Paddy we had a similar thread here: https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/513-reneging-on-waving-port-through-or-tack-or-pass

At the moment S chooses to wave P through, S's course is to pass astern of P.  P does not prevent S from sailing her course, even when S may have to alter her heading to sail her course.
.  

I agree with Murray.  P keeps clear.  On the face of it neither boat breaks a rule.

Some comments on O's assertions in his protest 

This is a conclusion or an opinion.  O would need to bring some factual evidence to prove the point.

This is an inference about P's state of mind.  Again, O would need to bring factual evidence to prove it, which would be very difficult.
 

The expectation that boats will enforce the rules is just that:  an expectation.  It is not an oblligation or a duty.  If there is no duty there can be no neglect.

P broke no rule.

Case 78 demonstrates the principle that a boat may employ 'tactics' that have a  reasonable chance of benefiting her in the race or series, without breaking rule 2, as long as she does not break any other rule.

Just throwing around high sounding phrases like 'manifestly unfair' doesn't help a protest for rule 2.  The protester needs to clearly establish that a recognised principle of sportsmanship has been violated.

OK, here we are opening up the possibility that the condition in Case 78 Question 1(e) that S was attempting to worsen O's race or series score for reasons unconnected with sport (namely spite or a grudge against O) might apply.

To get to this, it would be necessary to prove that the condition from Question 1(a) that there was a reasonable chance that S's tactics would benefit her place in the race or series did not apply.

This would be quite hard to do.  Starboard tack boats wave Port tackers through often, usually for their own benefit.  It cannot be inferred from S finishing mid-fleet that there was no chance that waving P through would have benefited her.

 It is not unknown, and, in my opinion quite sportsmanlike for middle of the fleet boats to try to avoid interfering with known well-performing boats.

So, O will have her work cut out for her.

It will be even more difficult to prove any collusion or conspiracy between P and S to do O down.  That certainly be inferred from any evidence presently in the scenario.

As Bryan Willis would say: neither boat, involved in the incident, was aggrieved! 

I think this is pretty bad sportsmanship by the protesting party.  It is often a competitive advantage to allow a port boat to cross.  And that would be decided by the Starboard boat, not some onlooker that has nothing to do with it other than it affects the overall score.  Come on.  Unless it was obvious collusion this is a non-story and the so called "victim" is just being a bad sport here.  It is up to the Starboard boat to decide if anyone did anything wrong here.  No contact, no harm, no foul.  Giving these kind of folks a platform does not help the sport.  

An unfortunate consequence of good will.

A right of way boat changes course to avoid making contact with a keep clear boat. A rule has been broken, in this case by the port tack boat whether you like it or not. The choice to protest is there one. Another boat protesting might cause a disqualification in a hearing.

However, the question of whether rule 2 was also broken needs an element of knowingly breaking a rule. In this case and most others it is very likely that neither boat even considered they were breaking a rule and so further action on the sportsmanship aspect.

During the last couple of years there have been at least two cases where exactly this situation of waving through caused problems, each time in umpired fleet racing
where the classes gave umpires the right to deal immediately with what they observed rather than waiting for one of the boats to protest. Following the out cry the class
have now changed their SIs.

Hi Chris,

What if S decides that her best course is to sail astern of P (avoiding the possibility of a lee-bow tack from P forcing S to tack to clear her bad air)?
Then, surely it is S's course to bear away and pass astern of P.  P does not prevent S from bearing away to sail her course.  No rule is broken.

The definition of keep clear makes no mention of a boat changing course to avoid contact.  A boat's course can change at any time during a race for any number of reasons.  When a ROW boat chooses to sail a particular course, and is thereafter able to sail that chosen course without needing to take avoiding action, the keep clear boat has fulfilled her obligations.

Murray

In this incident, S did not want P to tack close and lee bow her so S  calls P through. This is clearly S deciding her course.

Would this still be the case if P hailed 'Tack or Cross' thereby putting some pressure on S (a mid fleet finisher) to let her through. S still decides but may feel her sportsmanship would be questioned if she says Tack. Even mid fleet sailors still want to finish ahead of other mid fleeters.

The issue is, did the port tack boat fulfill its duty to keep clear? Clearly not as the ROW boat changed course to avoid contact. There is nothing in the rules to allow for waving a boat through and rule 10 cannot be turned off in this case.

Did the ROW boat alter course to avoid a collision or to avoid a lee bow.  The ROW boat got to sail the course she wanted. 

Chris Watts

said Created: Today 17:54

And this depends absolutely on the definition of keep clear. which is, relevantly

A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat ... if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action 

This definition, in turn depends on the meanings of 'course' and 'needs'.

In the context of the right of way rules (as distinct from rule 16) a boat's course need not necessarily be a constant heading.  A boat's course may be a curve.

'Needs' is not the same as 'wants'.

In the port/starboard crossing situation, if S wants to steer a curving course astern of P, then she has no need to change that course or take any other action to avoid P.   P therefore keeps clear.

Port was in a position to alter course to stay clear. Starboard asked her to sail on, so she could duck and sail in clear air - so no rule is broken. This is quite within the spirit of a self-policing sport.

John

Angelo thanks for pointing me at the previous discussion it was very helpfull

And thanks to all who contributed. 

 I havea few observations.

IMHO I thing there is a big difference between the following scenarios

 

1.     S, without any communications with P, changes course to go behind P. 

2.     S hails or signals P to pass. P acknowledges continues on her course and S goes astern of P!

 

1 Appears to me to be ok and no rules broken

 

2 S and P enter into an agreement to ignore RRS 10. S is now obliged to keep clear of P turning RRS 10 on its head. This is not  OK on many levels and it sets a precedent to treat other RRS in the same manner.

 

I’ve heard large boats asking mid fleet boats to allow them to pass to windward because they’ll be pass them very quickly.

Barging boats asking for room to pass the committee vessel saying that’s one I’ll owe you

All of these scenarios are a disadvantage to boats who in the spirit of sportsmanship follow and enforce all rules.

