I think the most appropriate rule is 13 and I do believe that Wild Oats did foul Comanche. You can clearly see Comanche steering to avoid contact before Wild Oats completes her tack. You could also argue that 15 applies but rule 16.1 is out of the question since it is not a right of way boat that is changing course.

15 applies to a boat that has acquired ROW. While under 13, the boat is not ROW, so, 13 and 15 can't apply together.

On the video shown, as most of the time on videos, it's difficult to say (to see), as plans are changing exactly at the worst moment.
So far as I can see, when port is about to start tacking (still on port), stb bares away by a little bit, which she is allowed to, as rule 16.2 does not apply..
When Wild Oats finishes her tack, she looks to be slightly clear ahead of Comanche, but Comanche did not have to take avoiding action before the tack was completed.
So 13 was not broken
Nor was 15, as Comanche, as the clear astern and then keeping clear boat, luffed to keep clear as asked by 12 and was given room to do so.
In my opinion, no rule broken.
A perfect attack tack.

Pure opinion...

The resolution isn't the greatest, nor is the angle, but when I saw it live I immediately said "foul".
Slowing it down and watching frame by frame, it looks like (my player gives time from the end of the clip):
-0:27 Comanche (C) is taking avoiding action
-0:25 Wild Oats (WO) is at a close hauled course and C appears to be overlapped to weather indicating that C would have been in WO trunk if they hadn't luffed earlier.

DSQ WO RRS 13

On the other hand you feel that there isn't an overlap at -0:25, then DSQ WO RRS 15.

Either way its going to be a long race for WO. If they'd only started their tack 5 seconds earlier.

I don't see how a boat can break both 13 and 15 at the same instant or in the same "snap shot"; in the same incident, yes, but it would be a two distinctly different points in time.

RRS 13 applies as WOX failed to keep clear of LDVC until she was on a close hauled course.

LDV was required for reasons of safety (to avoid a collision) to (commence to) change course before WOX was on a close hauled course.

Keeping clear in RRS 13 is more than merely avoiding contact as per RRS 14.

For the Penalty under SI 20.1 I would impose a 30 minute penalty. This should be substantially more than WOX would have lost by exonerating herself by sailing clear and taking her two tack, tow gybe penalty. It should reflect not merely the time impact on the other competitor, or the time avoided in taking the turns to exonerate, but should have regard to the potential seriousness of the incident that could have been caused ( and that could include consideration of the numbers of people possibly injured, possible cost of repair and likely loss of most of the value of all transport training and establishment costs and any loss of revenue to LDVC).

Another question arising is what happens if LDVC does not bother to lodge its protest form and WOX beats another boat, "Loser", by a very small margin. What recourse does than other boat have? What should the protest committee/race committee do? Can Loser request redress against WOX?

Does it make any difference that the letting this incident go unconsidered given the widespread TV coverage? (Google: "golf tv penalty" for a situation that arose in golf from tv coverage))

I'd agree on breaking both 13 and 15 at the same time. Consecutively, eventually as offered Eric. First 13, then acquiring right of way clear ahead would not give initially the clear astern boat room to keep clear... A bit far-fetched but well... Works better with a windward leeward than an ahead astern.

Concerning the incident, I would have gone with a foul under 13 this afternoon. This video looks different than the one I saw earlier (probably isn't though: https://au.sports.yahoo.com/a/38411424/sydney-to-hobart-wild-oats-xi-almost-collides-with-comanche/?cmp=st), it's not as obvious.

However, if Comanche kept her course, she may have ended up overlapped to leeward of Wild Oats, so 16 when she luffed... Or the jury can decide the tack ended enough ahead of Comanche, so Wild Oats would have complied with 15...

In conclusion, I'm on a 13, but I wouldn't be surprised if the jury decided otherwise

EDIT: Paul, I believe Loser can protest WOX (complying with the requirements of RRS 61 of course). If she succeeds to do so, then the jury shall hear the protest and blabla RRS 64. However, if not boat protest, it is my understanding that the widespread jury policy is that judges should not act when competitors are involved and can act. In this particular case, LDVC hails protests, displays a Yankee (I assume SIs change the flag?), and just has to lodge the protest... I don't think the jury should intervene on its own; it's a problem for the competitors, and if they don't want to the jury to settle the case, they'll probably answer why at a press conference

At 0.20 seconds in the video, prior to Port's sails filling on their new tack, Starboard has to start turning to windward to avoid entering Port's cockpit. Thus, Port is disqualified under Rule 13.

