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.
WINDWARD LEEWARD OVERLAP
Michael Lipari
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
Club Race Officer
0
About 2 minutes prior to the start, three 30-34 foot keel boats are reaching towards the start (position 1). Winds are blowing approximately 10-12 knots. Between position 1 and 2, yellow and orange both comes down to try to get a leeward overlap on the boats in front of them.
At position 2, all three boats are sailing almost dead down wind on starboard and orange is overlapped on yellow by approximately 1-2 feet and yellow is overlapped on blue by approximately 1-2 feet. There is approximately 6 -8 feet of separation between blue and yellow and yellow and orange - boats have room to maneuver.
Once overlap is established, orange as the leeward boat turns up fast and yellow turns up trying to avoid collusion with orange, as soon as blue sees yellow coming up, they turn up quickly to avoid collusion with yellow. At position 3, contact is made between all three boats almost simultaneously.
Yellow protested orange under rule 14 and rule 16. Yellow did not protest blue because they saw blue try to avoid collision by turning as quickly as possible.
Three questions: 1: Given that prior to orange changing course, there was approximately 6-8 feet separating the boats, does rule 16 come into play or is this a case were blue and yellow were not keeping clear of orange? How would you rule?
2: Would there ever be a time that no boats are found at fault even though there was contact between all three boats?
3.) If the protest committee finds that blue was a fault - would they need to file a protest against blue since blue was not a party to the original protest?
1: Given that prior to orange changing course, there was approximately 6-8 feet separating the boats, does rule 16 come into play or is this a case were blue and yellow were not keeping clear of orange? How would you rule?
@2 there are 6 to 8 ft between O and Y and a greater distance between O and B
Could O sail her course with non need to take avoiding action? Yes
Could O change course in either direction without immediately making contact? Yes
Therefore Y and B were keeping clear of O Keep Clear
See Case 92When a right-of-way boat changes course, the keep-clear boat is required to act only in response to what the right-of-way boat is doing at the time, not what the right-of-way boat might do subsequently.
Neither Y nor B are required to do anything (like increasing separation) in anticipation of O changing course.
@2.5 O changes course 'fast', Y responds promptly, and B responds promptly when B sees Y change course. O is required to give Y room to keep clear of her, Y is required to give B room to keep clear of her and the room that O is required to give Y includes room for Y to give B room (Definition: room).
As Y changes course to windward to keep clear of O, her stern will probably kick out, further reducing the space available for her to keep clear. Same goes for B.
@3 there is contact between O and Y and between Y and B. Assume there is no injury or damage.
Y has not kept clear of O, B has not kept clear of Y, Y and B have broken rule 11. O changing course, has not given Y room to keep clear, Y changing course, has not give B room to keep clear. O and Y have broken rule 16.1 Y and B were sailing within the room to which they were entitled and are exonerated for breaking rule 11 in accordance with rule 21a. Y was compelled to break rule 16.1 by O breaking rule 16.1 and Y is exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 in accordance with rule 64.1a. O did not avoid contact when it was reasonably possible for her to do so. O broke rule 14. It was not reasonably possible for Y or B to avoid contact. Y and B did not break rule 14. There being no injury or damage, O is exonerated for breaking rule 14 in accordance with rule 14b.
The only breach that is not exonerated is O's breach of rule 16.1. On valid protest penalise O.
2: Would there ever be a time that no boats are found at fault even though there was contact between all three boats?
Except in very unusual cases like Case 77, where nothing the give way boat does or fails to do requires the right of way boat ‘to take avoiding action', contact between boats will always be accompanied by a breach of a right of way rule.
LIkewise, when a right of way boat changes course and there is contact, as long as the give way boat acts promptly and does all she can in a seamanlike way, the right of way boat will break rule 16.
In either case, other rules may provide exoneration.
3. If the protest committee finds that blue was a fault - would they need to file a protest against blue since blue was not a party to the original protest?
Lets do this backwards.
Supposing, contrary to the OP scenario, that B had not acted promptly or could have acted more positively and kept clear of Y and allowed Y space to keep clear of O.
Rule 63.1 provides that a boat shall not be penalised without a protest hearing, and once the protest committee hearing a protest by Y against O, sees that B may be at fault, the protest committee probably should protest B in accordance with rule 60.3a(2), following the procedures in rule 61.1c.
