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.
Definition obstruction, Rule 19; When obstruction ends.
Situation 1: at position 1 red is trying to fore-reach across over green, both 4.2m dinghies. There is a moored vessel lying to wind, approximately 2 to 2.5 boat lengths in length. Green will easily pass the vessel leaving it on the starboard side of green without altering course. Red will clear it to port by an alteration to close-hauled up to one boat length away, given speed and the current. Green is clear ahead of red.
At position 2, red is overlapped to windward and continues to bear down towards the moored vessels. Green does not luff. Position 3, green has to alter course to give room to red as a result.
The moored vessel becomes an obstruction late, by reason of red bearing down from to windward.
Therefore: 1) Do we have a definition of “substantially” for the definition of “obstruction”? I would read “substantial” as being greater than “significant”, but do we have a guideline on it? 2) The vessel becomes an obstruction by reason of red’s course coming down from clear astern on green, forcing a change of course by green. Breach?
It’s close to Case 11 and Case 41, but different in that green was clear ahead. Case 125 suggests green had to give room, but doesn’t cover the reaching down situation. Case 146 doesn’t apply, as no luff by green/L
My instinct is: green must, at position 2.5/3, give room under 19 but red at position 2 has broken 11 and 12, given the definition of keep clear and given that her chosen course in not keeping clear turned the moored vessels the obstruction. Thoughts?
[There’s a second, related, scenario I’ll post later.]
Tim ... I'll take the "easy" part. "Substantially" in def: obstruction pertains to a hypothetical scenario where you place the boat 1 BL from the object and head the boat right for it ... not the actual racing scenario a boat finds themselves in.
Def: obstruction (a) an object that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially, IF she were sailing directly towards it and one of her hull lengths from it;
So, the test of whether or not the moored vessel is an obstruction occurs in an imaginary scenario ... not the actual one on the water and is based on the immutable size of the vessel.
Based on your description, the vessel IS an obstruction ... and doesn't "become an obstruction late, by reason of red bearing down from to windward".
The issue is weather red is entitled to room under 19.2(b). The moored boat is clearly an obstruction as defined. It is an obstruction to red as they must change course to avoid it. 19.2 requires green to give red room if they are able to from the time the overlap occurs. Green gave room so they clearly were able to do so. Red is exonerated for their breach of 11. I don’t see how they broke 12. No rules broken in this scenario.
An obstruction is still an obstruction when its a mile away! The definition is about size, not position.
So isn't it just a simple 19.2b situation? Green was required to give room to Red when the overlap started, provided she was able to do so. She did give the room so no rules were broken.
I agree with Angelo. Black is an obstruction, no matter what angle the boats are approaching it from, or how far away.
This is not a problem, because RRS 19 only applies when boats are at the obstruction (RRS 19.1)
We really need to look no further than Case 11. It is irrelevant whether boats are on the same or different courses, or whether they were clear ahead/clear astern before they became overlapped.
Green has exercised the option given to her by RRS 19.2(a) to pass to leeward of Black.
@2 Red is overlapped inside Green and boats are at the obstruction ( Case 150). Green is readily able to bear away to give Red room to pass between her and the obstruction, and is required to do so (RRS 19.2(b)).
Between @2 and @3, Green bears away to avoid Red. Red, overlapped to windward does not keep clear of Green. Red breaks RRS 11.
At no stage does Red break RRS 12. For a boat to break RRS 12 it is usually necessary for there to be contact between the bow of the astern boat and the transom of the ahead boat, because in a RRS 12 situation it is not usually possible for the right of way boat to take any action to avoid the astern boat.
By bearing away, Green gives Red room as required by RRS 19.2(b).
When she broke RRS 11 Red was sailing within the room to which she was entitled and is exonerated by RRS 43.1(b) (USA Appeal US120)
A protest committee hearing a valid protest by Green should decide that the protest is upheld. Since Red is exonerated by RRS 43.1(c)] for her breach of RRS 11 no penalty is imposed on Red.
