Ólafur,

This is interesting.

First, I will say that diagrams are great when discussing rules.  Your diagram helps so much with your question.  What software did you use?

-----------

As for your question, I think it is easiest to forget about the right gate mark for the moment.  Perhaps, the inclusion of the right mark rules is confusing things a bit.

So, at the left mark zone, Blue is inside/overlapped, and entitled to mark-room for the left mark.  By the definition, the mark-room is to sail to the mark from her position when rule 18 turned on (position 1).

Looking at the diagram, Yellow is preventing Blue from sailing 'TO' the mark throughout.  Yellow should have been giving mark-room from the moment she entered the zone (3 boat lengths from the mark).  Not only at 1.5 boat lengths.

Yellow, should have borne away, sailed by-the-lee or even gybed to give Blue that room much earlier then.

Blue could have pushed her case harder, by bearing off a little.  In doing so, she would have broken RRS 11, but would be exonerated by RRS 43.1(b).  Even if there was contact, she  would have broken RRS 14, but if there was no damage or injury, would be exonerated by RRS 43.1(c).

So in answer to your question then since Blue claimed mark-room then, "Yes!  Yellow broke RRS 18.2 at the left mark.  She was required to give more room."

I hope that helps.  Let's see what anyone else says.

First yes great to have a good diagram.  If I might suggest, including the moment the first boat touches the zone would be even better.  And avoiding using blue boats would allow us to read the position numbers.

Which leads to my question, if yellow failed to give mark room at some point, when did that first happen.  Mark room switches on when yellow touches the zone.  At that time, blue can then assume a straight course to the mark from nearly 4 hull lengths from the mark.  It looks to me like yellow would be blocking blue’s straight course to the mark at that instant.  Would I be correct in concluding that the concepts of Case 147 would apply to give yellow some time to bear away and give blue the space she needs?  In Case 147, a starboard tack boat gives a port tack boat room by bearing away even though the starboard tack boat has already caused the port tack boat to break rule 10. 

If that is correct, then how much time does yellow get to commence her bear away after touching the zone.  2 seconds?

These mark room incidents where there is no contact always leave me wondering what the protesting party needs to prove exactly.

In the case at hand, the blue boat never actually points toward the yellow boat or attempts to push onto the straight-line course to the mark. If yellow says they were watching blue and ready to turn away and give all the room needed, is that a valid defence?  It seems to me that if the facts show that Yellow likely would be able to change course and not interfere with blue then they would not break rule18.  Perhaps view this as a version of “space freely given by a boat with room”.

To illustrate this further, what if in the current set of facts, yellow, the give room boat had surged clear ahead and maintained enough speed to keep ahead.  Yellow would be blocking the mark room course of blue but not interfering due to yellow’s speed and space ahead.  I think in this case yellow does not break 18 as blue is able to sail within her mark room directly to the mark with no actual or apprehended interference. 

If that is correct, then when we go back to the overlapped case, why would we now penalize yellow since she did not interfere with the actual course sailed by blue?  My suggested answer would be that at the protest blue has to prove the following when there is no contact:

1.        Yellow is blocking blue’s “mark room course of straight to the mark” and,

2.        Blue states to the committee that she wished to change course to sail that course but did not change course due to yellow’s close position, and

3.        Blue’s statement in 2 of her intention to change course, if there had been space, is likely true due to the position of the boats and what the committee views as the likely intention of any competent sailor in that position. (Similar to what a starboard boat would have to prove when claiming they had to bear off to avoid a port tack boat).

Am I on the right track?

My opinion is that Yellow broke R 18.2 from she first touched the zone up to and around P2 as she appeared to be making no effort to allow Blue to sail her proper course to the mark. If there appears to be a simple way to apply a rule, then we should do so.

The software for the diagram is called boats.exe and is available for free download from
http://boats.sf.net

John

Y must give MR but she is also ROW under R 11 so she doen't have to give more 'rooom' than is absolutely necessary under the definition of 'room'. There is no rule that gives her the right to sail 'directly' to the mark.

Y does what is required of her and is clear ahead at pos. 4.

