Forum: Rule 18 and Room at the Mark
Mark-Room and Room to Pass an Obstruction who wins.
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
- International Umpire
- International Race Officer
- International Judge
100
Tips
As two boats, Sleigh Ride and Polar Express, approached a permanent mark on starboard tack to be rounded to port, Polar Express reached the zone while Sleigh Ride was overlapped to leeward and called for room at the mark. A floating Christmas Tree, which annually decorates the bay, was moored within two hull lengths to windward of the permanent mark. These Christmas Trees feature a square base with a 12-foot tall square pyramid on top, wrapped in Christmas lights.
As Sleigh Ride approached the mark, Polar Express hailed for room to pass to leeward of the tree, the same side that Sleigh Ride was passing. Sleigh Ride did not bear away until she was at the mark and rounded close to the mark. At which point Polar Express did not feel there was sufficient room to pass between Sleigh Ride and the tree. Polar Express luffed sharply and passed the tree on the opposite side to Sleigh Ride. Polar Express hailed protest.
Polar Express protests Sleigh Ride for not giving room between her and the obstruction as required by rule 19.2(b).
How should the protest committee rule.
Created: 25-Dec-31 00:28
Comments
Format:
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Here's how I break it down.
I am left with Sleigh Ride breaking 19.2(b) and no exoneration and Polar Express not breaking any rules.
The next question is suppose Polar Express forces her way between the obstruction and Sleighs Ride and Sleigh Ride hits the mark as a result. There is no contact between the boats or with the obstruction.
Now you have:
Happy 2026!
And now, I will get another eggnog, Bill.
Kim
The placement of the mark did not cause Sleigh ride to break rule 19.2(b). Sleigh Ride could have ducked the mark and given Polar Express room at the obstruction.
Or better yet for all ... given that Red was 1/2 BL ahead ... Green could have slowed and allowed Red to round ahead of her .. giving them both opportunity to pass the obstruction and pass the mark (without much fanfare).
If the geometry was diff .. with Green 1/2 BL ahead ... Green could have have executed a couple luffing maneuvers as they approached (assuming RRS 17 didn't apply) to attempt to break overlap before they were "at" the obstruction.
Re Mark: Good point, but it’s not Sleigh Ride asking for redress, it’s Polar Express who might. The issue is that, through no fault of her own, she couldn’t round the mark with the room she was entitled to. Sleigh Ride didn’t do anything wrong, but the way RC set the mark may have taken away a fair rounding option. That’s why redress could still be on the table, for me.
I think it can, look at when the pbstruction is a continuing obstruction.
Then 19 always applies and 18 does not.
For interest look at rya 2017/1
Rule 19 applies between two boats at an obstruction except when rule 18 applies between them and
(a) the obstruction is the mark, (xmas tree is not) or
(b) (irrelevant) the obstruction is another boat overlapped with each of them. However, at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not.
PE owes SR mark room, which includes the right to pass on required side.
Rule 19.2(b) says the outside boat owes the inside boat room, but “room” includes the space to comply with her Part 2 obligations, which includes 18 mark room. Of course 19.2(b) actually says “room between”, but that “room between” doesn’t exist… not if PE complies with her Part 2 obligations… so I’m back to thinking that the “unless” clause is still triggered and SR doesn’t break 19.2(b).
Or so my brain can convince itself :)
The windward boat, luffs partly to comply with her obligations as a windward boat.
When, as shown, sleigh ride passes the obstruction, there is no longer an overlap so 19 does not apply.
The facts say that the tree is about 2 BL's away .. but as drawn, it is just barely over 1 BL. See below, where I've placed one of the boats in the space.
I think we should be discussing an improper action by the RC with only a 1 BL space (though that does start to beg the question of where that line is).
Below is what the diagram would look like at 2 BL's. I think it makes a huge difference.
1. the mark is a permanent mark - the RC did not place it there
2. the 'obstruction' was probably not placed in its location by anyone associated with the event?
3. RRS 19 does not supersede RRS 18 unless the obstruction is a mark which is a continuing obstruction - ie: at least 3 x the hull length of the shortest boat
4. mark zone is 3 lengths, obstruction 'zone' is one length
I agree with John C sequence of events except that I don't agree that SR breaks 19.2(b). PE kept clear and gave mark-room. SR was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled when the obstruction comes into play. 18 is still on until SR has passed the mark. 19 does not override 18 and when 19 does come on (by def'n at one length from the obstruction), SR is not able to give the room to PE.
I think this is one of those 'stuff happens' situations. PE needs to be 'head out of the boat' and take the foot off the gas to safely pass between SR and the obstruction (or she decides to sail above the obstruction). PE could probably still be overlapped and have sufficient room (the OP indicates that the obstruction was two lengths to windward, there should be ample room for a side by side passing).
I don't see how we could get to redress. PE does not get to 'no fault of her own' in my book. The only possible error by the RC could be failing to check if some municipal or other authority had anchored something near a permanent navigation mark.
Protest dismissed
Happy 2026 to all!
I do have issues with your esponse.
3 it is not the mark which is the continuing obstruction.
4 there is nozone for an obstruction.
This reflects in your comments. The one length is only the test to see if it is an obstruction. Then there are no zones save for marks.