It is also interesting to check Sailing Instruction (SI) 20.1(a), which requires two turns prior to the turning mark outside the Harbor. (I watched a separate video and Port did not do any turns.)

Also, in the event that Port loses the protest they announced in the video but have yet to file, Starboard will be penalized a penalty of "not less than 5 minutes" under SI 20.1(b).

Further, It's interesting to read SI 26, especially 26.2(a) in which all boats must report "an infringement occurs, however minor, of any rule,..." It'll be fun to see who declares what under SI 26 after the finish. As far as I can see, SI 26 requires boats to declare regardless of filing a protest.

Although I don't like to rely only on a video, it appears that Wild Oats did not complete her tack (see her genoa luff) until the 23rd second. It appears that there would have been a collision if Commanche had not headed up before the tack was completed. Rule 13 applies.

Just because her jib is luffing doesn't mean that Wild Oats isn't on a close hauled course. I don't see Rule 15 here but Rule 13 is an incredibly close call.

I'm on-board with the rest of the fine opinions ... RRS 13 only as it seems clear to me that it was prudent or at least defensible that Commanche had to start avoiding collision prior to WO reaching close-hauled.

Also, I'd concur with Lioc's discussion regarding 15 and 13 being in play simultaneously in this scenario ... the boat tacking in this case never acquired ROW. I haven't contemplated my navel long enough to preclude all possible scenarios though.

Maybe to further your original post, I'd change the challenge to the forum for someone to show/describe a scenario where 13 and 15 CAN be both active between only 2 boats.

Ang

PS .. Michael B ... don't look at the jib .. look at the heading of the STB boat before she heads-up .. Port doesn't make it down to that course before STB has to avoid.

Fleet race correct?

If so then foul, Commanche had a reasonable expectation of collision had she not altered up.

Although the video is sort of poor, it almost looked like Oats would have crossed cleanly...

Well done Steve,
You nailed it. It is 13, it can never be 15......Jimmy kept clear in a very seaman like way.
If we take some guidance from Case (unless they changed it in the last circus)
100' super maxis doing somewhere around 11- 12 knots and possibly a lot more.
Helmsman probably 85' away ......reasonable apprehension.....hell yes!

Anyone commenting out there have any experience of that position?

I think the rules advisors will be in flight as we speak...... but who is representing who.......at least it added to a somewhat boring start.....almost scripted.

At first there WO breking RRS 10 - Comanche began to take avoiding action (bear away) from this moment ( 0:11at video):

PS .. Michael B ... don't look at the jib .. look at the heading of the STB boat before she heads-up .. Port doesn't make it down to that course before STB has to avoid.

Angelo, I'm not even sure Comanche's course is close hauled and, even if it is, it's not necessarily WOXI's close hauled course. Like Boris mentions, Comanche does look a bit bow down in that final shot.

I'm still leaning towards RRS 13 here, but I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as a lot of people here make it sound. I would really, really like to see that aerial angle from about two seconds before they switch to it.

RRS 13 here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=67&v=j_gcnzBOrMQ after 0:51

Thanks, Boris. 53 minute scoring penalty to WOXI, RRS 13.

WOXI DNE RRS 2 for not taking a penalty.

Seriously: They were aware that they wouldn't make it and clearly failed to keep clear as a result of a manouvre that was just a few seconds too late.
Not taking a penalty when you know you broke a rule is always unsportsmanlike, no matter the size of your boat. If well-paid skippers of a 100 ft. keelboats don't do 2 turns in the world's most famous long distance race, then how can we expect this from a dinghy sailor at a third class regional event?

Would not surprise me firstly that no protest is lodged, or secondly there is no rule broken.

An owner here would not want in the glare of publicity to win on the basis of a protest like this. There will welcome the discomfort of the other boat, and do not rule out a discussion followed by a retirement.

The rules refer to a closehauled course. This can be quite high and certainly above the course of the approaching boat. If you roll it back to this point then it is not as clear. I could easily see this resulting in the protest being dismissed.

Question - do we have a valid protest?
I do not see a protest flag!
if valid;
CO bore off as WO was luffing to keep clear RRS 16.1
I looks like WO completed clear ahead of CO RRS 12 (or would have established a RRS 12/11 situation had WO not changed course)
CO obtained a windward overlap and kept clear RRS 11
CO gave WO room as per RRS 16.1 and kept clear as per RRS 12 and 11.
I think the Jury will either find the protest invalid - no flag, or find that no rules were broken.
Happy new year

Heiko F said:

If well-paid skippers of a 100 ft. keelboats don't do 2 turns in the world's most famous long distance race, then how can we expect this from a dinghy sailor at a third class regional event?