B could have easily rounded the left-hand mark if they had chosen to do so.

'Proper Course' is not relevant here.

So, what is “mark room course of straight to the mark”? What rule might this be?

Hi David,
I look at it this way. From the moment Yellow touched the zone, Blue was overlapped and entitled to mark room.
The definitions for mark room and proper course apply.
Mark-Room Room for a boat
(a) to sail to the mark when her proper course is to sail close to it,

Proper Course A course a boat would choose in order to sail the course as quickly as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term.
 
So I imagine a corridor for Blue staring when Mark room started - and it is reasonable to say represents Blue's proper course. Yellow makes no effort to allow Blue to sail her proper course and pushed Blue out of that corridor.

John

Bob,

I based my opinion largely on OP's fact, "Blue claims mark room..."  I took that to read that Blue was not happy with the situation and wanted to be in a better position.  When exactly, we don't know.

I also imagined the scenario at a local club regatta!! - I pictured a lot of shouting between the helms, with the inside boat becoming increasingly frustrated as they got closer to the mark.  I did not picture a quiet tranquil approach like we might envisage looking at the diagram on a computer.

You essentially ask two questions.

1.  When does the outside boat have to act to give room?
2.  Can Outside claim as an r18 defence she was 'ready to give room' if Inside took it?

1.  When does the outside boat have to act to give room?

I remember discussing many years ago whether a boat required to give mark-room should anticipate her obligation!!  And here we are again.  History repeats itself, eh?!

Her obligation is created by her entering the zone outside-overlapped.  From this moment onwards, she must give room to the inside boat.  That's what the rule says.

Equally, Inside's rights to room only start when rule 18.2 is activated.

So I think I have always concluded that Outside does not have to create the space before her obligation.  She must commence doing so at the instance her obligation is activated.  So when she entered the zone, she should act promptly so that the inside boat can take that room 'promptly' per the definition of room.

I prefer this rather than saying, '2 seconds'.

2.  Can Outside claim as an r18 defence she was 'ready to give room' if/when Inside took it?

As for your second muse it's interesting.  Again, discussed over the ages.

Rather than a case 147 concept, I take a Case 50 philosophy in favour of the inside boat.

In other words, I don't think the inside boat needs to sail in a risky way (or god forbid, make contact) in order to make her own space or prove her point.

The space should be afforded to her to sail into.  In which case, Outside cannot claim, "I was watching and ready to keep clear!", if there is a chance that Inside was apprehensive whether room was going to be given.

Imagine again the scenario... Outside shouting 'no overlap', inside yelling 'overlap', hands waving wildly, hot red faces.   If so, then I could say that Inside had reasonable apprehension that room was not about to be given.

Well, on the contrary, if 10 boat lengths out, Yellow calmly, in a nice voice, said, "Hey Bob.  How are you doing?  How's the family?  Nice day out, right?  Look,  I can see you're inside-overlapped, so I'll give you room when you need it. I'm watching you carefully.  Don't want to scratch your lovely boat.   Have a good drop and rounding. Take care, buddy.  See you at the bar," then perhaps.

But how often does that happen?  You get what I mean.

---------------
Tim,

The 'hard bear-away' tactic is technically sound and may work in an umpired match race, but in a club fleet race it is quite hard to nail in reality, since no one really knows where the zone is!!  If I was Yellow, I wouldn't count on that kind of move working out on the water or in the protest room!

---------------
David,

I agree with JohnB's explanation that Blue's proper course was (for diagrammatic purposes) to sail in that corridor 'to' the mark.

(OK - in real life, say with an asymmetric kite, she may have wanted to hold a little speed and then bear away for a spinnaker drop, but let's agree for the sake of discussion that at some point she wanted to sail directly to the mark.  With a symmetrical spinnaker, the deeper course is even more convincing.)  Its sometimes easiest to stick to worst case /  'most room' needed for discussion.

---------------
It's possible that you're suggesting that Yellow did in the end, let Blue sail to the mark after she was clear ahead at position 4, therefore complying with 18.  However, this reasoning couldn't be sensible.