19 applies when overlapped, this is the test.
The rya scenario is different, 18 is offbecause 19 prevails at a continuing obstruction
This differentiates it fron our case
Though this is a continuing obstruction vs obstruction, the scenarios are similar in the proximity of the mark to an obstruction. Note that there is no discussion regarding an error or omission on the part of the RC in setting/designating this a mark of the course.
As stated in the facts of 2017/1, the mark is only 6m (20ft) from the river bank and only 4 boats could safely pass abeam of each other between the mark and the bank.
The (given) statement that the gap was 2 BLs wide would convince me that PE should have simply shot the gap, unless SL was taking more room than she was entitled to. The image shows SLs boom almost touching the mark, so, absent contrary evidence, I'd say she played the game properly and it's PE's decision whether to shoot the gap, or slow down and follow, or go around. No rules broken, IMHO.
Perhaps this reveals that I'm more of an "intent" guy than a textualist when interpreting rules documents, but I think this approach works better for amateur sports - particularly when the rule text does not explicitly deal with the topic at hand.
Mark, what's your take?
In OPs diagram (post #1) if Polar Express had pushed her nose in and there had been contact between the two boats, what is the result? Has that been answered satisfactorily?
The question simply put is which takes precedence when both apply? 18 or 19(not continuous obstruction)? Forget the diagram accuracy or redress query (no redress BTW).
Can someone point me to a post which gives a fair and safe plan of action for both boats when approaching this scenario? Did I miss it?
Something in my gut tells me the rules should protect the boats from the obstruction rather than the mark, but I can't find it.
I offered this post.
But for a single obstruction sso less than four lengths it is silent.
It does not say 18 has precidence, so it is a lottery. Very bad rules.
You only get exonerated for section a rules and 19 is not there.
There is no benefit in being row under section a as the other boat has room under 19.
So the "barging boat" to windward gers exonerated, as it breaks a rule odf section a.
The row breakes a different rule and gets dsq. Totally unfair.
The row boat should have preference if the rules are to be coherant.
Do not forget though 19 is a very restrictive rule, you have to be overlapped for it to apply.
The answer, as was asked, was to avoid the overlap. Fall behind as row or bear off if you can and break the overlap.
Once the. Overlap is broken 19 no longer applies, i mentioned this earlier but no one picked up on it.
When baring off you do have to give the other boat room under 19 but only if there is an overlap.
PE luffs up and gives mark room, but then can protest under 19, or
SR ducks below the mark to give "obstruction room", but then can protest under 18.2(a)(1) and definition of mark room.
No exoneration possible in either situation.
I'm curious if Mark T ran across this in real life.
Polar express as WW boat is the keep clear boat. Kept clear. 11 not broken
Sleigh Ride to leeward and overlapped inside at the zone is right of way boat with mark room.
As per 19.1.a 19 does not apply.
The tree is not a continuing obstruction
As per 19.2.a the right to choose which side to pass an obstruction applies to a right of way boat, therefore Polar Express cannot claim room to leave the tree obstruction to starboard. Her only choices as drawn, are 1) sail on and leave it to port, or 2) as keep clear windward and outside boat already obligated to give mark room to Sleigh Ride, slow down and round the mark behind Sleigh Ride.
If the tree was actually drawn 2BL'S away, and the facts found it actually was 2BL's , then there was room for Polar Express to round between the tree and mark.
Decision: no contact and no rules broken.
Michael gets close to my point.
In the room, each boat says they thought the other was going to yield citing RRS 18 or 19.
------
To me it's not good enough that the rules don't seem to resolve this.
(We've all been there, right? Walking in a shopping mall and we get to a doorway where there is only room for one at a time. You meet a stranger. You both stop. Then you both go. For a moment there's a confusion which you both laugh off.) This kind of confusion is not acceptable on the water.
In the heat of a safety moment, passing a mark on its required side is relatively optional compared to hitting an obstruction. I would have thought that I could find something that recognises this.
But I can't. Is it a bug in the rules?
Imagine this re-write of RRS19.
However, at a continuing obstruction or an obstruction inside the zone of a mark, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not.
Scenario 1 - As posted and I have given my thoughts above; Sleigh Ride breaks 19.2(b).
Scenario 2 - Polar Express and Sleigh Ride go between the mark and obstruction, Sleigh Ride hits the mark, no other contact; Polar Express breaks RRS 18.2(a)(1).
Scenario 3 - Sleigh Ride goes to leeward of the mark, no contact between any boat or object; Polar Express goes between the mark and obstruction.
Scenario 4 - Sleigh Ride and Polar Express both go between the mark and the obstruction, not making contact with either but making contact with each other.
Assuming that no damage or injury occurred:
Both boats broke rules and are DSQ.
When talking about the precedence between 18 and 19, what looking at these different scenarios tells me is:
It is more important to give room than to take it.
In each case, the boat that denies the other boat room is the one that winds up breaking a rule. Perhaps this is the best thing.
Ben - I was doing that when you posted! See my scenario 4.
I'm only interested in Scenario #4 now.
Both boats DSQ. I agree.
I don't agree with...
... being an acceptable principal for RRS.
One of the guiding principles is that sailing is not a contact sport and the rules exist to keep boats from crashing into each other.
