Forums
The Racing Rules of Sailing |
1836 Posts
|
|
Rule 18 and Room at the Mark |
176 Posts
|
|
Protest Committee & Hearing Procedures |
110 Posts
|
|
Race Committee & Race Management |
79 Posts
|
|
Rules 2 and 69 |
49 Posts
|
|
Match and Team Racing Rules |
47 Posts
|
|
Training Materials, Presentations and Classes |
59 Posts
|
|
Share Your SI/NOR Language |
49 Posts
|
|
Event Management & Forum System (Q's, Comments & Suggestions) |
174 Posts
|
|
Regole e dintorni - Italian Channel |
50 Posts
|
Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
Recent Posts
-
8 CommentsAlan Chidsey, Today 11:00
-
14 CommentsPJohn Quirk, 26-Jul-13 08:25
-
32 CommentsÓlafur Bjarnason, 26-Jul-12 17:08
-
28 CommentsPJohn Allan, 26-Jul-09 10:54
-
2 CommentsPJohn Quirk, 26-Jul-07 09:12
Recent Comments
-
Alan Chidsey said
1. Which boat is the inside boat and why?
We recently had an extensive discussion about this in this thread Which is the the outside boat ?
I really liked this way of putting it:
When X is overlapped on the same side of Y that they are required to leave the mark, then X is the inside boat.
2. Does Boat T have any rights when it gets to its port layline to gybe onto port and demand room from Boat C so that she can finish the course on Boat T's layline to the finishing mark
C, overlapped outside, is required to give T mark-room. That is room to sail (directly) to the mark.or could Boat C just continue on starboard and only gybe when Boat C wanted, perhaps past Boat C's layline which would make it difficult for Boat T to finish without getting off the right of the pin and then gybing?
No, if C wanted to drive T away from the mark, she would need to do that before either of them reached the zone: she would be quite entitled to do that as long as she is not subject to a RRS 17 restriction.What happened was that Boat T got to its port layline to finish inside the pin end of the finish line, and Boat T gybed first and called out "gybing" and Boat C felt it also had to gybe to keep clear of Boat T.
Well C was never required to keep clear of T. C was the right of way boat throughout: initially as leeward boat (RRS 11), then when T gybed onto port tack as the starboard tack boat (RRS 10). But C was required to give T mark-room, and as long as T was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled she was exonerated for breaking RRS 11 or 10 by RRS 43.1(b). C was also required to avoid contact with T under RRS 14.And then Boat T headed Boat C up and Boat C did not keep clear and Boat T called out a protest and Boat C did a circle. Boat T won the race.
Well that's interesting. There are a couple of options.
After gybing, as long as T sails no higher than her course directly to the mark before C gybes, T is sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled and C is giving her mark-room. After C gybes, if T then sails above her course to the mark, she, as the leeward right of way boat is entitled to do that and C is required to keep clear of her.
OTOH, if, after gybing, T, now on port, sails any course higher than her course directly to the mark, she is no longer sailing within the mark-room t which she is entitled and if C, still on starboard, needs to take any action to avoid T (such as gybing), T, on port, has not kept clear and is not exonerated because she is not sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled.
Seemingly Alan, and C are not claiming that T came out of her gybe any higher than her course to the mark.This question has been bouncing around our sailing club since the race last Sunday. One very knowledgeable rules authority stated:
>>>
“Inside” and “outside” refers to the positions of the boats as if they were rounding or passing the mark.
In your example, T is the “inside” boat because she is on the starboard side of C, and they are leaving the mark to starboard. Therefore, T is the “inside” boat and entitled to mark-room.
>>>
Yup, that fits in with the other thread discussion mentioned above.Mr. C, the skipper of boat C, finds this unconvincing stating that he was closer to the pin when they entered the zone, and that although T would be inside boat if they both gybed they hadn't yet gybed. He further states
Hmmif C did not gybe and instead continued on starboard tack past the port tack layline, to say point G and then gybed, T would be clear astern.
If C stood on towards Point G, then she would not be giving T her mark-room to sail to the mark, and C would break RRS 18.2(a)(1).John Allan Today 12:35 -
Interesting discussion, thanks.
In a similar vein. A boat has 2 handicaps - one with kite, one white sail. But they (rightly) declare the kite handicap and the, should the conditions dictate - have to stick with that handicap whether or not THEY chose to fly a kite. In my mind (and reading) you can't choose to use the white sail handicap just because you decided ( or were forced) to not to fly a kite?Tom Smith Today 07:30 -
John A re: "I would quite like to see the construct of RRS 44 changed so that time for a boat to take an on-water penalty ran from the hail of 'protest'."
At first reading, I was nodding in support, but then thought how difficult it is now to convey the idea that a fouled boat can't tell another boat that broke an unexonerated-rule "don't worry about it" .. or worse .. "you owe me one".
We also have boats who don't take the rules seriously and never hail protest .. and others maybe because of social pressures or their perceived status on the water.
I'm afraid that the 2 points above will be a viscous cycle even more so than now.Angelo Guarino Sun 12:22 -
Dustin, I think a lot of your points are well made, but it's perhaps useful to relate them to some of the more or less unspoken conventions about rules problems and forum rules discussions.
