SailJuice Blog

According to readers of US website Scuttlebutt whose Olympic Events 2012 poll concluded recently, the keelboats shouldn’t make the cut for Weymouth. Below are the results.

Ironically, this result comes in a week when 104 Stars are competing at their World Championships in Miami. That is a phenomenal turn-out and speaks volumes for the health of the class, although of course Miami is the spiritual home of the Star fleet. Turnouts here are always going to be good.

The strength in depth of the competition is impressive too. Former Finn Olympic Champion Mateusz Kusnierewicz and his Polish team mate Dominik Zycki (shown below in Fried Elliott’s photo) turned in an outstanding performance to win the first two heats, only to drop to 8th overall after scoring 44th in the third heat. There are some very good sailors finding themselves very deep in the results.

Americans John McCausland and Kevin Murphy hold the lead, tied for points with Australians Iain Murray and Andrew Palfrey. Now in his early 50s, Murray is showing he is as sharp as he was when he made his name winning a clutch of 18-foot skiff titles on Sydney Harbour in the 70s. Good on him.

So who’s right? The pollsters who voted the keelboats out, or the 208 keelboat sailors going about their business in Miami? Such a strong show from the ancient Star couldn’t come at a better time for the class, as its Olympic future hangs in the balance.

If the revote does take place this November, and it came down to a battle between multihull and keelboat, who deserves to win? Regular SailJuice readers know where my preferences lie, although of course I’d love to see both stay in.

I just can’t see ISAF going back to the IOC, cap in hand, begging for that 11th medal back. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago when the Star crept in through the back door to be reinstated for the Sydney Games. What’s a responsible parent to do when his prodigal son keeps overspending on his pocket money? We’ve already been bailed out once. I can’t see ISAF having the cheek to go back with the begging bowl for a second time. Yes, Jacques Rogge is a former Olympic sailor and it’s useful to have friends in high places. But he’s so keen to be seen as whiter than white and break the old accusations of corruption in the IOC, that his association with our sport could even work against us in situations like this. Never mind the fact that, with all the controversy around China and Tibet, Rogge has rather bigger fish to fry this side of August.

Nevertheless, former ISAF President Paul Henderson says this is what ISAF should seek to do, and he knows the politics much better than me. So I hope the ex-Pope is right to be so optimistic. Getting that 11th medal back would solve all the in-fighting about whose boat is better than whose – for the time being anyway. At some point we’re going to have to cut down to 10 Events. If not this November, it will be four years hence.

So who’s going to go? The Stars have thrown down the gauntlet with their 100+ entry list. That’s a strong statement by any measure. How will other Events under threat respond?

QUESTION: Someone once said: “The Olympics needs the Star boat more than the Star boat needs the Olympics.” What say you?

For overall results from the Star Worlds, click here…

For some ‘my boat’s better than yours’ arguments about the Finn, click here…

What a week for Jacques Rogge and the flickering Olympic flame. It makes our complaints about the sailing events for 2012 look rather trivial by comparison.

But that’s not going to stop us banging on about our favourite subject! It has been a busy week out there in the webosphere in the way of debate and discussion about Olympic Events for 2012. Scuttlebutt has been running a two-part poll to gauge what its readers would do if they were sitting around the ISAF Council table in Qingdao for the Mid-Year Meeting this May.

This was the premise for phase one of the Scuttlebutt poll:

“In our poll, we assumed that the majority voted not to reaffirm the decision, so we then voted on whether the selected events for the Men and Women needed to be changed. The yes-no target was two-thirds, or 66.67%. By the end of the vote, this is how the ‘buttheads felt regarding the following events that had been selected in November 2007 for the 2012 Olympics”:

So, a heavy suggestion to ISAF Council from Scuttlebutt’s readers that ISAF Council NOT ‘reaffirm’ its decision in Estoril last November. Of course, one can always take these online polls with a pinch of salt. Except to say that Scuttlebutt is a US-based publisher, and is likely to have a disproportionate number of US voters on its poll. Bearing in mind that US Sailing was the one that influenced the outcome of the vote in November, the results of this poll do not look very representative of US Sailing’s stance.

Anyway, having resolved that the vote should be reopened, Scuttlebutt is now asking its readers to vote on which Events are the most suitable for the Olympics in 2012. Here is a screen grab of the state of play on Thursday evening.

Right now, if you look at the two Men’s events that were facing off against each other last November, the Multihull is beating the Keelboat. And in the Women’s events, the Skiff is beating the Keelboat. There are a few other notable stats in there which might of interest.

