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.
RULE 20 - TACKING and AVOID - in STARBOARD and PORT
Alvaro Garcia
Nationality: Argentina
0
Hello Regarding the situations in the attached scheme, I would like to know Vtra. interpretation and ask: How are they similar and/or how are they different? And above all…. What is the interpretation of the word avoid in relation to turn? Thank you so much vire111.jpg106 KB
Created: 23-Feb-15 16:35
Comments
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Alvaro, you might want to look at this case and appeal as well …
Case 35 .. compare your drawing at 3 with this case’s drawing at 2.
US Appeal 15 doesn’t apply to you, but it’s interesting as it talks about a boat approaching a “launch” (a boat”) and … “… If she had approached the police launch sufficiently close to its leeward end so that, with only a slight change of course when one of her hull lengths from it, she could have safely passed to leeward of it, she should have done so.”
Angelo, thank you but you propose a very different case. The proposal is about doing it to starboard or to port in terms of differences and similarities in both cases, and especially about the word avoid in the context of these tacks. Regarding a case as an official opinion (case Book) and a free personal opinion, I am interested in the latter
Created: 23-Feb-15 17:03
Charles Darley
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
Regional Umpire
1
Having hailed 'you tack', the responding boat must give the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her. In blue/yellow, I think yellow complies. In Green/grey I think in the absence of a hail grey was required to bear away at 4 in order to comply with rule 15. With the hail, green has to give grey room to tack and avoid her. Green gives that room,
Created: 23-Feb-15 17:11
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
1
I would say that in 20.2(c) the meaning of "avoid" depends on who is ROW after the hailing boat tacks. I expect that's the reason that "avoid" is used instead of "keep clear".
If the responding boat will have ROW after the hailing/tacking boat tacks (Yellow v Blue above) then "room to avoid" means room for the hailing/tacking boat to keep clear after her tack.
If the hailing/tacking boat will have ROW after her tack (Green v Gray) then "room to avoid" would mean giving enough space for the now-starboard boat to complete her tack and to comply with her RRS 15 obligation.
Created: 23-Feb-15 17:12
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
2
Avoid means, in this case 'to keep out of the way of'. This is very different from the RRS definition of 'keep clear'
In the diagram Blue can pass head to wind, reach a close-hauled course on port and bear away to pass astern of Yellow. Unless Blue is required to make an unseamanlike manoeuvre, she has been given room to tack and avoid.
It is important to note that room to avoid might mean room to tack back on to starboard - see Case 101.
When Grey reaches a close-hauled course on starboard she acquires right of way and is subject to RRS 15. Green is required to keep clear and also give Grey room to avoid. Grey gives Green room to keep clear by bearing away and in doing so she can also avoid Green.
Created: 23-Feb-15 17:14
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
0
Just more reasons that rule 20 should be deleted. You could remove the obstructions and get the same answers in both these situations. In both cases the protest should be dismissed.
The term 'avoid' means to not hit the other boat while maneuvering in a seamanlike way. The room needed to avoid starts the moment that the tack is completed, i.e. you get both the room to tack and to avoid. This is another flaw with rule 20 as a boat may be able to avoid by tacking more or less slowly.
In the Yellow/Blue case, Blue completes her tack and has room to avoid the other boat (which btw is ROW) which she would be required to do anyway by rule 10. This would be the same whether or not rule 20 or the obstruction existed.
In the Green/Grey case, Grey completes her tack and obtains ROW and initially has to give Green room to keep clear per rule 15 and does so by taking her stern. Again, the same whether or not rule 20 or the obstruction existed.
Created: 23-Feb-15 17:49
Paul Murray
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
1
In the Green Gray case: Gray completes their tack to Starboard at least one boat length or more from Green. Depending on conditions, speed and type of boat that could be enough time for Green to keep clear of Gray; in which case Gray’s protest would be upheld.
Created: 23-Feb-15 18:09
Anthony Pelletier
Nationality: United States
3
Angelo's reference to case 35 is spot on for the blue/yellow case. I agree with the interpretation that "room to tack and avoid" was provided in the blue/yellow case and case 35. Rule 15 is not in play because yellow became ROW due to blue's action. The green/gray case is also well explained above IFF we assume that as soon as gray was born off to close hauled, there was no seamanlike maneuver that green could do to keep clear, as is her obligation under rule 10. If that's the case, then gray behaved properly in giving green room to keep clear (by bearing off) and no rule was broken. If, however, there was room for green to keep clear by tacking as soon as gray reached close hauled course on starboard, then gray satisfied rule 15 and green violated rule 10. As john says above, the obstruction ceases to be relevant as soon as gray's tack is complete if there is room for green to avoid.
I agree with John that rule 20 is not really in play here. I do think it has its place, however. If the lateral distance between the two boats were much smaller, so that the leeward boat in either case could not complete her tack and avoid Windward, rule 20 would seem to be necessary.
Created: 23-Feb-15 18:13
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
0
I agree with what Anthony says about the distances between the boats. However, rule 20 is really completely unnecessary and just complicates things.
Think about how these situations would play out if rule 20 was not there. The leeward boat would always have the ability to luff head to wind (even if rule 17 applied) and the windward boat would have to respond. If there was not room for W to keep clear then she probably would have broken rule 11 before the luff and rule 20 would not have helped. The boats can hold there as long as W wants to. W tacks and L follows. The positioning and control that W originally had is maintained. Many boats sail much more closely to the obstruction and then rely on rule 20 to bail them out of a bad situation that they created. Without it, I contend that the situations would be resolved further away from the obstruction.
Created: 23-Feb-15 18:29
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Anyone want to take a whack at applying US15’s statement about being “…sufficiently close to its leeward end so that, with only a slight change of course …” to the Blue/Yellow scenario?