I'm not wrapped around the axle on that point in this instance. IMO, there is reasonable question ... first if a foul occurred and second who would be at fault. I can see this as a "sail-on" scenario if no flag was raised.

As far as if they finished clear-ahead. I think that if you imagine that these were J24's .. sure. But I think in this instance, it's just too close for boats of this size and speed (not to mention expense and number of souls at risk).

I've looked at it from every angle and I think Commanche had to start turning to avoid possible collision prior to WO coming down to even a generous close-course.

It seems it comes down to the judge's opinion if Commanche jumped-the-gun in starting to avoid.

I like David T's reference to Case .. I think we are in "reasonable apprehension of collision" territory given the size, speed, vantage points of bow (i.e. fixed-sprit in this case).

the deffinition of closehaulled seems to refer to sailing as close to the wind as possible. Thus to me if a boat can sail on a course with it's sails pinned in and proceed to windward it is closehaulled. This is heigher than some may expect. Thism gives Wild Oats more time.
Also to me the case 50 test depwnds on the fleet. What we expect in match racing is much closer to collission than we would expect in a fleet race. Here we are talking about a fully professional crew with an americas cup helm. If they could avoid at the very last milliseccond then to me the tacking boat has complied. obviously they do not have to anticipate but they cannot jump the gun.
This is not a normal race incident with there boats. Case 50 is bearing away when this si the only escape. the boat here had two choices and chose the one that suited it namelly to go heigh. I would be careful.

Just to clear up the FLAG thing, A flag "was" shown, saw this on the live footage at the time.

Michael B said:

This is not a normal race incident with there boats. Case 50 is bearing away when this is the only escape. the boat here had two choices and chose the one that suited it namely to go high. I would be careful.

Michael, can you elaborate more on the point you are trying to make in your quote above? "Careful" to what point?

In my reading of Case 50, its point doesn't rest on the fact that the avoiding boat has to go high, go low or even tack away .. but rather is a ROW boat that must change course .. any course .. to avoid a 'keep-clear' boat because she has a "reasonable apprehension of collision".

I don't see how the number of possible maneuvers available to her have any impact. Where do you see it?

PS I agree with the decision regarding breach of RRS 13.
The decision might be of some benefit in reinforcing that competitors ought take their turns and not try to take the last inch as a tactical move in fleet racing to save 2 boat lengths when their is no other imperative to do so.

Beau, close hauled would to my mind be a state where a boat can reasonably be expected to sail for most of it's time on a beat to windward as opposed to the angle at which it will still make negligible progress, or the angle at which it might pinch to get around an obstacle, or the angle at which it might sale to maximise speed at the expense of VMG on it's polars for a given wind speed eg in order to gain separation from another competitor and clear air. Once the tacking yacht gets to that "normal" close hauled course it would have satisfied the requirements of the rule. It would be boat specific and perhaps even wind speed and seaway conditions specific.

The decision is here. Sorry to rain on the parade, but I don't think this forum is a place to review the merits of a protest decision, no matter how high profile or simple the issue. We simply shouldn't second guess what happened in the hearing. We will therefore remove any comments that attempt to do that.

Fair enough Paul .. how about this without discussing the specifics of this PC's finding ...

I'd be very interested in hearing from those who have been in the position of affixing a time-penalty that is up to the PC (as was done here), what factors you've used in the past to determine what the correct time-amount was.

It reminds me of one of my absolute favorite all-time scenes from TV .. from the series "Taxi" .. I give you "Louie sets the price" :-)

I just got through this thread and wanted to add some points to consider. All of the comments that were made were based on the limited video that was stitched together to make the SH race exciting to watch. I'm sure that the Protest Jury had access to raw video that may or may not have had more detail.

If its permissible under the forum rules I would like to ask whether or not people think that the video footage is conclusive of facts or not.
For example there is a short few seconds from somewhere in WO cockpit while she was on Port showing what is close to a steady range with slight advancement. Would you find this video conclusive of keeping clear or not keeping clear in a port crossing? The same question would apply to the overhead Helicopter shot showing the boats just before the tack.

How well do you trust the perspective and the video evidence that we have to be conclusive or is it highly suspect because of the angles and partial views as well as wide angle distortions?

In past footage the only thing that seemed 100% accurate were timestamps on the frames that show when something started and stopped as well as if something happened or not (boat tacked, helm turned, boat luffed) but the extent and angles are suspect and can be a computer aided optical illusion.