 

John Allen

It’s very seldom that anyone brings proof into the room and people usually tell the truth. Most decisions are made by considering a balance of probabilities. 

Point 3 you would have to apply the same logic to “ body of rules that they are expected to follow” 

 

“It is not unknown, and, in my opinion quite sportsmanlike for middle of the fleet boats to try to avoid interfering with known well-performing boats”

 

The rules should not be different depending on a boats performance.

 

I agree that RRS 2 would be very hard to argue.

 

Ryan Hamm

“Giving these kind of folks a platform does not help the sport.”

If a competitor sees any rules broken she can protest. That is not unsportsmanlike.

 

“No contact, no harm, no foul”. Needs to be used  with caution.

 

Chris Watts

 

Strongly agree with your comments

And yes RRS 2 may be a bridge too far.

 

Murray Cummins

“The definition of keep clear makes no mention of a boat changing course to avoid contact”

 

Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat
(a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action...

 

I thing that an avoiding action is usually achieved by changing course.

 

Richard Jones

Hailing “Tack or Cross” is not a hail supported in RRS so S has no obligation to reply.She can continue to sail her course and let P make her own decision.

 

Anyway thanks all and I still think that calling a P thru is somewhat problematic.

Paddy,

When S decides that it is in her best interest tactically to change her course to pass behind P, then, when she changes course , she is sailing her course and P does not break rule 10.  There is nothing in that decision that breaks rule 10 and S certainly is not obliged to keep clear of P.  When S changes course, she still has right of way, but is required to give P room to keep clear.  P is still required to keep clear of S, which she does, as S is able to sail her course to pass behind P.   S may well have had to change course to avoid P, but, in doing so, she is sailing her course.
 
If S wishes to maintain her current course, without bearing away, but she has to change her course to avoid P, P breaks rule 10.

Murray

Thanks Murray
The scenario you describe is one where S decides to bear away so that P can cross without tacking. I think that’s all ok. 
The problem IMHO is when S communicates to P that she can cross safely and S will then steer a course behind P in order to keep clear   
I think this constitutes an agreement between the boats to put RRS 10 aside for this crossing. Implicit in this agreement is that S will allow P to cross with no interference from S compelling S to keep clear of P. 
I think the practice is very common and widely accepted but is it fair on boats that always sail to the letter of the rules. 

Paddy


 

Try looking at it this way.

Once it is understood that if S changes course to pass astern of P because she wants to do so for her own advantage, then that is the course she is sailing with no need to take action to avoid P, and thus P is keeping clear, any communication between the boats is irrelevant.

This is only problematic for people that are going out of their way to find problems with it.

If it was really problematic there would be protests about it followed by appeals and cases.  There are not.

We want boats to communicate and cooperate on the race course.  We shouldn't be trying to stifle this.

I really don't think anyone could read the sorts of conspiracy or collusion that Paddy is describing into the sorts of hails that are made on the water.

John
I made this post following discussions with fellow sailors. I thought I would be good to stretch the envelope and gather some thoughts from more experienced officials like yourself. 
And yes boats should communicate on water.
I was only digging deep into the practice of calling thru Port trackers. I think collusion and conspiracy is overstating my intent.
Information I gathered at this website and from other sources has convinced me that practice of calling Port trackers thru is generally accepted as being trouble free.
Thanks for your thoughts
Paddy

Paddy,
Thanks for explaining your point of view.

I am worried by some of what I am reading, having continued to follow this discussion. It is all too easy to try to read into the rules things to justify what one might think is fair, but the rules can only be changed by a formal process through World Sailing. If you are unhappy with the consequences of a rule that is the only way to go. All IJs are certainly told in their seminars that they have to support this process and enforce the rules as they are written and supported by case law. Not all words in a Definition are defined, but one cannot read into these words over elaborate meanings. 

The words "no need to alter course" in the definition of Keeping Clear simply means just that. Sailing curves is changing your heading, i.e. altering your course. Bearing off to pass astern of a keep clear boat is altering your course. If that happens, even with the best of intent, it unfortunately breaks rule 10 in this case. "Sailing her course" in this case is sailing on a windward leg and not having the right to sail where ever the right of way boat wants to sail.

Is waving someone across risk free? It is certainly not and there are well known incidents to prove it. I have already mentioned the case of the Dragons racing at Cannes, but in addition to that:
Optimist World Championship
Port tacker- "Can I cross?"
Starboard tacker- "Go."
In the following protest the starboard optimist states " I did not say GO, I said NO."

An International Finn event
Port tacker, leading the Championship- "Can I cross?"
Starboard tacker- "Yes."
Starboard wins the following protest. Top Finn sailor is furious and suspects team racing tactics.

Calling a boat to cross will certainly happen and most of the time with no problem, but the risk needs to be understood. It certainly is NOT "risk free."

Chris, re: “The words "no need to alter course" in the definition of Keeping Clear simply means just that.”

“Keep Clear” says something different than what you quoted above.

“ Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat .. (a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action”

A ROW boat that decides it is better for her to continue on starboard and wants to encourage a port tacker to sail-on, isn’t taking an “avoiding action” if she bears-away to make that happen.  I would argue she is taking a “deliberate, purposeful and desirable action”.

“Course” is a funny word in the RRS.  I had a post a while back examining the different ways it is used. Here: https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/262-of-course-as-we-course-through-the-possibilities-we-understand-course-in-due-course

For instance, think about “proper course”.  We often think about a boat’s proper course possibly being a complex maneuver .. and WS uses it that was as well. (See Case 75).  

Surely the ROW boat has the right to sail a high course or low course (foot) as she chooses.  In my opinion, she has every right to sail whichever course she chooses that she determines will be best suited for her to get to the next mark in the shortest time.   

 
She can sail any course she likes. It does not have to be a course that will get her to the next mark in the shortest time

Paddy, re: “She can sail any course she likes. It does not have to be a course that will get her to the next mark in the shortest time”

Yes, as long as a rule that uses ‘proper course’ to limit her does not simultaneously apply. 

