Forum: Rule 18 and Room at the Mark
Which rules are broken at this windward mark? (RRS 20, 18.3, 16, 15, 13, and more)
Based on a situation that a couple of new racers found themselves in the other week (no protest, unscored racing).
- Two port 420's approaching layline in 8kts, flat water, where a starboard boat is approaching the mark but well overstood.
- Yellow calls for room to tack, and Green immediately tacks.
- Green completes her tack below layline while Yellow is still tacking.
- Then Green heads up immediately to try to shoot the mark
- Yellow never reaches close-hauled because of Green's course-change
- Blue is forced above close-hauled and protests.
Three questions:
A) At position 1, is Yellow calling for Room to Tack consistent with her also owing Green mark-room per 18.2a1? Does this change if the initial call for Room to Tack comes outside the zone (position 0, not shown)?
B) Is Green allowed to complete her tack, and immediately head back up such that Yellow cannot complete her own tack? If not, does this violate RRS 19, or 15? If Blue isn't there, then is it allowed, since Yellow can keep clear without breaking other Part 2 items?
C) If we assume Yellow IS able to complete her tack (remove fact 5), what are the conclusions?
I'm going to give my own ideas in a reply, and would love people to poke holes.
Created: Tue 16:48
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
I'll try to find it but if anyone else can put your fingers on it, please post a link.
B. Yes I believe she can. there is a definition issuer here though. Yellow does tack onto starboard, but this has noting to do with her completing her tack this is just an issue as to when RRS 13 ceases to apply. Another interesting question is does 15 apply Green gets ROW because yellow asked her to tack so perhaps no 15?.
C. as green and yellow passed head to wind in the zone, and blue had to go above close-hauled both should be dsq.
Note: I did not see blue as "well overstood"
John
I see no reason for green to be exonerated.
Green did not have mark room 18.2(d) so cannot be exonerated for being in her mark room.
She was not compelled to break a rule as she could have passed to leeward of the mark.
Blue, close-hauled on starboard, outside the zone, was fetching a mark to be left to port, on course to pass about I hull length from the mark.
Yellow, close-hauled on port was on a converging course with Blue.
Green, close-hauled on port entered the zone, overlapped inside Yellow.
Yellow hailed for room to tack.
Green luffed, and immediately afterwards Yellow luffed.
Green passed head to wind and reached close-hauled, on a course that would not allow her to pass the mark without luffing.
Yellow passed head to wind but had not reached a close-hauled course. Yellow was now overlapped, about a metre (or less ?) to windward of Green.
Blue, now inside the zone, was overlapped a hull width to windward of Yellow.
Green luffed, and was now on a course to pass close to windward of the mark. Yellow remains above close-hauled and is now a metre to windward of Green. . Blue, now on a converging with Yellow, luffs above close-hauled and passes one metre to windward of Yellow.
Conclusions
When Green passes head to wind from port to starboard Blue is fetching the mark. RRS 18.2 does not apply between them, 18.3 does.
When Yellow passes head to wind from port to starboard, both Blue and Green are fetching the mark, RRS 18.2 does not apply and 18.3 does.
When Green, over lapped to leeward luffs to pass the mark she is a right of way boat changing course. RRS 16.1 applies and Green must give Yellow room to meet her obligation under RRS 18.3 not to cause Blue, on starboard since entering the zone, to sail above close-hauled.
Yellow causes Blue, on starboard since entering the zone, to sail above close-hauled. Yellow breaks RRS 18.3(a).
Green has not given Yellow room to meet her obligation under RRS 18.3 not to cause Blue, on starboard since entering the zone, to sail above close-hauled. Green breaks RRS 16.1. Yellow is exonerated under RRS 43.1.
Decision
Green DSQ
Discussion
In my opinion the key fact is that between position 3 and 4 Green luffs and is subject to RRS 16.1. As a result Yellow cannot bear away to let Blue pass to windward without sailing above close hauled.
I know this a strange area or the rules and the fetching boat and the two others are not subject to 18.2.
The inner boat surely has mark room ans 16.1 indemnity under 18. 2(c).
PS: the link to the old thread comment.