If you accept that then what you want here is each boat saying to themselves "I'm going to give room to the other boat and go to the other side of the mark/obstruction and make sure I have met my obligation to give room." So Polar Express turns up and passes the obstruction on her port side. Sleigh Ride turns down and goes on the wrong side of the mark. Disaster averted.
What you don't want is both boats saying "I am entitled to room and, by God, I'm taking it!" followed by the sounds of crunching fiberglass and splintering carbon fiber..
We have a situation where the boat that goes between the mark and the obstruction has denied the other boat the room to go there too. The rules penalize that boat which may be the best outcome.
What we don't want is both boats saying, "I watched the other boat and it seemed like they were giving me room at the last minute so I went for the gap! I must have been wrong! Shame we both lost our rigs and Bill is in hospital."
I just don't buy the lack of clarity. It's just not RRS!
Good chat though. I need to think more.
But I still come back to the fact that there was never room for two overlapped boats to pass between the two obstructions, albeit one is a mark.
RRS18 turns on before 19, we are agreed on that. Does anything turn off 18?
Because of the lack of room for both to pass, in order for RRS19 to apply I suggest 18 must turn off. If it doesn't turn off then I submit 19 does not apply, and Polar must pass the other side of the obstruction, and I suggest this is legitimate because the inherent difference between obstruction and continuing obstruction is that one may pass the other side of a non continuing obstruction.
An interesting thought is that if the mark were not a mark, and RRS19 applied to both, then I suggest Polar would have no choice but to leave *both* obstructions to port (or starboard) in order to fulfil her obligations. She would, not, I believe, be able to pass between without breaking 19.
Similar to Case 50 the protest committee has to decide if Polar Express has a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on her part if she passes the same side of the obstruction as Sleigh Ride. If she does then Sleigh Ride does not give Polar Express room between her and the obstruction and breaks RRS 19.2(b).
Following are diagrams for the four scenarios John C outlined. When a boat goes between the mark and the obstruction they have denied the other boat the room to go there too. The exception being if they hit the mark or obstruction. In every scenario I can think of where one or both boats sail between the mark and the obstruction at least one breaks a rule. If both boats round the tree and the mark neither breaks a rule.
Scenario 2 - Polar Express and Sleigh Ride go between the mark and obstruction, Sleigh Ride hits the mark, no other contact.
Scenario 3 - Sleigh Ride goes to leeward of the mark, no contact between any boat or object; Polar Express goes between the mark and obstruction.
Scenario 4 - Sleigh Ride and Polar Express both go between the mark and the obstruction, not making contact with either but making contact with each other.
Scenario 5 - Polar Express and Sleigh Ride go between the mark and obstruction, Polar Express hits the obstruction, no other contact.
Scenario 6 - Polar Express and Sleigh Ride go between the mark and obstruction, Polar Express hits the obstruction, Sleigh Ride hits the mark, no other contact.
The only way I see them both going through the space without a rule broken is realizing that, at the zone, only RRS 18 applies. Therefore, PE's obligation to maneuver in such a way that SR is given MR starts at the zone. RRS 19 does not apply at that time as they are not "at" the obstruction. (sort'a has the feel of a "barging" analysis at the start).
Scenario #9 ... PE starts to slow as soon as PE enter the zone such that overlap is broken before they are "at" the obstruction, therefore 19 doesn't apply when they reach the obstruction.
PS: If that would make it into a rule/case/appeal ... that would boil down to ...
Only 18 applies between marks and "simple" obstructions(Edit: the above doesn't work if they are at the obstruction prior to reaching the zone. Imagine the Xmas tree structure on the starboard layline bisected by the zone circle.)
If you imagine more boats following .. this could produce an orderly way of getting through ... as boats behind/outside of PE would owe Polar Express MR and would be required to slow to give PE space to enter the slot.
When PE reaches the zone, only RRS 18 applies as they are not yet "at" the obstruction. PE owes SR mark-room. That mark-room includes space for SR to round the mark while complying with her obligations under Part 2 and RRS 31.
PE must realize that if they reach the obstruction overlapped, that SR will not have space to meet her obligations under RRS 19 (a rule of Part 2) and RRS 31 simultaneously (and leave the mark on its proper side). Therefore, PE must slow, break overlap and let SR ahead prior to being "at" the obstruction. (not "put herself in there" ... sort'a like barging)
PS: In other words, in this instance, RRS 18 takes "precedence" over 19 because it precedes it in time.
It is likley that 18 applies first as it applies when the first boat enteres the zone.
19 applies when at the obstruction, probably later.
18 gives room and the right to comply with part 2 rules.
Of course room in 19 gives the same rights.
Because 18 applied first when leeward was committed his breach of 19 he can be exonerated as he was compelled to break 19.
There are no restrictions on this exoneration, which may deal eith the breach.
I've been having an offline dialog with a very rules-knowledgeable judge (who prefers not to post on the forum) about this scenario and they offered an analysis from SR's perspective which I thought was worth sharing. I've taken what they shared and added my own details in an attempt to cover every angle (I know you all too well LOL).
What I thought I'd do is combine their input for Sleigh Ride's POV and mine from Polar Express' and see how they dovetail.