From Angelo above: Def: obstruction (a) an object that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially, IF she were sailing directly towards it and one of her hull lengths from it;
For modern designs that are highly maneuverable, "one of her hull lengths" might be possible (although quite dubious in a high speed cat or trimaran). But, sailors often find themselves sailing on boats that are completely in-capable of turning quickly.
If the boats in the OP were J-Class sloops, with a 3-4 boat length minimum turning circle, does it make any sense to apply the "one of her hull lengths" to the decision or rule? In the OP there almost certainly would have been a collision because the overlap required to turn on Rule 19 doesn't occur until after all boat's best-effort course to avoid a collision has long since past. It seems obvious that the inclusion of such a measure ("one of her hull lengths") is making an assumption about the maneuverability of sailboats that simply doesn't exist within much of the racing community.
By contrast "was unable to do so from the point at which the overlap was established" puts the onus on all boats to forecast a course that is possible to sail. In the OP the stern of Green at 2 would have almost certainly hit the obstruction as they bore away, and would certainly have caused a collision with Red. Continuing with the J-Class example, at position 1 in the OP it should have been clear to Red that Green was no longer able to give her Room.
Should this sort of assumption about sailing charateristics exist in the Rules and Cases?
Beau ... the point is that an object qualifies as an obstruction based on that measure, based on the def: obstruction.
It is a geometric measurement (I think of a static image), with a resultant angle representing a course-change. It makes no judgement based upon the speed or maneuverability of the boats, or the conditions of wind, seas, current.
The speed and maneuverability only comes into play when applying rules referencing an obstruction. In those rules, boats are accorded room. Once a boat is entitled to room, then all those factors come into play (see Case 21)
You'll have me defending a definition which I don't actually think is very clever!
The point is not the ability to manouver, or really much to do with sailing characteristics, its simply the size of the object. If you're in an Optimist then a post six inches wide is probably an obstruction, but if you're in a 250 foot megayacht its probably not, because you can probably slip past it with a minimal change of course if you have your eyes open. [a bit later] Angelo's description of it as a geometric measurement is rather neat, wish I'd thought of that.
At a guess (and this is purely an off the cuff guess) the intention is to define the point at which an object is sufficiently small that one may go either side of it without any difficulty, and thus there's no need for RRS 19 to be active. After all what RRS19 does is impose on a ROW boat a requirement to change course to allow a give way boat past the object. If the give way boat could equally easily pass the other side of the object, then it seems to me the ROW boat ought not to be required to give room.
I should have thought that something simpler like, maybe, half the beam of the boat would cause less confusion, or even define an obstruction as any object which could cause damage or be damaged if collided with, but happily I don't have to write the rules.
Jim - it’s as to why it’s in there at all, given the point Beau makes; at one boat length, it’s largely academic. About the only way I can see it making sense is the different levels of change of course at distance. Otherwise, if it’s just otiose, it should probably just be removed.
The same object can be an obstruction for one boat and not for another, by definition. A slender 110 sloop one boat length away from a "broomstick" buoy need not make a substantial alteration of course. A beamier boat, however, would need a substantial course change to clear her girth and swinging stern.
My favorite example of something that is an obstruction to one boat but not another is a rock. The deep draft boat might need to call for Room at the obstruction while a shallow draft boat could sail right over it. Clearly the shallow draft boat must provide Room for the deep draft boat to avoid the Obstruction. But I believe that the burden on the shallow draft boat turns on at the point that an Overlap has been established.
=================
Angelo,
I understand what you're saying and have reviewed Case 21, very helpful. Thanks.
However, I believe that there are many boats who would have to start providing Room long before there was an Overlap between them based a prediction that by the time there was an Overlap it would be too late to start to provide Room. What continues to bother me is the point at which the burdened boat needs to start taking action to provide Room. I don't see a way that it can start at the point an Overlap is established and also avoid a collision or some other problem.
When applying this to the OP, it seems that someplace around position 1.25 Red would need to call for Room, and Green would be able to say: "There is no Overlap, request denied. Tack away."
Beau, There are many boats who would have to start providing Room long before there was an Overlap between them based a prediction that by the time there was an Overlap it would be too late to start to provide Room.
