• Giving Mark Room on opposite tacks
  14 Comments
  Greg Wilkins Today 10:54
• Sticking to a mooring buoy
  9 Comments
  Charles Darley Yesterday 16:50
• Hailing "I need room to tack"
  17 Comments
  David Chudzicki Yesterday 13:28
• The 2025-2028 RRS changed 44.3(c) to the nearest 10th of a point
  10 Comments
  Jerry Thompson Mon 18:40
• OCS vs DNS; Which is More Appropriate?
  15 Comments
  Hugh Morrin Sun 23:55

• Hailing "I need room to tack"
  I think people have been answering--but you don't like their answers. The phrase you quoted of mine was specifically intended not  invoke rule 20. It was intended to keep dialog open so that there were no surprises. 

  1. I think the phrase "Room to tack" must be included in the sentence in order for rule 20 to be invoked (that's backed by the rule and the cases). 
  2. I think additional words like "I need" do not make it an invalid hail (I think that's backed up by the Q&A, cases and general consensus).
  3. I think a simple English phrase, like the one you quote of mine, clearly is not intended to invoke the rule. 

  
  I will admit that in conditions of poor hearing, I run the risk that the skipper of the other boat won't hear "I'm going to need...
   and "in about 30 seconds or so," and only hear the "room to tack" part. Perhaps I should choose a phrase that could not be mistaken for an invocation of rule 20. But I think the risk is low and I'm willing to take it for the benefit of better communication. 
  If I thought it likely my counterpart didn't speak English fluently, I would probably leave out the dialog. But, generally, I think more communication is better than less. 
  I think the rabbit hole you are in could get a bit absurd. Suppose I say "We're getting close to the barrier." Then ten seconds later I say "Room to tack." Using your approach, we could end up arguing whether ten seconds long enough between the two sentences to make it clear that the second sentence is invoking rule 20. How much time must pass between the sentences for the first one not to invalidate the second? I don't think that argument serves a useful purpose. 
  Be clear with any communication. Make sure you use the magic words when you mean it. That works for me. 
  
  -Tony
  
  
  
  Anthony Pelletier Today 19:44
• Giving Mark Room on opposite tacks
  US Appeal 130 has various diagrams for mark-room.
  Diagram 2 and 3 are similar to the question.
  
  Gybe promptly is noted.

  

  
  
  
  

  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Diagram 8 shows when a boat had left the mark astern
  

  

  
  
  
  Wayne Balsiger Today 17:52
• Sticking to a mooring buoy
  Good - do you accept my point that a boat which doesn’t secure to the bouy is not in breach of Rule 45?
  Matt Sargent Today 17:01
• RRS vs. Colregs
  Absolutely: the reason we were late giving way was because we didn't realise we were the give way vessel because of the steaming light.  And bear in mind I'm in the English Channel, which we share with some very large commercial traffic.  Whilst hopefully the racing yacht would know that IRPCAS applies for interactions with large vessels, I think she would be disappointed if the yacht displaying a steaming light expects a container ship somehow to know that she is under sail and take appropriate action (with potentially much more serious consequences, see recent report from CIC Normandy channel race).  
  
  Not to mention that displaying the correct lights is both international maritime law and required by RRS 56.1.
  
  Going back to the original question about use of Appendix RV, this does illustrate my point - I've no idea if the other boat was racing (I'd assumed not as I believed she was motoring but boats cruising do also fly spinnakers); she would have had no idea whether we were racing; and even if we had both been racing, we would not have known if Appendix RV applied to the other race.  
  Kirsteen Donaldson Today 16:20
• The 2025-2028 RRS changed 44.3(c) to the nearest 10th of a point
  > Isn't worsening a boat's place in a race or series penalising her?
  
  Interesting and very reasonable point. Practically speaking any adjustment of a boats score potentially affects other competitors race order and more importantly series places, so I go to my dictionary and get penalise - subject [competitor] to disadvantage or penalty. So on one reading one may certainly say that any redress award may penalize other boats, and therefore is forbidden. Clearly that's not the intent of the rule! But can we look at it another way? Redress comes up as put right again, restore equality etc. Redress is not a bonus for the boat receiving it, its the PC's best attempt to restore the race results to what they would have been had the improper or illegal action not occurred. So may we argue that the pre-redress award placing was actually a temporary artefact of the scoring process, rather than a genuine result, and therefore should be corrected just as any other scoring error would be corrected? And further may we argue that in detail the boats below the redressee are actually slightly benefitted, since they receive a score one point better than they would have done had the redress been unnecessary and the redressee finished in the place they should have done? 
  
  I'm not sure I've phrased this as well as I might, but hope the thread is intelligible.
  Jim Champ Yesterday 11:59

Forums Leader Board

This Month