Proper Course is used in Rules: Mark-Room, 17, 18.1(b), 18.2(c)2, 18.4, 24.2

Angelo
Yes of course I should have mentioned that. I assumed that would be understood. 
Then assume makes an ass of me. ….
Paddy

Murray,
Yes a boat can head up or foot off, but in the proximity of a boat required to keep clear one has to ask the question as to why it changed course. There is a basic requirement to be truthful. :-)

I don't understand why "one", presumably a member of a protest committee, "has to ask the question why a right of way boat changed course".

Firstly, "one" presumes that S is in the room because P has called her as a witness.

Presumably, P will ask her that question, and I would expect S to answer

"I changed course because I thought it would be to my advantage to do so".

P might then ask:  "Did you change course because you needed to avoid me?", and I would expect S to answer:

"No". 

There are a number of perfectly proper answers the representative might give to some questions from the protest committee including .

"I do not wish to answer that question because you are attempting to badger and entrap me into changing the evidence I have already given"

… also on the topic of “course” being a more inclusive concept than sailing a straight line, we can consider RRS 18.1(d) … where ‘proper course’ describes “a course” (“a course ..” taken from def: proper course) that includes a tacking maneuver. 

Angelo,

Yup.  Words take their meaning from their context, particularly words that aren't defined terms in the RRS.

Course sometimes means a boat's heading at a particular instant, as in RRS 16, sometimes it means the path it has taken or wishes to take.

John, Thanks for adding 16 to the mix.  IMO, these multiple meanings of “course” can tend to confuse or at a minimum be unclear. 

I’ve spent a little time (honestly not a lot so far) trying to think of alternatives I could suggest in a submission. “Path” surrounded by a few extra words was one that I kept coming to when “course” may refer to something more than going in a straight line. 

“Heading” doesn’t really work if we try to single out when ‘course’ means going in a straight line through the water. 

“Keep Clear” uses the phrase ‘sail her course’ which could be contrasted to  ‘hold her course’ as used in Case 15, which as you say puts the word in a different context and thus clearer meaning. 

PS: In other words, Keep Clear could have used the phrase “hold her course” (as used in Case 15) if that was clearly the intent. 

Hi Angelo,
I find Case 15 has some relevance to the situation we are discussing here.  From Case 15, it is clear that for A, the course she wishes to sail (her course),  is to tack and round the mark  Because of B, A is not able to sail her course without infringing rule 13, and instead holds course on her current heading. 

In the situation we are discussing, the course S wishes to sail (her course) is to bear away and pass behind P.  If P and S were to hold course on their current headings, there would be a collision.  If P were to tack or bear away at the same time A bore away to her chosen course, there would likely be a collision.  Communicating to B to hold course, allows A to avoid contact ( complying with rule 14 ), allows A to sail her (chosen) course, and enables B to keep clear when A changes course, thereby complying with rule 16.1.

Murray
   

Murray

B has no obligation by RRS to hold her course after A’s hail. RRS only requires and supports hails per rules 14 and 20. 
RRS never requires a boat to sail her Proper Course. 
Paddy

Angelo,

Don't quite know where you're going with this, but maybe this will help

USA Appeal US33

 

Rule 16.1, Changing Course
Rule 16.2, Changing Course

To change course means to change the direction in which the boat is heading or moving

Hi Angelo and John
I think that the word course covers all varieties of movement of a boat getting from one point to another. And it also describes one course made up of many points joined together. 
I think it covers all examples of movement of a boat. A course can be circular or parallel or just a straight line or extremely complex. 
Paddy

Thanks John for finding US33 for me (was looking for her yesterday morn). 

It’s emblematic of the challenge (i.e. multiple meanings of “course”) and illustrates why “heading” alone is insufficient when describing a straight-line course. 

Interesting reading all. Thanks. 

20 years of discussion on this and still no real consensus. Wow! 

But now it is becoming clear to me.. I think. 

Sorry, I'm bringing this up to the top.

A couple of things before I launch into a full assault! 

1. Course - In context of the definition of keep clear means the heading she is on at any moment. Team Racing Call A2/ US33. 

No other meaning would work. Sorry. 

2. Leaving the rule 10 aside for the moment, it surprises me that no one has mentioned rule 41 in the 'Tack or Cross?' question. 

I disagree with this statement.   The definition of keep clear tells us that  the right of way boat must be able to sail her course without taking action to avoid the other boat.
So, for any boat, what is her course?  Her course will be any course she chooses to sail to complete the race.  During the race, she will need to change course many times in order to sail her course to complete the race (for instance, she will need to change course to sail her course around a mark). 

This does not contravene US 33, which, in part, states "a boat changes course when she sails the arc of a circle or any other course where she changes direction".

Yes, S does sail a course where she changes direction when she passes astern of P.  So, she changes course while sailing her course,  The definition of keep clear makes no mention of a boat changing course, only that she is able to sail her course.

Great.  Thanks Murray.

In an excellent previous thread, some people looked at the range of meanings of the word 'course'.

https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/262-of-course-as-we-course-through-the-possibilities-we-understand-course-in-due-course

It is true that the RRS uses the word with interchangeable meanings.  Maybe it is not helpful, but I don't think it is a problem if context is considered.

In the context of 'keeping clear' it is only sensible / possible that 'course' relates to a defined, observable and measurable and predictable pathway, rather than the suggested opposite.

To conclude that 'course' means the wiggly route the RoW boat desires to take which probably changes constantly, renders it impossible and dangerous  for a keep clear boat to comply with the obligation to keep clear with certainty.

We can't have safety separation rules (anything relating to keeping clear) relying on the keep clear boat's ability to some how (telepathically maybe) know, predict or guess what the RoW boat's chosen pathway will be at any time.  We can't have an interpretation where S could in two consecutive crosses on a beat flip-flop her actions as being in one instance a change of desired routing, and in another instance an avoiding action.

