Jan 04 2012
Frozen Sheets Race Notice – amended results
FROZEN SHEETS OPEN MEETING 27 DECEMBER 2011
The Race Committee announce that the previously published results were calculated in error not in accordance with the Racing Rules of Sailing and the Sailing Instructions. The error is now remedied with the publication of correct results.
Background
The Sailing Instructions state the following:
1. Unless the number of rounds was signalled in advance then after an appropriate sailing time has elapsed International Code Flag S would be displayed and boats would be finished when they next passed through the finish line.
2. Scoring would be calculated on the basis of average lap times.
3. Results would be calculated on the basis of average lap times.
After International Code Flag S had been raised, boats were finished, and the times recorded, as they next passed the finishing line. In calculating the published results the time of raising Code Flag S was reduced by a few minutes compared with the actual time of raising the flag which resulted in the last lap of 5 boats being excluded when calculating the corrected times. This was undertaken in order to make an adjustment because two classes of boat with the same PN (49er and 29er) had each been split at the time of raising the flag.
This has been reviewed. This method of adjustment of average lap times has not been used previously by the organising authority and is not part of suggested practice by the RYA, and is not therefore in accordance with the Rules or Sailing Instructions. The published results were incorrect and have now been amended.
Race Committee
3 January 2012
6 Responses to “Frozen Sheets Race Notice – amended results”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s disappointing that the RYA do not have an established practice for this scenario. While it might not have happened previously at TBYC I’m sure that it must have happened elsewhere.
The RYA does have established guidance (last revised 2009) and from what I can see, the recalculated results are incorrect. As it appears that Colin and Amanda were ahead of Steve and Paul and completed one more lap they should benefit from the “Same PN Adjustment” provision. Details at: http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/technical/Web%20Documents/2007%20Portsmouth%20Yardstick%20Scheme/2007%205%20Average%20Lap%20Racing.pdf
Kevin
Interesting range of views here:
http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8863&PN=1&title=mass-handicap-average-laps-split-classes
Both Graham and Phil have spoken to the RYA and Graham, Gary and Nick are aware of the same PN adjustment multiplier calculation mentioned in the RYA documentation. The SC are looking into the possibility of using the multiplier calculation in future events, but need to ensure its compatibility or integration into our results software package.
It should be noted that the multiplier calculation only does what it says and adjusts the corrected times of boats with the same PN. This has its obvious uses, but only increases the ave lap time and lowers the position of the boats who have done fewer laps than the fastest boat in the class. It does not address the inherent problem of average lap racing between classes in a dying breeze. It would not alter the winner of the race as published in the results yesterday.
This was also an problem earlier in the season in a midweek GH race, when despite leading us all around the course Kyle in his Nacra lost to Julian and I in the Hurricane because we stopped before the wind dropped. This was discussed at the next SC meeting with both Kyle and I present, where it was decided that although ‘unfair’ that was the result as the race officer called the race and was a known problem of inter class ALR with no solution. The same PN adjustment multiplier could not be applied because we were in different boats. The result was left unchanged.
If anyone does know of a possible solution, either in software or a calculation used at another club, then please let the SC know befre we discuss it and finalise next years SI at, our Feb meeting.
Anyway, you cant win the frozen sheets till next year!, so why not enter the Wetsuit Outlet 2012 Olympic Trophy on Sat then start the Icicle on Sunday, Great Prizes to be Won, thanks again to Peter for sponsoring the event.
See you on the water on Sat.
Jeremy
Surely the rules are the rules and the software should return results in compliance with the rules? I am not aware of any local variation of the RYA standard in our sailing instructions.
We need to recognise that handicap racing will always be unfair and we all need to take the rough with the smooth with some boats benefiting from the vagaries of the weather on one day and others benefting on another day. However, if one boat is ahead of another with the same PN at the time the shortened course is displayed, it seems bleedin’ obvious to me which should be given the higher position.
The easiest way of making the racing fairer is to have smaller courses so everyone sails more laps in the time allowed. That of course means more work for the race team, which is a separate can of worms.
We plan to be out on Saturday, even though I have yet to see anything explaining the format of the race. I assume it is a mass start all-in handicap run on average laps, but that is just my guess.
Kevin
The recalculated results are certainly not incorrect, but to the contrary apply the applicable rules strictly. The ‘Same PN Adjustement’ only applies within the same class, not to a handicap trophy race. If all ‘same PN’ boats finish in consecutive order without any other different class of boat in between them, then the adjustment could perhaps be made. However, if the ‘same’ boats are split by other classess/PNs, if you change one boats time you have to change everyone else’s in that same PN, and then those boats will change places within the overall handicap result. It would not be fair to jump or demote a boat above or below a boat of a different class, even if they might only be 13th rather than the winning placed boats. Fairness to all in the rules we use, most especially when considering any special change, must be the hard and fast rule of paramount importance. If we cannot always achieve the right answer (whatever that ‘might’ be which is always open to different views) then we at least have to be wrong in the same consitent way, which possibly evens out in the fullness of time for the fastest amongst us.