If you don’t like the way this vote is going – or indeed if you do and you want it to stay that way – get yourself over to Scuttlebutt before voting closes sometime on Friday.

Not everyone has welcomed ISAF’s new submission with open arms. The UK Catamaran Racing Association’s Simon Morgan sent SailJuice this response to the submission, and Simon questions some of the language used by ISAF in this new document.

Here is Simon’s interpretation of things:

This is a welcome move in the right direction by ISAF, but it may sadly turn into a public relations disaster, the more closely it is publicly examined, because the leadership’s proposal is legally imprecise and open to suspicion of bias, to which its Members have now become highly sensitised.

Firstly, ISAF Members (MNA’s) should be congratulated for responding to the public concerns of the sailing community. It is impressive not only how widespread but also how comprehensive are their initiatives in seeking a better solution. They include submissions from 15 countries and 2 international classes on the selection of Events. Should a majority of Council vote in favour of change, but fail to reach the additional two-thirds hurdle that the leadership seeks to impose, (perhaps unnecessary at this juncture) they also include a further dozen submissions for multihull equipment to be considered alongside monohull equipment for the currently approved Events.

Strategically, there are also proposals to ask IOC for an 11th Event and to set up a new Multihull Committee, like Windsurfing. These are from nations rich and poor, large and small and all around the world.

They all should be thanked, especially those who have had to back down on their original decision for doing the decent thing in saying, ‘sorry we simply did not think about the multihull community because you were politically unorganised. Having read your lengthy report and listened to the enormous body of public opinion against the Estoril Events decision, we see that you are a significant part of the sport we all love and have organised yourself and we want to find a place for you somewhere in our “big church”.

But has ISAF leadership got that message?

Remember the November Council Meeting where Charley Cook “proposed that the voting process could be simplified…by making a slight modification”.

Remember Arve Sundheim’s letter to Members in November which excused the failure to advise Councillors of the 2002 IOC document on guidelines for Olympic Events entitled “Recommendations” on the basis that this was not “a policy of the IOC to recommend that if any events are to be removed from the Olympic Programme for sailing that it could be keelboat”

Remember the Minutes of the February Executive Meeting that responded to the host nation’s concerns by describing the choice of Events as “closed”, but now “recognizing the level of concerns over the decision as per the submissions received” the selection of Events is no longer closed.

If the leadership were genuinely open-minded why propose that Council “reaffirm” rather than “review” and why continue “upon reaffirmation”, rather than “if reaffirmed”, when such alternative neutral language is available? The accompanying press release continues in similar manner “The Executive Committee intent in making this submission is to bring to a close the current speculation challenging the Council decision”.

The proposal is even more grudging in that the Executive oddly asks Councillors to reaffirm rather than reject their decision. This raises questions about impartiality.
· Will the weight of authority be used to influence Councillors to vote for affirmation?
· Will the Executive be bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility or will they be allowed a free vote as their conscience dictates?
· Will David Kellett of Australia, as portfolio holder for Olympic issues, be obliged to speak favourably for the motion when he presents it, even if he voted for the two Events rejected in November?

The reality implied in this choice of words is that this is in effect a guillotine motion on the many valid submissions from members, which they would have the right to debate in May, if the Executive regards them as urgent, or in November if it does not. Worse still, it says Council will vote on this particular proposal, whatever its defects, because the Executive deems this to be urgent and can deem any other version to be not urgent.

Furthermore it sweepingly includes “all submissions” but what exactly are they? Does this mean rejection of the F18 proposal for a Multihull Committee like the Windsurfing Committee? Does this mean rejection of the New Zealand submission that ISAF apply to IOC for an 11th Event? Surely Regulation 1.5.1 on the proper form for submissions requires the leadership’s own submission to state what article, regulation or rule applies? How can Councillors decide if they do not know who has submitted what?

Why have Councillors not been given the list of Events submissions? They were made public for the Annual Conference, so why not for the Mid-Year Meeting? The agenda contains summaries of 25 other submissions, so why are these Events submissions not published? Does the leadership want to stop Members from finding out which other Members are unhappy?

The lack of legal precision causes further problems because Submission M06-08 asks Council to “reaffirm their decision” when in fact there was a complex of four procedural and five substantive decisions concerning the selection of Events in November. To which one is this proposal addressed? If all or none, why deny Councillors the right to choose from the menu?