The suggested 'choice of route' interpretation doesn't fit in with any of the other terms and measures used for separating boats when they meet.  Overlap - a specific line drawn from the transom.  Windward - Corresponding to a wind direction and boat direction.  Zone - a line exactly 3 boat lengths from the mark.  All these are definite lines / concepts, for good reasons.  'Her course' in the definition of 'keep clear' must be a quantifiable observable predictable measure if boats are to be safely separated.

Using Ockham's Razor, comparison to similar/related rules, US33, TRCA2 and common sense (and a bit of lateral thinking for some), 'her course' can only be along the lines of the ground track / heading she is on at any moment in time.

I suspect that this twisting of the meaning of the term 'her course' into this broad unpredictable wishy-washy vague and fuzzy infinitely open-ended preferred routing is done because it then conveniently fits the much 'desired', more comfortable outcome of an acceptable port-starboard wave through scenario.

However, I think this is the very root cause of the fact that after millions of hours of discussion, there is still no good consensus on this topic.  Normally, the subtle difference in interpretation goes harmlessly unnoticed, with no or little consequence.  However, in this debate it is critical.

With Murray's interpretation, people need to then go onto construe that S's change of heading was not actually to avoid contact, but was instead following a decision to take a routing behind P.  P is conveniently spared.  Yet, this instils the absurdity and vagueness into rules where vagueness is unacceptable.  It ignores the fact that simply, the boats got too close.  It washes out that moment where the rules say, 'enough is enough'.  We now have to rely on S's testimony as to her intentions. In another parallel universe that exact same dip could be construed as avoiding action and land P with a DSQ.. depending on S's reasons for dipping.

All of this is quite unsatisfactory, where the other more defined interpretation of 'her course' is simpler and more logical.

Let's see what others think.

What if I told you my new enlightenment on this does not take Murray's interpretation, but still explains away the seemingly problematic fact that Stbd has options? (Well, up to a point.)

Hence we have the rule 16.1.
It is true the keep clear boat can only react to what the ROW boat is doing at the time.  While S is sailing her course without changing heading, P can reasonably predict where she will be and can plan her actions accordingly.  S's action of waving P through actually communicates S's intention to allow P room to cross and she could then reasonably predict that S will allow her to cross.   Whether a change of course (heading) by S is to sail her intended course, or to avoid another boat or object, can only be determined by S.  If S decided her course was to continue on her current heading (and not wave P through), P has the same choices - tack or bear away to keep clear, or continue on with risk of infringing rule 10. 

Murray,

Thanks again taking this on.

Look, by using your interpretation of 'her course', you end up with a massively inefficient and dangerous ruleset.  Now you have brought in R16.1 fix the problem.

You're suggesting that arguably the most fundamental and important safety rule in the book requires communications, predictions and other rules to work, because of your curious interpretation of 2 words in there.  I'm offering you a way of having 'keep clear' be stand alone, simple and defined.  What's not to like?  I just don't get it.

Ok - I'll move this along.  Maybe it may become clearer and help to realign your perspective if I explain more.  I will need you to clear your mind and go with my interpretation for now though (even if you don't fully agree right now).

-----------------------------------

Let's focus on 'keep clear' for the moment.  Put the ethics, morals, communications and other issues aside for a moment.  We'll come back to those.

As mentioned, the interpretation of 'course' in the context of anything to do with 'keeping clear' is that single defined measurable line extending forward from the boat's bow at any moment in time.  That is 'her course'.

It's important to understand that, since it will allow you to properly perceive 'keeping clear' as simply a purely geometrical, mathematical, empirical, objective, physical concept.  Intentions, discussions, agreements are immaterial to whether a boat has kept clear.

So consider P and S on a collision course.  At some point, we would say that by definition of 'keep clear', P's keeping clear status switches from 'TRUE' to 'FALSE' e.g. P has failed to keep clear.  This point is only based on those factors which affect S's ability to avoid contact. e.g. Distance between, speed, directions, environmental conditions, boat design and manoeuvrability etc.. etc..

Recognising the moment P fails to keep clear is critical.  Let's refer to this moment as Point X!    (I think Point X is the missing key element in most 'Tack or Cross?' discussions I have seen.)  But when is Point X?

RYA Appeal Case 2003/8 recognises this moment in R11.  It says "the moment when the windward boat has failed to keep clear is, by definition, also the moment when the right-of-way boat must take avoiding action if she is to avoid penalisation under rule 14"

Similarly, RYA 1986/3 recognises that "the moment a boat fails to keep clear is determined by the moment the right-of-way boat must act to avoid contact".

So I'll define that crucial Point X (the moment the keep clear boat fails to do so) as:

…the moment after which, a course change by S is or will be needed to avoid contact.

Again, to reiterate, Point X is independent of S's intent, communications, agreements between them.  It is based only on the physical, geometric, environmental situation.  You need be objective here.  Clear emotions or desired outcome from your mind.  Point X just is.

Simply put, if boats reach Point X, then P has failed to keep clear.  No ifs, no buts. That also means, if the boats did NOT reach Point X, there is no mathematical conclusion that P failed to keep clear.

Summary then...

S can execute any 'strategy to finish'.  She can choose to continue and force P to take action to keep clear, or she can bear away or tack away.  She can change her track as she wants (so long as she complies with R16) and so long as she makes this track change before Point X, P cannot be considered to have failed to keep clear.

If the boats sail to Point X though, P has failed to keep clear even if S was intending to (and could still easily) avoid contact.

Just to pick up something Ang and John Allen were throwing around...:  They seem to acknowledge that in R16, the meaning of the word 'course' is as US33, the straight forward track a boat is sailing at any moment.  Why then, would it mean something different in the very definition relating to that rule?  I suggest that in all cases where 'course' is mentioned in relation to 'keeping clear', the US33 holds true.  In other words, US33 could be extended to the definition of keep clear and other 'keep clear' rules.  See TRCA2 which has done just that.  TRCA2 extends that interpretation to all of Part 2, and any time that word is used in the definitions, except for in proper course which is different and so specifically defined.

Ang, would it help if they just said 'Course over ground (COG)' in the definition - we're all presumably familiar with that from our instruments, right?

----------------------------------------------
Anyway, I'll keep pressing on...