Created: 23-Feb-15 18:40
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
0
Unfortunately, this is another place where rule 20 is often abused (and should be deleted :-)). Even if Blue could pass to leeward with out any alteration of course, Yellow's only option is to let Blue apply rule 20 and protest. Yellow cannot see exactly how Blue is tracking. Then the PC can ask Blue about it and hopefully come to the right conclusion.
Created: 23-Feb-15 18:50
Alvaro Garcia
Nationality: Argentina
0
Angelo, in your caso US15 L is the boat with the right of way so she may choose to pass an obstruction on either side 19.2 (a), so considerations of being close to leeward end, or others are irrelevant. And in my case blue/yellow it is also the same.
John Christman There is no abuse of rule 20 in the case of blue/yellow, blue can choose where to go (19.2) and he does.
Created: 23-Feb-15 19:11
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
-1
That would be true if L can pass on either side of the obstruction without tacking. The issue is with rule 20 and whether L can hail for room to tack if, by making a small (i.e. *not* substantial) alteration of course, she can pass to leeward of the obstruction. Is the hail then invalid? If she does go to leeward then rule 19 would apply and she would have to give room to W.
Created: 23-Feb-15 19:24
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Alvaro, I think US15 is focusing on the idea that, yes, as the ROW boat, Blue can choose to pass the obstruction on either side, BUT 19 does not convey to Blue the right to cross head-to-wind (tack).
So, yes, Blue could go HTW under 19.
I think US15’s commentary is focusing on the condition in 20.1(a) … (emphasis added)
20.1(a) she is approaching an obstruction and will soon need to make a substantial course change to avoid it safely …
So, the reason I mentioned US15 is to consider whether Blue’s course change to leeward, as shown in OP drawing, represents a “substantial course change”?
Created: 23-Feb-15 19:27
Dan Bowman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Race Officer In Training
0
US Appeal 15 is a little worrying. If one were to approach a police launch at hull speed and come within one boat length you will be stopped, maybe inspected and ticketed, possibly even arrested and boat impounded. I would recommend keeping many both lengths from any federal, state, municipal police, and coast guard. Most have no idea how a sailboat works, much less what a race is.
Created: 23-Feb-15 20:29
Anthony Pelletier
Nationality: United States
0
John, your status as a National judge and umpire far outstrips my qualifications. So I hope you consider my following query an honest one, not an argument. I originally thought about the potential rule 17 problem. But you covered that.
My query has to do with your statement "The boats can hold there as long as W wants to." I think you are right under the rules if rule 20 did not exist and I think that underscores where rule 20 serves a purpose. Playing out your scenario on the blue/yellow side of the diagram: L goes head to wind, W matches. Both are subject rule 13 if the go past head to wind and blue, who is to port of yellow, must keep clear. For some tactical reason, yellow chooses to hold there. She can do that because there is no requirement that she allow blue room to avoid her. This creates a safety hazard because the boats now in irons could drift down onto the obstruction. The advantage of having rule 20 there in this case, at least as I see it, is W has to allow L both room to tack to avoid the obstruction and room to avoid W.
Is there any value to what I've said?
-Tony (I know it says "Anthony," but I go by Tony).
Created: 23-Feb-15 20:40
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
0
Tony - Your point isn't without merit. The difference is between what is possible under the rules and what will happen on the water given the larger picture of what is happening. While the rules don't put any requirement on W to tack, from a practical point of view, if W doesn't continue passed HTW and tack, she is losing to the rest of the fleet. So W has motivation to tack. Also, consider that this could happen in open water or near a layline, L luffs W to HTW, W is going to tack away because that is the fastest option at that point.
But rule 20 distorts all of this. It allows L to sail closer to the obstruction on the assumption that W will get out of the way immediately once the hail is made. L can effectively dictate to W when W is going to tack. W doesn't know when L is going to hail so planning her strategy becomes more difficult. It also removes some of the tactical advantage that W has over L. For example, supposed W wanted to hold HTW, make a slower tack so she could advance a little further to windward of L before tacking. With rule 20 in play, L would complain about this, saying W didn't give her room to tack and most PCs would be forced to agree.
When thinking of this situation, most people just think about the obstruction and not other factors. On San Francisco Bay, we are sailing in current and there are HUGE advantages in going that extra half-boat length into shore to get current relief and to be on the left side of the fleet. Rule 20 is frequently broken and abused and basically results in boats that were behind coming out ahead.
Created: 23-Feb-15 21:38
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
0
IMHO, I think in both cases the boats that haled for room to tack have been given room to tack, Blue and Grey completed their tacks whilst keeping clear.
After they finish their tacks:
Blue must keep clear by 10, which she does;
Grey is ROW, but constrained by 15 acquring rights by her own actions. If at position 3, could Green have kept clear by immediately tacking... maybe in which case she broke 10, if not then Grey had to duck by 15 and did so.
In terms of fairness, both Yellow and Green were ahead before the obstruction and both are ahead after the obstruction, so the rule did it's job to let the boats not hit the obstruction nor each other, but allowed for fair racing. An obstruction should not be allowed to be used to gain an advantage!
Created: 23-Feb-15 23:08
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
"Just more reasons that rule 20 should be deleted. " Surely the main purpose of R20 is safety, to reduce risk of boats running aground or hitting each other? At least to alert each other? In RC Racing, the rapidity of boats turning and their negligible momentum means that holding head to wind is near impossible.
Created: 23-Feb-15 23:33
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
0
Greg - while the order has been maintained in this case, when there is significant current differences across a short span of course width, it is rarely the case. Most often a boat that was controlled by another is in control after both boats tack. If you don't believe me, please come and watch a race on the SF City Front in a flood tide.
Stuart - my contention is that rule 20 is actually 'anti-safety'. While this may seem counter-intuitive at first, rule 20 allows the constrained boat to sail closer to the obstruction than she otherwise would if she didn't expect rule 20 to bail her out. If rule 20 didn't exist then she would take the appropriate action, such as luffing to get the windward boat to clear out or (gasp!) slowing down to find that hole in the line of boats, when further from the obstruction. It's up to her, and her alone, to plan her own way out of the hole she has dug for herself. Rule 20 requires the other boat to help her plan her escape. I assert that the rules of Part 2 Section A provide all the tools needed for the constrained boat to avoid an obstruction safely.