According to the February Minutes, “The Executive Committee further observed that had such timely decision not occurred there would now exist an urgent need to make the event selection decision”. If it is now up for reconsideration, and would have been urgent, had it not been decided, why is it now urgent to start the process, but not complete it by deciding in May what the Events should be?

How can the Equipment Committee make recommendations if it does not know what the Events will be? Specifically, can it recommend either a mono- or a multihull class for Dinghy Events? Following the America’s Cup decision, can it recommend a multihull for a Keelboat Event?

There is one further demanding legal issue. Can a submission to reaffirm something, ever be legally valid? Submissions are made to change something. How absurd would it be for the British Parliament or US Congress sitting to pass an Act that already exists? They would surely only do so, if there were proposals to change it. This could be achieved by replacing the word “reaffirm” with “reject”.

In sum this proposal raises so many questions that it should be sent to the Constitutional Committee, with the request that it reformulate the proposal or proposals so that they are specific, unbiased and legally valid.

Simon Morgan

Founder Wildwind Holidays
Co-author UKCRA report to ISAF Council, March 2008

Question: Do you think there is more to this submission than meets the eye? Or is Simon just being paranoid?

The Royal Yachting Association has welcomed the International Sailing Federation’s move to reconsider the slate of sailing events for the 2012 Olympic Games.

It’s press statement says:

A controversial decision by ISAF Council during its annual conference in November 2007 led to the decision not to include a modern high performance dinghy for women, the expulsion of the multihull event and the introduction of a match racing format for the women’s keelboat event.

The RYA lobbied ISAF and fellow Member National Authorities, believing that the decisions taken were not in the best interests of the sport of sailing throughout the world, and requested that ISAF reviewed its decision on three grounds:

• That the current list of events will not maximise media interest.
• That the decisions are likely to attract fewer nations and young sailors into the sport of sailing
• That an amendment to the previously agreed voting procedure was hasty, and the process ultimately used for selecting events was flawed.

ISAF has agreed to re-open the discussion surrounding the sailing events for 2012 at its mid-year conference at Qingdao, China, in May.

RYA Chief Executive Rod Carr said: “We welcome the opportunity ISAF have presented to us to have a full and frank debate on these issues at the mid-year meetings.

“We believe the original decisions at the November conference were made in haste, and with many delegates not having a clear understanding of the issues involved and the process concerned.

“We hope that the meetings next month will pave the way for an inclusive and modern slate of events which will showcase our sport in the best possible light in 2012.”

Question: What do you think was most instrumental in getting the case for 2012 reopened? Pressure from the RYA? Other MNAs like Yachting Australia or the change of heart by Yachting NZ? Was it the well-orchestrated multihull lobby? Could any of this have happened 10 years ago without the Internet? Give us your expert analysis…

The list of Equipment Submissions for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition makes interesting and/or alarming reading, depending on your preferred flavour of sailing craft. Scroll to the bottom of this blog post and click on the images to see the list, or else download the pdf document here….

equipment-2012-sailjuice.pdf

The Ministry of Sports Affairs in Oman is putting a cat among the pigeons with multiple submissions of multihull classes as possible contenders for the two-person dinghy slots.

I can see another ‘keel yacht’ argument developing along similar lines to the America’s Cup debate of a few months back. Indeed it has already begun with the Hobie Class Executive Director David Forbes’ letter to Scuttlebutt this morning. Does a two-hulled sailing boat have equal claim as a monohull to the term ‘dinghy’? I doubt that was the intention, but it goes to show how dirty this fight is going to get, with not enough places to satisfy everyone.

The Sonar class has made a submission for Women’s Match Racing, which you’ll see on page 3. Instead of putting itself into the fray, the Sonar’s generous submission is for the Soling to be considered for the ladies. Yes, the ladies will thank you for that one, I’m sure. Female shot-putters of the world unite! Shurely shome mistake here, methinks… [ISAF has subsequently been in touch to say that the Sonar is putting itself up - and not the Soling - for consideration after all. Sorry to raise your hopes, shot-putters...]

Other notable pretenders to various crowns include the Musto Skiff and the Laser SB3. Seeing as both of these classes have recently earned ISAF International status, perhaps they should be taken seriously. I don’t see any challengers to the 29erXX from other skiff manufacturers, so if a Women’s High Performance Doublehander prevails over Women’s Match Racing, perhaps the selection sail-off will be between a 29erXX and a number of multihulls.

Strange, but interesting times indeed.

