• Mark Room, RoW, Proper Course, Exoneration
  15 Comments
  Stewart Campbell Yesterday 14:41
• Case Index Enabled/Fixed on Mobile Devices/Browsers
  0 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Wed 20:39
• RRS Org's Search-Function is Upgraded
  8 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Sat 20:13
• 18.1(a)(2)
  17 Comments
  Nicolas Ch. Sat 13:02
• How long is the race committee allowed to change the position of the first windward mark?
  51 Comments
  Christian Hartmann 25-Nov-05 19:30

• Mark Room, RoW, Proper Course, Exoneration
  Steward .. here's my opinion on your concluding comment.
  
  

  With respect to my 3rd scenario, I am looking for support that at P7 (even if Mark-Room had not ended per definition "c)" at P5 - i.e. her transom had not passed the Mark, and even though Mark-Room is still in force, "Room" is no longer available.)

  
  In Scenario #3, IMO, RRS 18.1(b) turns-off RRS 18 somewhere around #5+ .. but clearly at #6.5.  So I would say that Yellow's MR entitlement disappears somewhere between #5-#6.5 .. so after that and after Cyan gybed, questions of room and mark-room are moot.
  
  After #6.5, Cyan was on port, altered course and sailed toward and into Yellow on starboard without room-entitlement under any rule.  If there was damage and injury, the question of whether or not Yellow broke RRS14 or if she did was exonerated under RRS 43.1(c) needs to be determined.  Cyan clearly breaks RRS 14(a) and is not exonerated under any RRS 43.1 rule.
  
  

  With respect to Scenario 1, at P3, Yellow is NOT sailing her Proper Course to the Mark so she is no longer entitled to Room. She has broken RRS10, and because outside her "Room" entitlement, she will not be exonerated under RRS43

  
  The "lesson" (if you want to call it that) I'm trying to convey is how you are describing it can lead you and others down the wrong path. Let's look at Case 118 for the proper way to describe it.  In Case 118, though the boats are not on opposite tacks as you drew your Scenario 1, the rules apply the same because they share these key elements:
  
  

  1. The boats were overlapped when the first of them reached the zone
  2. The inside-overlapped boat entitled to MR is required to keep-clear of the outside boat, which has ROW
  3. The inside boat is not ROW and does not need to gybe at the mark, so RRS 18.4 does not apply.

  
  Here's how I would describe it, using Case 118's language as a base. (Note, that in both my and Case 118's description, the term "proper course" is not used again once the  'sail close to the mark' "test" is applied and satisfied)
  
  

  In order to sail the course, [from position 1] it was necessary for UM8 [Yellow] to change course from a broad reach [downwind run] to a close-hauled course as she rounded the mark. Therefore, her proper course was to sail close to the mark at some point in her turn. Because UM8 [Yellow] was entitled to mark-room, she was entitled to room, as defined by the definition Mark-Room,

  • to sail to the mark,
  • to round the mark on the required side, and
  • to leave it astern.

  
  ‘Room’ in the phrase ‘room to sail to the mark’ means space to sail promptly in a seamanlike way to a position close to, and on the required side of, the mark.
  
  [below is my description, departing from Case 118 to incorporate your Scenario 1 facts]
  
  Between positions 1 and 3, Blue gave Yellow plenty of space to sail promptly to a position close to the mark on its proper side, which included ample space for Yellow to continue to keep-clear of Blue (a component of Yellow's room within mark-room is space to continue to comply with her obligations under RRS 10).  Therefore, Blue did not break RRS 18.2(a)(1).
  
  Also, it is noted that between positions 1-3, Blue did not alter course.  Therefore RRS 16.1 did not apply and did not convey a separate room entitlement to Yellow to keep clear of Blue.  Yellow's only room entitlement from positions 1-3 was through mark-room.
  
  When Yellow altered course toward Blue between positions 1 and 3, and subsequently made contact with Blue (eventually forcing Blue to alter course away from Yellow after contact at position 3), Yellow broke RRS 10.  It was reasonably possible for Yellow to avoid the contact so Yellow also broke RRS 14(a).  Yellow was not entitled to more space than that amply given by Blue and therefore Yellow was not sailing within the MR she was entitled to at position 3 when contact occurred.  Yellow is not exonerated under RRS 43.1(b)/(c) for breaking RRS 10 and 14.
  
  Regarding Blue's contact with Yellow, it was not reasonably possible for Blue, the right-of-way boat, to avoid contact with Yellow when it became clear that Yellow was not keeping clear, and therefore Blue did not break RRS 14(a). There was no reason for Blue to expect that Yellow would sail to such a high angle by-the-lee toward her while Blue was giving Yellow such ample space.
  