Created: 23-Feb-16 00:05
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Judge In Training
0
There are, of course, innumerable instances in which L does not have the right to luff W. So, 20 serves a purpose there. And there are others where the approaching obstruction does not lend itself to just a head-to-wind luff. 20 serves a purpose there, too. And there are the instances of a string of boats to windward of W which limit W's freedom to respond to a luff. Picking a specific scenario to criticize the rule writers is seems unwarranted.
Created: 23-Feb-16 00:39
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
0
Philip - I would be interested to see examples of your cases.
If you are thinking of rule 17, luffing would be consistent with proper course. When else would L not have the right to luff? And if it is simply a matter of room, why would tacking be any different?
Since rule 20 requires the boats to already be sailing close-hauled or above, what situations would a HTW luff be inappropriate when done sufficiently far from the obstruction?
A string of W's that limit the ability to respond to a luff certainly would have a similar problem with tacking.
Created: 23-Feb-16 01:02
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
0
John, I have indeed sailed in SF and short tacked up the north coast against a strong run in current. A boat that makes better tactical use/avoidance of a current can make gains in a race, regardless of rule 20. The boat nominally "ahead" might not actually be so when the playing field is asymmetrical with regards to breeze or current. If the obstruction was not there, the boat further from the adverse current will make gains.
Without 20, boats would still sail as close as they can to get out of the current and just hour an opportunity to tack turns up. I don't see how creating no-way-out corners in the rules will help safety. Yes boats should plan ahead, but they won't when there is a 3kn adverse current pushing then on!
Created: 23-Feb-16 01:03
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
-1
Greg - I assert that there are no no-way-out corners as the rules of Part A give you everything you need to avoid them. I challenge you to present a case where that isn't true.
Rule 20 is easily the most broken rule and probably misunderstood rule on the SF City Front. As a result, I think it creates more dangerous situations than it solves.
It has a significant effect on the outcome of the race. A windward boat can be forced to tack away from the advantageous current earlier than they want to and allowing a boat that is behind to stay in it slightly longer and gain a significant advantage. So a boat that puts themselves in a dangerous position gets a huge advantage, how is that improving safety?
Created: 23-Feb-16 01:21
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
0
John, furthermore, the right to luff doesn't get a boat out of trouble at an obstruction. Any boats outside her are not obliged to tack as they too can simply luff up. Now we have a chain of 2 or more boats at an obstruction all playing the game of luff, potentially losing way and the having trouble at the obstruction. If the obstruction is a line of breaking waves, then encouraging such a luffing battle could soon become dangerous!
Created: 23-Feb-16 01:22
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
0
John, you criticize a boat for gaining and advantage over another boat by "putting themselves in a dangerous sitatiuon", but that is only because the windward boat wants to sail on into that exact same dangerous situation. If the advantageous current is on the left and the windward boat is on the right of her competitor, then maybe she is not in the "advantageous" position that she thought she was in.
For the no-way-out scenario, see my previous comment where the outside boat responds to a luff by just luffing. The inside boat at the obstruction has no way out, can't go forward, can't tack, can't stay where she is for long and no reverse gear.
Created: 23-Feb-16 01:28
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
-1
Greg, The same problem you describe plays out with or without rule 20. A boat that waits that long to call for room to tack is in the same position, especially when there are a line of boats that have to respond as the hail is passed up the chain. Because of rule 20, the boat hailing for room has intentionally sailed herself into a dangerous situation and expects everyone else to bail her out of it. Also, once L luffs HTW do you think that the windward boat won't want to tack away and is content to let the fleet pass them by while they have their little luffing match?
Created: 23-Feb-16 01:32
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
1
John, I think you exagerate the impact of 20. A boat is not asking to be bailed out entirely, she is asking for temporary respite from rule 13 so she can tack. Once she has tacked, the normal rules again apply and she may have to duck many other boats or even tack back towards the obstruction before she would really like to. That advantageous current needs to be pretty good if you are forced to tack every 3 or 4 boat lengths!
With regards to luffing matches, I've never notices any huge doses of rationality in most of them. But then a boat might not need to beat the fleet, they may only need to beat the boat that they are pinning to an obstruction with a luff
Created: 23-Feb-16 01:46
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
0
Rule 20 is far more than a temporary respite from rule 13. You are ignoring the whole 'avoid' part of the rule that happens after the tack is completed. And the part about ducking other boats or tacking back immediately is exactly the part of the rule that is consistently misunderstood and broken.
My contention is still that without rule 20 boats would deal with the obstruction at greater distances, i.e. more safely, if they knew they couldn't just call for room.
Created: 23-Feb-16 02:04
Tim OConnell
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Judge In Training
Umpire In Training
Club Judge
0
John, there are other situations where planning ahead isn't an option e.g. deadheads, semi submerged logs, thick kelp patches, whales, abandoned fishnets etc.. all of which we have as legitimate obstructions. In the interest of safety, rule 20 has a role to play that is not related to giving a tactical advantage to a skipper that hasn't planned ahead.
Created: 23-Feb-16 07:59
Alvaro Garcia
Nationality: Argentina
1
I thank those who answered my question, it was very useful. I did not find the referrals to other cases or situations pleasant or polite because they lead the debate in another direction and there are possibilities of publishing each topic in its place. An example would be to open a publication about "Is rule 20 useful and necessary or not" A necessary observation is about the arguments that search the rules for reasons to break them and blame the rule, in this regard the rules are made with the paradigm of compliance with good will, in such a way that it is a concise regulation within reach of all sailors who accept them to fulfill, (RRS 4) gladly making it work, and a legal study is not necessary in each maneuver. Thanks for your understanding
Created: 23-Feb-16 13:52
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
2
Moderator’s Note About Politeness and Decorum on the Board ..
