Ang, 'Collision Course' and 'risk of collision'

I don't think we need to get phobic about using the phrase 'collision course', at least in discussions.

As I've said, it's quite commonly used in the Case Book.

I think the objection to using the term in FF 2 of a protest decision is that that fact is a 'scene-setting' fact, when boats may be some considerable distance apart and before the protest committee has laid out it's logical analysis of whether they are at risk of collision or contact, or not.

When we are discussing a scenario where risk of collision (in the IRPCAS sense) exists, that is   if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change, or in other words, 'if each boat maintains it's course and speed boats will collide', I think 'collision course' is an unobjectionable and useful term.

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.

Hi all,

Ric of course, thank you very much. I updated the fix. Spinning the boats fast should be now with expected result.

Next step in development will be a feature to record step by step movements, and be able to share this without login.

Best

There's this *amazing* website that has little pop-up case references next to each rule, with a helpful summary of the points therein. It references the Judging manual too sometimes. There's a small fee but well worth it for the functionality, as well as being able to deliver regattas on it.  It's called racingrulesofsailing.org ;-) 

Seriously - I use that as reference for all the WS cases. Of course, back to the original publications for definitive text but as a quick-reference it's invaluable. It directs you to the relevant case rather than reading all the cases and trying to backsolve for a given incident.

Angelo & Peter,

As someone who has fought hard to track down all the holes in the leaky caldron of some NoRs, I have an addition to what's stated above:

Often the NoR for a significant regatta is published a year or more in advance. This is particularly true of significant races across oceans or massive events where dozens or even hundreds of competitors are expected, and especially for events where owners are considering designing and building a boat that conforms to the exact information in the NoR and, more importantly, the the exact information in the various Rules that are cited or implied in the NoR. For these regattas, the NoR publication can end up serving as the defining document for a large number of things that are buried in other documents whose revisions are made more often than the time between the publication of the NoR and the start of the first race.

The obvious ones include:

There are more, but this illustrates the point. My suggestion is that in all NoRs, the complete title of the document being used, its publication date, and any modification tracking provided be cited in the NoR. Thus (as of this writing):

It can be very onerous to tease out which version of these rules are applicable and which will be made obsolete in the time between the publication of the NoR for a race and the start of the 1st race. Indeed, I've had a fleet hold a meeting at their National Championship and attempt to change the Class Rules to outlaw an innovation that was not predicted by any of the rules. Ever since, the exact version, date of publication, and term of any rules mentioned in the NoR has been appended to the bottom of the NoR and carefully footnoted where first used.

Similarly, I know of one large yacht that was cut in half to modify its length substantially based on the initial NoR for the race and an obvious error in the handicap rule. The owner and his team informed the OA and the Rule vendor of the obvious error in writing and by phone. They were ignored. The error was rediscovered much later by the Rule vendor, and then the OA decided to change the Rule. Given the owner's investment was already well over $2m, lawsuits were threatened, the OA backed off, and the heavily modified boat was allowed to race. Not the outcome anyone wanted.

As a dear friend of mine likes to say: "The starting gun is when the NoR is published. More races are lost by not reading the NoR and Sailing instructions than any other cause."