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.
Can Starboard head up?
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
1
I am not particularly familiar with close racing in unstayed boats (which often sail comfortably by the lee) and am curious how this gets handled typically:
1a) Lasers in fresh breeze conditions with corresponding waves.
1b) Starboard (green) converges with Port (purple) on a downwind leg.
2) P initially sails by the lee to match S.
3a) S slowly turns up 5-10 degrees.
3b) In the conditions, P cannot comfortably match without gybing.
3c) During the gybe, P's boom makes contact with S.
4) Both boats protest and neither spins.
In the room, the facts above are agreed upon. What should the jury do? What other info do you need, especially with item 3? image.png37.7 KB
Created: 23-Dec-14 16:03
Comments
Werner Esswein
Nationality: Germany
Certifications:
National Judge
National Umpire
National Race Officer
-2
At the time of the first picture purple would be able to keep clear. Not doing so green violates RRS 10.
Created: 23-Dec-14 16:33
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
At P1, G is ROW, P is KC, R10. At P2, G is still ROW, P is still KC, R10, but now P has infringed the definition of Keep Clear since G "could not change course in both directions without immediately making contact". P's need to gybe is within the "Room" G requires as ROW. (Werner - I think you mean "purple violates RRS10"?)
Created: 23-Dec-14 17:20
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Stewart,
I don't think boats are close enough @2 to say that G can't change course without Immediately making contact, as is evidenced by G continuing to change course after @2. P is still keeping clear.
@3 minus delta, it is seamanlike for P to gybe to continue keeping clear.
@3 G, changing course does not give P room to do that.
G breaks (not 'violates', or 'infringes') RRS 16.1.
P is sailing within the room to which she is entitled and is exonerated for breaking RRS 10 by RRS 43.1(b).
P was not given room to keep clear therefore it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact and she did not break RRS 14.
G did not avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to do so and broke RRS 14, but, there being no injury or damage, G is exonerated because she is right of way boat by RRS 43.1(c).
Created: 23-Dec-14 21:51
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
0
John,
I think you meant to say: @3 G, changing course does not give P room to do that.
So how should have G acted if she wanted to come up more?
Soon after @2 could she have protested P for not gybing away to allow her to come up?
Or perhaps G should have come up earlier before the separation had closed so much (soon after @1). It would then be clear that P has to gybe to keep clear but also has room to do so. If P did not gybe in time, then G would not have been changing course and thus would not be bound by 16.
Created: 23-Dec-15 03:46
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
Greg, It seems that at some point G has locked P into a position where she cant give room, partly because of the word seamanlike in the definition of room: "while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way" . If G later gets into a position with its stern up near P's mast then G could push up further forcing P to gybe. Similar when a same tack boat going to windward establishes a leeward overlap so close that Windward attempting to turn up would immediately have their stern swing out onto Leeward's bow. (I think that was a "hunting" technique used in dinghys in the 80's where a boat going faster (even very temporarily) would come from clear astern and get an overlap very close, and then come up to tap Windward on the side at the stern with Leeward's bow and yell "Protest". It doesn't work now, not sure whether it was legal then.)
Created: 23-Dec-15 04:06
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Greg Wilkins
Said Created: Today 03:46
John,
I think you meant to say: @3 G, changing course does not give P room to do that.
Yes. Oops. Fixed in my previous post.
Created: 23-Dec-15 06:06
Anthony Howes
Nationality: South Africa
-1
I think the course should be considered. If S is sailing the same course she would if P is not there then she is in the right if she is not then P is right.
Created: 23-Dec-15 10:33
Peter Stroia-Williams
0
Anthony, it sounds like you are thinking of Rule 17, but that only applies when the boats are on the same tack. Since they are on opposite tacks (until P gybes), there is no basis in the rules to say that S needs to sail her proper course here.
Created: 23-Dec-15 13:22
Greg Dargavel
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
National Judge
0
Seems to me a key fact is "3a) S slowly turns up 5-10 degrees." This gives P plenty of time to respond. P errs in not responding while there is room to do so.
Created: 23-Dec-15 14:55
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
I have the same questions as Greg. Is it impossible for G to head up after 2? I guess maybe she can if she first bears away? Also, what is meant by 3 minus delta? Just a little before 3? Thanks for all the help, etc. This is a weird consequence of unstayed boats. I also think I owe someone an apology from a few years back when I was casually racing a Laser.