Dear Friends
We all live in a social-media world and it has been my experience (and maybe yours too) that it takes some purposeful intent to maintain a polite and respectful atmosphere. As one of the Forum Moderators of the forum, I try to foster that both by example and sometimes by redirection. It’s a positive reflection on everyone that the later is very, very rarely necessary.
As a reminder, here is a link to the Forum Guidelines. At the top …
THE RULES AT A GLANCE
No appeals from protest hearings Do not post the facts from a protest hearing to get a second opinion. You'll get a serious demerit.
Don't post any material from a protest hearing This applies to diagrams. You will get a nasty note from us.
No personal insults. This is self explanatory. You'll get only one warning.
No fake names. We have a zero tolerance policy. Do it once and you're out.
No email or telephone numbers Don't post an email address or telephone number.
Don't spam. We have a zero tolerance policy. Do it once and you're out.
Contribute to the discussion. You'll get a friendly warning for derailing a topic and if you do it again you'll be suspended.
No religion or politics. This is not the place. These are not to be discussed on these Forums ever – they start too many fights.
I would like to add to the above, that I try to foster a high level of mutual respect, politeness and patience with each other on the forum.
Please in your responses, refrain from characterizing what others think, feel, know, understand (or don’t think, feel, know or understand). When posting, frame your response in terms of what your ideas are, not characterizing others.
Be careful when you use the word “you” or “your” when replying to another and make sure it’s appropriate, patient and polite when you do.
I appreciate everyone’s contributions to the forum … really. It’s a unique and special community that Paul has facilitated with his RRoS.org site. Let’s all help keep it welcoming and informative.
Sincerely,
Angelo, Forum Moderator
Created: 23-Feb-16 14:48
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
I'm trying to imagine racing on some of the narrow rivers people race on here without RRS 20, and I have grave doubts how it would work. Given a river that's single figures of boat widths wide the opportunities for doing the sort of things you are discussing seem rather limited. I've also sailed extreme boats where luffing up and trying to encourage the other to tack would surely end in tears. I've always thought RRS 20 was pretty much the most important rule in the book! Just goes to show how varied our sailing experiences are and how difficult rule writing is I suppose.
Created: 23-Feb-17 21:52
Andrew Lesslie
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
Club Race Officer
0
I agree with Jim, above. I can see how Rule 20 may not be necessary when the course is set in open water, but when short tacking on river courses we rely on it heavily.
However, my observation is that there is a degree of misunderstanding about how it works, especially when boats on starboard are hailing and tacking onto port.
Also, Alvaro's excellently drawn diagram shows the boats separated by more than 2 boat lengths, where most boats have ample room to tack. Situations are often tighter than that.
Created: 23-Feb-18 18:17
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
0
RRS20 also applies frequently in open water racing because a ROW boat may be an obstruction to a boat that needs to tack to avoid them.
Consider two groups of boats sailing on port tack, then the rightmost group all tack onto starboard. Suddenly the lead port tacker has an obstruction, that they may not be able to duck (depending on range and how many starboard takers).
RRS20 allows them to call their group into tacks.
If you expect a boat to anticipate that situation, then they may have hailed earlier something like "we'll need to tack when they tack". The only other anticipation option would for the port boats to give up racing and slow down.
Created: 23-Feb-18 20:31
Charles Darley
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
Regional Umpire
0
Often sensible to give notice of a call for room to tack. However, in light of there being no prescribed words for the call, could giving notice be construed as a premature call?
Created: 23-Feb-18 20:40
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
0
Charles,
I agree there is indeed the possibility of such confusion, as most times all the other boat notices is that something is being shouted but not what it is. In fact I've experienced as much on the water when such advanced notice has resulted in an immediate tack. I think technically, you could probably argue that you didn't hail for room to tack and sail on, but when it has happened to me I have responded by also immediately taking. I guess the "hailed" boat could then protest that I hailed when I should not have, but luckily that has never happened (yet).
On balance, I'll still try to give such notice if possible and take the risk of DSQ if they misunderstand, are not satisfied by my immediate tack, protest and win the protest(which they will, because I never win in the room :).
Created: 23-Feb-18 21:10
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Greg, that’s one of the issues that’s being addressed in another recent thread regarding the use of the hail “water” (alone) as meaning “room to tack”.
If conditions allow it .. where one can be easily understood .. I’ve actually said, “just a heads-up … I’ll need to call for room to tack soon”.
On the receiving end of that call though .. I’ve had to asked back .. “are you asking for room now or was that a heads-up?” It’s been 50/50 that the response was “NOW!”
Maybe it’s better practice to not use the phrase “room to tack” in a heads-up call .. and maybe just make sure the other boat(s) are on the same page relative to the obstruction.
“Joe, we are heading for the shoal .. be ready for my call”. Or “Starboard boats approaching. … be ready”.
Created: 23-Feb-21 12:12
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
0
If you hail anything you better be prepared to tack immediately (and be prepared to be protested for an illegal hail) in case the hailed boat misinterprets what you are saying If they tack immediately or respond "you tack", you better tack immediately or you have broken 20.
As the leeward boat if you don't want to risk breaking rule 20, then just luff head to wind without saying anything. Hmmm, perhaps we covered something like this before.
Created: 23-Feb-21 21:45
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
1
The reality of racing is that there is chatter between the boats all the time: "starboard", "water", "hold your course", "go through", "No room in there!", "overlap", "something random to try to distract the helm and make them steer like crap", etc. Most of them are not in the rules, nor required. Some are probably just distractions, but often they are also helpful reminders of the rules or even a wake up call to a boat not keeping a good watch. Often they are good advanced warnings of significant events soon to happen, which allows a skipper to run the rules in their head in advance.