As mentioned, any maneuvering or changing course by S before reaching Point X is has no consequence on whether P kept clear.

Nothing requires S to invoke her 'right-of-way' and cause P to have to act to keep clear.  She can choose to avoid that by changing course and defusing the situation so long as she does so before Point X.  That could be a tack or a bear away.

Can a 3rd party protest?
In 99% of 'keep-clear-rule' protests, the right-of-way boat is protesting a keep clear boat, and her burden is to prove that the boats got to Point X, and she took avoiding action (or couldn't take avoiding action) at that point.

Rule 60.1 entitles any boat who saw the incident to make that allegation.  If a 3rd party saw the cross, she could claim P failed to keep clear. She has the same right to protest as S has, and has exactly the same burden - she must satisfy the jury that the boats got to Point X.  The elements of a 3rd party protest are exactly the same.

If satisfied, the jury must find that P failed to keep clear, and broke R10, irrespective of any communications, intentions or acceptance, or wave through etc..

P only needs convince the jury that they never got to Point X.  The problem is that in a 'Tack or Cross?/Wave through' scenario,  Certainly P and probably S would likely provide testimony to that.  So it's O's testimony against P and S - that's tough for O.  Additionally, there is such a preponderance of misunderstanding that the easiest solution for O's rule advisor is to simply say, "Don't go there! No rule broken".   For this reason, such protests are rare.  The chance of success on the grounds of R10 are low.

Can a boat waive her starboard rights, or assume the risk and responsibility?
No.

Often it is suggested that by waving P through, S has waived her rights.  This is not so.  This would be illogical and dangerous.

A boat is not granted actually rights, and so cannot waive them or assume the keep clear obligations.  'Right-of-Way' is only a pseudo right borne out of the other boat's obligation to keep clear.  So the real question is, "Can a keep clear boat ever be relieved of her obligation to keep clear by a right-of-way boat's wave?"  No!

A keep clear boat cannot be relieved of that obligation by some 'private agreement' between the boats.  There is no mechanism in the rules for that to happen.  The corollary is that a boat cannot ever 'waive' her rights.  If the boats get to Point X, P has failed to keep clear.

Does a boat keep clear by virtue of accepting an invitation from the right-of-way boat to cross?
No.  Determination whether a boat has kept clear is based only on whether they reached Point X.  The notion that accepting an invitation-to-cross equals 'keeping clear' suggests some kind of 'private agreement' to relieve P of her obligation to keep clear.  It is irrelevant whether S invited P to cross.

Interestingly, an excellent book by an author I highly respect, suggests that S's invitation to P to cross is enough to conclude that P kept clear.  Clearly I (respectfully) disagree.

If the boats reach Point X, but S is not aggrieved does that mean that P has kept clear?
Again, the same book suggests that since S was not aggrieved, there was no foul.  Again, I would suggest that the conclusion is not accurate and is misleading.

To reiterate, if the boats get to Point X, then P failed to keep clear - by definition.  S's absence of aggrievement does not change this. The rules are not determined by how annoyed the right-of-way boat is.

Whether S was aggrieved is only relevant to whether S would or would not feel like protesting P.  However, a 3rd party may be aggrieved and is entitled to protest the rule breach.

------------------
By now it should be clear that the R10 breach is only determined by Point X, regardless of any intention, plans, agreement, decisions.

There is no need to list every permutation or variation of the scenario.  From the point of R10/Keep Clear, it's quite logical and easy.

Most of the posts in this and countless previous threads (by well versed rules gurus I might add) bypass any recognition of the importance of Point X, and therefore make conclusions and assertions with a lack of consideration of the critical moment in a meeting when a boat 'fails to keep clear'.  I suspect this has been the problem since the first time I came across this conundrum.

Look, if P and S did not get to Point X, P kept clear.  If P and X reach Point X, P failed to keep clear.  It's that simple.

Only when that concept and process for determining 'keep clear' is accepted, is it possible to continue onto the other factors which creep into this scenario such as R41 or R2.

 US33  says "To change course means to change the direction in which the boat is heading or moving." 
 US33 also says "a boat changes course when she sails the arc of a circle or any other course where she changes direction,"

Sometimes it requires a boat to change course in order to sail her course.   Consider a boat rounding a mark.  Her course is to continuously change course in order to round the mark.  While changing course, her course to round the mark does not change.  Her course to round the mark is a course where she changes direction until she is heading in the direction she desires towards the next mark.  

It is clear to see that by changing the direction in which she is heading or moving, her course is not changing.  

Why is it so hard to understand that a boat that changes the direction in which she is heading in order to pass astern of another boat, is doing so in order to sail her course that she has chosen?





 

Murray,

I 100% understand what you are saying.  I 100% disagree what you are saying is the correct interpreation with respect to any rule where 'keep clear' is mentioned. (10 to 16).

US33 summary says "To change course means to change direction of heading/moving".  Put another way, that means "To change course means to change COG" if we were took a photo of our instruments at any single moment!

Then in the answer US33 says clarifies that, "US33 also says "a boat changes course when she sails the arc." This is reinforcing the point that the COG is a single track, not a curved one made up of every direction of the compass when sailing an arc.  Back in 1974 US sailing recognised that the course was simply COG at the given moment in question.  Somehow you are reading into that sentence that 'her course' includes a curved track.

If US Sailing had meant that, they would have said that.

A boat rounding the mark needs to sail an arc of a circle for sure.  As she does so, at each position on that arc 'her course' is only the COG (the tangent) at that moment.  If she proceeds a little bit further on that arc, her course has changed.

Read that again!  Again, if US Sailing had meant that, they would have.. but they would have made it clearer of course.  But they didn't. 

What you have done is entwined BOTH meanings of the word into the same phrase.  Not only confusing, but absurd.  US Sailing is attempting to do exactly the opposite.  It's saying, 'Course' means one thing.  All they said was that sailing an arc is changing course.

Why is it so hard to understand/accept your [Murray's 'choice] interpretation?

As I said.  I understand it.  I don't accept it.