Created: 23-Dec-15 16:20
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Seems P could have pulled in her main sheet as she gybed and prevented it from swinging full out.
Created: 23-Dec-16 15:23
Jerry Thompson
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
National Judge
Umpire In Training
Regional Race Officer
0
Ang, I believe we agree that RRS 16.1 is on for Green who is changing course. Does room to keep clear include room for the boom to swing over during a gybe? I believe it does. I don't think purple is required to sheet in during the gybe. She should not sheet out to intentionally cause contact.
Created: 23-Dec-16 15:41
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
1
This is all on P. In position 1, the boats are on converging courses and, without course alterations by at least one of the boats, they will collide. The question becomes when must P do something to keep clear of G? Note that P is the keep clear boat throughout the entire scenario and RRS 15 will never apply.
In position 1, P has the room she needs to keep clear of G, i.e. she can gybe (barely) without her boom overlapping G's hull. P really should be doing something at this point in time to continue keeping clear.
In position 2, even though P is now matching G's course, P has sailed herself into a situation where really she can no longer keep clear of G if G makes a small alteration of course towards P. This is when a rule (RRS 10) is first broken.
As we see in position 3, when G does make a small course change and P gybes to respond, there is immediate contact. Therefore, P was not keeping clear of G just prior to the course change.
If P had gybed and controlled her boom so that contact did not occur in Position 3 then she has an argument that she was keeping clear. But the risk is all on P.
If we were watching this as match racing umpires, our dialog might be something like this:
Position 1: P-umpire: Port, keeping clear. Do you have enough room?
G-umpire: Barely, P-umpire: I will have to do something very soon. I can still gybe away. G-umpire: Agree.
Position 2: P-umpire: Port, keep clear. I have let the gauge get smaller. Gybing will be hard. Do you have enough room?
G-umpire: No, I need more room. P-umpire: Then I'm not keeping clear. This is all on me, I put myself here.
G-umpire: Agreed..
Position 3: G-umpire: Luffing slowly.
P-umpire: Gybing, windward, keep clear. Contact! I wasn't keeping clear before. Penalty P.
G-umpire: Agreed, penalty P.
P would also break 14. G would not break 14 as it was not possible for G to avoid the contact once it was clear that P was not going to be able to control her boom and avoid the contact.
This doesn't change if the boats have stayed rigs, in fact, P's is at more risk of not keeping clear.
Created: 23-Dec-16 19:25
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
1
For those who want to argue that G broke rule 16, I want to point out the Match Race Rapid Response Call 2021-001 Question 3. Essentially, if the other boat is already not keeping clear then the ROW boat cannot break rule 16 when altering course. Note that this does not include any rules changed by App C so the rules application would apply equally to fleet racing.
Created: 23-Dec-16 19:42
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Jerry .. I can’t find a case or appeal that says one way or another. I don’t think Port needing to pull in her sheet a little would force her to maneuver unseamanlike. We’re only talking about 10 degrees more inboard to keep clear.
MR Call B6 states: “Leeward is not giving windward room to keep clear if when leeward changes course windward is doing everything she is able to do to keep clear but is unable to do so. ”
Seems giving your mainsheet a pull as you gybe could fall within “everything she is able to do to keep clear”.
Created: 23-Dec-16 20:10
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
PS: MR Call G2 comes to mind for this scenario. In that call, W is being luffed up while she has a spinnaker up and the discussion is around L giving W room to douse.
How that Call and the OP are similar (in a limited way) is that they both address a ‘sail configuration change’ at a critical juncture for W based on being luffed by L.
How they differ is that the presumption in that call is that W was keeping clear up until that moment (which is contrary to John C’s main point for the OP scenario).
Position 2: P-umpire: Port, keep clear. I have let the gauge get smaller. Gybing will be hard. Do you have enough room? G-umpire: No, I need more room.\
Why does G "need more room"? Firstly she is the ROW boat, so she gives room, not receives it. At position 2, G can sail her course and can change direction without immediately making contact, so it appears she has satisfied the definition of keeping clear and thus is not "already not keeping clear". Is P required to anticipate future direction changes by G? Isn't 16 precisely about a boat not needing to anticipate a direction change and being given room to react to a non anticipated change in direction?