I'd hate for boats not to hail something useful just in case it is misconstrued as a "room to tack" call. I said before, if it appears that a hail was miconstrued as a "room to tack" call, it would be sporting to treat it as such and then be prepared to defend any protest for hailing when unnecessary. I've never been protested, let alone DSQ'd for such a missunderstood hail, but I have frequently benefitted from giving some warning that a "room to tack" call might soon be necessary for an obstruction that I can see but the other boat cannot. So I'll continue to give such warnings when appropriate and if I eventually do get DSQ'd because somebody didn't understand and got the hump, then I'll take it as the tiny cost for safer sailing.
cheers
Created: 23-Feb-22 04:05
Alvaro Garcia
Nationality: Argentina
0
In the situation to the left where the boat that tack shall keep clear must avoid who I call and it is understandable that the requested space is then to “turn and avoid”
On the right the boat that tack acquires the right of way tacking, and respecting rule 15, but after that:
a) Should still avoid the boat to which I request space to tack and avoid it, or prevails rule 10?
b) The boat that shall keep clear and gave space to turn and avoid it must now be avoided or avoid?
c) Is the word avoid in the rule only necessary when the situation on the left?
d) Other options?
Thank you so much
Created: 23-Feb-22 14:33
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Alvaro, doesn’t Gordon’s reply early in the thread answer your questions?
Created: 23-Feb-22 15:48
Alvaro Garcia
Nationality: Argentina
0
Angelo Guarino Yes, in part, if you look closely you will see that there are more unanswered questions. Is that we are and concentrating on knowing if the call is proper and it is not the reason for the publication, in short, excuse me if I still have questions?
Created: 23-Feb-22 16:19
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Ok … I’ll try to expand Gordon’s answers a bit to see if that better answers you.
On the right the boat that tack acquires the right of way tacking, and respecting rule 15, but after that:
a) Should still avoid the boat to which I request space to tack and avoid it, or prevails rule 10?
Grey calls for room-to-tack. Green replies "You tack". Rule 20.2(c) says Grey gets from Green ..
Room to tack
Room to avoid Green [the boat on the same tack]
At 3+, Grey has been given room to tack. At 4, Grey has been given room to avoid Green
Rule 20.2(c) is satisfied.
Now onto Rules 10 and 15 ...
At position 3+, Grey becomes ROW (Rule 10) due to her own actions. At position 3+, rule 15 requires her to initially give Green room to keep clear.
The “initial” condition when Grey becomes ROW is that Grey is on a collision course with Green, separated by only 3/4 of a BL. Had neither boat changed course, Grey would contact Green on her STB side amidship. Grey owes Green room to keep clear from this initial condition. Green decides to continue on her course (as her method of keeping clear), and Grey gives Green the room to keep clear she is entitled to (by Grey taking Green’s stern).
Green is exonerated for breaking Rule 10 by Rule 43.1(b) because Green was sailing within the room (to keep clear) she was entitled to from rule 15.
b) The boat that shall keep clear and gave space to turn and avoid it must now be avoided or avoid?
See how I break it up above. Part 2, Section B is not turned-off in Rule 20. They are applied at the same time and therefore you need to test each.
c) Is the word avoid in the rule only necessary when the situation on the left?
No, see above. Green gave Grey room to avoid Green.
d) Other options?
Yes, Green could have decided to tack at 3, instead of holding her course in an attempt to keep clear.
Had Green tacked at 3, Grey may have had to luff to avoid Green after Grey completed her tack. Assuming Grey reached close-hauled after her tack before Green starts her tack, the same logic above applies … Grey becomes ROW by her own action and Grey owes Green room to keep clear.
If Grey is able to luff up after her tack and avoid Green, Green satisfies her Rule 20 requirements to give Grey room to both tack and to avoid her and Grey satisfies her rule 15 requirement to give Green room to keep clear.
See Case 27: “[…] It is a principle of the right-of-way rules, as stated in rule 15, that a boat that becomes obligated to keep clear by an action of another boat is entitled to sufficient time and space to respond. […]”
OK so..... In the case (not in the diagram) that gray after his tack stays on a close-hauled course and makes contact with green. Breach 20 grey for not avoiding it? (Green infringes 10,14, etc... this is not the question.)
Created: 23-Feb-22 17:37
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Alvaro, re: “In the case (not in the diagram) that gray after his tack stays on a close-hauled course and makes contact with green. Breach 20 grey for not avoiding it?”
No, that’s not how it would be written-up in a decision.
Room to avoid in Rule 20 is something Grey is entitled to FROM Green. A boat does not break a rule when they do not take the room they are entitled to.
If there is contact between the boats where, all else the same, Grey does not duck Green … and since it’s a T-bone collision, let’s assume there is some damage … this is how it might be written-up.
CONCLUSIONS
[John C suggestion] GREEN gave GREY room to tack and to avoid her as required by RRS 20.2(c)
When acquiring right of way through her own actions, GREY failed to initially give GREEN room to keep clear, and broke RRS 15 .
GREEN on port failed to keep clear of GREY on starboard, and broke RRS 10.
Since GREEN broke Rule 10 while she was sailing within the room to which she was entitled, she is exonerated under RRS 43.1(b) for this breach.
GREY the right-of-way boat, did not act to avoid contact with GREEN when it was reasonably possible. GREY broke RRS 14.
It was not reasonably possible for GREEN, the boat sailing within the room to which she was entitled, to avoid contact with GREY when it was clear that GREY was not giving room. GREEN did not break RRS 14.
DECISION
GREY broke rules 14 and 15.
Created: 23-Feb-22 18:01
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
0
You should also have the conclusion that GREEN gave GREY room to avoid her as required by rule 20.2(c).
Created: 23-Feb-22 18:14
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Sure John, we could add that for belt and suspenders, but I typically don’t put conclusions in for rules that are not broken, but that said, it would certainly make it clearer.