Question: Can a multihull be considered a dinghy? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Here are the four pages of Equipment submissions. CLICK ON THE IMAGES to see them in full. Enjoy!

Congratulations to Penny Clark, who has just been selected as GBR’s Olympic representative in the Laser Radial. This brings to an end the four-way battle for selection in one of the few classes where Great Britain’s chances are not all that strong. Having said that, Penny did win a bronze on Qingdao waters two years ago at the first Test Regatta.

Having recently won a surprise Bronze medal at the Women’s Laser Radial World Championships, Andrea Brewster will doubtless be disappointed that this wasn’t enough to keep her selection hopes alive. But Penny Clark has been the more consistent performer and this is doubtless what has given her the place ahead of her three team mates and rivals. The other two in the frame were Charlotte Dobson and Lizzie Vickers.

The British Olympic Association also announced the rest of the sailing team who were still to be formally confirmed, although there are no surprises here: RS-X sailors Nick Dempsey and Bryony Shaw; 470 teams Nick Rogers/Joe Glanfield and Christina Bassadone/Saskia Clark; and Tornado sailors Leigh McMillan/Will Howden.

Penny Clark commented: “I think the trials process for us has been really important preparation for China, and has actually been a good experience. There was lots of pressure on me heading into the Worlds as I felt the trials were mine to lose after Miami. Learning how to sail under pressure and still delivering a result at the Worlds has shown that I can carry it off – and working with the girls and training as a squad has played a big part in that.”

Like Penny Clark, Saskia Clark (no relation as far as I’m aware) will be a first-timer at the Games. “I am massively excited, we packed up our first two boxes last week and it’s a silly thing, but it indicated it’s all getting very close now. Everyone says the Olympics are a very different regatta and you don’t appreciate it until you’ve done one. But Christina competed at Athens and there are many other members of the team who have competed at past Games so I’ve been able to get an invaluable insight into what it’s likely to be like.

“From the outset Qingdao was a bit of a controversial choice of venue because of its reputation for the light winds but we have all just been getting on with it. At the Test Event last year, they managed to get a reasonable series of races in so it might not be as disastrous as some people have been forecasting but you never know and have to be ready for anything.”

Question: Do you think the sailors will get a full series of races in Qingdao? If they don’t, will the right people still win?

If you’ve just put your Tornado up for sale, then withdraw it from the market immediately!

ISAF has just published a new submission that might interest you.

Yes, it’s official. The Events for the 2012 Olympics are back on the agenda.

Here is what the new Submission says:

REPORTING COMMITTEE – EXECUTIVE

Submission: M06-08

OTHER COMMITTEE – EVENTS

2012 Olympic Events

A submission from the Executive Committee

Proposal:

That Council reaffirm their decision on the 2012 Olympic Events made in November
2007 by a simple majority vote.

Upon reaffirmation, the matter will be concluded and all submissions made whether
accepted as urgent or not urgent, will be considered to have been dealt with.

Should Council vote not to reaffirm the decision, two separate votes will then follow:

1. Should the selected events for the Men be changed – A majority of two thirds
will be required to effect any change as per Regulation 16.1.3 (a).
2. Should the selected events for the Women be changed – A majority of two
thirds will be required to effect any change as per Regulation 16.1.3 (a).
In case one or both of the votes under 1 and 2 above achieve the required majority,
the ‘new’ decisions on the list of events for the 2012 Olympic Events shall be made in
November 2008 and submissions on the events can be made in accordance with
Regulation 1.

Current Position:

See above.

Reason:

Due to the degree of correspondence since the Council decision in November 2007
plus the submissions lodged by 15 MNA and 2 Class Associations, the Executive
submit that Council be requested to reaffirm their decision on the events for the 2012
Olympic Sailing Competition made in November 2007. This will then bring to a close
any concerns over the Council decision.

In case one or both of the votes under 1 and 2 above achieve the required majority,
submissions on the events can be made in accordance with Regulation 1. This
would include the submissions made for the Mid-Year Meeting which were deemed
not urgent, which will become ordinary submissions received before the 1 August
submission deadline.

Click below to download the pdf document

2012-submission-sailjuice.pdf

Question: The Multihull and the Women’s Skiff have been given a second chance. What do you think ISAF Council will vote for this time?

It seems the America’s Cup is heading back to court.

Again.

So SailJuice will stay away from this tedious topic until it shows signs of returning to a sailing contest.

