Can A cite the later of rule 14 and the fact that no contact was made to demonstrate that mark-room was given?

Not clear cut, but nothing in the facts stated indicate that A failed to keep clear. Whataboutism aside later on. It is equally possible that B was pinching (since A was close hauled) and lacked the steerage or pointing to make it around the mark cleanly. Questions to ask would obviously be could B have altered course to make the mark, but failed to do so because they weren't sure of their rights or was A so close that she failed to "Keep Clear"?

Applicable rule is R18.2(e). As B did not claim mark room, and 18.2(e) presumes that she did not pass htw outside the zone, she is presumed to pass HTW inside the zone and R 18.3 applies. B hit the mark and should be penalized.

John

John B, can you explain your thinking in more detail on .. "18.2(e) presumes that she did not pass htw outside the zone, she is presumed to pass HTW inside the zone and R 18.3 applies"?

Craig, where does OP state in the scenario that "A was close hauled"?

B does not hail for mark room at the time of the incident, and then at the protest hearing, she claims that she tacked outside the zone. This creates doubt about where she tacked. As there is doubt about where she tacked and she is making a late claim for her overlap, R 18.2.e says assume that she did not obtain it in time. It then follows that if she is assumed not to have tacked outside the zone, she tacked inside the zone and then R 18.3 applies.
John

I think there is a problem with using rule 18.2e.to determine whether B passes head to wind inside or outside the zone. Firstly, rule 18.2e deals with overlap, not passing head to wind, but more importantly, for rule 18.2e to apply requires that rule 18 applies, that is, that B has passed head to wind (is no longer on opposite tack to A), the very thing that is in doubt. Use of rule 18.2e in this situation is a circularity.

Rule 18.2e is a special case of the principle of Last Point of Certainty. We can, and should use last point of certainty from first principles here.

Last point of certainty was that B and A were outside the zone. There is doubt that B passed head to wind inside the zone so it should be presumed that she was not inside the zone.

Both boats were on the same tack when the first of them reached the zone and rule 18.2b applies, and B is entitled to mark-room. This is the opposite conclusion to John Ball's, but I agree with Randy and I think it is the right one.

Whether P 'claims mark-room' has no meaning under the rules. Hails or claims or other shouting stuff do not affect enitlements of boats except under rule 20 and for protests.

I will defend my reference to R18.2.e.
As soon as B passes htw, she is on stbd and she becomes overlapped with A. (yes she is now tacking and subject to R 13 and later and briefly, R 15 as she becomes leeward with RoW). For B to claim mark room under R 18.2.b, she is claiming a new overlap. So the question is "was the overlap established before she entered the zone"? To me there is doubt about this late claim of an overlap, and that is what R18.2.e helps resolve.

John

I don't have much of an issue with Randy's summary, it comes pretty darn close IMO .. but I think we are assuming way too much in the scenario except that RRS 18.3 can't apply given the OP details. Also (and to Daniel's question about RRS 14) I don't think we want to get into the habit of using the lack of contact being proof of room-provided or keeping-clear accomplished. That is a slippery-slope that we all want to avoid as it's what gets into ROW skipper's head that they have to bang-boats to prove their case. A competitor's first duty is to avoid contact and both A and B did that.

My take is that there isn't enough info and the decision will rest on testimony of A, B and witnesses (if any).

B is claiming she wasn't given room. It's not stated in the OP, but it's implied that A says she provided room and kept clear.

Daniel, maybe you can provide answers to the following questions?

1. How high above the layline and later the mark was A during this episode?
2. At the moment B completes her tack, what was the spacing and orientation between A, B and the mark.
3. What were the relative speeds of the boats? (how did B tack beneath A and A not simply roll past her? .. did B tack beneath and ahead of A? )
4. How long after B completes her tack does she start luffing to round the mark?
5. How quickly does B make this maneuver?
6. How close and what position was A at this time?
7. Did A need to maneuver to keep-clear of B or was she far enough away that B could do this without a response from A?
8. Did B make an avoiding move away from A which brought her down into the mark or did A's location prevent B from coming up further?

John A sail ..

Whether P 'claims mark-room' has no meaning under the rules. Hails or claims or other shouting stuff do not affect enitlements of boats except under rule 20 and for protests.

Absolutely, 100% correct. It's probably the #1 misconception held in racer's minds that "calling for room" creates any obligation. The only room you can call for in the RRS that creates an obligation is calling "room to tack" when at an obstruction (RRS 20).

