Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

Cases 144, 145 and 146 Were Posted May 27th, 2019

Paul Zupan
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Umpire
  • National Judge
  • International Judge
Cases 144, 145 and 146 were added to the Case Book on May 27th, 2019.
Created: 19-May-29 03:52

Comments

Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
144 is very much like Stavros’ scenario and our ensuing discussion here: https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/274-contradiction-in-rule-18

I also like the “barging” footnote in Case 146 to differentiate, and put an underline under the difference between, when L is holding her course which passes close to the RC from the situation described in Case 146. I find this differentiation the hardest idea to get into racer’s head .. even very experienced ones.
Created: 19-May-29 12:04
Murray Cummings
Nationality: New Zealand
0
In Case 146, if W breaks rule 11 because she has no room to respond, doesn't that mean she hasn't been given room when L luffs?

The penultimate sentence in the facts states " W luffed slightly but was unable to respond further to L’s luff without hitting the committee boat. L bore away to avoid contact."   

The Decision reflects this in stating " At position 3, L was unable to ‘sail her course with no need to take avoiding action;’ therefore, W broke rule 11. However, as W was sailing within the room to which she was entitled under rule 16.1, she is exonerated under rule 21(a)"
The Decision also states:
"When L luffed, W luffed as far as she could without risk of touching the committee boat which would have broken rule 31. By bearing away, L gave W room to keep clear in compliance with rule 16.1."

So, if W breaks rule 11 because she was unable to keep clear of L while sailing within the room to which she was entitled, how did L comply with rule 16.1?
It seems that the first time L altered course (luffed), she did not give W room to keep clear and broke rule 16.1.
When L altered course the second time (to bear away), she did comply with rule 16.1 and W had room to keep clear.
The second alteration of course (bear away) could not exonerate L from breaking rule 16.1 in the first alteration of course (luff). 

Does this meant that, because W was able to "luff slightly" initially, she was given room as required by rule 16.1 at the time L luffed?   
If so, if W was unable to "luff slightly" to respond to L's luff without hitting the committee boat, does L break rule 16.1 then?


 


 

 

Created: 19-Jun-01 16:39
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Murray, to your final question in your post it is not L’s luff that complies with 16.1, rather it is when L falls off.  It’s important to see that as then moment that L gives W ‘room’ to keep-clear. 

Seems I’ve been referring to this US Appeal 108 a lot lately, but again it is very descriptive in this application of the rules and 16.1 room. 

https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/1006?page=26
Created: 19-Jun-03 13:04
[You must be signed in to add a comment]