Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • Designation of obstructions in SI is a more recent issue than Dick Rose's 2010 article and would undoubtedly be incorporated in a re-issue of the guidance.
    Yesterday 20:38
  • Yesterday 19:13
  • I also have not witnessed this action that you speak of  it may be that I have not yet umpired in kelp or seaweed infested waters. In my experience, a repeated action without just cause will bring attention to your boat. Be sure to not make any movement with your air sculling that could be interpreted differently. Rules are instructions are usually written for flagrant abuses but I have seen my fair share of subtle motions being blended into boat movement to look like it was part of the action. When you are looking at a fleet of boats that are essentially the same on a horizon, unusual motion or action often tells on itself. 
    Sat 22:05
  • Philip Hubbell
    said Created: Yesterday 18:02
    Have to disagree with JA's claim that "tack and tack back" is limited to a T-bone situation.
    IF Y tacks and a bow on bow situation results, Y must still tack back or otherwise keep clear. And, if necessary, a dial-up by R to give Y room to do so makes it all good.

    I think Phil's caught me on a bit of sloppiness.

    I said

    Is Y required to do a tack and tack back with R?
    When Y reaches her close hauled course, if she has not crossed clear ahead of R, boats will be on a course for collision between R’s bow and Y’s starboard side, with Y required to keep clear by rule 10.  In this scenario, there will not be sufficient space for Y to tack back onto starboard so as to keep clear of R, so the ‘tack and tack back’ provision of Case 101 does not apply, and the only way for boats to avoid contact is for Y to stand on, and R to give her room by bearing away and passing astern of her, thus giving Y the room to avoid R that Y is entitled to.  If Y is not keeping clear of R, she is exonerated because she is sailing within the room to which she is entitled.

    For tack and tack back to work according to Case 101, the hailed boat has to be advanced on the hailing boat so that the hailing hailed boat is not pointing bow to side.

    The last sentence is a non-sequitur to the first.

    It should be changed as shown.

    Phil, can you agree with that?
    Sat 21:52
  • Jeff H asked for clarification of my proposal of a shortened finish line to infinity.
    The RC may establish a shortened course finish line at any line that the course requires boats to cross.
    The line does not have to be visible to the competitors.
    A line of sight between the S flag and "that really big tree on shore" (and continuing 180 degrees out beyond the S flag to infinity) can be a legitimate line the course requires boats to cross on their way to what was to be the next mark.
    My Judge instructor chuckled, but agreed with me.
    The trouble is that competitors may not learn that they have finished. But the objective is to save a race that otherwise might not finish.
    Best case is a line perpendicular to the course - and well before the next turning mark.
    Setting up near the turning mark weakens the proposal and undoubtedly will lead to the protest room because of Case 129. The RC would have to claim that the turning mark was beyond the (invisible) shortened finish line.
    So I was not quite right in my earlier posting. If the turning mark is involved, there is only one correct way to finish.
    Sat 17:36
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more