PS .. might as well say that she gave her both room to tack and avoid her as required under 20.2(c). (Added above as new #1)
Created: 23-Feb-22 18:44
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Angelo, absent damage or injury, would Grey not be exonerated for breaking 14 as ROW boat (43.1(c))?
I agree with you about brevity and leaving out "negative facts" or conclusions, but in this case I agree that John C's addition is necessary to properly understand the incident.
Created: 23-Feb-22 19:02
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Tim, I put in the premise that, since it’s a T-bone, we’d say that there was damage.
Also, see that I added JC’s suggestion as new Conclusion #1
If there is contact between the boats where, all else the same, Grey does not duck Green .... and since it’s a T-bone collision, let’s assume there is some damage … this is how it might be written-up.
Created: 23-Feb-22 19:12
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Last Updated
Rules
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2013-2016; Version 6
December 2015
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2017-2020
August 2017
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2021-2024
December 2020
Prescriptions
Australia
July 2017
Canada
November 2019
Great Britain - RYA has declined to grant a license for prescriptions and cases.
November 2019
New Zealand
July 2017
United States
February 2017
Cases
World Sailing Cases
February 2022
World Sailing Q&As
March 2022
Match Race Calls
January 2020
Match Race Rapid Response Calls
October 2018
Team Race Calls
December 2018
Team Race Rapid Response Calls
February 2016
CAN Cases
October 2017
RYA Cases
November 2019
US Appeals
November 2019
Manuals
World Sailing Judges Manual
December 2019
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more
Case 35 .. compare your drawing at 3 with this case’s drawing at 2.
US Appeal 15 doesn’t apply to you, but it’s interesting as it talks about a boat approaching a “launch” (a boat”) and … “… If she had approached the police launch sufficiently close to its leeward end so that, with only a slight change of course when one of her hull lengths from it, she could have safely passed to leeward of it, she should have done so.”
US15 drawing below
Regarding a case as an official opinion (case Book) and a free personal opinion, I am interested in the latter
If the responding boat will have ROW after the hailing/tacking boat tacks (Yellow v Blue above) then "room to avoid" means room for the hailing/tacking boat to keep clear after her tack.
If the hailing/tacking boat will have ROW after her tack (Green v Gray) then "room to avoid" would mean giving enough space for the now-starboard boat to complete her tack and to comply with her RRS 15 obligation.
In the diagram Blue can pass head to wind, reach a close-hauled course on port and bear away to pass astern of Yellow. Unless Blue is required to make an unseamanlike manoeuvre, she has been given room to tack and avoid.
It is important to note that room to avoid might mean room to tack back on to starboard - see Case 101.
When Grey reaches a close-hauled course on starboard she acquires right of way and is subject to RRS 15. Green is required to keep clear and also give Grey room to avoid. Grey gives Green room to keep clear by bearing away and in doing so she can also avoid Green.
The term 'avoid' means to not hit the other boat while maneuvering in a seamanlike way. The room needed to avoid starts the moment that the tack is completed, i.e. you get both the room to tack and to avoid. This is another flaw with rule 20 as a boat may be able to avoid by tacking more or less slowly.
In the Yellow/Blue case, Blue completes her tack and has room to avoid the other boat (which btw is ROW) which she would be required to do anyway by rule 10. This would be the same whether or not rule 20 or the obstruction existed.
In the Green/Grey case, Grey completes her tack and obtains ROW and initially has to give Green room to keep clear per rule 15 and does so by taking her stern. Again, the same whether or not rule 20 or the obstruction existed.
The green/gray case is also well explained above IFF we assume that as soon as gray was born off to close hauled, there was no seamanlike maneuver that green could do to keep clear, as is her obligation under rule 10. If that's the case, then gray behaved properly in giving green room to keep clear (by bearing off) and no rule was broken. If, however, there was room for green to keep clear by tacking as soon as gray reached close hauled course on starboard, then gray satisfied rule 15 and green violated rule 10. As john says above, the obstruction ceases to be relevant as soon as gray's tack is complete if there is room for green to avoid.
I agree with John that rule 20 is not really in play here. I do think it has its place, however. If the lateral distance between the two boats were much smaller, so that the leeward boat in either case could not complete her tack and avoid Windward, rule 20 would seem to be necessary.
Think about how these situations would play out if rule 20 was not there. The leeward boat would always have the ability to luff head to wind (even if rule 17 applied) and the windward boat would have to respond. If there was not room for W to keep clear then she probably would have broken rule 11 before the luff and rule 20 would not have helped. The boats can hold there as long as W wants to. W tacks and L follows. The positioning and control that W originally had is maintained. Many boats sail much more closely to the obstruction and then rely on rule 20 to bail them out of a bad situation that they created. Without it, I contend that the situations would be resolved further away from the obstruction.
in your caso US15 L is the boat with the right of way so she may choose to pass an obstruction on either side 19.2 (a), so considerations of being close to leeward end, or others are irrelevant. And in my case blue/yellow it is also the same.
John Christman
There is no abuse of rule 20 in the case of blue/yellow, blue can choose where to go (19.2) and he does.
So, yes, Blue could go HTW under 19.
I think US15’s commentary is focusing on the condition in 20.1(a) … (emphasis added)
So, the reason I mentioned US15 is to consider whether Blue’s course change to leeward, as shown in OP drawing, represents a “substantial course change”?
I originally thought about the potential rule 17 problem. But you covered that.
My query has to do with your statement "The boats can hold there as long as W wants to." I think you are right under the rules if rule 20 did not exist and I think that underscores where rule 20 serves a purpose.
Playing out your scenario on the blue/yellow side of the diagram: L goes head to wind, W matches. Both are subject rule 13 if the go past head to wind and blue, who is to port of yellow, must keep clear. For some tactical reason, yellow chooses to hold there. She can do that because there is no requirement that she allow blue room to avoid her.
This creates a safety hazard because the boats now in irons could drift down onto the obstruction.