What is the current thought in the community on video footage being reliable evidence?

From my limited experience in protest meetings both as a contestant and as a panel member and chairman, sometimes the verbal evidence is so conflicting you would think the people were in different races. I would prefer contemporary video evidence to be available every time and would give it heavy weight compared to contradictory oral evidence. But there were a couple of changes of camera or viewpoint that created some small degree of difficulty in making a decision, but not much.
WO was port and keep clear.
WO commenced a tack, passed head to win and lost all rights and was keep clear boat.
To me the burden now falls to WO to prove that she kept clear.
The video evidence does not support her in that it appears clear that LDVC change of course was in reasonable apprehension of a collision while WO had not yet got to a close hauled course. In case of any doubt (and I didn't really have much doubt at all) I would prefer the right of way boat over the one that had been keep clear boat both in approacihng the situation and during it.

I have not been very happy with video evidence. It is only produced when it suits someone so it is never really independent. Lots of clips are shown by coaches on OCS calls and they are difficult to time stamp and to me have never been conclusive, indeed I do not think I have accepted one.
I have found them useful in working out a sequence of events, as these are not generally time dependent. I remember one at a windward mark where a large outside boat tacked to starboard and the inside port boat said as tacking boat he had fouled them. The video taken on an ipad from a cockpit showed the larger boat luffing, and in anticipation of a foul the inside boat putting it's helm. Down, it was clear on the video that the smaller inside boat had actually tacked before the larger outside boat had passed head to wind. There was no foul, indeed the boats could not believe it themselves when they saw the clip, both left happy.
Video can be good when you have conflicting evidence and there is something in the clip that corroborates what one of the boats has said, this allows you to give weight to the verbal evidence.
When the evidence of video is bad if you have a restricted clip that shows in the tacking in front scenario the boat behind having to luff to avoid the tacking boat. This can be fine if the lead boat slowed and the boat behind had time to keep clear after the tack was completed cleat ahead.
It is of course up to the boat if they want to use it and like any form of evidence, it cuts both ways.

Both Rules 13 and 15 were operative. This definitely was not a fabulous lee bow maneuver. Once Wild Oats XI initiated its slam tack she was further obliged to keep clear of Comanche after passing head to wind until the moment. she was on her close-hauled course (Rule 13). While Rule 13 applied, Rule 10 no longer applied. Once Wild Oats was close-hauled on starboard tack, she was clear ahead and became right of way boat, but she failed to “initially give the other boar room to keep clear” and therefore violated Rule 15. She did not keep clear since her tack forced Comanche to alter course to avoid contact. It is obvious that at 21 – 22 seconds into the Facebook video that Comanche altered course. It appeared that its sprit practically kissed the stern of Wild Oats XI. This is also clear on the Australian Broadcasting Company YouTube video, which shows the wake of Comanche as she altered course.

It was ironic that Wild Oats XI even tacked since, at 15 seconds into the video, it appeared that she would have crossed Comanche with some room to spare.

It was a poor decision of the skipper of Wild Oats XI, Mark Richards. First, for not doing 2 turns (Rule 44.1) for a violation of a rule of RRS, Part 2, Section A , which would have absolved her. Given that Wild Oats XI finished 27 minutes ahead of Comanche, the time consumed by doing two turns would have barely dented that margin. Second, skipper Mark Richards is not the owner and did not have a license to risk injury, death, or damage to a million-dollar-plus boat that did not belong to him.

Ron Kallen
One-design competitor, Chicago

Addendum to above post:

Assuming boats tack at 90 degrees, a little math shows that the cost in terms of time and distance when initiating a duck 5-10 boatlengths from the point of convergence, is negligible, with rudder deviation of about 13 degrees over that short distance (for a 33 ft boat). The take-home: risk v reward. The port tack boat should duck rather than cross when bearing doesn't change and a collision is likely.

The verdict is in. The Protest Committee had wide discretion to levy a time penalty per the SIs:

20. ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES
(Amends RRS 44, 63.1 and 64)
20.1 BEFORE CLEARING TURNING MARKS Z/Y.
(a) For an infringement of Part 2 of the RRS that occurs after the Preparatory Signal and prior to the boat clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), the Two Turns Penalty under RRS 44.2 shall apply.
(b) A boat which is found after a protest hearing to have infringed a rule of Part 2 of the RRS after the Preparatory Signal and prior to the boat clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), shall receive a time penalty of not less than 5 minutes added to the boat’s elapsed time.