BELOW IS LOOKING AT POS#2 IN OP DIAGRAM
From Sleigh Ride's POV
is[should be] interpreted such that the overlap began when the boats are "at the obstruction".Now .. PE might be able to reason through that same process from SR's POV above .. but it is a nested set of obligations and conclusions that I think would be a difficult. That said, I think PE can come to the same "you can't go in there" conclusion in an easier and more direct fashion as I did in a previous comment.
From Polar Express' POV
I have a big problem with the notion that "Since RRS 19.1 limits RRS 19's application to when boats are "at an obstruction", for the purposes of RRS 19.2, the phrase "..from the time the overlap began", is interpreted such that the overlap began when the boats are at the obstruction." The overlap begins when it begins, no matter how far away from the obstruction the boats are. The further away the overlap is established the more time the outside boat has to provide the room. If you interpret the overlap as beginning when the boats are at the obstruction, then the outside boat will never have to give room under 19.2(b) as they can always claim that "she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began".
I have sympathy for your POV. I suggested in my dialog with them that such a conclusion should be made in a Case/Appeal if that was to be uniformly understood.
That said ... it doesn't change the SR POV analysis. There is no time that SR can provide PE room to pass between SR and the obstruction because that room must include space for PE to comply with her Part 2 obligations which include giving SR mark-room.
SR can't provide that room to PE so she is not obligated to do so under RRS 19.2.
I think you can make a very strong argument in this case that rule 19 applied before rule 18. Sleigh Ride, as the ROW boat, has chosen to pass the obstruction on her starboard side long before she reached the zone of the mark. By doing so, Sleigh Ride has forgone her entitlement to mark-room because her obligation to give Polar Express room at the obstruction came first.
That was my first instinct as well. Def: overlap is what it is. If we want to make this logical conclusion about the meaning of "from the time the overlap began" in RRS 19.2, it should be made in a Case or 19.2 should be reworded.
That said, I can see their POV. I'll attempt to defend that position below ...
Rules 18 and 19 talk about obligations for one boat to provide room to another boat based on their proximity to a mark (inside the zone) or obstruction (at an obstruction). For mark-room/room in RRS 18, an outside overlapped boat approaching a mark at 4 BL's might see that they soon will be obligated to provide an inside boat MR, but they are under no obligations to act to do so until the first of them reaches the zone. The mark-room in 18 (and obligations to provide it) do not exist until that time.
The same can be said about how RRS 19 is worded. RRS 19.1 restricts the application of RRS 19 to when the boats are "at an obstruction". Before that, it doesn't matter whether or not it was possible for an outside boat to give an inside room because, just like RRS 18's mark-room, RRS 19's room doesn't exist until RRS 19 applies .. and that's when they are "at an obstruction".
Therefore, the argument would go, that when 2 boats approach an obstruction overlapped, for the purposes of RRS 19.2, their overlap begins when 19 applies .. and that's when they are "at an obstruction" (before that, RRS 19.2's room doesn't exist so there is nothing to give).
Now, you might argue (and I think you just did) that SR and PE are at the obstruction prior to position #2. I can maybe see #1.5 or so .. but I don't think they are "at" the obstruction at position #1. Maybe others disagree.
Here is the OP drawing for ease of discussion.
I think the overlap being established, is not as you say as it had been clearly established for some time.
At 3 lengths the inside boat had mark room and the right co comply with its obligations.
When the windward boat lufed it did so to comply with this obblibigation, the overlap was broken and rrs 19 not infringed.
If windward went in it chose to do so , this compeled a breach by leeward who gers exonerated inder the compelled exoneration which covers 19.
Doesn't the 1st words of the 1st sentence of RRS 19.1 say exactly that?
In this case, 18 was triggered first and still applicable throughout.
Incidentally, In the absence of SR, if PE left the tree to starboard and was alongside the tree, it was barely more than 1 hull length. If for whatever reason they left it to port, it similarly was debatable if it was more than 3 hull lengths. So in either direction, calling it a continuing obstruction to force 19 to override 18 is bit of a stretch as some other responses have suggested.
I disagree with your statement that "Sleigh Ride, as the ROW boat, has chosen to pass the obstruction on her starboard side long before she reached the zone of the mark.". The tree was never an obstruction to SR long before the zone or in the zone. According to the diagram she was on the layline for the mark with just enough room to round it before she became one boat length for the tree). The tree for SR really didn't pose a problem for her course to round the mark and therefore her choice to leave the tree to starboard was because the tree was incidentally on her starboard side.
With respect to PE, it was not the ROW boat AT the obstruction. Therefore under 19.2.a, she had no right to choose which way to round and was obligated to keep clear of SR . The only option therefore, was to keep clear of SR (as she was already obligated to do), luff up and leave the tree to port, or slow down and slot in behind SR and round the mark.
If there was room between the mark and tree for both boats, PE could take that route but not because she chose to as a right under 19.2a
What I don't see on this matter in RRS is the notion of 'foreseeable' (?) - in practcal reality, speaking as a racer, both SR and PE would have seen the whole scenario as they entered the zone (even well before then) and have their 'game-plan' prior set for the rounding (things can later go astray though - with or without an obstruction present (a kiwi drop bungled or whatever)) and adjustment to that plan is needed by a boat or both boats (not required of SR in this case though)..all looked well in order to me for both SR and PE.