Mark-room is to allow for orderly rounding of marks.  It's like a 'pause / time-out' in the tactical game, to get round the mark, and restart on the other side.  Yellow when required to give mark-room, cannot sensibly gain tactical advantage during that 'pause'.  What's to stop her luffing Blue all the way to the edge of the zone, before gybing and claiming the same?!

No.  Blue is entitled to mark-room to sail to the mark.  Yellow should 'pause' her tactical game and yield the space.



Good chat folks.

Thanks for the responses guys,

 

Dave Taylor, you asked “what is mark room course of straight to the mark.”

 

WS Case 75 is a case where the inside boat at a downwind mark sails a bit wide of the straight to the mark course but is OK as an inside right of way boat. The case states the following :

 

“The mark-room that P was required to give S was the space S needed in the existing conditions to sail promptly to the mark in a seamanlike way. That space was a direct corridor from S1 to a position close to and alongside the mark on the required side.”

 

The appeal committee, I think, stated that definition to show that when the inside boat sailed a looping course outside the corridor, they were no longer protected by mark room but had to rely on the right of way rules and subject to 16.1.

 

I think the direct corridor comes from the fact that the boat with room must act promptly to take that room so anything off a straight line is really not prompt.

 

Regarding John and Benjamin’s comments about proper course, I think the right to sail a proper course is not part of the definition of mark room so I don’t understand your comments using proper course.  Furthermore a straight course to the mark is unlikely to be blue’s proper course. In most cases a leeward mark rounding proper course is wide out and close in so in this case I would say blues proper course would be to sail to the right for a rounding of the left mark.  She would have to be the right of way boat to do that.

 

Benjamin - I’ve got into the habit this season of calling the zone myself, both for and against myself; turning to the other boats and going, “Zone, clear ahead/I have room/you have room, agreed?” I find it’s working to get the message out and it does pre-empt a lot of strife. 

As for the rest - well, a man can dream, you know?

David re: "The diagram clearly shows that she sailed "to the mark" although not perhaps in the tactical way she might have preferred... Blue is TOAST!"

I disagree.  There is nothing in this OP which implies action on Blue's part to sail outside the mark-room she is entitled to for a tactical rounding.  In this case, with the boats in close proximity to each other such that Blue's path is actively restricted by RRS11 from position 1, Yellow needs to start turning down to give Blue a corridor as soon as Yellow hits the zone.

David - per Merriam-Webster:
syn of prompt: 
in a prompt manner : without delay : very quickly or immediately

So I would say that they do need to act immediately after entering the zone.  Also overlapping zones while not recommended are not a no-no.  You really think that this is a case for abandoning the race and labeling the RO as TOAST?  

It seems that there are a number of issues being discussed. 

1.  Was the mark-room adequate? Was Y afforded toom to 'sail to the mark' (proven by the fact that Blue eventually got there) or should Y have given room for Blue to sail the direct route? 

2.  When does mark-room have to be available Is it 'immediately' - is it that the moment her hiull touches the zone, room must be there? Or 'promptly' - Y may start acting when her hill reaches the zone? How fast must she act? 

3.  Overlapping Zones - Are they a no-no? 

------
OK.  I'll address the mark-room issue first. 

1.  Most people (including myself) have asserted that Y did not act sufficiently and mark-room was for Blue to sail the direct route (in the corridor) to a position close to the mark. 

David Taylor suggested an alternative conclusion. 

I rather think Dave confused the matter quite markedly in doing so, especially by stating that 'proper course has nothing to do with the matter'. We (I) couldn't work this out since 'proper course' is written there in the definition of mark-room! What could he mean? 

After some lateral thought, I think I have worked out where Dave was going. 

Dave touches on the fact that Blue is not entitled to make a 'tactical (a.k.a.' proper course') rounding, since Blue does not have right of way. This I agree with. 

Dave's interpretation geos on to apply then, that it was not Blue's PC to sail 'close to the mark'. It was her (and every boat's) proper course to make a wide-in approach here. 

At this point, we remind ourselves of the 3-part definition of mark-room. 

In which case, the first part of mark room drfinition - room to sail to the mark when her proper course is to sail close to it  - did not apply.  So forget it. 

