509457

And the quote itself comes from this post:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?441542-2015-Hamble-Winter-Series&p=5510410#post5510410

 

[TallBuoy]

Yes I know, I have been following the thread for several weeks. I was starting a more generic discussion rather than the specifics of that one.

 

[DFL1010]

Well, I do think it matters.

The rule discussed there is very much a yes/no, binary thing.
The crew's head is outside the upper guardrail whilst facing inboard. There's no argument under the rules available: based on that video, the boat has broken R49.2.


However, there are rules that allow for interpretation. A typical one is 'how much room is too much'? "Manoeuvre promptly in a seamanlike way". Define 'promptly', or 'seamanlike'. Then add in Case 103: "boat-handling that can reasonably be expected from a competent, but not expert, crew of the appropriate number for the boat."

So yes there's interpretation available there.

I'd therefore suggest that some rules are gin-clear, and others are woollier than a field full of sheep.
To take a statement made about the former situation and try to apply it to the latter may not be an entirely fruitful, or fair, way to raise the topic, IMHO.

 

[markhomer]

Yeah tall,person dont quote me out of context , thanks dfl

 

[TallBuoy]

Yeah tall,person dont quote me out of context , thanks dfl

Okay chaps, lets not fall out over it.

My point is that many of the Rules are open to interpretation, probably explained better by DFL than me. So a statement that says they are not is misleading.

 

[markhomer]

Not falling out , but when starting a thread ,try and think of others , dont worry im good
My comments were in context of rule we were speaking about , you missed that out , which changes everything .

Thankfully dfl saw a more balanced outlook on the matter
Cheers

 

[Keen_Ed]

From the PC's point of view, a protest is a two stage process. Find the facts, then apply the rules. Facts are facts - A luffed, B bore away etc. The application of the rules requires the PC to make conclusions. E.g. as A luffed, she gave C room to keep clear. When G acquired RoW by tacking, she didn't initially give H room to keep clear. (And keeping clear doesn't just mean "didn't hit". You can fail to keep clear even if there wasn't any contact. )

Or, how much space is mark room? Well, it depends. See ISAF case 21. Did J give K mark room? Find the facts and make a judgement. It's what judges do.

Incidentally, the one case in the ISAF case book that everybody should read is ISAF case 50 - deals with P/S.