I will just draw your attention to an open letter written by Mascalzone Latino boss Vincenzo Onorato, one of the disgruntled ‘non-Challengers’. It’s called How To Save the America’s Cup. He makes a few sensible suggestions (which admittedly are worth diddly in the strange netherworld of the 33rd AC) and he drops a few bombshells too.

You can read Vincenzo’s full text here.

Here’s a bit to whet your appetite (if you’ve got any appetite left for this legal borefest. Even John Grisham lost interest months ago):

“Following the launch of the challenge, ACM sent us an invoice for fifty thousand euros which we paid immediately. Are we perhaps the only ones to have done so to date? They replied in writing that they would accept our challenge only if we withdrew our declaration filed with the Supreme Court of New York. This is not required by the protocol, but it is clear that Alinghi writes and rewrites the rules to suit its needs.

“I answered by reminding them that a citizen accepts the laws even if he doesn’t agree with them and that in a democracy there is freedom of speech and criticism. The simple metaphor was not understood. ACM/Alinghi replied by claiming a public abjuration. It would have been pointless to remind them that the last Italian forced to make such a strong retraction was Giordano Bruno, in medieval times under the Holy Inquisition…

“It’s a harsh precedent that will weigh on the future of the Cup and those who love sailing, but leaving irony aside, we must seriously consider that this event has been profoundly damaged by Alinghi. The sponsors have disappeared and people are tired of all these controversies.”

Was Lijia Xu unlucky to lose the gold at the Women’s Laser Radial Worlds last week, after her disqualification from the final race due to excessive kinetics? Or should the Chinese sailor count herself lucky to hang on to silver?

It depends on how you view kinetic infringements, I suppose. It wasn’t so long ago that Paige Railey fell foul of the system on two big occasions - racking up three RR42 penalties which up until recently was sufficient to see you disqualified from the whole regatta. Railey was booted out of the 2006 Worlds and then at the Rolex Miami OCR in early 2007. You could argue that Railey got what she deserved, if the American sailor was pushing the limits to such an extent when the penalty was so harsh.

But are pumping, ooching, or other forms of kinetics really the worst misdemeanours that we see in sailing? I don’t think so. And yet they are punished more harshly than almost anything else in the sport. Under the old system, disqualification from an entire regatta was a penalty far too far.

The punishment must fit the crime.

So at least ISAF has relaxed the penalities to the point where non-discardable disqualification from the race (DNE) – and not the series – is the penalty for your third RR42 infringement. This is a step in the right direction. I doubt this would have happened under Paul Henderson’s watch when he was President of ISAF.

Here’s a clip from an interview he did with Sailing Anarchy about a year ago. Anarchy asked the past President:

If a sailor gets three yellow flags for Rule 42 violations, should they be considered as a cheater?

Henderson:

I consider it anarchy. They have decided that they will change the game to “Air Rowing” and not play by the game called “Sailing”.

Sailing uses “wind” not “air”. Wind is moving air and is a natural action on the sails not a contrived action of fanning against air.

The “Air Rowers” believe that they can gain an advantage by knowingly breaking the rules which I guess is cheating. The Rules give the benefit of the doubt to the sailors by allowing 3 flags then they are sent home.

Read the rest of the article to understand the full extent of Paul’s objection to ‘air rowing’.

That, if I may say so, is an extremist’s viewpoint. Kinetics are a legitimate part of a sailor’s armoury. Kinetics done well, will accelerate the boat. Kinetics done badly, will slow the boat down. So kinetic propulsion is a skill.

Now, I’m not saying kinetics should be a free-for-all. Pumping and ooching certainly shouldn’t run unchecked, and in many cases I think they are probably policed at about the right level. But unlike Paul - who would probably want to see the old rule of being kicked out of the whole regatta for a third infringement reinstated - I still think the new, softer rule is too harsh.

My suggestion would be a 720 degree turn for any infringement picked up by the on-water judges. 720 for first offence, second offence, third, fourth and however many more times a sailor might be foolish enough to stray the wrong side of the grey line. A 720 is a big penalty in a fleet as closely fought as an Olympic class like the Laser Radial. If a 720 doesn’t curb the fleet’s general behaviour regarding RR42, then increase it to a 1080 turn! But don’t disqualify them.

Unlike Paul’s interpretation of this misdemeanour, where he seems to view Rule 42 infringers as premeditated cheats, this is patently not the case. The whole area of Rule 42 is a big grey wishy-washy place, open to all kinds of interpretation. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the whole list of interpretations which I’ve pasted at the bottom of this post. Knowing how far to push your kinetics is part of the game, but just because you stray the wrong side of the grey line doesn’t make you a cheat.