Dave's conclusion is that the only remaining entitlements from the definition of mark-room - room to round or pass the mark on the required side, and to leave it astern. 

Well, Blue indeed was given room to do those things, wasn't she? 

Dave, correct me if I see this wrong. 

I must admit, I have never considered this interpretation before.  Now I think about it, it seems valid. 

Yet, there is something about it which doesn't seem to fit comfortably.   Why did many of us not assert this initially? 

Let me know which way you saw this? Am I the only one? 

Bob, thanks.

Actually, to clarify, I agree with everything you say.

My post (before my short flight) was simply trying to re-present DavidTaylor's argument as I understood him. I thought about including my own disagreement to it (for same reasons you present) but decided not to in hope to see what people thought.

Well, landed now. Here's what I composed during the flight! I think we're on a similar page.

The problem is the condition in the definition 'when her proper course is to sail close to it'.

David discounts this provision, because as we know, any good tactician would prefer not to sail close to the mark.  "Wide-in," is what they say.   Thus he concludes , the condition for entitlement to sail 'to the mark' is not met.

In that world, the (a) of the definition is applied only to the approach segment of the mark-rounding process. It doesn't include the rounding part.

However, it seems that in the official interpretations, the case book at least, the sentence is consistently applied with refereence to any part of the entire rounding process.

Well,  if the approach is the first half, the other half of a tactical rounding is the rounding.   "Wide in, tight out" is what they actually say.

When the whole rounding is considered, at some point it is normally the boat's proper course to sail close to the mark.

(In contrast, as a test, can anyone think of a case where it is never the boats proper course to sail close to the mark?  Some instances, but very few.)

So, in the official cases, the mark-room to sail close to the mark (in the direct corridor) comes into play if at some time in the rounding (without being too specific when) a boats proper course will be to sail close to it.

Case 75 describes the mark-room being the direct corridor, but also goes on to strongly hint that the boat's PC in that case was wide-in.

"That space was a direct corridor from S1 to a position close to and alongside the mark on the required side. P gave S that room."

Case 118 specifically highlights that the exact time when it was her PC to sail close to the mark was not crucial. Just that it was part of the rounding 'at some point'.

"Therefore, her proper course was to sail close to the mark at some point in her turn."

In fact, no case in the casebook describes a situation where it was not a boat's proper cours to sail close to the mark. Is that because it is essentially a given fact in any mark rounding that a boat would need to sail close to the mark... at some point?

We can apply this to OPs case.

At some point in her rounding Blue's PC would be to sail close to the mark. In which case, Blue is entitled to mark-room to promptly sail to the mark - the direct corridor. In which case,  Yellow did not give that mark room.

I wonder what David's response  would be. 

Ben and Bob. Thank you both for your important thoughts on this one.

Let's start with the question of proper course. In the definition of room 'proper course' is simply a constraint that must be met for the definition to apply. That said, it implies no particular entitlement to sail such a course.

What's the question?

I think it boils down to this: Does that first condition of mark-room apply to the phase of the rounding she is on at the time, or any part of the rounding?

Ben ... I think you had it nailed with the simple observation, and that is ..

I think the confusion also comes in that def: MR previously stated a boat's MR included room to pass or round as necessary to sail the course.  I think people commonly replaced the phrase "as necessary to sail the course" with "proper course" in their minds.  That was a mistake, as they were different.

But that said, that phrase is no longer in the rule, and the proposed inclusion of proper course in the new def: MR did not make it.

So proper course in def: MR is a "test, apply and forget" modality. 

In this OP, with this specific geometry, Blue's PC is to sail close to the left gate.  Therefore her MR includes room to sail to the mark on its proper side.  Though we do not have updated Case 75 yet, this portion of def:MR did not change. Assuming Case 75 does not change that portion of the discussion, Blue's MR is a corridor directly to the mark from the edge of the zone to proper side of the mark. 

Yellow is in a position when she reaches the zone to provide that corridor, so she needs to maneuver promptly to do so, as soon as her obligation comes into existence. 

I seem to be pushing bricks up-hill here, but that said ...

def:Mark-Room(a) is really interesting: It says "Room for a boat (a) to sail to the mark when her proper course is to sail close to it".