Because when talking about 'keeping clear', it results in a confusing inefficient set, where a boat's obligations are based on the 'choice' of another boat which could be a undefined curved track.

Contrast that with the more simple interpretation...  'Her course' being something I, as a keep clear boat can observe at the time and react to.  If we are in close quarters, she must stand-on (hold her COG) so that I can adjust to that and meet my obligations.

As I said before, your interpretation really doesn't have any problematic consequences in a normal considerations.  When RoW is arguing that a port boat didn't keep clear, it doesn't really matter which interpretation is used.  That's why it has been so ingrained.

However, when considering this Tack or Cross scenario, creates a massive loophole where the obligation to keep clear is determined by the right-of-way boat's wishes and options, rather than by keep clear being based on a simple moment and position based on the geometric relationship between two boats at the time.

That loophole doesn't work because it permits starboard to dictate through her testimony after the event, whether a boat has kept clear or not.

I wonder what anyone else thinks.  Angelo looked into this and identified the different uses of the word.  Then seemed to settle on your very persuasive interpretation.   I wonder if he has any comment on what I'm suggesting now.

When a boat changes COG to pass behind a boat (even if it has been her plan for 10 BL as they approached), she has changed her course, as referred to in the definition of keep clear and RRS16.

Is 'Tack or Cross?' and a wave through a breach of R41?

Benjamin,

Well, actually, they did.  You just chose to omit the relevant wording when you partially quoted US33

Ben .. thanks for your well thought out and referenced posts .. definitely a lot to think about.

My 2 cents is that the def: Keep Clear does not use the verb "change" when it describes the course as RRS 16 does.  Looking at RRS 16, it is clear that the rule-writers had access to the word "change" in the context of the idea "change course" .. but that's not what they used.

I have no argument with how you have defended your definition what "changing course" means, especially since as you point out in the USA, US 33 spells it out for us in plain English.

An antonym of "change" could have been "hold" or maybe "maintain" and those words would have fit nicely into the sentence structure of the Keep Clear definition.

For instance ..

"A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat 

(a) if the right-of-way boat can sail hold her course with no need to take avoiding action and,..."

.. but that's not what def: Keep Clear says

def: Keep Clear uses the verb "sail" .. a boat keeps clear ".. if the ROW can sail her course".   When I look through the RRS and the Cases, "sail .. course" is often used when describing the broader sense of a 'path through the water' concept of "course".  Often we see it along with "proper course" as is in '.. sail her proper course'.   Case 75 is a good example of how the discussion around starboard's ability to sail her proper course which might have been to take a wide approach-tight exit rounding.

Ang

Murray,

Thanks.

I left out "or any other course where she changes direction" because it really isn't relevant.  It refers to alternatives to 'arcs of circles' to be inserted into the first clause of that sentence, not a whole new concept or clause. "...or any other course" means we can insert anything into the place of 'arc of a circle' which involves a direction change.

a boat changes course when she sails the arc of a circle curve of an oval
a boat changes course when she sails the arc of a circle erratic path caused by healing in wind changes
a boat changes course when she sails the arc of a circle backs up and then sails forward

The summary point is made in italics and is clear in US33.  The rest is explanation of the summary.  It should not contradict the summary.

------------------------
Ang,

Thanks.

I don't think the verbs (change, hold and sail) are the issue in question.  (Def. of KC doesn't use 'change' so I'm a bit confused with your 2 cents paragraph.)

I think the issue is the noun 'course' which is problematic, but critical.  Here's where I do think the use in R16 is the same as in the definition of KC.

There is no doubt that 'course' is used with multiple meanings.  Context is crucial to make sense of it.

When used in "sailing-the-course" or "I took a course" or "The doctor gave me a course of drugs", we all know what it means.  We have the clear distinction of course used in 'proper course' which is agreed to be referring to a broad planed route to finish.

Lastly, we have a set of rules in which 'course' is critical.  'Keep clear rules'.  Since 'course' appears in the definition of Keep Clear its meaning permeates into all the rules which include the defined phrase 'keep clear'. (That's R10 to R16).  R16 is special because it additionally uses the word 'course' in the rule.

It's here that Murray and I are locked up.  To me in light of US33, TRCA2 and logic, in the context of 'keep clear rules', course can only have the meaning as per US33's italicised summary, and that is consistently applied to 'keep clear'.  Unfortunately, this context is not clarified in RRS or casebook or Q&A. Leaving US33 and TRCA2 and internet discussions to do that.

Since you have mentioned the verbs, I'll examine those.  However, like I said, the issue is with the meaning of the noun 'course' not the preceding verb in each case.

Ok - the easy one is the verb 'change'.  That verb is not under dispute. Plain ordinary meaning there.  Change = to alter from the current state

The verb 'sail'?  I don't think there is any inference in its use in that way. You have connected it to the 'broader path' such as proper course.  I don't think there is any such connection.  I think 'sail' means 'sail' (see below), and the modifier of the meaning is only the noun, 'Course'.  The word 'sail' only gives meaning to the kind of action.

'Hold' and 'Sail' are interesting.  They are so similar in meaning that they are essentially interchangeable.  I'm sure that the verb is does not modify the meaning of the following 'noun' as you suggest.  Using 'sail' vs 'hold' does not refer to a kind of course.  It's only the noun that does that.

So the fact that they used 'sail her proper course' somewhere vs 'hold her course' in Case 15 and elsewhere is not that important.

Although a native English speaker, I can't explain the technical grammatical difference between the two.  If I was to manage a definition of both, I'd say something like:

To sail = to actively progress along [using sails]
To hold = to actively limit to or maintain the current

(The antonym of hold is change. You said that yourself.  So you can't make a direct switch from 'sail' to 'hold' in the def. of KC.  They mean 'sail' .)

Its so subtle, but maybe that helps to clear them up.

Still, it's the noun 'course' which is the issue, since it is critical for conceptualising 'her course', as being a single entity at a moment in time, rather than the broader pathway, and therefore he point at which a boat keeps clear as an empirical predictable geometrical position.

