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.
Cases 144, 145 and 146 Were Posted May 27th, 2019
P
Paul Zupan
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Judge
National Judge
0
Cases 144, 145 and 146 were added to the Case Book on May 27th, 2019.
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
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
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.
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.
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?
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