If, on the other hand, the protest committee was satisfied with Y's evidence that B acted promptly and did all she could, the protest committee might forsee that B is exonerated for breaking rule 11, and not contemplate any possibility of penalising B, and exercise the discretion given to it by rule 60.2 ('a protest committee mayprotest ...') and not protest B.
The protest committee can certainly get B into the hearing as a witness without ;protesting her.
Created: 19-May-27 02:52
Juuso Leivonen
Nationality: Finland
Certifications:
International Judge
International Umpire
0
The way you write this, to me it’s penalty Orange. Regarding 15 and 16 you can take a look at match calls A1, A2 and b3-b6. 15 and 16 are in this situation same in fleet and match. 16.2 is deleted in match, but that doesn’t matter here.
s Y changes course to windward to keep clear of O, her stern will probably kick out, further reducing the space available for her to keep clear. Same goes for B
In the past I've had conceptual difficulty with how much is too much with W changing course quickly to keep clear.
I think Case 24 greatly clarifies this (although Case 24 refers to rule 15, this is equally applicable to rule 16)
Rule 11 requires A to keep clear and, if this requires her to luff, she must do so promptly. If A does so but some part of her hull, crew or equipment touches any part of B’s hull, crew or equipment, A breaks rule 11. If the contact occurred despite A having luffed in a seamanlike way, B has broken rule 15 by not giving A room to keep clear and A is exonerated under rule 21(a) for her breach of rule 11. However, if A luffed higher than was necessary to keep clear of B and, as a result, caused contact with B, A has been given the room required by rule 15 and is not exonerated.:
If the give-way windward boat responds promptly by changing course to windward in an attempt to keep clear, and does not perform any unseamanllike action in doing so and there is contact, it's all on the leeward right of way boat that owes room.
Unless the give way boat luffs higher than was necessary, and as the MR Call B3 emphasises, this must be clearly higher than was necessary.
Created: 19-May-27 08:56
David Brunskill
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
National Judge
0
If there was, as stated contact between all boats then rule 14 has been broken. The contact should be stated in facts found and the appropriate conclusion should also mention breach of rule 14 and the appropriate penalty or exoneration stated for the breach. However the fact that O's luffing caused the contact would mean she could not be exonerated from breach of rule 14. Also case 92.
Created: 19-May-27 09:33
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
David,
Could you please explain how a right of way boat luffing and 'causing' contact makes any difference to her entitlement to be exonerated for breaking rule 14 in accordance with rule 14b if the contact does not cause damage or injury?
Created: 19-May-27 09:55
David Brunskill
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
National Judge
0
John
I'm not trig to raise that issue.
However looking through the various responses everybody seems to forget that there was contact and therefore rule 14 should be mentioned. How the facts are found and conclusions drawn I leave others to debate.
I agree totally with your summing up of the situation.
I was trying to focus on the fact that Orange luffed and that her luff caused contact with yellow. Yes Orange shall be exonerated if she didn't cause damage or injury 14 (b). Apologies.
Created: 19-May-27 10:24
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
See my previous post at 02:52
@3 there is contact between O and Y and between Y and B. Assume there is no injury or damage.
Y has not kept clear of O, B has not kept clear of Y, Y and B have broken rule 11. O changing course, has not given Y room to keep clear, Y changing course, has not give B room to keep clear. O and Y have broken rule 16.1 Y and B were sailing within the room to which they were entitled and are exonerated for breaking rule 11 in accordance with rule 21a. Y was compelled to break rule 16.1 by O breaking rule 16.1 and Y is exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 in accordance with rule 64.1a. O did not avoid contact when it was reasonably possible for her to do so. O broke rule 14. It was not reasonably possible for Y or B to avoid contact. Y and B did not break rule 14. There being no injury or damage, O is exonerated for breaking rule 14 in accordance with rule 14b.
Created: 19-May-27 10:32
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
In the US , we also have US 108 which speaks directly to the scenario.
Thank you for sharing - several great points especially John Allan
Created: 19-May-27 13:40
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Judge
0
I’ve just completed a club judge course in Australia to find out that I need to learn a lot more.
I’m posting here to humbly give my opinion in order to learn. All criticism very welcome.
“Once overlap is established, orange as the leeward boat turns up fast“
Could be re written as follows
Once overlap is established, (I. E. Orange acquires right of way) Orange as the leeward (right of way) boat turns up fast!
