Post
by Arrowcraft » Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:31 pm
So I am a little confused. On the face of it, it sounds straightforward enough. But actually, it's not. The rule was created to do away with those huge shark fins that people were glueing onto their hulls. They were clearly dangerous. So the new rule talks about being manufactured into the hull mould and sets parameters.
So Any object protruding from the hull must be manufactured into the hull mould. is the focal point. Does mean that retrospectively fitting any item that protrudes from the hull is unlawful? Possibly not. The hull may have a slit type hole into which the devices could be retrospectively fitted from the inside and sealed. The design of the boat is clearly intended for this purpose and therefore "manufactured" into the mould of the boat. A damaged fit can be swapped out for a new one. If different fins needed, they could be swapped out, as long as they meet the requirements in terms of dimensions.
Or, a flat section of the hull is designed to take a retrofitted object, is manufactured into the mould. the item itself needs to be replaceable for safety and repair purposes.
What about an object that is effectively a Keel line. I've seen one boat, that is currently in development that the athlete has added two pieces of 8mm dowel, around 75cm in length onto the hull and simply taped them on while the right position is found. If he were to permanently glass these onto the hull rather than stick or clip them, then they become a permanent fixture on the boat and are the equivalent of being manufactured into the hull mould. A scrutineer might not readily be able to tell the difference and therefore is there any practical difference?
In the legal profession, there are rules about statutory interpretation. ie What does the rule or statute actually say? What does it actually mean and how is it going to be applied. And these vary from the Literal Rule...what are the actual words used.. The Golden Rule...if the wording is unclear, too narrow, or undermines itself, then the words can be restructured or even rewritten to capture the structure of what was intended so that it makes sense, but only to the extent that it makes sense. This is also known as the British Rule as it only applies in Britain mainly.. and the Mischief Rule- "what is the mischief that the rule is trying to solve." This makes it possible for law and rule writers to implement rules that can be adapted and interpreted to suit situations that are not completely on all fours with the rule. It is a common sense approach to the rules and is the most widely applied approach. Those that think we use the literal meaning of the words used (Literal Rule) are often sorely surprised when the rules are interpreted in a different way to the way that they read. Often, where someone complies with the rule in every way, apart from the actual wording and their solutions provide the same output in every practical sense, then by applying the mischief rule, they are compliant with the rules.
If the rule as read in 7.1.5
7.1.5 Rudders are prohibited on all boats. Any object
protruding from the hull must be manufactured into the
hull mould and be no higher than 20mm and no
narrower than 8mm with a minimum radius of 4mm on
its outside edge
Then it is clearly absurd. It is under the heading....Rudder. A skeg in a wwr or a fin is not a rudder. This starting point puts the rule in a bad position and therefore invites an alternative interpretation. " Any Item" protruding from the hull.... Well, if the hull is shaped in such a way as to produce an uneven surface, part of which looks like a fin, then there is no item protruding from the hull. It IS the hull. Therefore it suggests, that the rule is intended to cover rules only added onto the hull...which by definition are difficult to be manufactured into the mould, apart from fixings...which are not actually mentioned at all. Therefore the rule, in itself, contradicts itself to the extent that it would be impossible to iterpret literally.
The Rule is an ICF rule, so te British (Golden Rule) does not apply, as we sign up to the ICF charter in incorporate their rules. WHICH MEANS WE ARESORT TO THE MISCHIEF RULE. . What is the mschief that is trying to be remedied?
Equipment advantage is not really a basis. We have adjustable seats, adjustable;e paddles adjustable straps. The ability to make a boat perform better on any venue is not a rule breach. At least not that I am aware of. It's not the sentiment behind the rule either, I don't think. It looked and felt like a safety issue for paddlers in the water and marine life. Fair enough. They looked dangerous to me at any rate. They kept breaking and falling off.
So if the rule was that they have to meet the dimensions and be permanently fitted to the boat...as if they were a part of the mould, then that makes sense and everyone can understand and apply it. Then fitting a fin afterwards, that is permanent and therefore the equivalent of being moulded in that is replaceable without replacing the boat or the hull is a sensible interpretation. In my opinion, and it is only a legal opinion until tested in the court for sport which it might end up if the stakes were high enough, but this is Olympic qualifying year so who knows...applying the rule as written makes no sense as it is contradictory of itself, applying the mischief rule brings us to the point that fins or rails fitted must look as if they have been moulded into the hull. This solves the problem and gives the scrutineer the ability to determine if an adaption is legal or not. If they are stuck on with tape or glue.... then no. If they are glassed on with carbon and smoothed into the hull seamless and smooth then yes, they are probably legal.
It would be helpful if we get some clarity on how this rule is going to be interpreted in 2019. Perhaps our committee and ICF panel members can do this for us as soon as possible. Boats are being developed and tested hard for the Olympics and will be used in races this summer with temporary adaptations. The object of the rule was not to prevent innovation after all.