On at techincal drafting note: I think it is an 'operable phrase' ("...at an obstruction..."), rather than 'word specific' ('AT') - the tensing can mean either coming to (as foreseen) or 'at the time' - if that was to be the case then the phrase would need to be 'at the obstruction' (perhaps I am being too anal about it :))
Oh, and thr overlap was established when it was established. In OPs case it could have been a mile away!
1. SR clearly has Mark Room.
2. SR is the ROW boat and can potentially carry another boat past the mark.
3. BUT, approaching an obstruction, a ROW boat must choose to pass it on one side or the other.
4. However, it must allow another boat to pass it on the same side as they choose.
So, let's consider a situation where there are (say) 5 boats overlapped on approach. If SR chooses to round between the mark and Xmas tree then she has the right to do so but she must also allow room for one or two others to also round inside depending on the space available. She certainly can't push on to squeeze the others out.
Those who can't squeeze in are in no-man's-land. They can leave the Xmas tree to port or perhaps slow down a bit and follow in behind the leading boats. I know what I would do.
Which is it? One or two (or all or none)? I'm not sure we should accept the rules as vague as that.
.
If both objects were simply obstructions then SR would have to pass to the same side of both, either both to port or both to starboard, and if leaving them to starboard would have to let all others through. Is that reasonable?
But one is a mark, so SR has the right to leave it to port. So it seems to me that SR can only comply with her RRS19 obligations and be given her RRS18 privileges by leaving both objects to port.
So far OK perhaps. But it appears that SR is now in the position that she can only pass both objects on the correct side by tacking in the zone. Which is a mess I dont feel awake enough to consider. Have at it!
It's a basic thought experiment ... a hypothetical that the pushes the limits!
So, how do the rules apply in this contrived situation where perhaps two or three boats can make it through together but the others cannot?
When are we going to admit defeat and just call this a bug in the rules? There is currently no acceptable hierarchy to which boats can sail safely and fairly.
It is dangerous for both to try and fit through the gap together. So, either the mark-room boat misses the mark, or the obstruction boat has to sail around the obstruction (or be 2nd place). Both are 'unfair'.
---------------------------
I've given up with trying to make the rules work for the result we want.
As I see it, either the rules must specify an unfair priority (and we must live with it) or they must close the gap between the mark and the obstruction, creating a continuous obstruction around which both boats have to sail.
Here's one idea...
Continuing Obstruction An obstruction is a continuing obstruction when the boat with the shortest hull referred to in the rule using the term will pass alongside it for at least three of her hull lengths. [A continuing obstruction is also formed by a mark and an obstruction and space between them when the gap between them is only wide enough for one boat to fit through.]
It’s currently unresolvable (although I think that there is something in Jim’s point about leaving both to port!)
Interestingly I have been in this situation as Leeward Inside dinghy approaching a windward mark where there was a Schroedinger’s obstruction - a barge that had missed stays and was drifting down onto the mark…..unclear whether there would or would not be room for both boats to pass between it and the mark. I tacked out.
No ... I disagree. People keep taking about SR chooses and then must give space for PE.
Nobody has effectively challenged my central point. The room that SR would need to provide PE must include space for PE to comply with her Part 2 obligations, which includes mark-room for SR.
SR does not have that much space so RRS 19.2 says she doesn't have to provide room for PE to pass between her and the obstruction.
R = B + O (R = Room; B = the space the boat needs in the existing conditions (only for the boat); O = the space needed to comply with obligations under Part 2 and rule 31 in the existing conditions)
"The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way."
A ROW boat that has tacked in the zone may be required to pass wrong side, and the solution to that problem is to not get yourself in the situation in the first place. Maybe this is analagous, and ROW must avoid the situation by going round both objects?
I agree that there's a sound argument for either interpretation. We have a case for squeeze between mark and continuing obstruction, perhaps one for the other situation would be useful. It can't come up often though. The sensible RC will find a way to avoid the chicane.
If what you are suggesting is that I'm saying the space available can be less than the total space that would be required for SR to provide PE room .. yes ... that's what I'm saying. I think that is the purpose of the "unless" clause at the end of RRS 19.2.
The difference here is that RRS 19.2 provides a condition ("unless clause") for when the room is not required to be given ... within RRS 19.2 itself.
RRS 18.2(d) is a similar condition of not being required to give mark-room if unable ... but those conditions are not satisfied. Interestingly, the phrase "since overlap began" is also used in 18.2(d) ... but again it's limited to not being able to give mark-room ... one could argue that analysis would start once RRS 18 applied between boats.
So in the tug of war in this case, the RRS 18.2(a)(1) room PE owes SE withstands RRS 18.2(d) ... but the potential room that SR would owe PE under RRS 19.2 does not withstand its own "unless" clause.
To me the unless-clause does not influence the Room or Mark-Room.
When the "unless" condition is met, no room has to be given.
I am SR, ROW boat. I may sail where I like, subject to limitations which I may not break.
I am approaching mark and obstruction.
There is little restriction on me with RRS 18 and mark. Although naturally I wish to round the mark I do not break a rule if I pass the other side.
