Did We Retire From the Race, or Did We Quit?
In Friday’s ‘Lectronic we introduced a discussion on the fine balance between maintaining a designated race course for the integrity of sport, or altering the course for the purpose of enabling more sailors to experience and ultimately help grow the sport. In our coverage we used the word “retired” in reference to boats that left the course early rather than arrive at the finish line quite late.
Joe Rockmore, chair of the board, Yacht Racing Association of San Francisco Bay (YRA), tells us boats that leave the course of their own volition aren’t, in fact, retiring. Unbeknownst to this writer, and perhaps many other sailors, the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS) lists specific circumstances in which a boat will “retire” from a race. Wanting to get home early is not one of them. Joe explains the finer points of retiring.
When a boat voluntarily stops racing, say due to equipment failure, or because they know they won’t finish by the time limit or they want to be first to the yacht club bar, according to the RRS she does not retire. There is no specific verb in the RRS for what she does; you can say she withdraws or ceases racing or calls it a day or whatever.
The term “retire” in the RRS is for a boat that cannot, or did not, exonerate herself from a foul. For example, if a boat sails through an obstruction, she cannot exonerate herself (you can’t undo it as you can undo going around a mark the wrong way), so she should retire. Or if a boat fouls another boat, say in a port/starboard situation, and only later decides she should have taken two turns, she must retire, since turns are required to be taken as soon as possible after the foul. There used to be a scoring notation, RAF, which meant “retire after finishing,” but the rules folks realized that there are situations where a boat should retire before finishing, so it was changed to RET. This is how a boat should be scored when she retires.
A boat that voluntarily stops racing should be scored DNF (did not finish), not RET, because she did not commit a foul for which she could not exonerate herself. Many race committees do not understand the distinction, and most racers don’t either. When a boat radios in that they are retiring, they usually mean they are voluntarily stopping racing, so they should not use the term “retire” in that circumstance. Instead, they should say they will not be finishing the race, and thus will be scored DNF.
Now that we have that clear, we ask our readers: How often have you had to “retire” from a race, and what were the circumstances?
As soon as you start your engine and use it to progress toward the finish, have you not committed a foul from which you cannot or will not exonerate yourself? I guess it depends on the definition of a foul.
If there is no chance of finishing on time or with enough wind that makes it actually fun to Sail instead of just drifting towards the finish line. I’m all in favor of canceling or shortening the course. I don’t like to spend all day in the water, trying to finish a race. But I understand a distance race like during a California race week when you invested the time and effort to do that many miles you want to be able to finish the race the way it was intended no matter how long it takes.
Well, having been becalmed during the Three Bridge Fiasco this year, and after anchoring for an hour, and then being swept out to sea BACKWARDS beneath the GG bridge, and then finally finding enough wind to set the spinny, and get back into the Bay and sail home, I opted to say “retiring,” on the radio (and, more importantly, via a cell phone call) and join the vast majority of boats that DNFd, whatever they said when they realized they wouldn’t make the finish line until an hour or two (or never) after the race ended. Ditto the Corinthian, although we were only half an hour late. In the dark. Which is usually a clue that the race is over. “Retiring” just sounds better, as you head for home.
I like that idea Rick, and maybe it should be the other way around. In other words, if you choose to not finish, “retire” has more dignity. If you foul out, DNF sounds appropriately punitive .
I’ll note the distinction between RET and DNF, should I have to inform the RC of my intention to stop competing in the race. Good to know.
There was a regatta earlier this year, where the SIs stated the obstructions, or “no go zones”, boilerplate Anita Rock, Pt. Blunt buoy, Berkeley Pier, etc., and then stated that if a racer crossed said prohibited areas, they were not to “unwind”, but were to do a 720 degree turn, and proceed racing. I thought that odd, dangerous, and tried to inform the OA (BYC) of the inherent problems with that idea, to no avail. Fortunately, the course raced offered no opportunities to take advantage of that option, and I have happily not seen such silliness in SIs since.
The RRS describe certain circumstances under which a boat may retire. It does not define the term. A boat may retire for any number of reasons, only some of which are described explicitly in the RRS. Nothing in the RRS limits the use of the term “retire” to an involuntary withdrawal.
I agree with Stuart Strickland. RRS states circumstances in which a boat should retire, but we can infer that the same verb would apply to a voluntary decision to stop racing. After all, it has exactly the same effect on the scoring.
I actually came here to state my annoyance with racers who radio in to say they are “abandoning” the race. In contrast to “retire”, RRS defines “abandon”, and it’s something that the race committee or protest committee does, canceling the entire race. A boat cannot cancel the race for everyone!