New Interpretation of New Zealand Bowsprit : America’s Cup: Jury for challengers finally gets in line with the jury for finals. Italians are angry.

In sailing, what is a sheet?

It’s a line, or rope, that controls the trim of a sail--and it’s not queen-size.

What is a foreguy?

It’s a line that prevents the spinnaker pole, which supports that big, billowing sail way out in front of the boat, from lifting.

When does a foreguy become a sheet?

That’s the $400-million question, and one that has been causing skipper Paul Cayard of Italy’s Il Moro di Venezia sleepless nights in the America’s Cup competition here.

It all revolves around the New Zealand boat, its controversial bowsprit--that nose-like extension in front of the boat--and sailing Rule 64.4 (a) which stipulates: “No sail shall be sheeted over or through an outrigger (i.e., the bowsprit).”

New Zealand insisted that the line in question is a foreguy. The jury for the challenger trials agreed with New Zealand.

Il Moro says it was a sheet. The separate jury that will govern the Cup match next month agreed with Il Moro.

Finally responding to pressure from Il Moro and the America’s Cup Organizing Committee, the challengers’ jury moved Tuesday to put its rules on the use of bowsprits in line with those of the match jury, and by the end of the day it was so.

Tom Ehman, general manager of the America’s Cup Organizing Committee, wrote to counterpart Stan Reid, the Australian chairman of the Challenger of Record Committee: “We are pleased to note that Amendment Six . . . now conforms . . . Condition 8.9 to the Match Jury’s decision of March 5.”

Ehman announced Tuesday night, “We believe New Zealand raced today in accordance with this amended condition.”

The issue of the Kiwi protrusion has been around since March, when challengers’ jury chairman Graeme Owens of Australia said his interpretation essentially agreed with the one solicited prematurely from the match jury by the defenders, who were hoping to head off trouble in May.

Hardly anyone agreed with Owens, except New Zealand.

The issue came to a head this week when it became apparent that the challengers’ failure to resolve the issue could disqualify New Zealand, if it was proved that the Kiwis had been sailing by another set of rules all along.

Tuesday morning, before the day’s racing, Owens and the other four jurors, all in blue blazers, made a rare appearance before reporters. Reid said language for the challenger trials had been amended to conform to the language of the match jury’s interpretation.

Owens said: “The particular word used by the match jury has a number of possible interpretations. It is the word controls. “

New Zealand did change its method during Tuesday’s race, but it wasn’t much of the difference in a 53-second loss to Il Moro that squared the best-of-nine series at 3-3.

“If they changed, it’s only proof that we were right,” Il Moro spokesman Stefano Roberti said.

Reid said that all principals had agreed to their amendment, but Il Moro executive Gabriele Rafanelli said: “We haven’t agreed to anything.”

Ehman said he thought it was no longer necessary to consult the match jury. “The correct procedure is for CORC and ACOC to make the joint request.”

But Roberti said, “We still don’t know what (match jury chairman) Goran Petersson thinks is a sheet a ‘sheet’ and a ‘foreguy.’

Said Cayard: “For six weeks, I’ve been pushing for this . . . and Graeme Owens finally agrees. I’m mad as hell.”