Created: 25-Jan-20 10:19
Can someone paste the image here from the 2013-2016 Case Book? (Links to old images on RRoS got broken in a past update)
The text was as follows:
Case 133
Rule 21, Exoneration
Rule 64.1(a), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
Analysis of the application of rule 18.3 to a situation at a windward mark to be left to port in which two port-tack boats tack in quick succession to leeward of a starboard-tack boat that is fetching the mark. Both of the boats that tacked broke rule 18.3.
Assumed Facts
Boat M does not hail for room to tack. Shortly after position 2, Boat I decides she can tack and fetch the mark. Just after I luffs to tack, M begins to tack. I passes head to wind shortly before M does. As the boats tack, Boat S continues to sail a close-hauled course and there is space for one boat (but not two) to pass between S and the mark. Between positions 4 and 5, I luffs to round the mark. In response to I’s luff, both M and S luff above close-hauled. There is no contact. No boat takes a Two-Turns Penalty. Both S and M protest I.
Question
How does rule 18.3 apply to this incident and what should the decision be?
Answer
The two protests were the result of a single incident, so they should be heard together.
S broke no rule. She was required by rule 11 to keep clear of M from the moment M completed her tack, and she did so.
After I and M passed head to wind, each of them was on the same tack as S who was fetching the mark, so rule 18.3(a) applied to both I and M with respect to S. When both I and M luffed between positions 4 and 5, S sailed above close-hauled to avoid contact, so both I and M broke rule 18.3(a). However, M is exonerated under rule 64.1(a) for breaking rule 18.3(a) because she was compelled to luff by I’s luff.
After I changed tack she was fetching the mark. When M changed tack she became overlapped outside I, so rule 18.3(b) applied to M. It required M to give I mark-room, including ‘space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2’ (see the definitions Room and Mark-Room). When I luffed to sail to the mark, she broke rule 18.3(a). Because M did not give I space to comply with rule 18.3(a) as I sailed to the mark, M broke rule 18.3(b).
Note that I is not exonerated for her breach of rule 18.3(a). She is not exonerated under rule 64.1(a) because she was not compelled to luff between positions 4 and 5. Instead she could have borne off after position 4 and left the mark to starboard. She is not exonerated under rule 21 because rule 18.3(a) is not one of the rules listed in rule 21(a).
To sum up, I broke rule 18.3(a) by causing S to sail above close-hauled and she is not exonerated for that breach. M broke rule 18.3(b) by failing to give I mark-room and she is not exonerated for that breach. Therefore, both I and M are disqualified.
Download here https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/20132016ISAFCaseBookSupplement2015-[16130].pdf
and here is the diagram
John
The previous thread did not seem to incorporate this if it was under these rules.
M (Yellow in the OP) no longer breaks a MR rule.
Maybe they'll rework it and republish it.
If Green is in a position to shoot the mark and round without tacking, she is fetching it.
I would argue that the new organisation of the rule resolves numerous issues. It clearly states when 18.2 switches off and separates this from the obligations of the tacking boat if a boat was on starboard since entering the zone.
In this case, when Green passed head to wind from port to starboard, Blue was on starboard and fetching the mark. RRS 18.2 does not apply between them.
Yellow luffs and passes head to wind after Green. Green is now in a position to pass to windward of the mark and leave it on the required side without changing tack. Green is on starboard and fetching the mark. RRS 18.2 does not apply between Green and Yellow.
When Yellow passed head to wind from port to starboard, Blue was on starboard and fetching the mark. RRS 18.2 does not apply between them.
As Green is not entitled to mark room when she luffs to pass the mark she must give room to Yellow to keep clear and comply with her obligations under the rules of part 2 (see definition room), in this case 18.3(a). Yellow cannot bear away to let Blue pass to windward because Green has luffed. Blue luffs to avoid contact with Yellow and sails above close-hauled. Yellow breaks RRS 18.3(a) as a result of Green not giving room as required by RRS 16.1. Yellow is exonerated under RRS 43.1(a).
No, not between Yellow and Green. 18.2 is off between them and neither boat enters the zone on starboard.
Under the new 18.3, the only boat that can possibly get MR (in the OP scenario) is if the boat on starboard fetching the mark also entered the zone on starboard and then becomes overlapped inside the boat that tacked .. under 18.3(b).
So Blue could get MR from Yellow and/or Green if Blue became overlapped inside of them.