Good questions Angelo. Furthermore, I agree on your viewpoint that arguing lack of contact is a slippery slope. For your questions:

1. In the absence of B, A could sail close-hauled to the mark and round without having to head up and bear off.
2. After B completes her tack, A and B are about 1/4th of a boat length apart. A and B's transoms are inline with each other more-or-less. A is still on lay line. B is below lay line by one boat width. It is unclear if tack was completed inside or outside the zone.
3. B is slowly getting rolled over but not fast enough for B to be clear astern of A by the time B reaches the mark.
4. B begins heading up to make the mark roughly 1 boat length away from the mark.
5. Gradual enough for A to be able to react and head up as well
6. A maintained about 1/4th boat length between A and B
7. A needed to maneuver to avoid B
8. B did not make any corrections to her course to avoid A

OK ... Daniel .. just a couple more specific questions ..

3. B is slowly getting rolled over but not fast enough for B to be clear astern of A by the time B reaches the mark.

OK, so putting 1-4 together, are you saying that A was ahead and overlapped to windward of B by ~1/4 BL (B's bow overlapped with A's stern quarter) and A windward of B by 1/4 BW at 1BL from the mark where B started to head up?

1. What were the positions of the boats when B touched the mark and where on B did the mark touch?
2. How did A round the mark? What were her orientations and distances from the mark as she rounded?
3. Oh .. what are the dimensions of these boats? BW and BL? Do these boats have enough displacement that they can carry momentum?

Daniel, I think I'm going to cut to the chase here...

The issue I'm having with the scenario is (without a drawing) that the distances between the boats seem really, really tight.

I think we'll all agree that Boat B is owed mark-room and because we are assuming that the tack happened outside the zone and 18.3 doesn't apply, B can make A go above close-hauled or even tack if that's what A has to do to provide mark-room (as long as B doesn't go past head-to-wind herself).

If Boat B is 1 BW below the mark (which I'm interpreting as her windward rail is aligned with the windward edge of the mark), then in the absence of Boat A, B's proper course might be to sail directly to the mark and at the last second, round-up hard and try to "zoom the mark". That is certainly a seamanlike rounding. I do it often in my J/105 (please no comments on my ability to judge the line!), but my 105 has 8,600#'s of momentum to carry it. If this is the type of boat that can zoom upwind 1-2 BL's, then Boat A would need to provide Boat B room for that move.

So back to your geometry. You say B is 1 BW below the line .. and A is only 1/4 BW above B. B doesn't start to head-up until B is 1 BL away from the mark. But A has overtaken B so A is closer .. maybe only 1/2 BL away from or closer to the mark and only 1/4 BW to weather of the mark. That's not much room.

Complicating it is that A is ahead and so close to B. As A tries to turn to windward to avoid B, A's stern will close with B's bow as they both turn up. A being ahead and that close is limiting her ability to turn to windward to avoid B. B realizing that may have limited her turn speed to windward to clear the mark, turning more slowly to allow A opportunity to keep-clear and avoiding contact.

This is all sounding like A .. maintaining only a 1/4 BW windward separation up to 1 BL from the mark ... forward of B .. was too close to B. As soon as they both entered the zone, A to windward should have been working her way up .. making more than 1 BW's room to windward of the mark for B as she was required to provide mark room, and in this context that's at least 1+ BW.

All that said, I'm trying to imagine it in my mind. A drawing would REALLY help. - Ang

Lets go back to some basic facts and the rules: rights and obligations.

B passes htw outside the zone -> 18.3 does not apply
B to 1/4 BL to leeward and slightly behind A when A enters the zone -> A has to give mark room under 18.2 and keep clear under 11.

When she is 1 BL from the mark, B heads up to shoot the mark, never passing htw. A maintains 1/4 BL separation.
B touches the mark.

Did A :
Condition a) Was B forced to take action to avoid A?
Condition b) Could B change course in either direction without making immediate contact?

Did A give :
Could B leave the mark on the required side?
Had B room to sail to the mark?
Had B room to round the mark as necessary to sail the course?

Bear in mind mark-room includes :
Did B, in the existing conditions (constant light winds, no current, no waves) have the space she needed to comply with RRS ?

Did the parties give an answer to those questions?

Thorsten, OP states that B did. "Both A and B agree that B touched the mark. B then brings forward the argument that A did not give B room to round the mark according to rule 18."