So immediately breaks rule 15 because since 30 ft boats in 10-12 kts will be covering approx 8 feet per second which means that it would take no more than 1 second to close the difference of 6-8 feet separation between Orange and Yellow And this would not be initially giving room to Yellow to keep clear.
Since Orange turns up once she acquires right of way she never gets into a position to break rule 16.
Orange breaking rule 15 causes both Yellow and Blue to break rules 11 and 14 and they will be exonerated.
Orange would be DSQ
Created: 19-May-27 14:16
Luke Tupper
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
National Umpire
0
Hi Paddy,
If you are trying to get practicing writing this up, first write facts (things that did happen), then your conclusions (things that can be determined from the facts & rules that apply) and then your decision which is the summation and outcome of the conclusions (eg Orange is DSQ).
It can also be helpful to write everything in point form rather than long sentences. Try to keep to 1 rule per conclusion.
Created: 19-May-27 23:25
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Judge
0
Hi Luke Thanks for your comments. They all make sense. I wasn’t trying to write up as a protest just exploring the rules. However I can see that writing up as you suggested would be very good practice for real life situations. Next time I’ll do that.
Created: 19-May-28 00:22
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Paddy Fitzpatrick wrote Created: Yesterday 14:16
I’ve just completed a club judge course in Australia to find out that I need to learn a lot more. I’m posting here to humbly give my opinion in order to learn. All criticism very welcome.
Some hopefully helpful comments shown below.
“Once overlap is established, orange as the leeward boat turns up fast“ Could be re written as follows Once overlap is established, (I. E. Orange acquires right of way) Orange as the leeward (right of way) boat turns up fast!
As Luke has said, sometimes it's helpful to insert comments about how the rules apply at each point in a description, but practicing writing Facts Found and Conclusions separately is also good. Adding exclamation marks is seldom a good idea.
I disagree with Luke about using 'dot points'. I suggest that it is best to try to write good grammatical sentences But keep them short and simple. One fact to one sentence. Number your facts found.
You can use the sample Conclusion wordings in the Toolbox on this website to help you write conclusions.
So immediately breaks rule 15 because since 30 ft boats in 10-12 kts will be covering approx 8 feet per second which means that it would take no more than 1 second to close the difference of 6-8 feet separation between Orange and Yellow And this would not be initially giving room to Yellow to keep clear.
Good to see you doing speed and distance analysis, but I don't think so.
Firstly look at the OP and the diagram: initially boats are 6 to 8 ft apart, travelling at about the same speed, their closing speed is not 5 kts, more like 0.5 kts if that. Then, by the diagram boats have borne away into the overlapped situation with at least 0.5 boat length between them, presumably still with a speed difference of less than half a knot. That's ample room for the windward boat to keep clear initially on the boats becoming overlapped.
If the boat's would not have made contact if the right of way boat had held a steady course, then rule 15 is not broken.
Since Orange turns up once she acquires right of way she never gets into a position to break rule 16.
A right of way boat is 'in a position to break rule 16' the instant she acquires right of way, if she changes course. Rules 15 and 16 are not mutually exclusive, although it's usually best, when deciding a protest, to pick just one of those rules.
Orange breaking rule 15 causes both Yellow and Blue to break rules 11 and 14 and they will be exonerated.
When discussing the rules try to use the language of the rules. Work with the rules book open in front of you.
There are three different routes to exoneration only one of which relies on the word 'cause':
Y and B were sailing within the room to which they were entitled and are exonerated for breaking rule 11 in accordance with rule 21a.
Y was compelled to break rule 16.1 by O breaking rule 16.1 and Y is exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 in accordance with rule 64.1a.
Because the contact did not cause injury or damage, O is exonerated for breaking rule 14 in accordance with rule 14b.
Orange would be DSQ
I think we all agree with that. Use abbreviations in your notes by all means but when writing a formal decision, write 'disqualified' in full.