But what does this really mean? What does it mean to "sail to the mark"? Surely this means getting closer to the mark moment by moment ... as opposed from moving away from it. I think of this in simple geometrical terms in that we are either moving 'to' the mark or 'from' it. So, even during a 'tactical mark rounding' we are always getting closer to the mark at all times, right? It's effectively a short spiral in to the mark where we come in fat and go out thin ... also known as a Jenny Craig rounding in some circles (ie. come in fat and go out thin).

The 'corridor' concept mentioned in case 75 is interesting too. It says that it starts from position S1 but fails to deal with the fact that the opening of the corridor can really only begin once R15 turns off [ref. case 53 where I really like the "newly obligated boat" concept which is apparently implicit in R15].

My Conclusion: From the available evidence I conclude that B was never prevented from "sail[ing] to the mark" so Y did not break any rules here.

David ... a couple comments regarding your last post. 

Here is the def: Mark-room in its entirety. 

Please note the "and".  (a), (b) and (c) are all elements of def: MR.  The "when .. proper course" condition only applies to and limits the application of (a).  It has no effect on (b) and (c).

It's my opinion that Case 75's "corridor" is often too broadly applied.  The corridor comment is made in Case 75 about a specific boat given the specific geometry of the scenario.

That said, it just so happens that the OP has a close enough geometry to Case 75 that the corridor concept is very applicable (IMO).

I think it's a mistake to apply RRS 15 concepts to mark-room obligations. RRS 15 is only about a boat becoming ROW except then it is acquired by the other boat's action.  It has nothing to do with a boat becoming obligated to give mark-room.

The physical geometry of the boats ... Yellow bow-out on Blue in such close proximity of each other ... prevents Blue from turning toward the mark to "take" her MR.  The rotation of Blue's bow toward Yellow's stern and the resulting converging course would quickly lock Yellow out of any room to turn.  Blue must wait for Yellow. 

David thanks for that response.  WOW ... I hadn't realized how unfortunate and confusion-generating the wording of Case 53 was until now (hopefully that wording is getting worked on). Thanks for pointing that out. 

"while maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike way" is a part of "room".  A ROW boat that becomes obligated to give room or mark-room to another boat, does not themselves become entitled to "room" to do so.

The only "out" for MR for an outside boat is 18.2(d) and the conditions of that rule do not apply for the OP.  Other than RRS 18.2(d), there are no other "get out of jail free cards" for a boat obligated to give mark-room to another boat, if she does not do so (no exoneration under RRS 43 for breaking RRS 18 without a boat compelling her to do so). Yellow is not being compelled to break 18. 

In Case 53 both boats maneuvered "immediately".  That is what myself and the folks on the "DSQ Yellow" team are saying. 

Yellow's obligation to provide Blue MR occurs the moment her bow reached the zone.  When Yellow's bow reached the zone, Yellow did not act immediately to provide Blue a corridor to the mark.   

Case 75 is applicable here. My point about Case 75 is that people misapply the corridor in situations where the boats are not close to each other. Yellow and Blue are close enough to be limiting each others maneuverability ... therefore Case 75's corridor is very applicable.

David .. well just have to agree to disagree. I won't repeat myself as I described how I see it as clearly as I can in the previous post. 

David re: "I love the fact that divergent voices can be heard in this place ..."

Thank you for that comment. IMO it's  not only that.  It's easy to find places where people are expressing divergent views ... but the level of camaraderie, patience and respectful dialog here ... I really think is unmatched ... which says a lot about our forum members. 

Slightly connected is this by Craig Mitchell discussing a Sail GP incident.

AUS is outside GBR and required to give room to GBR.

Mitchell explains how they expect the boat required to give room to proactively act to give room first - rather than the boat entitled to room making the first move.

(Let's not get into a discussion on the incident.  It's the room principal, I'm highlighting.)

Similarly, when entering the zone, the outside boat can't rely on a defence that 'they were waiting for the inside boat to take the room'.  The outside boat should be making the room first.