Let me give you an example which I witnessed at the start of the Medal Race at this year’s 49er World Championships in Melbourne. It was blowing about 18 to 20 knots, with a choppy sea. The Ukrainian team, Rodion Luka and George Leonchuk, were lining up the for start, trying to maintain their position when an umpire whistled them for excessive rudder sculling and forced them to take a 720 penalty. In the process of taking the penalty they capsized and were very late off the line. It blew their chances of winning the regatta and they had to settle for bronze.

Now, the capsize is not the umpire’s fault, but if he knew what effect a heavily-sculled 49er rudder has on forward propulsion – ie none whatsoever – then he wouldn’t have felt the need to penalise the UKR team in the first place. You can scull a 49er rudder all day and it will get you absolutely nowhere. Certainly not in 18 knots’ breeze! The only reason why skippers do it is to stop the boat going head to wind and stalling.

CORRECTION: Although I did ask after the Medal Race what had happened, it seems I didn’t ask the right people, as the umpire in question, John Doerr, sent in this reply. My apologies to John for the error. I have repeated his comment here. “I happen to have been the judge that gave UKR the penalty at the recent 49er Worlds. The penalty was given following a protest by AUS for a port/starboard incident. It had NOTHING to do with rule 42. It is a real pity that Andy did not check his facts before using this incident to make his point. I hope he will issue a correction. John Doerr.“

One coach, of a team who are reigning world champions in their Olympic class, says the big problem is the consistency at which umpires police the kinetics on the water. What one umpire deems as acceptable, another will say is punishable.

This is yet another reason why sailors should not be disqualified from races. Even if the umpires were running a system that was consistent – and when you read the interpretations below, you will see that they will never be able to achieve this, no matter how hard they try – disqualification from a race is a ridiculously harsh penalty. ISAF has made a step in the right direction, but it needs to go further. A 720 for every infringement, and leave it at that.

Question: What do you think is the appropriate penalty for infringing Rule 42? Who are you with?

• The Henderson ‘Hang ‘em’ brigade?
• The ISAF ‘chop off the offending limb’ scenario, which exists now?
• The Andy Rice woolly liberal ‘smack them on the bottom twice’ alternative - ie 720s every time?
• Or is there a ‘fourth way’ that hasn’t been mentioned here?

Remember, the punishment must fit the crime…

INTERPRETATIONS OF RULE 42, PROPULSION

INTERPRETATIONS OF TERMS USED
A term used as stated below is shown in italic type. Other terms that are specific to rule 42 are defined in the rule.
Background rolling is the minimum degree of rolling caused by the waves.
Body pumping is the movement of a sail caused by in and out or up and down body movement.
A flick is the effect caused by body movement or pulling in or releasing a sail that is so abrupt that the normal shape of the sail is changed and almost immediately returned to the original shape.
A pump is a single pull on a sail that is unrelated to wind or waves.
Repeated means more than once in the same area on a leg.
A roll is a single-cycle athwartship movement of the boat during which the mast goes to leeward and back to windward, or vice versa.
Torquing is repeated fore and aft or rotating movement of the body.
Yellow light area is a phrase used when it is not clear that an action is prohibited. It is unlikely that a boat in the yellow light area would be protested, but it is possible. If the action is repeated, the likelihood of a protest will rapidly increase.

42.1 Basic Rule
Except when permitted in rule 42.3 or 45, a boat shall compete by using only the wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her speed. Her crew may adjust the trim of sails and hull, and perform other acts of seamanship, but shall not otherwise move their bodies to propel the boat.

INTERPRETATIONS (Basic)
BASIC 1 An action that is not listed in rule 42.2 may be prohibited under rule 42.1.
BASIC 2 A kinetic technique not listed in rule 42.2 that propels the boat, and is not one of the permitted actions covered in rule 42.1, is prohibited.
BASIC 3 An action prohibited in rule 42.2 cannot be considered as permitted under rule 42.1.
BASIC 4 Except when permitted under rule 42.3, any single action of the body that propels the boat (in any direction) with the effect of one stroke of a paddle is prohibited.