In that case, she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began, and in accordance with RRS 19.2(b) she is not required to give room.
Beau, I agree that there can be an onus of anticipation of a situation not covered by the rules. But that onus would fall upon the Clear Astern boat without ROW which has a clear forward-peering view of the matter, NOT upon the Clear Ahead boat with ROW sailing close hauled on her layline and which would have to avert her gaze backward away from the danger of the obstruction ahead in order to analyze and postulate on an offending boat's future actions. The Clear Astern boat is free to slow down or change course to yield to the ROW boat, as the rules require. The rules support a claim of inability to provide room from the time the overlap began. And the Clear Ahead boat has to be judged to have the better analysis of that.
19.2(a) covers this situation before there is an overlap between Green and Red. Its does not provide the KC boat room to pass between the ROW and the obstruction. As far as conveying room, it only repeats RRS 16.1's obligation on the ROW to provide the KC boat room to keep clear if the ROW boat changes course
(Question: Why is the 2nd sentence of 19.2(a) necessary when 16.1 covers this?).
(Answer: thanks John A ... the 16.1 give-room obligation needs to be repeated in 19.2(a) so that it is outside of 43.1(b)'s list of exoneratable rules).
19.2(b) kicks in the moment overlap occurs and that is when the obligation to provide room between the boat and the object begins. It has an escape hatch for the outside boat if providing that room is not possible.
Keeping the boats where they are from #1 to #2 .. we can play this out differently.
As the boat models are laid-out from #1 to #2 .. with the current pushing boats toward the vessel ... I could see from #2 to #3 playing out differently, kicking in the escape-hatch for Green.
Alternate FF's ...
Green was on a close-hauled course on a trajectory to pass closely astern of a moored vessel, equal in size to Red and Green.
At position #1, Red, on the same tack, was clear astern and to windward of Green with 1 BL separation.
Green did not alter course from #1 to #2
Between #1 and #2, Red altered course to port, putting herself on a converging course with Green astern of the vessel.
Red was sailing off the wind, sailing faster than Green.
Overlap occurred at position #1.8
At pos 1.8, Greens bow was 1/2 boat-width astern of the vessel
The current was pushing both boats toward the vessel.
At position 1.8, had Green promptly altered course to port, Green's stern would have swung toward the vessel leaving 1/4 boat-width between Green's starboard side and the stern of the vessel at pos #2.
GREEN AND RED HELD COURSE FROM POS #1.8 to POS #3
Red's bow became wedged between the vessel's stern and Green's starboard side and made oblique contact with both. Green did not touch the vessel.
Scrapes and gel coat cracks in all 3 vessels resulted from the contact, there were no injuries.
Alternate Conclusions ..
The vessel was equal in size to both Green and Red and therefore was an obstruction to both.
After position 1.8, Green could not alter course such that a Green could provide room for Red to pass between Green and the vessel, therefore Green was not obligated to do so. Green does not break 19.2(b).
After position 1.8, it was not reasonably possible for Green to avoid contact with Red nor was it reasonably possible for Green to prevent contact between Red and the vessel. Green does not break 14(a) or 14(c).
Red, a boat on the same tack and overlapped to windward, did not keep clear of Green and broke 11.
When Red was clear astern of Green prior to #1.8, it was reasonably possible for Red to steer astern of Green and avoid contact with both Green and the vessel. Red broke 14(a).
(Assuming an SI exists) Red did not avoid touching a moored boat as required by SI #.#. Red breaks SI #.#.
Alternate Descision: DSQ Red
--------
PS: I can see Green determining it's better to have the oblique contact than risk forcing Red's bow into a direct hit with the vessel.
Angelo -- Thank you for this. Really clear. As you know, there are many places where smaller boats race amongst moored or anchored boats. This scenario comes up often and (as you can imagine) there are differences of opinion. I'm saving this for future reference. Thanks again -- Beau
Beau, we finish every Wed Night in Annapolis passing through a densely packed mooring field ... more densely packed on Wed. night as people want to cocktail in the middle of our finish spectacle!
