Forums
The Racing Rules of Sailing |
1840 Posts
|
|
Rule 18 and Room at the Mark |
176 Posts
|
|
Protest Committee & Hearing Procedures |
110 Posts
|
|
Race Committee & Race Management |
80 Posts
|
|
Rules 2 and 69 |
49 Posts
|
|
Match and Team Racing Rules |
47 Posts
|
|
Training Materials, Presentations and Classes |
59 Posts
|
|
Share Your SI/NOR Language |
49 Posts
|
|
Event Management & Forum System (Q's, Comments & Suggestions) |
174 Posts
|
|
Regole e dintorni - Italian Channel |
50 Posts
|
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.
Recent Posts
-
68 CommentsChin In, Sun 11:31
-
30 CommentsPJohn Allan, Sun 09:56
-
11 CommentsDave Sanderson, Fri 11:45
-
50 CommentsPJohn Allan, Fri 00:12
-
13 CommentsAlan Chidsey, Thu 11:00
Recent Comments
-
David said
The 'facts found' in the original poster's message/subject (including the diagram) are dubious at best.
I don't think it matters for the sake of this discussion if the OP scenario was mechanically plausible.
The issue, in general terms is whether a windward boat keeping a sufficient distance between hulls so that the leeward boat need not act to avoid and can change course in either direction, fails to keep clear if the leeward boat suddenly changes attitude, without changing course and breaking RRS 16.1, and makes contact.
It doesnt matter if it's a J24, or say a modern Moth that can do a reverse capsize.
In my opinion any contact implies that a right-of-way rule is broken, so once there os contact the distance between hulls is hardly relevant.
I think the simper example of two boats, heavily heeled, so that the top of the rig of the windward boat is vertically about the deck of the leeward boat and the leeward boat suddenly 'stands up' and there is rig contact leads the way. In thcase we would have no hesitation in concluding the the windward boat does not keep clear, although had there been no contact we may conclude that she was keeping clear.
I don't think the fact that the leeward boat counter heels in order to make contact makes any difference.
Matt Michael saidhow much can the PC rely on their own assumption here, or question either party to clarify? Or need they just accept presented and un-argued ‘facts’, even if implausible / impossible?
When discussing rules problems on a forum we usually need to make some assumptions. In a real protest hearing we should not make assumptions, although we can rely on our knowledge and experience.
If something a witness describes is implausible we can certainly ask probing questions.
But, as I said to Ant above, in this scenario, although we might think it was implausible for the leeward boat to accidentally start her mainsheet and stand up without changing course, because that would introduce a whole new rule (RRS 16.1) into play, i think that asking the leeward boat whether or not she changed course, by the protest committee without it ever having been suggested by a party, would be an impermissible leading question.John Allan Today 23:26 -
Jim But doesn't reasonable apprehension only come into it if the apprehensive actually takes action as a result of the apprehension?
The point i was making was that if we changed 'need' to 'compel' in Definition Keep Clear, the reasonable apprehension test in Case 50 would go out the window.John Allan Today 22:24 -
Ang I as well .. was just trying to clearly describe where/how the ambiguity resides that you pointed out.
And I appreciate it.(Why do I suddenly feel like I'm Charlie Brown and you're Lucy holding the ball! <g>).
I never called you a blockhead.John Allan Yesterday 19:26