The advantage of having rule 20 there in this case, at least as I see it, is W has to allow L both room to tack to avoid the obstruction and room to avoid W.
Is there any value to what I've said?
-Tony (I know it says "Anthony," but I go by Tony).
But rule 20 distorts all of this. It allows L to sail closer to the obstruction on the assumption that W will get out of the way immediately once the hail is made. L can effectively dictate to W when W is going to tack. W doesn't know when L is going to hail so planning her strategy becomes more difficult. It also removes some of the tactical advantage that W has over L. For example, supposed W wanted to hold HTW, make a slower tack so she could advance a little further to windward of L before tacking. With rule 20 in play, L would complain about this, saying W didn't give her room to tack and most PCs would be forced to agree.
When thinking of this situation, most people just think about the obstruction and not other factors. On San Francisco Bay, we are sailing in current and there are HUGE advantages in going that extra half-boat length into shore to get current relief and to be on the left side of the fleet. Rule 20 is frequently broken and abused and basically results in boats that were behind coming out ahead.
After they finish their tacks:
In terms of fairness, both Yellow and Green were ahead before the obstruction and both are ahead after the obstruction, so the rule did it's job to let the boats not hit the obstruction nor each other, but allowed for fair racing. An obstruction should not be allowed to be used to gain an advantage!
Stuart - my contention is that rule 20 is actually 'anti-safety'. While this may seem counter-intuitive at first, rule 20 allows the constrained boat to sail closer to the obstruction than she otherwise would if she didn't expect rule 20 to bail her out. If rule 20 didn't exist then she would take the appropriate action, such as luffing to get the windward boat to clear out or (gasp!) slowing down to find that hole in the line of boats, when further from the obstruction. It's up to her, and her alone, to plan her own way out of the hole she has dug for herself. Rule 20 requires the other boat to help her plan her escape. I assert that the rules of Part 2 Section A provide all the tools needed for the constrained boat to avoid an obstruction safely.
And there are others where the approaching obstruction does not lend itself to just a head-to-wind luff. 20 serves a purpose there, too.
And there are the instances of a string of boats to windward of W which limit W's freedom to respond to a luff.
Picking a specific scenario to criticize the rule writers is seems unwarranted.
I have indeed sailed in SF and short tacked up the north coast against a strong run in current. A boat that makes better tactical use/avoidance of a current can make gains in a race, regardless of rule 20. The boat nominally "ahead" might not actually be so when the playing field is asymmetrical with regards to breeze or current. If the obstruction was not there, the boat further from the adverse current will make gains.
Without 20, boats would still sail as close as they can to get out of the current and just hour an opportunity to tack turns up. I don't see how creating no-way-out corners in the rules will help safety. Yes boats should plan ahead, but they won't when there is a 3kn adverse current pushing then on!
Rule 20 is easily the most broken rule and probably misunderstood rule on the SF City Front. As a result, I think it creates more dangerous situations than it solves.
It has a significant effect on the outcome of the race. A windward boat can be forced to tack away from the advantageous current earlier than they want to and allowing a boat that is behind to stay in it slightly longer and gain a significant advantage. So a boat that puts themselves in a dangerous position gets a huge advantage, how is that improving safety?
furthermore, the right to luff doesn't get a boat out of trouble at an obstruction. Any boats outside her are not obliged to tack as they too can simply luff up. Now we have a chain of 2 or more boats at an obstruction all playing the game of luff, potentially losing way and the having trouble at the obstruction. If the obstruction is a line of breaking waves, then encouraging such a luffing battle could soon become dangerous!
For the no-way-out scenario, see my previous comment where the outside boat responds to a luff by just luffing. The inside boat at the obstruction has no way out, can't go forward, can't tack, can't stay where she is for long and no reverse gear.
The same problem you describe plays out with or without rule 20. A boat that waits that long to call for room to tack is in the same position, especially when there are a line of boats that have to respond as the hail is passed up the chain. Because of rule 20, the boat hailing for room has intentionally sailed herself into a dangerous situation and expects everyone else to bail her out of it. Also, once L luffs HTW do you think that the windward boat won't want to tack away and is content to let the fleet pass them by while they have their little luffing match?
I think you exagerate the impact of 20. A boat is not asking to be bailed out entirely, she is asking for temporary respite from rule 13 so she can tack. Once she has tacked, the normal rules again apply and she may have to duck many other boats or even tack back towards the obstruction before she would really like to. That advantageous current needs to be pretty good if you are forced to tack every 3 or 4 boat lengths!
With regards to luffing matches, I've never notices any huge doses of rationality in most of them. But then a boat might not need to beat the fleet, they may only need to beat the boat that they are pinning to an obstruction with a luff
My contention is still that without rule 20 boats would deal with the obstruction at greater distances, i.e. more safely, if they knew they couldn't just call for room.
I did not find the referrals to other cases or situations pleasant or polite because they lead the debate in another direction and there are possibilities of publishing each topic in its place.
An example would be to open a publication about "Is rule 20 useful and necessary or not"
A necessary observation is about the arguments that search the rules for reasons to break them and blame the rule, in this regard the rules are made with the paradigm of compliance with good will, in such a way that it is a concise regulation within reach of all sailors who accept them to fulfill, (RRS 4) gladly making it work, and a legal study is not necessary in each maneuver.
Thanks for your understanding
Dear Friends
We all live in a social-media world and it has been my experience (and maybe yours too) that it takes some purposeful intent to maintain a polite and respectful atmosphere. As one of the Forum Moderators of the forum, I try to foster that both by example and sometimes by redirection. It’s a positive reflection on everyone that the later is very, very rarely necessary.
As a reminder, here is a link to the Forum Guidelines. At the top …
I would like to add to the above, that I try to foster a high level of mutual respect, politeness and patience with each other on the forum.
Please in your responses, refrain from characterizing what others think, feel, know, understand (or don’t think, feel, know or understand). When posting, frame your response in terms of what your ideas are, not characterizing others.