Angelo, (Question: Why is the 2nd sentence of 19.2(a) necessary when 16.1 covers this?).
Because, without it, when a right-of-way boat, at the obstruction, changes course radically in executing her option which side of the obstruction to pass, she is exonerated if she does not give the give-way boat room to keep clear, i.e. at her own risk of injury or damage, she can 'tag-out' the give-way boat.
So, the test of whether or not the moored vessel is an obstruction occurs in an imaginary scenario ... not the actual one on the water and is based on the immutable size of the vessel.
Based on your description, the vessel IS an obstruction ... and doesn't "become an obstruction late, by reason of red bearing down from to windward".
So isn't it just a simple 19.2b situation? Green was required to give room to Red when the overlap started, provided she was able to do so. She did give the room so no rules were broken.
This is not a problem, because RRS 19 only applies when boats are at the obstruction (RRS 19.1)
We really need to look no further than Case 11. It is irrelevant whether boats are on the same or different courses, or whether they were clear ahead/clear astern before they became overlapped.
Green has exercised the option given to her by RRS 19.2(a) to pass to leeward of Black.
@2 Red is overlapped inside Green and boats are at the obstruction ( Case 150). Green is readily able to bear away to give Red room to pass between her and the obstruction, and is required to do so (RRS 19.2(b)).
Between @2 and @3, Green bears away to avoid Red. Red, overlapped to windward does not keep clear of Green. Red breaks RRS 11.
At no stage does Red break RRS 12. For a boat to break RRS 12 it is usually necessary for there to be contact between the bow of the astern boat and the transom of the ahead boat, because in a RRS 12 situation it is not usually possible for the right of way boat to take any action to avoid the astern boat.
By bearing away, Green gives Red room as required by RRS 19.2(b).
When she broke RRS 11 Red was sailing within the room to which she was entitled and is exonerated by RRS 43.1(b) (USA Appeal US120)
A protest committee hearing a valid protest by Green should decide that the protest is upheld. Since Red is exonerated by RRS 43.1(c)] for her breach of RRS 11 no penalty is imposed on Red.
From Angelo above:
Def: obstruction (a) an object that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially, IF she were sailing directly towards it and one of her hull lengths from it;
For modern designs that are highly maneuverable, "one of her hull lengths" might be possible (although quite dubious in a high speed cat or trimaran). But, sailors often find themselves sailing on boats that are completely in-capable of turning quickly.
If the boats in the OP were J-Class sloops, with a 3-4 boat length minimum turning circle, does it make any sense to apply the "one of her hull lengths" to the decision or rule? In the OP there almost certainly would have been a collision because the overlap required to turn on Rule 19 doesn't occur until after all boat's best-effort course to avoid a collision has long since past. It seems obvious that the inclusion of such a measure ("one of her hull lengths") is making an assumption about the maneuverability of sailboats that simply doesn't exist within much of the racing community.
By contrast "was unable to do so from the point at which the overlap was established" puts the onus on all boats to forecast a course that is possible to sail. In the OP the stern of Green at 2 would have almost certainly hit the obstruction as they bore away, and would certainly have caused a collision with Red. Continuing with the J-Class example, at position 1 in the OP it should have been clear to Red that Green was no longer able to give her Room.
Should this sort of assumption about sailing charateristics exist in the Rules and Cases?
It is a geometric measurement (I think of a static image), with a resultant angle representing a course-change. It makes no judgement based upon the speed or maneuverability of the boats, or the conditions of wind, seas, current.
The speed and maneuverability only comes into play when applying rules referencing an obstruction. In those rules, boats are accorded room. Once a boat is entitled to room, then all those factors come into play (see Case 21)
The point is not the ability to manouver, or really much to do with sailing characteristics, its simply the size of the object. If you're in an Optimist then a post six inches wide is probably an obstruction, but if you're in a 250 foot megayacht its probably not, because you can probably slip past it with a minimal change of course if you have your eyes open. [a bit later] Angelo's description of it as a geometric measurement is rather neat, wish I'd thought of that.