There were a number of decision writing problems in two series called Fact Finding Friday posted on Jos Spykerman's Look to Windward rules blog which you might find helpful exercises (allowing for the fact that they were written for the 2009 rules). Link here https://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/search?q=fact+finding+friday
Hope you find this helpful
Created: 19-May-28 13:51
Luke Tupper
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
National Umpire
0
Great comment John, by point form I meant that they would still be sentences (eg), but limit yourself to one or two facts or conclusions per dot point eg:
There was a 10 knot breeze with a sea state consistent It was 2 minutes before the start Blue Orange and Yellow where all sailing on a reaching course on Starboard Blue bore down to a running course still on starboard gybe Yellow bore down to a running course still on starboard gybe and became overlapped with Blue Orange bore down to a running course still on starboard gybe and became overlapped with yellow. ….
Created: 19-May-28 20:53
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Judge
0
Thank you Luke and John All very helpful
Created: 19-May-29 01:12
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Judge
0
i am still slightly confused that since “Once overlap is established, orange as the leeward boat turns up fast“ orange did not break rule 15 I don’t see how this action by Orange initally gives yellow room to keep clear.
Created: 19-May-29 01:27
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Paddy, you have to imagine the mid steps between #2 and #3. At #2.25 Orange initially gives the opportunity. Also look at US Appeal 108 for a different perspective on the same issue. - Ang
@2 there are 6 to 8 ft between O and Y and a greater distance between O and B
See Case 92 When a right-of-way boat changes course, the keep-clear boat is required to act only in response to what the right-of-way boat is doing at the time, not what the right-of-way boat might do subsequently.
Neither Y nor B are required to do anything (like increasing separation) in anticipation of O changing course.
@2.5 O changes course 'fast', Y responds promptly, and B responds promptly when B sees Y change course. O is required to give Y room to keep clear of her, Y is required to give B room to keep clear of her and the room that O is required to give Y includes room for Y to give B room (Definition: room).
As Y changes course to windward to keep clear of O, her stern will probably kick out, further reducing the space available for her to keep clear. Same goes for B.
@3 there is contact between O and Y and between Y and B. Assume there is no injury or damage.
Y has not kept clear of O, B has not kept clear of Y, Y and B have broken rule 11.
O changing course, has not given Y room to keep clear, Y changing course, has not give B room to keep clear. O and Y have broken rule 16.1
Y and B were sailing within the room to which they were entitled and are exonerated for breaking rule 11 in accordance with rule 21a.
Y was compelled to break rule 16.1 by O breaking rule 16.1 and Y is exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 in accordance with rule 64.1a.
O did not avoid contact when it was reasonably possible for her to do so. O broke rule 14.
It was not reasonably possible for Y or B to avoid contact. Y and B did not break rule 14.
There being no injury or damage, O is exonerated for breaking rule 14 in accordance with rule 14b.
The only breach that is not exonerated is O's breach of rule 16.1. On valid protest penalise O.
2: Would there ever be a time that no boats are found at fault even though there was contact between all three boats?
Except in very unusual cases like Case 77, where nothing the give way boat does or fails to do requires the right of way boat ‘to take avoiding action', contact between boats will always be accompanied by a breach of a right of way rule.
LIkewise, when a right of way boat changes course and there is contact, as long as the give way boat acts promptly and does all she can in a seamanlike way, the right of way boat will break rule 16.
In either case, other rules may provide exoneration.
3. If the protest committee finds that blue was a fault - would they need to file a protest against blue since blue was not a party to the original protest?
Lets do this backwards.
Supposing, contrary to the OP scenario, that B had not acted promptly or could have acted more positively and kept clear of Y and allowed Y space to keep clear of O.
Rule 63.1 provides that a boat shall not be penalised without a protest hearing, and once the protest committee hearing a protest by Y against O, sees that B may be at fault, the protest committee probably should protest B in accordance with rule 60.3a(2), following the procedures in rule 61.1c.
If, on the other hand, the protest committee was satisfied with Y's evidence that B acted promptly and did all she could, the protest committee might forsee that B is exonerated for breaking rule 11, and not contemplate any possibility of penalising B, and exercise the discretion given to it by rule 60.2 ('a protest committee may protest ...') and not protest B.
The protest committee can certainly get B into the hearing as a witness without ;protesting her.
http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/TheCallBookforMatchRacing2017digital280617-%5B22803%5D.pdf
Also Dick Rose gives a nice example on it regarding dinghy sailing (where pivots are mostly at centerboards)
https://www.sailingworld.com/young-sailors-are-not-alone-in-breaking-these-essential-racing-rules
"There was no collusion”
MR Call B3 points us to Case 24.