But since neither Yellow or Green entered the zone on starboard, 18.3(b) cannot apply between them.
Under the old rule, once both Yellow and Green passed head to wind from port to starboard in the zone, Yellow would have had to give mark-room to Green under 18.2(a) but not cause Blue to sail above close-hauled under 18.3.
If Yellow wasn't present or passed astern of Blue, there would not have been any problems. So yellows presence and action causes all the fuss. By tacking later than Green she immediately becomes windward boat (of Green) and must keep clear even though she is still bound by R13, which Green has already cleared.
Yellows only gets room to tack (HTW) not necessary room to reach close-hauled course
DSQ : Y
The new R18 rewording still seems to be a mess.
In writing the rule, maybe we have to define the goal first (DSQ Y, DSQ Y&G or whatever) and then define the rule so this will be the outcome.
We know the rules try to discourage port-tack approaches, and this is one more way that they do this, empowering the slightly less port-tacky approach.
Indeed for the most part, I think instinctively, we know that Blue is alpha, and Yellow, by virtue of being in the middle is next in line in terms of how the rules support her and allow her an out.
Green – 16.1, 18.3(a)
Green is DSQ.
Does the requirement in 20.2(c) to give the hailing boat “room to tack and avoid her” only apply when the hailed boat responds ‘you tack’ or does it also apply when the hailed boat tacks immediately?
This PDF is my detailed step-by-step analysis - not for the faint of heart!
My take is simple -
Blue is an obstruction R 19.
Yellow hails correctly for room to tack under R 20.
Green responds by tacking.
Yellow begins to tack.
Green's obligation under 20.2(c) is to allow Yellow to tack - which includes Yellow coming to a close hauled course.
At P3 and at P4 Green prevents Yellow from completing her tack as required by R20 so she is not giving room to tack..
We can argue about whether Green also broke R 13 but it is moot! Green is DSQ under R 20.2(c) and Yellow may be exonerated from her breach of 18.3 relative to Blue.
John
Off the top of my and and before reading any of the answers, here are my thoughts:
Having now read all of the replies to the OP I feel I was on the money.
BTW, I can see why case 133 was pulled. The final paragraph is clearly problemmatic with the second sentence being fundamentally wrong.
Her obligation is to tack or call you tack.
If the boat cannot get to the course you suggested she may have hailed too late.
I would use RRS 13 to make my point in that, if the verb "to tack" clearly included coming to a close-hauled course, RRS 13 would be a lot shorter.
RRS 13 could simply say, "While tacking, a boat shall keep clear of other boats [...]".
So, I think we have to settle on "room to tack" means room to pass HTW from one tack to the other.
RRS 20's "room" also includes room "to avoid her" .. and because it's "room" that includes her other Part 2 obligations.
So, along with the RRS 16.1 issue, I'd say that Yellow was not provided "room to avoid" Green, in that while avoiding Green she was forced to break 18.3 vs Blue.
It says you mayhail for room to tack but not that you get room.
The response says nothing about providing room , just tack or say you tack.
I share John Christman's question about the last phrase in 20.2c.
I wonder if 20.2e may be instructive in answering it in that it assumes avoiding the hailed boat is inevitable??
P.S. if you cannot view all of JC's PDF, click the little gray writing at the bottom that says 385kb and it should open in a new tab.
It's in 20.2(c).
But also, 20.2e says "From the time a boat hails until she has tacked and avoided the hailed boat" implying that all requesting boats will inevitably receive room to tack and avoid the hailed boat.
This last phrase of 20.2c could be cleaned up to state what intuitively seems obvious to me and I think to most of us -- that you must in fact as the hailed boat give room for the hailing boat to complete the tack. I would re-write it as such:
20.2c: The hailed boat shall respond...
1) either by tacking as soon as possible
2) or by immediately replying "You tack"
3) and shall then giving the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her.
Though moving a comma, and/or adding the word "shall" would probably do the trick.
In most situations when the hailed boat tacks there is no issue for the hailing boat; she can tack after the hailed boat which is now sailing away from her.
The issue in this case is that the hailed boat, Green, reaches a close-hauled course. If Green had maintained that course Yellow would have had room not only to avoid Green, which she does, and also reach a close hauled course, so that Blue was not required to luff above close-hauled.
