Urgent - Rule Interpretation Required

Is a two-masted Footy legal?

Please note preamble to rule.

Well, I hope so, 'cause I got one that is half way built!!!:confused:

Ah… I would have said immediately yes, but… now I see the problem. ‘Mast’ is singular and in the light of a very recent interpretation of ‘rudder’ as singular I would say Red Fox has a problem Angus.


Well, I’m not a footy builder, but rating rules are a hobby of mine. B2 exhibits a common problem with “that which is not forbidden is allowed” rules in that it enumerates what is allowed. It would be worth considering changing this in the next rewrite to state just what has to be inside the box.

That being said, were I building a two-master I would argue that the clause in question is clearly permissive in nature and therefore should not be interpreted to impose a restriction on masts or anything else.




From your rating hobby POV, do these rules allow twin rudders at all? There is a bit more text relating to “rudder” so you have more to work with.



I would say no, but the wording could be clearer.



Thanks for the objective judgement. Rating Rules, mmm, strange hobby you’ve got there. I hope you sail occassionally too. :zbeer:

I guess we’ll put clarifying the language on the Footy to-do list. Or we decide to specifically allow multiple rudders. I don’t have prefered outcome other than clear rules.

Comes from a working life spent in a world of standards and specifications, I guess. I just find the battle between rules makers and rules beaters to be fascinating. The title of the classic book on the subject says it all: “Men Against the Rule.”

[note: since I can’t do boldface, ERS terms are bracked with asterisks]

I think a lot of problems can arise from saying that the boat must fit in the box and then trying to enumerate exceptions for rig, fittings and so on.
The UK 36 inch Restricted class rule I build my free sail boats to is also written this way and I’ve never understood why.

It appears to me that the intended result can be obtained by saying the hull and appendages must fit in the box. By the ERS this is everything below the sheer line. Then say appendages and rig can project through the slits, projection of appendages limited by “tab” on the box. Finally, say only one appendage may move. I realize this permits moving ballast; if you want to forbid steering a footy with moving ballast ala the Aussie skiffs, just say only one appendage may move and it may not contain ballast. A middle position would be to permit ballast to move in a fore and aft direction but not side to side.

Anyhow, just a suggestion.



Brett responded to my request for clarificatiion by e-mail. Multiple nasts are not illegal. I can only assume that his failure to post here is a pure oversight or that he was relying on me to do it.

In either case apologies