My gut agrees with you that it is on P, but I can't see how the rules actually play out like that.
Created: 23-Dec-17 06:57
Chris Hogan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Judge
Regional Umpire
-1
It seems that P breaks rule 10 at or before P1 (before G changes course) because G is ROW and cannot then “sail her course with no need to take avoiding action”. See: Para (a) of the definition of “keep clear”. Case 50, which indicates that para (a) applies if there is a reasonable apprehension of contact, or a reasonable doubt that P could have passed ahead ahead.
Case 88 which indicates that relevant factors in determining keep clear include distance between the boats, estimated time to contact, extent of course change required for G to avoid contact, and time required for G to make the course change.
Created: 23-Dec-17 08:02
Jerry Thompson
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
National Judge
Umpire In Training
Regional Race Officer
0
Ang, "Seems giving your mainsheet a pull as you gybe could fall within “everything she is able to do to keep clear”. You make a good point.
The scenario stated: 1a) Lasers in fresh breeze conditions with corresponding waves. Fresh breeze is 19-24 mph. I'm a dinghy sailor and that is my top end when I was in great shape, some years past.
Gybing involves: steering up, ducking the boom (at 19-24 it would be moving fast with full power) moving to the high side (I have much experience getting caught on the low side which results in swimming) switching the sheeting hand and switching the tiller hand behind your back. Sheeting in would need to occur before the gybe. I agree with you that it would be within "everything she is able to do to keep clear." And as a sailor, I would sheet in before the gybe in those conditions to lessen the impact of the gybe on my boat.
Created: 23-Dec-17 12:03
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
Angelo, The match racing call "everything she is able to do to keep clear but is unable to do so" seems to be correct but too high a standard to apply because the definition of "room" makes clear the manoeuvres to keep clear only have to be seamanlike, whereas to be doing everything she is able to do would seem to require attempts at crash tacks and crash gybes. Also is pulling in your boom tighter than anyone normally would for the course or manoeuvre an unseamanlike action that is not required.
Created: 23-Dec-18 04:49
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Paul, you make good points and bring up good questions to ponder.
I don’t think the phrase from the MR Call necessarily has to be read to be in conflict with seamanlike (but it could be in conflict if one chose to read it that way). I read it with an assumed “… everything [seamanlike] she can do ..” embedded in that statement since the context of the statement is W is operating within room under rule 16.
Also, I don’t know of a rule or case that states a keep clear boat is entitled to maintain optimum sail-trim for her point-of-sail while keeping clear. That entitlement is not stated in def: room.
Seems to me that Keep Clear boats have 4 options to meet their obligations.
They can:
Alter course/orientation
Alter speed
Alter the position of their equipment
Continue with no change (sometimes holding course and speed is the best way to keep clear)
Assume 2 asym boats W & L .. as L and W come closer W pulls in her spin to keep it away from L’s shrouds … that might not be optimum trim for W .. but I think it’s likely seamanlike.
Created: 23-Dec-18 14:32
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
So, I want the answer to be what John Christman says. But I can't figure out how to reach that reading of the rule. As far as I can tell, when G changes course she does not immediately make contact. It is P's attempt to keep clear that causes the contact.
Meanwhile, the definition of Keep Clear that refers to immediately making contact (part b) is written such that it is the ROW boat that would make contact upon her own change of course. It twists the English language in two ways to read it as if a response action could violate this rule: (1) the subject of "making" in the below sentence is clearly the ROW boat. (2) the word "immediately" cannot mean "after the other boat responds".
(b) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact.
As such, I don't find the Rabid Response #3 to be illustrative.
Furthermore, if we expand rule to a course change that causes the other boat to also make a course change that immediately makes contact, then we might as well eliminate rule 16 entirely.
Now, there is a similar, but not identical example for two close-hauled boats (likely pre-start). See diagram below for where Lavender/leeward (L) heads up a little and begins to close the gap (pos B). Moments later, L is close enough that if she makes another course change, she will NOT immediately make contact, but she WOULD break rule 16. W works really hard and is able to create more space by position C. Note that in the original example, P is unable to do this at position 2 because she would gybe and have the same outcome, though she seems to be staying clear at that time.
