I've just been looking through the above
and see that for scoring, RAF (retired after finishing) has been replaced with
RET (retired.
Now at our club I've always used DNF (did not finish) to score those who started a race but did not finish, so, whilst I know that the points scored will be the same, can someone please explain the circumstances post January 2013 that I should score a boat as DNF or RET?
Most competitors who don't finish races insist on telling me that they "retired"!
Hopefully a simple point to clarify.
Stewart
Now at our club I've always used DNF (did not finish) to score those who started a race but did not finish, so, whilst I know that the points scored will be the same, can someone please explain the circumstances post January 2013 that I should score a boat as DNF or RET?
Most competitors who don't finish races insist on telling me that they "retired"!
Hopefully a simple point to clarify.
Stewart
The scoring code RET or RAF is normally applied to someone
who transgresses a racing rule on the water, but does not do any penalty out
there.
He is then given the opportunity to admit this trangression once ashore and to retire from the race (signing as such on a retirement form).
In RRS, see Basic Principle - Sportsmanship and the Rules.
regards,
He is then given the opportunity to admit this trangression once ashore and to retire from the race (signing as such on a retirement form).
In RRS, see Basic Principle - Sportsmanship and the Rules.
regards,
Malcolm Osborne
Sedgefield
South Africa
Under the old scheme, DNF = literally
"Did Not Finish", RAF = literally "Retired After
Finishing". But what about "retired before finishing"?
Changing RAF to RET reflects the wording of the rules, where to "Retire" represents an explicit acknowledgement of fault and should be done immediately rather than waiting till after finishing. So I would score RET everyone who tells you they retired because of a rule infringement, whether they finish or not, while reserving DNF for people who simply fail to finish after (eg) capsizing or getting bored, whether they tell you or not.
Ian.
Changing RAF to RET reflects the wording of the rules, where to "Retire" represents an explicit acknowledgement of fault and should be done immediately rather than waiting till after finishing. So I would score RET everyone who tells you they retired because of a rule infringement, whether they finish or not, while reserving DNF for people who simply fail to finish after (eg) capsizing or getting bored, whether they tell you or not.
Ian.
As per submission 184-11
"At present, there is no scoring abbreviation for a boat that takes a penalty by retiring during a
race (rule 44.1(b)) or retires as required by Appendix P2.2 or P2.3. In these circumstances, the
race committee either scores the boat RAF or DNF. RAF is incorrect, since the boat retired
before finishing. DNF does not adequately describe the situation.
RET is the appropriate abbreviation to use for a boat that retires in these circumstances. There is
no reason to maintain RAF, since RET covers any retirement, whether before or after finishing.
Rule 64.1 permits the sailing instructions to specify a penalty other than disqualification in some
circumstances. There is no scoring abbreviation in A11 to describe such a penalty. DPI has
gained near-universal acceptance. It is recommended, therefore, that this abbreviation be added
to A11."
So when a boat takes a penalty by retiring RET
When they do not finish for any other reason DNF
Gordon
Jon,
"At present, there is no scoring abbreviation for a boat that takes a penalty by retiring during a
race (rule 44.1(b)) or retires as required by Appendix P2.2 or P2.3. In these circumstances, the
race committee either scores the boat RAF or DNF. RAF is incorrect, since the boat retired
before finishing. DNF does not adequately describe the situation.
RET is the appropriate abbreviation to use for a boat that retires in these circumstances. There is
no reason to maintain RAF, since RET covers any retirement, whether before or after finishing.
Rule 64.1 permits the sailing instructions to specify a penalty other than disqualification in some
circumstances. There is no scoring abbreviation in A11 to describe such a penalty. DPI has
gained near-universal acceptance. It is recommended, therefore, that this abbreviation be added
to A11."
So when a boat takes a penalty by retiring RET
When they do not finish for any other reason DNF
Gordon
Jon,
I think that this can now be put into the next convenient SW release.
regards,
Malcolm
Osborne
Sedgefield South Africa
OK,
Its in V2.6.1 or latter (Not released yet)
When you generate a New Series there is now no RAF in the
scoring code. Instead there is a RET.