42.2 Prohibited Actions
Without limiting the application of rule 42.1, these actions are prohibited:

INTERPRETATION
BASIC 5 An action listed in rule 42.2 is always prohibited, even if it fails to propel the boat.
42.2 Prohibited Actions
Without limiting the application of rule 42.1, these actions are prohibited:
(a) pumping: repeated fanning of any sail either by pulling in and releasing the sail or by vertical or athwartships body movement;

INTERPRETATIONS (Pumping)
PUMP 1 Fanning is moving a sail in and out not in response to wind shifts, gusts or waves.
PUMP 2 Pulling in and releasing a sail in response to wind shifts, gusts or waves is permitted, even if repeated (see rule 42.1).
PUMP 3 Except when permitted under rule 42.3(c), one pump may be prohibited under rule 42.1.
PUMP 4 A flick of a sail resulting from the sudden stopping of an eased sheet is permitted.
PUMP 5 One flick of a sail due to body pumping, or a pump not permitted by rule 42.3(c), is in the yellow light area. Body movement that does not result in a flick of a sail does not break rule 42.2(a), but may break other parts of rule 42.
PUMP 6 Repeated flicks of a sail due to body pumping are prohibited.

42.2 Prohibited Actions
Without limiting the application of rule 42.1, these actions are prohibited:
(b) rocking: repeated rolling of the boat, induced by
(1) body movement,
(2) repeated adjustment of the sails or centreboard, or
(3) steering;

INTERPRETATIONS (Rocking)
ROCK 1 A roll of the boat caused by a gust or a lull followed by corrective body movement to restore proper trim is permitted by rule 42.1.
ROCK 2 One roll that does not have the effect of a stroke of a paddle is permitted.
ROCK 3 Background rolling is permitted. A boat is not required to stop this type of rolling.
ROCK 4 Adopting any static crew position or any static setting of the sails or centreboard, even when stability is reduced, is permitted by rule 42.1 and is not prohibited by rule 42.2(b).
ROCK 5 A single body movement that is immediately followed by repeated rolling of the boat is prohibited.

42.2 Prohibited Actions
Without limiting the application of rule 42.1, these actions are prohibited:
(c) ooching: sudden forward body movement, stopped abruptly;
INTERPRETATIONS (Ooching)
OOCH 1 Torquing to change the fore and aft trim of the boat in phase with the waves is permitted, provided it does not result in pumping the sails.
OOCH 2 Torquing on flat water is prohibited.

42.2 Prohibited Actions
Without limiting the application of rule 42.1, these actions are prohibited:
(d) sculling: repeated movement of the helm that is either forceful or that propels the boat forward or prevents her from moving astern;

INTERPRETATIONS (Sculling)
See interpretations of rule 42.3(d).

42.2 Prohibited Actions
Without limiting the application of rule 42.1, these actions are prohibited:
(e) repeated tacks or gybes unrelated to changes in the wind or to tactical considerations.

INTERPRETATION (Tacking and Gybing)
TACK 1 In a steady wind and in the absence of tactical considerations, a boat that tacks or gybes more than twice in quick succession breaks rule 42.2(e). In light wind a boat is in the yellow light area if she tacks or gybes noticeably more frequently than nearby boats.

42.3 Exceptions
(a) A boat may be rolled to facilitate steering.

INTERPRETATIONS (Rolling to Facilitate Steering)
ROCK 6 Heeling to windward to facilitate bearing away and heeling to leeward to facilitate heading up are permitted.
ROCK 7 Repeated rolling not linked to wave patterns is rocking prohibited by rule 42.2(b), even if the boat changes course with each roll.

42.3 Exceptions
(b) A boat’s crew may move their bodies to exaggerate the rolling that facilitates steering the boat through a tack or a gybe, provided that, just after the tack or gybe is completed, the boat’s speed is not greater than it would have been in the absence of the tack or gybe.

INTERPRETATIONS (Rolling while Tacking or Gybing)
ROCK 8 Body movements that exaggerate rolling and cause a boat to sail out of a tack or a gybe at the same speed as she had just before the manoeuvre are permitted.
ROCK 9 It is permitted to move the mast to windward of vertical at the completion of a tack or a gybe.
BASIC 6 After a tack when a boat is on her new close-hauled course, movement propelling the boat like a stroke of a paddle is prohibited under rule 42.1.
BASIC 7 When the speed of a boat clearly drops after she accelerates out of a tack or a gybe, and there is no obvious change of wind speed or direction, the exception in rule 42.3(b) does not apply and the boat breaks rule 42.1

42.3 Exceptions
(c) Except on a beat to windward, when surfing (rapidly accelerating down the leeward side of a wave) or planing is possible, the boat’s crew may pull the sheet and the guy controlling any sail in order to initiate surfing or planing, but only once for each wave or gust of wind.