Again, my preference is for the rules to penalize P at position 2 for not creating enough space. I'm just not convinced that Keep Clear part B does that.
Created: 23-Dec-18 14:56
Jerry Thompson
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
National Judge
Umpire In Training
Regional Race Officer
1
“Protests involving luffing situations are very risky under today’s rules. The protest committee is forced to decide two rather gray judgmental issues: did the windward boat keep clear as required by Rule 11 and did the leeward boat give the windward boat room to keep clear as required by Rule 16.1.” Dick Rose
Created: 23-Dec-18 15:24
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
Thanks Angelo, You made me think about being windward on a run on same tack. As we run alongside a leeward boat who changes course slightly we start to keep clear by pulling our boom in. You made me change my mind about that part of the discussion. KC boat should trim as needed to keep clear of ROW boat including in gybes and tacks. Thanks.
Created: 23-Dec-19 01:17
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Paul re: “KC boat should trim as needed to keep clear of ROW boat including in gybes and tacks.”
I would change your statement above as …
“[In some situations,] KC boat should [could possibly] trim as needed to keep clear of ROW boat including in gybes and tacks [and still sail {maneuver} in a seamanlike way].
Created: 23-Dec-19 11:50
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Agree with Ang's edit. In this situation it's a "Fresh Breeze" ie. 17-23 kts with corresponding waves. It may not be possible for P to pull in their boom as they gybe without capsizing (which I'd argue is unseamanlike).
Of course writing that makes me realize that P might only briefly be able to keep clear in 3-foot waves. She will likely foul at any moment if she begins to death-roll and needs to head up to avoid it.
As such, in conditions where P cannot pull her boom in when she gybes, she likely will not be able to keep clear for long, and similarly, when she can maintain that angle, she should be able to pull her boom in when she gybes... yeah? Again, not experienced in the Laser specifically, so I'm extrapolating from my many death-rolls and other blunders sailing them on Buzzards Bay.
Created: 23-Dec-19 13:12
Diego Ravecca
Nationality: Argentina
0
John Christman please note about MR call book the point 4. Definition: Room, and meaning of 'in a seamanlike way'
World Sailing Case 21 states that ‘extraordinary’ and ‘abnormal’ manoeuvres are unseamanlike. However, actions that are not seamanlike in a fleet of many boats may be considered seamanlike in a situation with only two boats. Thus, in match racing some manoeuvres might be considered normal that would be considered abnormal in other racing, and therefore ‘seamanlike way’ will be interpreted somewhat more broadly in match racing.
Also The Call Book for Team Racing has something similar
4. Definition: Room, and meaning of 'in a seamanlike way' World Sailing Case 21 states that ‘extraordinary’ and ‘abnormal’ manoeuvres are unseamanlike. Some actions that are abnormal and therefore unseamanlike in a fleet of many boats will be considered normal and therefore seamanlike in a team race. However, any manoeuvre that puts a boat or crew at risk of damage is unseamanlike. The umpires will judge each incident on the basis of the boat’s actions in relation to the wind and water conditions she is experiencing at the time.
Created: 24-Apr-16 05:52
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
0
Diego - yes, I get that in match and team racing part of the game is allowing the boats to get closer together than you would in fleet racing. For fleet racing WS Case 103 helps us understand 'in a seamanlike way'
CASE 103 Definitions, Room The phrase ‘seamanlike way’ in the definition Room refers to boat-handling that can reasonably be expected from a competent, but not expert, crew of the appropriate number for the boat.
But I'm not sure how this changes things other than to say that P breaks rule 10 earlier in the scenario, possibly at position 1.
Created: 24-Apr-16 18:33
[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
At P2, G is still ROW, P is still KC, R10, but now P has infringed the definition of Keep Clear since G "could not change course in both directions without immediately making contact". P's need to gybe is within the "Room" G requires as ROW.
(Werner - I think you mean "purple violates RRS10"?)
I don't think boats are close enough @2 to say that G can't change course without Immediately making contact, as is evidenced by G continuing to change course after @2. P is still keeping clear.
@3 minus delta, it is seamanlike for P to gybe to continue keeping clear.
@3 G, changing course does not give P room to do that.