I take it that A disagrees with that argument ;)

However, OP gave us in the second set of facts the distance between the boats as a constant 1/4 BL, which in case of a J105 would be around 2.5m.
If both parties agreed to that distance, I would go with that.

Thorsten, it's not 1/4 BL (boat length) .. it's 1/4 BW (boat width). In a J/105 that is 11 feet wide (3.4m) turns into 2.7 feet (0,85m) ,,, with A ahead such that her stern is overlapped with B's bow when A is less than 1 BL from the mark (and only 1/4 BW above the mark). Based on the info provided thus far, I think what I wrote characterizes what info's been provided ..

Just to further muddy the waters, or clear them depending on your perspective.... If B hits the mark and DOES NOT protest A AND does not take a one turn penalty for touching a mark (RULE 31) she would have extreme difficulty later claiming to be EXONERATED (RULE 21) if she didn't know at the time that A had infringed her MARK ROOM rights.

B DSQed chance 90%
A DSQed chance 10% (based "facts found" in a protest) Facts found by B are irrelevant after the incident

Craig, first sentence of RRS

A maintained 1/4 boat length from B per Daniel Dalgleish
If A maintained separation as B maneuvered A was fulfilled her obligation under 18.2
Very Very slim chance I would say A failed to keep clear
and "Real Talk" if a boat didn't think it was fouled at time I am rarely going to decided they were later if it's in question...

Craig, it's 1/4 boat width, not 1/4 boat lenght.

Assuming these are spin keel boats with a 3x ratio of BL/BW, this is what I think OP describes as the facts when B was 1 boat length from the mark. 1/4 boat width equates to 1/12 boat length. Each square is 1 boat length.

Ang, sorry to disagree, but read Daniels post again please:

2. After B completes her tack, A and B are about 1/4th of a boat length apart. A and B's transoms are inline with each other more-or-less. A is still on lay line. B is below lay line by one boat width. It is unclear if tack was completed inside or outside the zone.
[..]
6. A maintained about 1/4th boat length between A and B

Did I miss the 1/4 BW somewhere?

Thorsten and Craig, .. I could have sworn it was 1/4 boat width, but it' is my mistake. I went back and looked at the original email and I got my BW's and BL's confused.

1/4 BL makes a big difference and would change my inclination that A did not provide room for B to maneuver

Thanks for pointing out my error. - Ang

Here is 1/4 BL separation ..

Tried to add an animated gif of the situation but the page converted it to a .png, so I edited the pic out again.. ;)

I really should have checked this thread yesterday. Sorry! Lets assume that the boats are small dinghies (like an opti) which are very maneuverable, short and stubby.

I did say 1/4 boat width earlier but when I see to two pictures above I would say the bottom one better represents the situation just before the leeward boat began heading up to make the mark.

" I did say 1/4 boat width earlier .." .. thanks for throwing me the MOB ring Daniel! :-) - Ang

Interestingly, an Opti being only a 2:1 ratio of length to width actually makes the relative space between the boats "worse". When you have a boat that is 1/3rd BL, 1/4BL above the line, they are really close already having space for a boat to pass between them.

When you have a boat who is 1/2 BL wide, 1/4 of a BL above the line, then they have to make more room in the final maneuver and the very wide sterns and bows remove clearance during the move (as pinched ends provide more clearance for turns).

Here is my wag ... what you think Daniel?

Ang, thanks for the diagram.
for what it may be worth, in that diagram, green does not manage to maintain 1/4 BL separation.

Thorsten ..

for what it may be worth, in that diagram, green does not manage to maintain 1/4 BL separation.

I know. It's the best separation that I thought I could give them when doing the drawing from the starting with 1/4 BL separation 1 BL from the mark in light winds (in other words, I drew it as generous as I thought I could). Given how stubby an Opti is and it's propensity to slip sideways due to it's small centerboard ... I don't think it's possible for them to start with and maintain 1/4 BL separation during this maneuver due to the bow/stern swings and lack of wind/momentum.

If you try to draw it, I think you will see what I mean. These aren't Solings.

Angelo you are a mind reader. The drawing you show almost exactly depicts the scenario I have in my head. What are you using to draw scenarios? I would like to use it in the future!

The only modification that need to be made are:

• position 4 of the green boat (boat A) is still somewhere between close-hauled and a beam reach. She does not begin going down wind until during or after the yellow boat makes contact.
• Both boats keep their mains in tight in positions 2 and 3.