It is Green's luff to pass the mark that prevent Yellow from bearing away further and therefore she cannot keep clear of Blue
If Yellow does not reply "You tack" and tacks promptly, does she owe Yellow any room under RRS 20?
Choice 1 - by tacking as soon as possible,
or
Choice 2 - by immediately replying 'You tack' and then giving the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her.
I am basing this on a few things. The comma after 'possible' divides the two options. Also, the repetition of the word 'by' also indicates the beginning of each of the options.
I don't think it makes sense to place additional obligations on a hailed boat that tacks as soon as possible to also give the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her. The hailed boat already has done what she can to give that room by tacking away.
I think that if the hailed boat replies 'You tack' then she is saying to the hailing boat 'go ahead and tack, I will do what I need to do to give you the room you need to both tack and avoid me'.
I think that rule 13 indirectly gives us a definition of the action verb 'to tack' in that a boat is tacking from the time she crosses HTW the first time until she comes to a close-hauled course on either tack. This is certainly how we umpire this on the water.
In the OP, the hailed boat (Green) met her obligation under 20.2(c) by tacking as soon as possible, i.e. crossing HTW and coming to a close-hauled course. She was not obligated to give the hailing boat (Yellow) room to tack and avoid her and, therefore, Green does not break 20.2(c) when Yellow cannot complete her tack in position 3. Once Green met her her rule 20 obligations, she was then free to luff Yellow. In the absence of the mark and Blue, this would not have been an issue. This is why I concluded that Green did not break 20.2(c) in my analysis.
Position 1 - Rule 18 - Green & Blue: The rule cited should be 18.1(a)(1) and not 18.1(a).
Position 1 - Rule 18 - Green & Yellow: This should not include the statement "Neither boat is entitled to room or required to give room". Green is entitled to room as stated in the second bullet point.
On the "to tack", do you know of any case where "to tack" is defined that way or used with that assumption in the discussion?
Collins Online gives the following nautical meanings for tack:
6. nautical
the heading of a vessel sailing to windward, stated in terms of the side of the sail against which the wind is pressing
a.
a course sailed by a sailing vessel with the wind blowing from forward of the beam
b.
one such course or a zigzag pattern of such courses
a.
a sheet for controlling the weather clew of a course
b.
the weather clew itself
the forward lower clew of a fore-and-aft sail
Oddly, the act of passing through head to wind to change tack does not appear.
X luffed (ie was changing course), passed head to wind from... to... (RRS 13 begins to apply), and reached a close-hauled course on P/S (RRS 3 ceases to apply nad RRS 15 may begin to apply)
I don't know of a specific case, appeal, or call that addresses this exact point. But there are plenty of calls that talk about tacking and completing a tack. You can take a look at:
MR Call E8 Question 2 - Blue tacks to starboard to avoid Yellow, but before she reaches a close-hauled course Yellow has to luff to avoid Blue. Blue breaks rule C2.6 (13.1) by not keeping clear while tacking.
MR Call N6 - For the purpose of taking a penalty, tacking is to change course from close-hauled on one tack, through head to wind, to close-hauled on the other.
TR Call D3 talks about boats completing their tacks.
TR Call D4 talks about a boat not completing their tack.
TR Call D6 mentions a point when a tack is complete. "X tacks onto starboard. At position 3 her tack is complete..."
"Tacking
A yacht is tacking from the moment she is beyond head to wind until she has borne away to a close-hauled course."
The definition was removed in the 1997-2000 rules I suspect because of the new Rule 13, While Tacking, which describes tacking. Tacking was Rule 41.1 in the 1993-1996 rules and did not describe tacking.
So, I apologize, but my decision is simply the following:
The only infraction is committed by the yellow and green boats because they were on port and tacked within the zone and should, according to RRS 18.3, have given room at the mark to the blue boat that reached the mark always on starboard and without tacking within the zone.
I just think it's silly that it's not a defined term.
The other thing I'd say is that (if we want to go back in history) until just this year, mark-room included "room to tack" in specific circumstances.
In that context it could have only meant room up to HTW and the moment that is just past HTW .. as the moment that boat passed HTW, their mark-room ceased ... so "room to tack" in mark-room could not have included falling off to a close-hauled course.