Be careful when you use the word “you” or “your” when replying to another and make sure it’s appropriate, patient and polite when you do.
I appreciate everyone’s contributions to the forum … really. It’s a unique and special community that Paul has facilitated with his RRoS.org site. Let’s all help keep it welcoming and informative.
Sincerely,
Angelo, Forum Moderator
However, my observation is that there is a degree of misunderstanding about how it works, especially when boats on starboard are hailing and tacking onto port.
Also, Alvaro's excellently drawn diagram shows the boats separated by more than 2 boat lengths, where most boats have ample room to tack. Situations are often tighter than that.
Consider two groups of boats sailing on port tack, then the rightmost group all tack onto starboard. Suddenly the lead port tacker has an obstruction, that they may not be able to duck (depending on range and how many starboard takers).
RRS20 allows them to call their group into tacks.
If you expect a boat to anticipate that situation, then they may have hailed earlier something like "we'll need to tack when they tack". The only other anticipation option would for the port boats to give up racing and slow down.
I agree there is indeed the possibility of such confusion, as most times all the other boat notices is that something is being shouted but not what it is. In fact I've experienced as much on the water when such advanced notice has resulted in an immediate tack. I think technically, you could probably argue that you didn't hail for room to tack and sail on, but when it has happened to me I have responded by also immediately taking. I guess the "hailed" boat could then protest that I hailed when I should not have, but luckily that has never happened (yet).
On balance, I'll still try to give such notice if possible and take the risk of DSQ if they misunderstand, are not satisfied by my immediate tack, protest and win the protest(which they will, because I never win in the room :).
If conditions allow it .. where one can be easily understood .. I’ve actually said, “just a heads-up … I’ll need to call for room to tack soon”.
On the receiving end of that call though .. I’ve had to asked back .. “are you asking for room now or was that a heads-up?” It’s been 50/50 that the response was “NOW!”
Maybe it’s better practice to not use the phrase “room to tack” in a heads-up call .. and maybe just make sure the other boat(s) are on the same page relative to the obstruction.
“Joe, we are heading for the shoal .. be ready for my call”. Or “Starboard boats approaching. … be ready”.
As the leeward boat if you don't want to risk breaking rule 20, then just luff head to wind without saying anything. Hmmm, perhaps we covered something like this before.
I'd hate for boats not to hail something useful just in case it is misconstrued as a "room to tack" call. I said before, if it appears that a hail was miconstrued as a "room to tack" call, it would be sporting to treat it as such and then be prepared to defend any protest for hailing when unnecessary. I've never been protested, let alone DSQ'd for such a missunderstood hail, but I have frequently benefitted from giving some warning that a "room to tack" call might soon be necessary for an obstruction that I can see but the other boat cannot. So I'll continue to give such warnings when appropriate and if I eventually do get DSQ'd because somebody didn't understand and got the hump, then I'll take it as the tiny cost for safer sailing.
cheers
Yes, in part, if you look closely you will see that there are more unanswered questions. Is that we are and concentrating on knowing if the call is proper and it is not the reason for the publication, in short, excuse me if I still have questions?
Grey calls for room-to-tack. Green replies "You tack". Rule 20.2(c) says Grey gets from Green ..
At 3+, Grey has been given room to tack.
At 4, Grey has been given room to avoid Green
Rule 20.2(c) is satisfied.
Now onto Rules 10 and 15 ...
At position 3+, Grey becomes ROW (Rule 10) due to her own actions. At position 3+, rule 15 requires her to initially give Green room to keep clear.
The “initial” condition when Grey becomes ROW is that Grey is on a collision course with Green, separated by only 3/4 of a BL. Had neither boat changed course, Grey would contact Green on her STB side amidship. Grey owes Green room to keep clear from this initial condition. Green decides to continue on her course (as her method of keeping clear), and Grey gives Green the room to keep clear she is entitled to (by Grey taking Green’s stern).
Green is exonerated for breaking Rule 10 by Rule 43.1(b) because Green was sailing within the room (to keep clear) she was entitled to from rule 15.
See how I break it up above. Part 2, Section B is not turned-off in Rule 20. They are applied at the same time and therefore you need to test each.
No, see above. Green gave Grey room to avoid Green.
Yes, Green could have decided to tack at 3, instead of holding her course in an attempt to keep clear.
Had Green tacked at 3, Grey may have had to luff to avoid Green after Grey completed her tack. Assuming Grey reached close-hauled after her tack before Green starts her tack, the same logic above applies … Grey becomes ROW by her own action and Grey owes Green room to keep clear.
If Grey is able to luff up after her tack and avoid Green, Green satisfies her Rule 20 requirements to give Grey room to both tack and to avoid her and Grey satisfies her rule 15 requirement to give Green room to keep clear.
See Case 27: “[…] It is a principle of the right-of-way rules, as stated in rule 15, that a boat that becomes obligated to keep clear by an action of another boat is entitled to sufficient time and space to respond. […]”
In the case (not in the diagram) that gray after his tack stays on a close-hauled course and makes contact with green.
Breach 20 grey for not avoiding it?
(Green infringes 10,14, etc... this is not the question.)
No, that’s not how it would be written-up in a decision.
Room to avoid in Rule 20 is something Grey is entitled to FROM Green. A boat does not break a rule when they do not take the room they are entitled to.
If there is contact between the boats where, all else the same, Grey does not duck Green … and since it’s a T-bone collision, let’s assume there is some damage … this is how it might be written-up.
CONCLUSIONS
DECISION
GREY broke rules 14 and 15.
PS .. might as well say that she gave her both room to tack and avoid her as required under 20.2(c). (Added above as new #1)
I agree with you about brevity and leaving out "negative facts" or conclusions, but in this case I agree that John C's addition is necessary to properly understand the incident.
Also, see that I added JC’s suggestion as new Conclusion #1