  DSQ Yellow for breaking RRS 11 and RRS 14.

  Angelo Guarino Today 13:40
• How long is the race committee allowed to change the position of the first windward mark?

  Niko,   I think there can be value in the +/- five degrees in certain situations. Where we frostbite on Boston Harbor, we're liable to get big swings, and RC will often leap-frog the windward and offset to aim a little bit closer to the new shift in case it stays. In other words, shifting a buoy 4 degrees is regularly the right move in an 8 degree shift. Whether they should then signal is up for debate, but I'd argue that most can still find the mark, and it takes some risk (and work) off for the RC that might encourage them to be a little more active. Just my opinion. 

  
  I think the whole point of Race Management Policies s12 is to discourage race committees from being too 'precious' about small shifts.  Here's the guidance
  
  12, Change in wind direction:
  (a) With a persistent wind shift of 10° or less the course will not be changed unless necessary to adjust for current or to provide a true downwind leg.
  (b) Between 10° and 15° consideration will be given to adjusting the course to the new wind provided that the race committee is confident that the shift is likely to persist.
  (c) With a persistent wind shift of more than 15°, the race committee will attempt to change the course to the new wind
  
  Note that the WS Race Management Policies are intended to apply at WS Championship and Olympic events.  I would suggest at lower level events the criteria should be quite significantly increased.
  
  What s12(a) is saying is that unless there is a persistent wind shift of more than 10 degrees, leave the course alone.
  
  Far from 'encouraging race committees to be more active', the guidance is intended to encourage them not to dither around.
  
  I suggest that a 4 degree change is unnecessary.
  
  In my opinion, switching off the requirements of RRS 33 is a bad idea,  race committees should accept the guidance in the Race Management Policies and put themselves to the discipline involved in RRS 33.
  John Allan Yesterday 21:17
• Fair Play and Disputes: What Happens When Coaches Speak Disrespectfully?
  I support John's position.  Protest committees should hold hearings and take action as appropriate under the RRS.  They should not act as informal policemen -- doing so undercuts their role as judges, and almost always deprives the person accused of misconduct of a hearing.  In effect, any judge who goes to a sailing club or other organization with an allegation is serving as accuser, judge and penalizer without giving the accused any opportunity to defend themselves.  
  
  I have the same view with respect to ordinary protests.  If a protest is submitted it should be heard, and if it turns out to be invalid the protest committee should take no action.  I think this is supported by RRS 63.4(a).  For example, asking a competitor to take a penalty (in a tone or circumstance that implies the competitor should do so) is, in effect, an attempt to penalize that boat without benefit of a hearing.  The judge who does that is not a colleague of the sailor involved, but an authoritative figure who is abusing their power.
  Rob Overton Yesterday 19:24
• Port-Starboard vs Mark Room at Leeward Mark
  Stewart, I'm sure you've snatched many a pebble from a hand. 
  
  Again, I understand the connection you are making .. I'm just suggesting that, when explaining it to others, you are better off not combining them.
  
  Actually, Case 75 is a good example why ...
  
  In Case 75, the ROW boat is also entitled to MR.  In the discussion it is stated that ... 
  
  

  "When S gybed just after position 2, she had not sailed farther from the mark than needed to sail her proper course. Indeed, in the absence of P (the boat "referred to" in the definition Proper Course), S's proper course might well have been to sail even farther from the mark and higher than she did, so as to make a smoother, faster rounding and to avoid interference with her wind by being backwinded or blanketed by other boats ahead, and to be far enough upwind after leaving the mark astern that she could tack without breaking rule 13. "

  
  However, if we change the scenario such that both boats are on the same tack, and inside is not ROW and will not have to gybe ... 18.4 does not come into play ... and the inside KC boat will not get the extra space as described above in the Case 75 quote. 
  
  In that scenario, inside could be sailing inside her PC but be outside of her MR. 
  Angelo Guarino Yesterday 12:02
• Another 18.3 scenario
  Rule 18.3 was changed in the 2024-28 book'  The first sentence now reads;
  
  "If a boat passes HTW from port to starboard tack in the zone of a Mark to be left to port, rule 18.2 does not apply between her and another boat ON STARBOARD TACK that is fetching the Mark.".
  
  In the subject scenario, when Yellow passed HTW in the zone, Blue was not on Starboard tack, so rule 18.2 was not switched off, and Yellow was still entitled to Mark-Room. When Blue then passed HTW the other boat Yellow is was on Starboard tack so 18.2 was switched off again.
  
  
  
  
  
  Phil Mostyn Yesterday 07:24

Forums Leader Board

This Month