G breaks (not 'violates', or 'infringes') RRS 16.1.
P breaks RRS 10
P is sailing within the room to which she is entitled and is exonerated for breaking RRS 10 by RRS 43.1(b).
P was not given room to keep clear therefore it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact and she did not break RRS 14.
G did not avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to do so and broke RRS 14, but, there being no injury or damage, G is exonerated because she is right of way boat by RRS 43.1(c).
I think you meant to say: @3 G, changing course does not give P room to do that.
So how should have G acted if she wanted to come up more?
Soon after @2 could she have protested P for not gybing away to allow her to come up?
Or perhaps G should have come up earlier before the separation had closed so much (soon after @1). It would then be clear that P has to gybe to keep clear but also has room to do so. If P did not gybe in time, then G would not have been changing course and thus would not be bound by 16.
It seems that at some point G has locked P into a position where she cant give room, partly because of the word seamanlike in the definition of room: "while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way" .
If G later gets into a position with its stern up near P's mast then G could push up further forcing P to gybe.
Similar when a same tack boat going to windward establishes a leeward overlap so close that Windward attempting to turn up would immediately have their stern swing out onto Leeward's bow.
(I think that was a "hunting" technique used in dinghys in the 80's where a boat going faster (even very temporarily) would come from clear astern and get an overlap very close, and then come up to tap Windward on the side at the stern with Leeward's bow and yell "Protest". It doesn't work now, not sure whether it was legal then.)
Yes. Oops. Fixed in my previous post.
Since they are on opposite tacks (until P gybes), there is no basis in the rules to say that S needs to sail her proper course here.
Also, what is meant by 3 minus delta? Just a little before 3?
Thanks for all the help, etc. This is a weird consequence of unstayed boats. I also think I owe someone an apology from a few years back when I was casually racing a Laser.
In position 1, P has the room she needs to keep clear of G, i.e. she can gybe (barely) without her boom overlapping G's hull. P really should be doing something at this point in time to continue keeping clear.
In position 2, even though P is now matching G's course, P has sailed herself into a situation where really she can no longer keep clear of G if G makes a small alteration of course towards P. This is when a rule (RRS 10) is first broken.
As we see in position 3, when G does make a small course change and P gybes to respond, there is immediate contact. Therefore, P was not keeping clear of G just prior to the course change.
If P had gybed and controlled her boom so that contact did not occur in Position 3 then she has an argument that she was keeping clear. But the risk is all on P.
If we were watching this as match racing umpires, our dialog might be something like this:
P-umpire: I will have to do something very soon. I can still gybe away.
G-umpire: Agree.
P-umpire: Then I'm not keeping clear. This is all on me, I put myself here.
P would also break 14. G would not break 14 as it was not possible for G to avoid the contact once it was clear that P was not going to be able to control her boom and avoid the contact.
This doesn't change if the boats have stayed rigs, in fact, P's is at more risk of not keeping clear.
MR Call B6 states: “Leeward is not giving windward room to keep clear if when leeward changes course windward is doing everything she is able to do to keep clear but is unable to do so. ”
Seems giving your mainsheet a pull as you gybe could fall within “everything she is able to do to keep clear”.
How that Call and the OP are similar (in a limited way) is that they both address a ‘sail configuration change’ at a critical juncture for W based on being luffed by L.
How they differ is that the presumption in that call is that W was keeping clear up until that moment (which is contrary to John C’s main point for the OP scenario).
We had a thread discussing that call not too long ago. Thread: “Match Race Call G2 - Giving Room To Drop A Spinnaker”
when you say:
Why does G "need more room"? Firstly she is the ROW boat, so she gives room, not receives it. At position 2, G can sail her course and can change direction without immediately making contact, so it appears she has satisfied the definition of keeping clear and thus is not "already not keeping clear". Is P required to anticipate future direction changes by G? Isn't 16 precisely about a boat not needing to anticipate a direction change and being given room to react to a non anticipated change in direction?
My gut agrees with you that it is on P, but I can't see how the rules actually play out like that.
Para (a) of the definition of “keep clear”.
Case 50, which indicates that para (a) applies if there is a reasonable apprehension of contact, or a reasonable doubt that P could have passed ahead ahead.