Now that I am listening to what I am saying, would the hearing result change if both green and yellow agreed that green was not going downwind until yellow touched the mark?

Guys, don't get too entranced with diagrams and fractions of a boat length/width.

In a protest hearing, it's very unlikely that you will get good sound evidence allowing you to find facts down to a decimal digit of a boat dimension: likewise, you should be very cautious about scaling from a diagram.

That said, once OP said the outside boat maintained at least 1/4 boat length distance from inside, I think it was all over: Outside gave mark-room (and kept clear) throughout.

What I'm seeing in the latest (opti) diagram is G is keeping clear at every position: Y can change course in either direction without immediately making contact.

Y does not change course from @2 to @3, that is, when she luffed to shoot the mark between @1 and @2, she just didn't come up far enough, didn't realise that it was insufficient, and while there was room for hear to come up still further didn't do so, and touched the mark.

John, I think we'd most agree, now that we've all (meaning me mainly) have settled on 1/4BL (1/2 BW for an Opti) separation. It's feasible that W (Boat A) gave room to L (Boat B) around the mark from those initial conditions, but it's not really feasible that she "maintained" 1/2 BW during the maneuvers as the physical geometry doesn't make that likely, but for purposes of this discussion (see "Case A" "Case B" below) like you say, it likely won't make a difference.

On the other hand, if it was more like 1/4BW (only 1/4BW closer) separation at 1 BL away, given how wide Opti's are front and back, it's feasible that W might not have provided L room to turn to try to make the mark.

The drawings were just to visualize what was being described .. something that I imagine would have been done with physical models in the protest hearing.

The OP's original question was .. " I am curious as to what arguments each boat can and should make at the end of the day".

(PS: To state the obvious, the "arguments each boat can and should make" is to say what happened to the best of their recollection and not modify what they say to win in the room. So below, is what their recollections could be, owing to an honest difference of opinion and different perspective/POV of the events, that might support either A or B's cases during a hearing).

A's Case: There was no contact so A's case is simply she always provided room for B to maneuver. Using the models A would show that she started with a 1/4 BL separation .. and though that wasn't maintained at the extremes of the maneuvers, B always had room to change course further and therefore A kept clear and provided mark room. A would likely state (or be asked in the room) what the distance was between her and the mark as she rounded. For instance, the drawing is showing ~1.5BW's mark-clearance, which (if the drawing is accepted as descriptive of both boats' paths) seems adequate.

B's Case: I think B would have to show in the room, with models or a different drawing, that A was closer at points which prevented B from turning to windward to round. If the separation was only 1/4BW and overlapped 50% (instead of 1/4BL like in the drawing), then B would have to show that she wasn't free to change course such that he could give A an opportunity to keep-clear, avoid contact with A and round the mark in a seamanlike way. By having to turn more slowly to give A opportunity to match B's turn, limited by the bow/stern swings, that limit made the difference in B hitting the mark, thus A wasn't keeping-clear, providing mark-room or both. Since B doesn't have any contact between the boats to prove it, B would have to show it with the models/drawing. Also, maybe B would show/argue that, due to her necessary path around the mark from her 1BL away and 1BW below position, she needed closer to 1 BL clearance than 1 BW clearance as she tried to shoot the mark.

Folks, it is probably a good idea to look at this discussion about the cases the boats put in the protest hearing in stages like these.

1. It's A's protest, so let's start with A's description of the incident provided by A on the protest form and at the beginning of the protest hearing;
2. What issues is B going to raise in response, and so what questions might B ask of A?
3. What is B's description of the incident given at the beginning of the protest hearing?
4. What issues is A going to address and what questions will A ask of B?

1. I was approaching the mark on the starboard tack layline.
2. When I was about 3 BL from the mark, B tacked to leeward of me
3. B reached her close hauled course [at least] 1/4 BL to leeward of me and level with me.
4. I was on the layline, B was 1/4 BL to leeward of me: B was sailing below the mark.
5. About 1 BL from the mark B pinched up to shoot the mark and I responded to keep separation [because I judged that B would not fetch the mark, and I wanted to round clean].
6. B touched the mark and I protested.

Note: This description is consistent with two rules applications:

• B passed head to wind in the zone, rule 18.3 applied, but A was not concerned that B had caused her to sail above close hauled, and did not with to base a protest on rule 18.3; or
• B passed head to wind in the zone, rule 18.2b applied and A kept clear and gave mark-room.