------------------------
Right... I want to move on to what I think is the crux of 'waving a boat through' matter,  RRS41.  Thoughts? 

Ben .. re: RRS  41 .. now you've really opened a kettle of fish! :-)

If I was to agree with your interpretation of this, then yes, I think you'd logically have to examine if RRS 41 is a problem.

Years ago I wrote a "paper" (of sorts) that was formulated here on RRoS (with a lot of help from many on the forum).  It was titled: "“I owe you one”, “Was MY score effected?”, “Not-Worthiness” and “Stigma”; Four Mindsets Eroding Fair-Sailing in Club-Level Racing."

What you're starting to get at is that these boats are on the verge of creating what I termed "a rule-breaking compact" (which is described using different circumstances in the first section "I owe you one").  Here, they are each "helping" one another if you accept your construct that a rule was broken.

Inclusive of " a boat changes course when she sails the arc of a circle part of her course that involves a change of direction.

Murray,

I'm not sure we can get any further on this, since it really is down to an interpretation of a homonym.

I'll plod on anyway, since the 'course' disagreement is not relevant to this next part of my work-through.  It's the R41 aspect.  I welcome your valuable opinions on that too.

Ang,

4 Mindsets Article.  Thanks.. Excellent read.  I'll be sharing that around for sure.  Let's come back to that later.

However, for purpose of the 'Tack-or-cross/wave-through' processing, I'd like to leave the sportsmanship and morals to later.

As mentioned, ever finding a R10 breach in a 'wave-through' scenario would be quite a task.  Most communications and interactions happen before Point X, and so R10 cannot be concluded.  Starboard is entitled to change course (bound by R16.1) before Point X and that doesn't automatically mean Port broke R10.  Even if the boat's did get to Point X (but no ensuing collision occurred) the likelihood of there being an aggrieved 3rd party within witness range is small.  And even if there was, it comes down to the testimony of the aggrieved 3rd party vs the testimony of the Port boat, as well as a cooperating starboard boat.  That's hard.

So this scenario is rarely tested for R10, and so poorly understood.

For now, I'd like to leave the Port/Starboard/Keep Clear/Rule 10, and the Rule 2 aside, and purely focus on the Rule 41.

Here we go.

---------------------------------
Most discussions seems to get hung up with the R10 question, and then jumps to the R2 question.  However, a critical aspect is to identify clearly whether 'solicited help' was received.  Unfortunately, this question is rarely addressed.  In this very thread as an example, R41 has not yet been discussed.

Fleet racing is a competition of individuals using their own skill to beat others.  It doesn't intend boats get help, cooperate or gain advantages which other competitors can't compete for.  Rule 41 uses the very open term 'help' to describe that unintended advantage.

R41 is quite specific.  In general terms, boat cannot receive help.

What is help?

Help can be of little significance resulting in a very superficial gain, or it can be help which results in a significant advantage to the boat.  Help could be a gain by means of knowledge/information only, or it could be a more measurable gain such as position on the course, tactical position or even speed.  Any measurable gain against other boats, or reduction in a burden set out by the rules.

What is certain is, help no matter how significant or not, is help.

What is soliciting? (In the information sense!!)
Asking a question is 'soliciting information'.  There can't really be any dispute here.  I hope not.  So when P asks, "Tack or Cross?", "Can I cross?", or even raises arms gesturing the same question, P has solicited information.

Solicited Help?
So we have two concepts:

We can make some conclusions.

Asking "Tack or cross?" or anything suggesting the same (including gesturing) is soliciting information and if a favourable response is given, that must be considered help.  This kind of solicited help is not included in the list of exceptions and therefore is not permitted and receiving it breaks a rule.

Considering the most minimal version of 'help', it could be simply the information P needs to be able to focus on her sailing, and not having to worry about the starboard boat, or wonder whether she needs to prepare for evasive actions.  A focused still boat is a fast boat.

Help which is more measurable and significant is say, a positional/tactical gain on the race course, or a speed advantage.  Not having to bear away to pass behind a boat or not having to tack away when continuing straight ahead is faster then, are both examples of 'help'.

This is the problem with 'Tack or Cross?" question by P.

Regardless of any R10 infringement, a jury faced with a R41 protest over a 'Tack or Cross Question-and wave-through Answer' event should have no option, based on the two concepts above, other than to find the R41 broken. 

P received 'help' which was solicited.  It is irrelevant whether the source was disinterested.  As soon as its solicited, it falls out of the exemption of 41.(d).

Let's be clear here though.  Its not all doom and gloom.

The keys for R41(d) are 'solicited' and 'interested'.  Either of those renders the help as illegal.

Help which is 'unsolicited' from a 'disinterested' source is allowed.

So if S steers to pass behind P or waves P across before P has asked the question, the help was unsolicited.

Was the source interested?  Well, that is much harder to evaluate.

The risk for P is that an aggrieved 3rd party satisfies the jury that S was 'interested' in the wave through.  If so, then even unsolicited help falls out of the exemption.

A boat in the same race could be 'disinterested' (say, if it was a lap or two behind the others, and coming last in the series).

A starboard boat presumably could wave a port boat through for her own personal gain.  I'm sure there will be a split in opinion whether this renders S as 'interested' or not.  The counter argument is that S would not wave P through if it increased the chances of P beating S or reduced S's chances of beating others.

So regardless of who gains by the 'wave-through' (S or P), it wouldn't take much argument to claim that S was 'interested' as she waved P through. Particularly if the starboard boat giving the help was reasonably matched in the competition to P or a 3rd party.

Is P's defence that S waved her through 100% for S's gain valid?

Enjoy!

Ben .. very interesting.  Allow me to improvise a bit off your angle.

I'm a ROW obligated to give a KC boat room between me and an obstruction, but the obstruction is obscured by other boats or maybe the sails/hull of the KC boat.  I ask the KC boat, "Am I giving you enough room?" and they answer "Yes/No". Under your framework, does that break RRS 41?  