One problem this causes is that the RET code can be applied
if the boat finished or didn't finish. Some clubs use codes that generate
points based on the number of finishers. So if you are using this be
careful. RET defaults to not finishing which is I guess OK for most
cases. You can of course change this and you can if you wish also put an
RAF code in as well though it won't comply with the new RRS.
Note the RET code is only generated if you start a new
series. If you are starting with a previous Sailwave (.blw) file then the
scoring system will be as it was previously, You will need to edit the RAF code
to RET and change the Finished to No from Yes, when you are ready to start
using the new codes..
Jon
Jon's
proposal is good. Where clubs award points on the basis of finishers, RAF
should always have been treated as a non- finish. When a boat retires after
finishing it is acknowledging that it should not in fact have finished - it is
simply retiring too late. To treat RAF as a finish in those circumstances could
encourage bad sportsmanship, by finishing you may be able to worsen another
boat's score.
Ian
I think this is a real problem, although
not a big one. The number of finishers can be calculated one of two ways: (a)
either based on number of boats with a finish time (or finish position) or (b)
based on scoring codes. The first way will be accurate regardless of anything
else. The second way can only be accurate if we have two codes when the scoring
code does not distinguish between whether a boat finished or not.
RET does not make that distinction and therefore there probably should be two codes (maybe RET and RETa, with the latter for "after finishing") that both publish as RET to conform to the rulebook. [My thought is that RETa would display only in Sailwave and all published output (including
XML) would show as "RET" to conform to the rulebook. If this issue had been pointed out to ISAF when the change was voted on it is very possible they would not have made the change as I don't believe they considered this issue.
I note that I believe the same issue arises with OCS. A boat that is OCS but doesn't finish can in theory be scored either as OCS or DNF. Since OCS occurs first in time and is higher up the list in A11 I think that code should take precedence. So, a boat that is OCS might or might not be a finisher.
Art
RET does not make that distinction and therefore there probably should be two codes (maybe RET and RETa, with the latter for "after finishing") that both publish as RET to conform to the rulebook. [My thought is that RETa would display only in Sailwave and all published output (including
XML) would show as "RET" to conform to the rulebook. If this issue had been pointed out to ISAF when the change was voted on it is very possible they would not have made the change as I don't believe they considered this issue.
I note that I believe the same issue arises with OCS. A boat that is OCS but doesn't finish can in theory be scored either as OCS or DNF. Since OCS occurs first in time and is higher up the list in A11 I think that code should take precedence. So, a boat that is OCS might or might not be a finisher.
Art
The
treatment of boats that do not finish or retire in a points system based on the
number of boats in the race is far easier to treat if the points are based on
the number of boats that come to the starting area. DNS, DNF and RET have all
made the effort to at least attempt to race, which, in our club at least,
deserves recognition.
Gordon
Gordon
Jon
Will we have RTD as a code in the current version before Jan1, 2013
when the new rules come into operation?
Regards
Brian
Tel 01344-761642
Mobile
07711-796125
Hi Brian,
Nice to hear from you. Yes it's already done. If
you load the latest version and generate a new series you won't find the RAF
but you will an RTD. There are some threads here on the User Group about it.
Just to remind people that if you are creating your new series from an
old one you will have to edit the codes yourself. Because the codes stay
with the Series - Which is what you need otherwise you couldn't re-score an
older series. Just have a search for the past recent topics in November.
Jon
In RRS2103-1, DNF remains, but RAF
is replaced with RET.
In most cases, DNF is the code to allocate to someone who gives up, or gets rescued or gets out of time limit. RET is given to someone who commits a transgression on the water, but signs a retirement declaration once ashore, as per RRS Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules.
In most cases, DNF is the code to allocate to someone who gives up, or gets rescued or gets out of time limit. RET is given to someone who commits a transgression on the water, but signs a retirement declaration once ashore, as per RRS Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules.
regards,
Malcolm
Osborne
Sedgefield South Africa
No comments:
Post a Comment