I may choose to pass the obstruction on either side, but if I leave it to starboard I must let the overlapped boat(s) in.
So my choice is either to pass to port, let everyone in and miss the mark, or pass to starboard and all rules obeyed. The only question is whether I am exonerated if I break 19, and the consensus above seems to be that I am not.
For other boats, well if SR goes outside there is room freely given between mark and obstruction. I may be able to take advantage of that at my own risk. If SR goes to port I too have an obligation to let any overlapped boats in.
I know that in reality if in PE's position, there's no way I'd try and pervert my keep clear obligations and stuff my nose in there unless there was room for me.
Which Case or Appeal are you referencing for your interpretation?
The room left standing is SR's mark-room. So, in that sense it doesn't take "precedence" exactly, but when looking at both rooms, the mark-room PE owes SR is the only survivor.
Another problem is that you are equating the obligation to give room with the entitlement to break a limited set of rules while sailing a specific course. An obligation is definite, a boat is required to do something, period, end of story. If they don't live up to that obligation then they have broken a rule. An entitlement is not an obligation, a boat is not required to make use of the entitlement. Also, what does the entitlement actually give you? The entitlement is actually not the right to that room but rather the exoneration for breaking certain specific rules while you are in sailing the defined room.
I guess you were specific in the determination of when the boats are "at an obstruction" in this case. Ok ... that's a valid alternate set of facts worth working through ... how does it play out diff if they are at the obstruction before rule 18.2 applies between them.
But before we go there ... assuming my given facts (they are at the obstruction at pos #1.5), which specific line-# of my statements is incorrect and why?
If Sleigh Ride takes mark room she denies Polar Express room at the obstruction and breaks rule 19.2(b).
If Polar Express takes room at the obstruction she denies Sleigh Ride mark-room and breaks rule 18.2(a)(1).
US Appeal 2 seems to support this interpretation. WS Case 133 used to also support this interpretation but it was withdrawn for revision about 8 years ago,
Now look at PE, it is already obligated to keep clear of SR, and give mark room. Under 19.2.a, PE was not a right of way boat with the option to decide which side to pass the obstruction. Given that a ROW boat was to leeward, and PE did not have a choice under 19.2.a, it's only choice was to keep clear.
Please explain what is wrong with this application of the rules.
"unable to do so" does not include "unable to do so without giving up your rights on mark-room under rule 18".
And what to do with the unless clause in 18? If SR created the overlap from clear astern, would you then take the room for PE under rule 19 into consideration to decide if PE was able to give mark-room?
WS Case 11 - When boats are overlapped at an obstruction the outside boat must give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction. Sleigh Ride was the outside boat and did not give Polar Express room between her and the obstruction.
Remove the mark and consider just the obstruction.
See WS Case 11, WS Case 49, US Appeal 2.
I am also having difficulty when 19.2.a is ignored in relation to PE . "A right of way boat may choose to pass on her port or starboard side". PE was never a right of way boat. Agreed? If agreed, then it can't use the option to choose. Since it was obligated to keep clear of SR, then leaving its obstruction to starboard was not available. If this line of thinking stands and its only choice was to leave it to port, then under 19.2.b, it wouldn't be the inside boat. If that is true, then there is no inside boat since SR was already rounding the mark and following the room to which it was entitled.
No rules broken.
I also still comes back to an issue i have with a somewhat perverted result of any conclusion that SR was at fault for anything. None of us if actually sailing as PE, and already giving room , having already messed up tactically, would suddenly turned around and look for an excuse to claim room when a) we were always the keep clear boat until b) oops.... there's no gap in there let me see how i can, at the last minute, while SR is already rounding, spin this so they are fault for me not slowing down earlier or positioning my self to follow their mark rounding.
An interpretation/conflict in rules that endorses this kind of solution isn't really serving reality or the seamanlike/sportmanship behaviour that any of us sailors would adopt in this specific mix of situations.
I must confess I think I've changed my mind about this for the second time. Angelo's point is very convincing. PE cannot possibly give SR room to pass the mark while they remain overlapped, yet she is entitled to room to do exactly that if RRS19 stands. That's a physical impossibility and always has been, so the unless clause in RRS19 activates. This aligns with RYA 2017/1, but the opposite rule "wins". That's reasonable because its not unexpected that interaction may be different at continuing and single point obstructions and continuing obstruction is mentioned in the rule, not any obstruction.
On the other hand Mark's point, that both rules apply equally because SR can always go the wrong side of the mark is also compelling, because its simple and straightforward, and there's nothing in the actual rules 18 and 19 that turns either off, just this complex interpretation of interactions in the room definition.
If we look at the end result, if neither boat is to break a rule, then in Angelo's scenario SR may go through and PE must sail round (or wait). In Mark's both boats must sail round the outside. Bearing that in mind I think I'm 55% Angelo, 45% Mark, but I could easily change my mind again!
- an object a boat could not pass without changing course substantially" - condition not met/not applicable. SR never had to change course substantially because of the object. It changed course because it was sailing the course, and within the mark room it was entitled to do.
- AND one of her hull lengths from it - condition not met. It was rounding before being one hull length from it.