INTERPRETATIONS (Surfing and Planing)
PUMP 7 A pull of the sheet and guy made to attempt to surf or plane when surfing or planing conditions are marginal is permitted even if the attempt is not successful.
PUMP 8 If a boat repeats an unsuccessful attempt to plane or surf, she is in the yellow light area.
PUMP 9 Each sail may be pulled at a different time, but only as permitted by rule 42.3(c).
PUMP 10 It is only necessary for surfing or planing conditions to exist at the position of a boat for her to be permitted to make one pull of the sheet or guy.
PUMP 11 Surfing or planing may be possible for some boats but not for others. This can be caused, for example, by local gusts or by waves from a motorboat. Also, lighter crews may be able surf or plane when heavier crews cannot.

42.3 Exceptions
(d) When a boat is above a close-hauled course and either stationary or moving slowly, she may scull to turn to a close-hauled course.

INTERPRETATIONS (Sculling to Turn the Boat)
SCULL 1 Provided the boat’s course is above close-hauled and she clearly changes direction towards a close-hauled course, repeated forceful movements of the helm are permitted, even if the boat gains speed. She may turn to a close-hauled course on either tack.
SCULL 2 After a boat has sculled in one direction, further connected sculling to offset the first sculling action is prohibited.
SCULL 3 Sculling to offset steering of the boat caused by backing a sail is prohibited.

42.3 Exceptions
(e) A boat may reduce speed by repeatedly moving her helm.
(f) Any means of propulsion may be used to help a person or another vessel in danger.
(g) To get clear after grounding or colliding with another boat or object, a boat may use force applied by the crew of either boat and any equipment other than a propulsion engine.

The TP52 Strewth, which lost its keel in the early hours of Friday during the Rolex China Sea Race, arrived safely back in Hong Kong this afternoon under power. The boat was hauled out at the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club where it will be inspected and the cause attempted to be determined.

Skipper Geoff Hill was obviously relieved to be safely ashore with his crew, saying, “We were very lucky. I can’t think of any other race boat that’s come back without a keel after 200 miles.” Describing the incident Hill said, “We had just gone past Ffreefire and Hi Fi. We were sailing a bit off the wind doing about 12 knots in 25 knots, sailing about 80 degrees off the breeze. I think we had a number four and the main up. We had most of the crew on the rail and the boat was going really, really well. We weren’t pushing any harder - we’re very conscious of it and you can’t win races if the crew and boat don’t get there.

“When the accident happened, there were two cracks and the bolts broke: the first time, the boat shivered and we thought tension or something had happened and we kept on racing. The second one, the boat actually tipped. And because of the big broad stern, it swung around rather than tipped over. Then the guys brought the boat up into the breeze and then we let the sails off so that there wasn’t any pressure.

“We did a Sea Safety instruction course before the start of the race so we had a buddy system and everybody had their harness and gear on, and so we had them all on deck within a couple of minutes. We had the sails down, we assessed the situation and got the life raft out and then we started to balance the boat, we put water in down below.

“Then we started to marshal our resources because we realized that we were 200 miles from anywhere. And it was closer to go back to Hong Kong than it was to go to the Philippines. And so we elected — even though it seemed like a long way to go without a keel — that we would try. Very stressful night, everyone was on deck awake. Next morning, just before the ‘sked’, we spoke to the race office again and they had been in touch with some of the other competitors. And we saw Cloud (the Beneteau 44.7, in IRC Racing 2, skipper Olivier Decamps) on the horizon, nicest cloud we’ve ever seen!

“They came to our aid and, very unselfishly, gave up their race, and they’re a very good boat, they would have done very well (in the race). They escorted us back and I think that is true seamanship. I think that’s one of the spirits of racing. I’ve done quite a few Rolex races, mainly the Rolex Sydney Hobart, but I’ve done Newport Bermuda too, and I think that is real spirit of competitorship, you give up yourself to stand by, and they escorted us all the way back and that was fantastic.”

Hill concluded, “(ISAF) Category 1 safety is very important, crew training is important, and we would not have survived if we had not had that experience. I had just gone and done my course. I had done the course before but I didn’t renew it, and the last thing the guy told me was, ‘If you are out there long enough, it’ll happen to you’. But I didn’t think it was going to be that quickly!”