I typed in and "sent" a reply already but it mysteriously vanished and
didn't get posted! So, if you've seen prior comments by me I apologize.
2c. Re: Laser North American Master Handicap System
Posted by: "gordon" gordondavies@eircom.net gordonwilliamdavies
Date: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:21 am ((PST))
I would assume that "scoring penalty" in those SIs is "shorthand"
(often a euphemism for sloppy drafting) for "Scoring Penalty as
defined in rule 44.3(c)". The penalty for for an Arbitration
decision is a Scoring Penalty of 30% see SI 20.3
I think this wording can be improved. Use of CAPS in "Scoring Penalty"
implies that it is the "Scoring Penalty" referred to in rule 44.3, which
it is NOT (for example, no yellow flat is required).
Original SI wording was: "If the arbitrators penalise a boat, the
penalty will be a scoring penalty of 30% (rounded up to the next whole
number) of the number of entrants in the fleet. See rule 44.3(c)."
Instead, for the last phrase use "the penalty shall be a scoring penalty
of 30%, calculated as provided in rule 44.3(c)."
Using "scoring penalty" instead of "Scoring Penalty" clarifies that this
is NOT the standard Scoring Penalty of rule 44.3 (so, for example, no
yellow flag is required). Using "calculated as provided in" means that
certain important concepts will automatically apply, such as "no worse
than DNF" and "round <0.5 down and 0.5 or greater up."
Note - The actual SI wording rounds 4.001 up to 5.0 whereas rule 44.3(c)
(invoked by my wording) does not. I feel the default in 44.3(c) is a
better policy. But, if you want the original instead then for the last
phrase use "the penalty shall be a scoring penalty of 30%, calculated as
provided in rule 44.3(c) except that any fractional number of places
shall be rounded to the next highest whole number of places." But, as I
said, I think the default in 44.3(c) is fairer and I would use that.
PTS does create a problem - there is nothing in the SIs that
removes the possibility for a competitor penalised after crossing
the finishing line to take a penalty under rule 44.2 then
finishing according to the definition of finishing. Surely, if a
boat is given a penalty after finishing she has not finished
until she has completed the penalty, and, under P2.1, if she does
not take a penalty she is DSQ without a hearing.
This comment doesn't make sense to me.
The RRS may not be as straight-forward as they should be (meaning that
the answer isn't obvious). However, I believe that upon study it is
clear that a competitor may take the appropriate penalty under P2.1 and
refinish. That is intended and not a mistake. The logic is:
i. P2.1 says that you can be penalized for breaking rule 42 after you
have finished and even after you are no longer racing (finished or
retired and cleared the finishing line and marks) although of course the
incident must have occurred before you finished.
ii. The penalty under P2.1 is a Two-Turns Penalty under 44.2.
iii. The Defn "Finish" says that a boat finishes when she "crosses the
finishing line in the direction of the course from the last mark, either
for the first time or after taking a penalty under rule 44.2 or ...."
So, if you take a penalty under 44.2, for whatever reason, and refinish
then your appropriate finish is the refinish. However, the RC should be
sure to note the order (or time) of both crossing in case it is needed
by the PC for redress or whatever.
I am all in favour of giving such a boat a Scoring Penalty in
lieu of DSQ, as this makes life easier for race committee, judges
and competitors but the SIs would have to modify P2.1. After a
rapid perusal of supplied SIs I couldn't find such a
modification.
Gordon
This might not be a bad idea for anyone who "forgets" to take the
penalty and refinish but frankly it seems to me to be unnecessary
complication. Personally, I don't think I would be inclined to use it.
Art