Posts in a forum rules discussion are not necessarily of the completeness and precision of a well written jury decision.
When judges are discussing a written 'rules problem', by convention, they do not rely on any fact not stated in the problem, for example if there is no mention of contact, then it is taken that contact did not occur. It is, however useful to make some assumptions for the sake of discussion, for example, in a diagram, that the wind is coming from the top of the page, or, as in this case, that the next mark is to windward. Some of these assumptions will be stated, some just made and then left open to challenge by others participating in the discussion
Just as in a live protest hearing, judges will consider all the evidence available including diagrams, textual descriptions, images, and some 'notorious facts' ('notorious' being used in its proper meaning of well-known, not 'infamous'), like boats will normally sail close hauled at about 45 to 40 degrees to the wind.
I think it's a pretty fair assumption in this case that this is a normal W/L course and the next mark is to windward.
Anyone that wants to challenge these sorts of assumptions is welcome to do so in the course of discussion.There's not enough information in the diagram to infer that Yellow tacked too close (or more specifically, Green had to alter course to avoid Yellow while tacking).
I absolutely agree, but bear in mind that Angelo was pitching up the first ball over the net in the first post in reply to the OP.What kind of boats are we talking about? If you're talking about a 80 foot cruising monohull, or a slow tacking catamaran, perhaps it's too close. Are we talking about a Laser or 470, both of which complete a tack in well less than a boat length? Then very likely it’s not too close.
OK, we can glean something from the diagram.- Boats are shown as same size, so we can expect similar performance.
- Boats are symmetrical spinnaker boats (FWIW), not cats or rack dinghies, but not Lasers or Optis either.
- Boats have tacking angles and close hauled wind angles shown by the grid lines.
When we deal in boat lengths, size doesn't make all that much difference, except perhaps when thinking about carrying way. It's not like the Yellow boat is a Farr 40 and the Green boat is a Dutch Barge.How fast were they going? Also greatly impacts the answer. If these are for example, Tech Dinghies, which both tack quickly and go very very slowly, it’s not anywhere near too close. If we're talking 505s, 49ers, or A Cats, then Yellow was not only too close,
Once again when we deal in boat lengths, until we get to very fast boats where psychomotor reaction time of fractions of a second may become relevant, speed is less important than existing conditions (which will affect speed). If, instead of light conditions as stated, this scenario was in 25 kts, and offshore waves, that would make a difference.but likely needs a trip behind the wood shed.
I don't get this proposition. If a boat in a highly competitive performance class nails a competitor port and starboard without breaking a rule, that's exactly how the game is meant to be played.If we're talking small modern keelboats, say a J80, it's likely still not too close. They do specify light air, so I suppose much is happening "slowly", but that makes which boats you're talking about even more important. You can tack a Laser in no wind in a boat length. Try that in a Lightning. Whereas an A Cat can be going 11-12 knots in "light air" of 6-8 knots, so nothing in particularly "slowly".
The PC has to ask sufficient questions to determine the facts. We don't have them here.See above: I think assumptions about 'normal' conditions and performance are quite all right, and are necessary.
If forum contributors think there are unclear variables, they can always ask the OP, or state some explicit assumptions.My inclination, absent any other information, would be to say it's on Green to show that Yellow tacked too close.
Shock, Horror, you're bringing back 'onus'.I personally don't see that in the diagram. Absent a good explanation, I wouldn't be able to find sufficient information to indicate Yellow tacked too close.
Well, what would need to be proved is that G, having a reasonable apprehension of collision (Case 50) changed course to avoid Y, before Y had reached a close hauled course.
I certainly agree that the diagram and the OP scenario doesn't show that.Why don't I see it? At point 2, Yellow appears to already be nearly head to wind, and Green is over 3 boat lengths away. Most boats I can think of would be able to complete the last half of a tack in less than 2 boat lengths. Unless they're very slow, or very slow to turn.
YupWe can't really infer point "2.5" because they didn't draw it. We don't have that information.
I think we're at perfect liberty to do some geometrical interpolation. That's not inference.
Anybody who thinks it's wrong can bring up the discusison.
So if I were on the PC, my questions would be around when Yellow crossed head to wind, and where Green was at that time.Yup again.A couple of boat lengths is plenty of time to avoid a collision on virtually any boat.
OKThus, I'd say the burden is on Green.
Then you would be advised not to use language of burden or onus. Onus was removed from the RRS in the 1995 rewrite. Not relying on 'onus' is sort of a big deal.Whether Green saw them or not, also irrelevant. That's a safety/seamanship question, not a rules question.
Hmmm, it might be better to say that it does not excuse or exonerate G if she does not keep clear.If Green has a large Asym, and isn't keeping track of their fleet, leading to crash maneuvers, that's not a rules issue. It's a seamanship issue.
Generally, we're all bringing a lot of preconceived assumptions here based on the boats we have most experience with.
As judges tend to do in real live protest hearings. Good judges are alert to this and pay attention to boat characteristics that are different from their personal experience.John Allan Fri 12:54 -
Bullseye. H12 hull with an aluminum marconi rig, cuddy cabin deck layout, half wishboom.Niko Kotsatos 26-Jul-14 18:13