Does it matter if the answer was "Yes" (I was meeting my obligation and make no change in my course) or "No" (I was not giving enough room and I turn the boat to provide more in response)?

R41  Exception (c) help in the form of information freely available to all boats;

Surely, P's Tack or Cross request is asking for information from S as to her intended course. Is she going to hold her existing course or is she going to voluntarily make a small bear away. This information is freely available to all boats. The 3rd party protester certainly had it.

If S bears away of her own free will as she does, R10 is not broken. 

Richard,

I think it is a stretch to say S's response is information freely available to 'all' boats.

Firstly, as far as we know, only P and S are having this discussion.  We don't know where 3rd party is.  Secondly, even if 3rd party was in earshot, there would be plenty of boats not privy to the answer.  S's response is certainly not 'available to all boats'.

Moreover though, Case 120 discusses that phrase, and sets a context of meaning for it.  In Case 120, the kind of information discussed is say, information "...available from a public source that competitors can reasonably be expected to be aware of and can locate with little effort.."  Internet, or radio, or TV.  Even VHF broadcast.  Somehow information broadcast for all.   Not on the race track from discussion with another competitor.

RYA 2005/5 clarifies 41(c) in a similar way.  As does US Sailing Question 93.

I don't think 41(c) is relevant to P's question and S's answer.

P's defense that she was simply harmlessly enquiring "asking for information from S as to her intended course", doesn't work.  Why ask that question, if not to hope for favourable information that she will be relieved of the need to tack away.

Rule 10 and Rule 41 need considering separately.  Please go back to my previous posts where I analyse Rule 10/keep clear.  'From her own free will' is irrelevant when considering whether P broke 10.  'Keeping clear' is not predicated on the choices or plans or 'will' of S.  It's whether the boats got too close.

What do you think?

Ang,

"Am I giving enough room?"

Starting with the simple one...

"No! You're not giving me enough room!" - This does not constitute help, since it does not provide any advantageous information, physical gain or ease/reduce/relieve any burden set by the rules.  You are required by the rules to give room, and the 'No' answer makes no difference to that.  In fact, it probably is a discussion in keeping with 'avoiding contact' which we should encourage.

It's analogous P asking 'Tack or Cross?', and S simply shouting "Starboard!" and standing on, requiring P to tack or duck behind.  This does not break R41, for the same reasons.  Hailing is action to avoid contact. (Case 107).

"Yes!" - Here it is a little more difficult to conceptualise.

Since you are in the act of giving room, you are meeting your obligations.  You have received no advantageous information and your burdens have not been reduced (you are meeting them).  So I would say this is not 'help'.  It is simply information.

Its analogous to P asking, while in the process of tacking to keep clear of S, "Am I keeping clear?".

It is different to P asking S, "Can/Will I be relieved of my tack?" before she starts tacking.  Here P is asking whether she will have her burden reduced.  Not whether she is meeting her obligations.

Good question!

I have tried to present a framework for resolving the question.

Starting with R10/Keep Clear, then moving to R41.  The last step is to consider the much discussed R2 and sportsmanship issue.

-------------------

Sportsmanship generally revolves around whether the breach was 'knowingly', 'repeated' or some element of 'malice' such as team tactics, or intimidation etc...

Knowingly breaking a rule?
Just breaking a rule is not a breach of sportsmanship.  However, when a boat knowingly breaks a rule, it is a breach.

With the "tack or cross/wave through" scenario there is such abundance of misunderstanding and difference of opinion, it is quite probable that the players involved would genuinely believe they were acting within the rules.  (At least they could claim that and easily get away with it.)

So a penalty on the 'knowingly breaking a rule' bit is not likely.

Team tactics and collusion..
..are not permitted in fleet racing.

Without evidence of actual collusion (transcript of communications and agreements) or clear disadvantage to S known to S at the time, it would be quite tough for an allegation on this point to stick.

However, an exchange as seemingly harmless as "Let me through so I can beat O" is arguably a form of collusion and therefore open for R2 allegation.

Lastly, it's quite important to appreciate that even though there may not have been team play or collusion (and not ultimately a breach of sportsmanship), the action of 'waving a boat through' may yield exactly the same result; advantage for one boat at the detriment of another.

As sailors, we should be consider whether our actions are unwittingly giving unfair advantages and changing the element of 'sporting competition'.

Has S somehow failed to 'enforce' the rules?

The fundamental principal is that boats are bound by a set of rules they are expected to 'enforce'.

Boats are expected to 'enforce' the rules.  This is misunderstood to mean that boats must protest when they see a breach.  Misunderstood because it conflicts with 60.1, which puts no obligation on a boat to protest.  'Enforcing the rules' includes recognising that the decision to protest is up to the boat.  A boat does not fail to 'enforce' the rules simply by not protesting.

In summary then
...it is unlikely that a 'Tack or Cross?' scenario falls within the scope of Rule 2 - Sportsmanship, unless there are 'clear' elements of the usual concepts, such as knowingly, repeatedly, malice, intimidation and team tactics.

To wrap up and summarise what I have suggested in the last few posts, I'll share with you a more composed 'article' I cobbled together.

Good chat all.

(Hmmm ... There's 4 pages.  Does anyone know how to upload a PDF?)

I think the difference between 'hold' and 'sail'  makes it clear that avoiding action may not just be a change of course. A ROW boat could back or ease their sail to avoid a collision whilst still holding course. 

Below where I have substituted in hold, it may be inferred that as long as the ROW boat is able to hold course then there is no infringement and any avoiding action is in relation to her course only. 

The actual definition using sail is a more complete word for the rights of starboard boat. They not only have the right to hold course, but they have the right to sail (be propelled by sails) along that course.

Also feeds tangentially in to rule 16 where the RoW boat only has to give room for a change of her course. But there is nothing stopping you sheeting on to stop a port tack boat crossing, and nothing stopping you from easing sails to prevent a port tack boat to duck you. The instances where either of these action would make strategical sense are pretty limited though, but one good example is a port tacker trying to clear the starboard pack at the start.  The port tacker is often crossing the fleet, until they sheet on.