The scenario stated: 1a) Lasers in fresh breeze conditions with corresponding waves. Fresh breeze is 19-24 mph. I'm a dinghy sailor and that is my top end when I was in great shape, some years past.
Gybing involves: steering up, ducking the boom (at 19-24 it would be moving fast with full power) moving to the high side (I have much experience getting caught on the low side which results in swimming) switching the sheeting hand and switching the tiller hand behind your back. Sheeting in would need to occur before the gybe. I agree with you that it would be within "everything she is able to do to keep clear." And as a sailor, I would sheet in before the gybe in those conditions to lessen the impact of the gybe on my boat.
The match racing call "everything she is able to do to keep clear but is unable to do so" seems to be correct but too high a standard to apply because the definition of "room" makes clear the manoeuvres to keep clear only have to be seamanlike, whereas to be doing everything she is able to do would seem to require attempts at crash tacks and crash gybes. Also is pulling in your boom tighter than anyone normally would for the course or manoeuvre an unseamanlike action that is not required.
I don’t think the phrase from the MR Call necessarily has to be read to be in conflict with seamanlike (but it could be in conflict if one chose to read it that way). I read it with an assumed “… everything [seamanlike] she can do ..” embedded in that statement since the context of the statement is W is operating within room under rule 16.
Also, I don’t know of a rule or case that states a keep clear boat is entitled to maintain optimum sail-trim for her point-of-sail while keeping clear. That entitlement is not stated in def: room.
Seems to me that Keep Clear boats have 4 options to meet their obligations.
They can:
Assume 2 asym boats W & L .. as L and W come closer W pulls in her spin to keep it away from L’s shrouds … that might not be optimum trim for W .. but I think it’s likely seamanlike.
As far as I can tell, when G changes course she does not immediately make contact. It is P's attempt to keep clear that causes the contact.
Meanwhile, the definition of Keep Clear that refers to immediately making contact (part b) is written such that it is the ROW boat that would make contact upon her own change of course. It twists the English language in two ways to read it as if a response action could violate this rule: (1) the subject of "making" in the below sentence is clearly the ROW boat. (2) the word "immediately" cannot mean "after the other boat responds".
As such, I don't find the Rabid Response #3 to be illustrative.
Furthermore, if we expand rule to a course change that causes the other boat to also make a course change that immediately makes contact, then we might as well eliminate rule 16 entirely.
Now, there is a similar, but not identical example for two close-hauled boats (likely pre-start). See diagram below for where Lavender/leeward (L) heads up a little and begins to close the gap (pos B). Moments later, L is close enough that if she makes another course change, she will NOT immediately make contact, but she WOULD break rule 16. W works really hard and is able to create more space by position C. Note that in the original example, P is unable to do this at position 2 because she would gybe and have the same outcome, though she seems to be staying clear at that time.
Again, my preference is for the rules to penalize P at position 2 for not creating enough space. I'm just not convinced that Keep Clear part B does that.
Dick Rose
You made me think about being windward on a run on same tack. As we run alongside a leeward boat who changes course slightly we start to keep clear by pulling our boom in. You made me change my mind about that part of the discussion.
KC boat should trim as needed to keep clear of ROW boat including in gybes and tacks.
Thanks.
I would change your statement above as …
“[In some situations,] KC boat
should[could possibly] trim as needed to keep clear of ROW boat including in gybes and tacks [and stillsail{maneuver} in a seamanlike way].Of course writing that makes me realize that P might only briefly be able to keep clear in 3-foot waves. She will likely foul at any moment if she begins to death-roll and needs to head up to avoid it.
As such, in conditions where P cannot pull her boom in when she gybes, she likely will not be able to keep clear for long, and similarly, when she can maintain that angle, she should be able to pull her boom in when she gybes... yeah?
Again, not experienced in the Laser specifically, so I'm extrapolating from my many death-rolls and other blunders sailing them on Buzzards Bay.
Also The Call Book for Team Racing has something similar
CASE 103
Definitions, Room
The phrase ‘seamanlike way’ in the definition Room refers to boat-handling that can reasonably be expected from a competent, but not expert, crew of the appropriate number for the boat.
But I'm not sure how this changes things other than to say that P breaks rule 10 earlier in the scenario, possibly at position 1.