(See my discussion earlier in this thread: "2.  Can Outside claim as an r18 defence she was 'ready to give room' if/when Inside took it?")

I note with interest that Case 75 has been revised in the latest Case-Book and now makes no reference to "the corridor".

So, does that change anyone's position?

I am far from the most experienced judge here but I do feel vindicated and perhaps a little emboldened ;-)

Upon reviewing the diagram, it’s clear that Yellow consistently prevented Blue from sailing to the mark. Yellow was obligated to begin giving mark-room from the moment she entered the zone—defined as three hull lengths from the mark.

To comply with RRS 18.2, Yellow should have borne away, sailed by-the-lee, or even gybed earlier to provide Blue the necessary room.

Blue had the option to assert her rights by bearing off slightly. While this would have resulted in a breach of RRS 11, she would be exonerated under RRS 43.1(b) for sailing within the room to which she was entitled. If contact occurred, Blue would technically break RRS 14, but provided there was no damage or injury, she would be exonerated under RRS 43.1(c).

In response to the original question—since Blue was entitled to mark-room at the left-hand mark—yes, Yellow broke RRS 18.2 by failing to give sufficient room.

There are significant differences between the OP and Case 75. 

The drawing is such that we might need more FF's to determine if Blue was given room to sail to the mark (which gives her the right to the space required to sail promptly to it).

The reason I say we'd maybe need more FF's is by flipping the question a bit.   

Let's say ... 

Is Blue exonerated under 43.1(b)?  

I would say yes.    She is sailing in the room she is entitled to. 

PS: Which goes back to the additional FF's.  We don't want boats to think that they need to have contact with each other just to prove their point.  

Angelo, Direct Corridor - In another thread you said:
 

Could you give us one or two examples where you think that the direct corridor was not applicable?

John .. where the corridor not (as) applicable.

To me, it really only has meaning when the boats are close enough to effect each other's course.  Misapplying the corridor in inappropriate scenarios can lead people to determine that MR has a "use or or loose it" quality.

Take Case 12 for instance. At just before position 1, OL enters the zone ... but the boats don't engage each other until just before position #4. At that point they close enough to effect each other and be engaged by the rules.  Talking about the corridor at position 1+ doesn't inform anything. 

I think I recall a discussion in which it was claimed that mark room was dynamic, and that if a boat doesn't sail directly to the mark after entering the zone (without breaking any rules) she is then entitled to mark room to sail to the mark from that position, even if she sailed outside her original mark room in order to get there. I don't recall a conclusion, To me, though, the word corridor implied that when a boat entered the zone her mark room was defined as being from that point to the mark, and if she sailed outside that region then she no longer had the protection of mark room until she was back in that region. The converse was that she always has protection to sail to the mark, no matter how she may have wandered around the zone, but she wouldn't have mark room protection for any rules broken getting to that location.

Thoughts on how this has clarified or otherwise?

I think the removal of the 'corridor' reference opens up the interpretation of room to sail to the mark to being either:

Let's consider Case 75 flipped

B, on port does not keep clear of Y on starboard.  B breaks RRS 10 and 14.

With the 'corridor' approach, B is way outside her corridor, Y is giving B all the room in the world to sail in the corridor, B is not sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled and is not exonerated for breaking RRS 10 and 14.  If Y breaks RRS 14, because she is the right-of-way boat and there is no injury or damage she is exonerated, and she breaks no other rule.

With the 'dynamic' approach, we have to determine when B 'engages' with Y (or use whatever other language you like for 'engages', 'affecting her course' maybe?).  I'd say that was round about @2.5.  That would be shown by the black line.

In this case, I think that B has still got outside the room to which she is entitled and is not exonerated

In contrast to the 'corridor' approach, this is much more 'rubbery' and I'm not too comfortable with it.

If the Case Working Group was going to knock out the Direct Corridor reference, then It would have been helpful if they had provided a positive example.

Note, that while Case 118 defines the boundary between sailing to the mark and rounding the mark, as 'when the mark is abeam of her bow and she is close to and on the required side of the mark', it is about rounding the mark, not sailing to the mark.

No, sorry.  I'll fix it a bit later.