In response to Brent, I've rarely found viewing video offered as evidence without some value. I've certainly gotten annoyed watching five minutes of video for three seconds of action, but that's a different issue. I feel like I almost always get something from the video. It may or may not prove the assertion made by the person offering the evidence, but I find that, if nothing else, it helps tremendously with relative positioning and keeping the witnesses honest. And occasionally it is evidence that proves to be decisive (sometimes not in the favor of the person presenting the evidence). So I'm not sure the question is whether it is reliable or not, but what does it prove...

The takeaway from the jury seems to be that in mixed fleet racing if you are a give way or keep clear boat leading into an incident where there were lots of safe alternative courses of action available, do not rely on being able to convince a protest committee that you regained your rights in a situation where the safety of boats and competitors is potentially at stake because of your (tactical) decision to use a manoeuvre as a tactical attack on a competitor.
Having been in a club twilight race where a competitor's crew suffered a significant (ambulances, hospital, multiple breakages, multiple operations) injury as a result of a collision I can only agree that decisions which treat safety as paramount and discourage unnecessary dangerous manoeuvres is OK in my book (within the limits of the rules and sailing instructions of course).

Michael B .. thanks for your thoughts on Case 50.

I think I get the point you are making ... that a duck can only be a duck .. and a luff can be an avoiding-luff or the beginning of a tack and thus in your mind that can cause ambiguity of intent.

I would agree that if the avoiding boat made a smooth tack away and then claimed they avoided . that would pose a harder (but not impossible) burden upon them. In that case, the racer that has their wits about them would avoid high .. hold for 3-5 sec (long enough to yell 'protest' and fly the flag) and then tack away before the offender got their speed up enough to match their tack. This would separate the avoidance due to "reasonable apprehension of collision" from the secondary tactical maneuver .. making lemonaid from the lemons. - Ang

In regard to video evidence, I'd concur with Paul and Beau.

"Video evidence" is actually my line of work .. my company, Ocean Systems, was one of the first companies to develop video processing products for Law Enforcement (back when we still used video tapes for security systems !!!). Of course, when we're talking about training LE pros to capture and process evidence of a crime, there is a much higher standard as there needs to be a breadcrumb-trail of all that's been done to video as well who's has control of it (chain of evidence) .. and that's not as much an issue here, but it does go to the question of how it was cut if we are trying to do what is in effect an "accident reconstruction".

I won't get too far into the weeds, but like Paul and Beau mentioned above, there are big picture things that can almost always be gotten from video .. i.e. .. what tacks were boats on .. gross relative positions and gross relative timing of incidents.

The problem comes as we try to derive finer and finer details as in speed, distance, spacing, etc. The process is called "Photogrametry" and if you are using known items for relative measurement the process is called "reverse projection". It's a science that LE pros are trained on (which is part of the training we provide to LE).

It's one thing if we're looking at a fairly "long lens" from a helicopter, where the lens distortion is minimal .. but a completely different thing when working with the wide angle lenses common in GoPro-type devices, where the lens distortion is to such an extreme, that relative distances are very hard to determine.

So, when possible, I would recommend this to anyone accepting video evidence ..

#1) Ask for the unedited sources. Even it it's cut together for your convenience, still ask for the unedited source feeds. From an unedited tape, one can absolutely derive times of events once you know the frame-rate of the video
#2) Try to understand the lens of the camera and only asses relative distances if you have both a long-lens AND the items you are measuring are in the same relative frame. For instance, in the WO/Commanche video, the aerial footage is far enough away, the angle high enough and lens long enough that one could actually make some rough measurements. On the other hand, the deck footage can't be used to measure anything really ..
#3) Never use cut video to timing of events across the cut.

Anyway .. those are my suggestions .. if you don't try to be "ambitious" you certainly can glean useful info out of video evidence.

Ang

Angeno
Off subject may be a different 5opic

I am giving a lecture on finishing in February and a suggestion is to talk on vidieoing the finish.
It is assumed a phone or tablet will be used but it could be a gopro.

Any advice or suggestions.
Mike

Mike : It is off topic but more importantly a very interesting question. Would you mind submitting it as a new post so that all members see it? I've created a new Race Officers forum for this purpose.

PS ... I moved my reply to your new thread once created.

New thread here ... https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/106-use-of-video-in-race-management

Here is an Interesting and IMO thoughtful article, published on Scuttlebutt News, which uses the WO vs Comanche incident as a launching-board for an insightful look at penalties in general.

I thought I'd share with the peanut gallery ..

Ang

Scuttlebutt Article - 'Penalties: There must be a better way'