Perhaps the definition in (a) needs a tweak e.g. "a) an object directly in the path of sailing the course that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially if she were sailing directly towards it on her course beyond it, and one of her hull lengths from it"
That is the point. There is nothing in either rule that turns off the other. Both rules apply at the same time and are equally important. 19.2 puts an obligation on SR and 18.2 puts an obligation on PE. Both obligations can be met only when SR passes the mark to starboard and PE passes the obstruction to port.
NOBODY gets to go through the gap between the mark and obstruction without breaking a rule!
"There is nothing in either rule that turns off the other" . Actually there are contents in the rule 19.2.a that limit the choices for PE which in effect turns off PE's choice to leave the tree to starboard. It's not the ROW boat so that freedom of choice is gone. There's a ROW leeward boat already in the gap to which it owes mark room.
You are missing my other point that the tree was never an obstruction to SR while it was sailing in the room it was entitled to. The tree was never one hull length from SR , and neither was it in the way. It didn't choose to leave it on its starboard side under 19.2a. It incidentally became so in the process of rounding the mark.
"Both obligations can be met only when SR passes the mark to starboard and PE passes the obstruction to port." That is exactly what i am saying. SR is fine leaving the tree incidentally on its starboard side while rounding the mark, and PE with no option but to either wait, or as it was doing, leaving their obstruction to port. No rules broken.
Can't agree. "NOBODY gets to go through the gap between the mark and obstruction without breaking a rule!"
Polar Express must commit to passing on one side or the other of the obstruction at position 2 so she is at the obstruction and rule 19 applies.
At that moment Sleigh Ride chooses to pass to leeward and does not give room between her and the obstruction for Polar Express and breaks RRS 19.2(b).
Sure, BUT under 19.2.a she's not the ROW boat and therefore under 19.2a, is not given the right to choose. Her only choice is a keep clear as windward boat, and obligated to giving mark room. Because she luffed up, she didn't break 11, or 18, and in so doing avoided the obstruction in the only course direction available once she was AT her obstruction under 19.2.a.
Why doesn't this resolve the issue?
That only resolves that PE would not break 11 or 18.
It does not resolves that SR did not gave room to PE.
Yes, PE cannot choose how rule 19 will play.
It is SR as ROW that may choose on which side she passes the obstruction (19.2.a).
But as consequence, as the outside boat she has to give room to PE, the inside boat (19.2.b).
Nevertheless, when PE takes the room she is entitled to under rule 19, she gets in trouble for not giving mark-room under rule 18.
The outside boat, whether the right-of-way boat or not, must give the inside
Sleigh Ride is able to pass the wrong side of the mark to provide room for Polar Express to pass between her and the obstruction. If she does not she breaks RRS 19.2(b).
However, if Polar Express takes that room she denies Sleigh Ride mark-room and breaks RRS 18.2(a)(1).
Bottom line of what you're saying is: a keep clear vessel is permitted to force its way into a questionable gap, eliminating its pre-existing obligations, displacing a right of way vessel sailing its course in the space it's already entitled to, and making it miss a mark it was within a boat length of passing correctly, to go around, pass the correct side of a mark, possibly losing many places trying to get back in, by a keep clear boat that shouldn't have had the choice to begin with. Sounds like promoting chaos.
Hmmm. I'm not sure that this is what the spirit of the rules in this scenario should be endorsing.
"the time the overlap began" could have been a mile before the boats were 'at the mark'. I think that it is more likely that 19.2(b)-'unless' clause becomes irrelevant then, since the time the overlap began was probably long forgotten (or at least occurred when the mark and obstruction were way out of sight!). R19.2(b)-'unless' clause needs an 'overlap begin' event to occur while the rule was active to be functional. In OP there was none. (Note: This is not saying- the overlap begins when the rule begins.)
So, I don't consider 19.2(b) -'unless' clause having any effect in this scenario. Thus, SR is bound by 19.2(b), as equally as PE is bound by 18.2(a).
----------------------------------------------
Even if it is insisted that 19.2(b)-'unless' clause conveniently gives SR that 'escape' (notwithstanding the time the overlap began argument) I would still maintain that this is not the intention of 19.2(b)-'unless' clause or the intention of the rule writers to handle the situation in this way. It doesn't work for me.
(I may be wrong though.)
Well, I'm not sure I can add anything more to this great discussion. Thanks all. This will serve as my biannual Rule 19 knowledge refresher!
Your post would seem correct if the world were static. But the world is actually dynamic.
A just as real situation would be something like...
"A container had fallen off a ship, and was drifting towards a port rounding windward mark. When the boats became overlapped a mile from the mark (out of visual range), the container was reported to be 8 boat lengths from the mark. At the time SR (leeward) and PE arrived at the mark zone, the container was 1 boat length (only room for one boat to safely pass) to windward of the mark. Both boats tried to shoot the gap resulting in contact."
In this scenario, if 19.2(b)-unless is to be used as a Get-Out-of-Jail card for SR, the point of overlap and distance is quite important, but absurdly impossible to use.
My point is that we have to find rule interpretations which fit the worst case scenario.
One might also consider the mark and tree scenario in a significant seaway where safe navigation demands greater separation.
Ok Ben ... roll with that instinct for a second though and take it to its logical conclusions.