At a guess (and this is purely an off the cuff guess) the intention is to define the point at which an object is sufficiently small that one may go either side of it without any difficulty, and thus there's no need for RRS 19 to be active. After all what RRS19 does is impose on a ROW boat a requirement to change course to allow a give way boat past the object. If the give way boat could equally easily pass the other side of the object, then it seems to me the ROW boat ought not to be required to give room.
I should have thought that something simpler like, maybe, half the beam of the boat would cause less confusion, or even define an obstruction as any object which could cause damage or be damaged if collided with, but happily I don't have to write the rules.
A slender 110 sloop one boat length away from a "broomstick" buoy need not make a substantial alteration of course.
A beamier boat, however, would need a substantial course change to clear her girth and swinging stern.
My favorite example of something that is an obstruction to one boat but not another is a rock. The deep draft boat might need to call for Room at the obstruction while a shallow draft boat could sail right over it. Clearly the shallow draft boat must provide Room for the deep draft boat to avoid the Obstruction. But I believe that the burden on the shallow draft boat turns on at the point that an Overlap has been established.
=================
Angelo,
I understand what you're saying and have reviewed Case 21, very helpful. Thanks.
However, I believe that there are many boats who would have to start providing Room long before there was an Overlap between them based a prediction that by the time there was an Overlap it would be too late to start to provide Room. What continues to bother me is the point at which the burdened boat needs to start taking action to provide Room. I don't see a way that it can start at the point an Overlap is established and also avoid a collision or some other problem.
When applying this to the OP, it seems that someplace around position 1.25 Red would need to call for Room, and Green would be able to say: "There is no Overlap, request denied. Tack away."
Maybe I'm just being dense.
In that case, she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began, and in accordance with RRS 19.2(b) she is not required to give room.
But that onus would fall upon the Clear Astern boat without ROW which has a clear forward-peering view of the matter, NOT upon the Clear Ahead boat with ROW sailing close hauled on her layline and which would have to avert her gaze backward away from the danger of the obstruction ahead in order to analyze and postulate on an offending boat's future actions.
The Clear Astern boat is free to slow down or change course to yield to the ROW boat, as the rules require.
The rules support a claim of inability to provide room from the time the overlap began. And the Clear Ahead boat has to be judged to have the better analysis of that.
19.2(a) covers this situation before there is an overlap between Green and Red. Its does not provide the KC boat room to pass between the ROW and the obstruction. As far as conveying room, it only repeats RRS 16.1's obligation on the ROW to provide the KC boat room to keep clear if the ROW boat changes course
(Question: Why is the 2nd sentence of 19.2(a) necessary when 16.1 covers this?).
(Answer: thanks John A ... the 16.1 give-room obligation needs to be repeated in 19.2(a) so that it is outside of 43.1(b)'s list of exoneratable rules).
19.2(b) kicks in the moment overlap occurs and that is when the obligation to provide room between the boat and the object begins. It has an escape hatch for the outside boat if providing that room is not possible.
Keeping the boats where they are from #1 to #2 .. we can play this out differently.
As the boat models are laid-out from #1 to #2 .. with the current pushing boats toward the vessel ... I could see from #2 to #3 playing out differently, kicking in the escape-hatch for Green.
Alternate FF's ...
GREEN AND RED HELD COURSE FROM POS #1.8 to POS #3
Red's bow became wedged between the vessel's stern and Green's starboard side and made oblique contact with both. Green did not touch the vessel.
Scrapes and gel coat cracks in all 3 vessels resulted from the contact, there were no injuries.
Alternate Conclusions ..
Alternate Descision:
DSQ Red
--------
PS: I can see Green determining it's better to have the oblique contact than risk forcing Red's bow into a direct hit with the vessel.
Because, without it, when a right-of-way boat, at the obstruction, changes course radically in executing her option which side of the obstruction to pass, she is exonerated if she does not give the give-way boat room to keep clear, i.e. at her own risk of injury or damage, she can 'tag-out' the give-way boat.
See the diagram, and Submission 008-23