In the past I've had conceptual difficulty with how much is too much with W changing course quickly to keep clear.
I think Case 24 greatly clarifies this (although Case 24 refers to rule 15, this is equally applicable to rule 16)
Rule 11 requires A to keep clear and, if this requires her to luff, she must do so promptly. If A does so but some part of her hull, crew or equipment touches any part of B’s hull, crew or equipment, A breaks rule 11. If the contact occurred despite A having luffed in a seamanlike way, B has broken rule 15 by not giving A room to keep clear and A is exonerated under rule 21(a) for her breach of rule 11. However, if A luffed higher than was necessary to keep clear of B and, as a result, caused contact with B, A has been given the room required by rule 15 and is not exonerated.:
If the give-way windward boat responds promptly by changing course to windward in an attempt to keep clear, and does not perform any unseamanllike action in doing so and there is contact, it's all on the leeward right of way boat that owes room.
Unless the give way boat luffs higher than was necessary, and as the MR Call B3 emphasises, this must be clearly higher than was necessary.
Could you please explain how a right of way boat luffing and 'causing' contact makes any difference to her entitlement to be exonerated for breaking rule 14 in accordance with rule 14b if the contact does not cause damage or injury?
I'm not trig to raise that issue.
However looking through the various responses everybody seems to forget that there was contact and therefore rule 14 should be mentioned. How the facts are found and conclusions drawn I leave others to debate.
I agree totally with your summing up of the situation.
I was trying to focus on the fact that Orange luffed and that her luff caused contact with yellow. Yes Orange shall be exonerated if she didn't cause damage or injury 14 (b). Apologies.
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/1006
Ang
If you are trying to get practicing writing this up, first write facts (things that did happen), then your conclusions (things that can be determined from the facts & rules that apply) and then your decision which is the summation and outcome of the conclusions (eg Orange is DSQ).
It can also be helpful to write everything in point form rather than long sentences. Try to keep to 1 rule per conclusion.
Thanks for your comments.
They all make sense. I wasn’t trying to write up as a protest just exploring the rules.
However I can see that writing up as you suggested would be very good practice for real life situations.
Next time I’ll do that.
Created: Yesterday 14:16
Some hopefully helpful comments shown below.
As Luke has said, sometimes it's helpful to insert comments about how the rules apply at each point in a description, but practicing writing Facts Found and Conclusions separately is also good. Adding exclamation marks is seldom a good idea.
I disagree with Luke about using 'dot points'. I suggest that it is best to try to write good grammatical sentences But keep them short and simple. One fact to one sentence. Number your facts found.
You can use the sample Conclusion wordings in the Toolbox on this website to help you write conclusions.
Firstly look at the OP and the diagram: initially boats are 6 to 8 ft apart, travelling at about the same speed, their closing speed is not 5 kts, more like 0.5 kts if that. Then, by the diagram boats have borne away into the overlapped situation with at least 0.5 boat length between them, presumably still with a speed difference of less than half a knot. That's ample room for the windward boat to keep clear initially on the boats becoming overlapped.
If the boat's would not have made contact if the right of way boat had held a steady course, then rule 15 is not broken.
A right of way boat is 'in a position to break rule 16' the instant she acquires right of way, if she changes course. Rules 15 and 16 are not mutually exclusive, although it's usually best, when deciding a protest, to pick just one of those rules.
There are three different routes to exoneration only one of which relies on the word 'cause':
I think we all agree with that. Use abbreviations in your notes by all means but when writing a formal decision, write 'disqualified' in full.
There were a number of decision writing problems in two series called Fact Finding Friday posted on Jos Spykerman's Look to Windward rules blog which you might find helpful exercises (allowing for the fact that they were written for the 2009 rules). Link here https://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/search?q=fact+finding+friday
Hope you find this helpful
There was a 10 knot breeze with a sea state consistent
It was 2 minutes before the start
Blue Orange and Yellow where all sailing on a reaching course on Starboard
Blue bore down to a running course still on starboard gybe
Yellow bore down to a running course still on starboard gybe and became overlapped with Blue
Orange bore down to a running course still on starboard gybe and became overlapped with yellow.
….
All very helpful
“Once overlap is established, orange as the leeward boat turns up fast“ orange did not break rule 15
I don’t see how this action by Orange initally gives yellow room to keep clear.
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/1006
I checked out 108
That helped