OK, now can someone chime i with what they think was:

• B’s perception of the incident, that is, how she would intend to describe the incident in the hearing, when her turn comes;
• What issues B is going to need to raise on the basis of A's initial description, and what questions B might ask A at this stage of the hearing.

OK, B role-players, come back with those things.

OK John, I'll play along.

B's turn to talk ..

"OK ..so .... I think A has it close to correct in steps 1-3 as he tells it, though I saw it a little differently. I agree that it's unclear if we were inside/outside the 3BL zone, it was close but probably outside. When I complete my tack reaching close hauled course, I was about 1/4 BL ahead of A, but her speed carried her past me quickly and by the time we reached 1BL from the mark, we were overlapped with A about 1/2 BL ahead.

I would agree that when I finished my tack she was 1/4 BL above me and A being on the layline, this put my windward rail at or below the layline, but I started to work up a little after I completed my tack while my bow was slightly forward, so when we reached the 1BL distance from the mark, I had worked my way to weather and closer to A. I was only about 1/4 BW to leeward of A, closing about 1/2 the distance. A being ahead of me, it was easier for me to keep my eye on both the mark and A, so I could see that she wasn't watching me 100% and as I closed this distance, A did not match my moves to maintain her separation to windward of me.

After I passed 1BL from the mark, I turned up as far as I could, but as A turned away, I had to stop my turn and even turn down a little to provide room for A's transom swing. Since I was able to do so, I avoided contact with A. So, I did this a couple times .. turned-up watching and stopping short of A's transom and stopping or even dropping down slightly to keep clear of her transom as she headed-up in response. I was successful in avoiding A, but as I turned down that last time to avoid A's transom, my leeward rail grazed the mark. Though A did provide just over 1 BW around the mark, my approach angle to the mark required more than just barely 1 BW.

A protested me, but I didn't protest back as I knew we could sort it out in her protest. I did not do a penalty turn because A didn't provide me room to sail my course around the mark and I would be exonerated for hitting the mark.

A allowing the boats to get within 1/4BW was restricting my ability to turn-up as far as I needed to round the mark."

OK. You are at the stage of the protest hearing where A has given her description of the incident. Before you describe your version, you are now given the opportunity to ask questions of A.

• What are the issues you are going to need to raise on the basis of A's initial description: that is, what facts do you dispute (or what additional facts do you wish to establish); and
• More importantly, what questions are you going to ask A at this stage of the hearing?

B didn't have any questions of A. A was clear in what they described. - Ang

This may be your last chance to ask A’s representatives any questions.

Are you sure you don’t want to ask anything about:

• How far A was from the mark when you passed head to wind, if you reached your close hauled course clear ahead by 1/4 BL: There is an inconsistency between A being about 3 BL from the mark when you tacked (A’s evidence) and you reaching your close hauled course 1/4 BL clear ahead of A, but still outside the zone. Don’t you want to try to cast some doubt on the accuracy of A’s estimate of the distance? Wouldn’t you like A to admit to some level of inaccuracy?
• Aren’t you going to be interested in exactly what A’s representative could and couldn’t see? Size of headsail, observers position on the boat, different things that observer would have been concentrating on?
• Discrepancy between your testimony that you reached your close hauled course 1/4 BL clear ahead of A, and A’s statement that you reached close hauled to leeward and level with him:
• Wouldn’t you like confirmation from A of your observation that he wasn’t watching you 100% of the time?
• Discrepancy between A’s statement that she maintained 1/4 BL separation throughout, and you statement that between the time you reached close hauled and 1 BL from the mark, you closed the gap to between 1/4 and 1/8 of a boat WIDTH (that’s really close).
• If A’s transom was to windward of you and you bore away to avoid it and your inside (leeward) rail touched the mark, how could an observer on A have seen you touch the mark? (Not that you are going to dispute the touch, but this may open up A’s credibility).

John, I'm probably not the best person to play this with you as I've been in the scenario too long so I have to flush a lot of stuff out of my head to play the role of B starting from scratch.

Looking back, I see that you reduced A's testimony and took out a lot of stuff from OP's A-scenario (some filled in after Q's from me), importantly that A maintained her 1/4 BL separation throughout.

Let me try to flush my brain of this scenario's investigation and start anew.

Q: Are we assuming that A provided either the drawing or used models to place the boats as shown in the last drawing in the thread?

A's description said
Let's say A's protest form diagram was the second one you suggested


And showed on the models similarly to the Opti diagram, but exaggerating the separation a little.