You're asking me to apply a logical conclusion to a rule scenario I think (and have repeatedly said IMHO is broken.)
All your rhetorical logic questions just highlight the absurdity of the rule set in this scenario. I haven't thought through all the aspects because I don't think it works. That's my point. Has been all along.
I do think we (our group) have tried our hardest to crowbar logic into this ruleset every possible way. I don't think we have managed to succeed.
I'm sure though, the 'unless' clause isn't designed to go back a million boat lengths. It's there to stop late barging. I'm certain it's not there to give an escape to SR as has been proposed
So I think we have hit a brick wall.
That said, the way I've described how the rules apply does provide a framework for these 2 boats (and boats that follow) to get through and around this mark and past this obstruction.
Boats that might follow PE would owe PE mark-room. PE has the option to slow and duck in behind SR and boats clear astern of PE when PE entered the zone would need to give PE that mark-room. Let's say a 3rd following boat, 'Tardy Elf' meets that criteria.
If Tardy Elf becomes overlapped outside of PE relative to the obstruction, Tardy Elf would be required to provide PE mark-room as preserved by RRS 18.2(a)'s last sentence. The seamanlike-way aspect of PE's mark-room would provide PE room to not contact the obstruction.
Windward boats even further back overlapped with leeward boats might estimate that they will owe a leeward boat MR at the zone, might start to work to windward ahead of time and sail to windward of the obstruction (instead of needing to slow and duck in-behind).
That said .. this interpretation/application relies upon a set of nested and recursive obligations .. precisely the sort of thing that a Case should clarify so that competitors can hold the operative working-conclusion in their heads to apply in real-time on the water.
Happy to be shown wrong by an authoritative source.
I also think that that it will become clear before we reach 20 BL's.
So when the mark or the obstruction is moving and the "room between" becomes smaller, we take the room the moment the boats are at the obstruction into account.
Rule 19 applies between to boats at the obstruction. Only the "unless" can take us farther from the obstruction.
Under rule 19, SE is the outside boat and made the choice.
The "unless" exists in 19.2(b), a rule of 19. You can't extend 19.2(b) without extending 19 ... they are the same thing.
I can't move my liver to Springfield while I leave my body behind to party in New Orleans (though .. as many find .. it would have been wise to do so!).
I don't extend rule 19 or a part of it.
Rule 19.2(b) itself refers to "from the time the overlap began".
Here we have two overlapped boats approaching a mark and obstruction.
Yes it is an obstruction at any distance as it meets the definition,
Windward here is advanced.
It seems to be agreed we get to the zone before we are at the obstruction.
If leeward goes in he cannot hive room to windward.
The answer under the rules he luffs and slowes if he can or carries on till either outside becomes clear ahead 19 off or very quickly bears off to break the overlap again 19 off.
Instead of luffing, as here ,what was windward bears off and reastablishes the overlap, we then have the "unless" as the room cannot be given.
All know are the rule works, if the competitors use it.
PS: assuming 18.2(d) does not apply.
Honest, non-rhetorical question.
Please explain why the definition of obstruction applies to SR. It was never AT the tree and didn't need to be AT the tree. From a mile away or two hull lengths away, the tree was never an obstruction to SR since it's course has never required it to sail THROUGH the position of the tree. Please explain why this tree forces SR to avoid it when its course never reaches it. The conclusion it chose to pass it on the right is equivalent to saying a tree a mile to windward of it is an obstruction and SR chose to leave it on its starboard side. The skipper of SR would never have thought "that tree 2 boat lengths upwind of the mark is in my way". In the ordinary use of what we all know is an obstruction to a passage, it is an object we HAVE to avoid to continue on our journey. That is not the case for SR, therefore it's is not an object it needed to choose to pass either way.
Rule 19.2.a gives the choice to ROW.
But when the ROW has chosen, the outside has to give room between her and the obstruction to the inside under rule 19.2.b.
We have case 150 as a guideline for the question when boats are 'at' an obstruction:
The tree is (at least) influencing the course of PE, therefore the boats are at the obstruction.
The first rule in sequence to trigger all other Obstruction rights and privileges is 19.1 .
The very first condition is : Rule 19 applies when TWO boats are AT an obstruction. SR was never AT the tree, never needed to be AT the tree, and the tree's presence did NOT interfere with SR sailing the course. This is an indesputable fact.
The next applicable rule in sequence, is 19.2a.
The rule is : A right of way boat may chose to pass an obstruction on her port or starboard side...... If under 19.1, SR was never the boat AT any obstruction in its course, then subsequent provisions of 19.2.a aren't needed. The only boat AT the obstruction after 19.1 is applied, is PE. Since PE is not a ROW boat, is fails to qualify under 19.2a to having a choice at its obstruction. It is still obligated to keep clear of SR. Nothing has changed that pre-existing obligation.
If applied sequentially, the problem between SR and SE goes away in this scenario. No boat would have broken a rule; the ROW boat would be given its ROW and Mark Room, and the Keep Clear boat had kept clear and had room to pass its obstruction. Although PE was not on the best side of the tree tactically, but sometimes a keep clear boat may not have a right to choose (19.2.a) and suffers from a tactical error.
Case 150, answer on question 1.
The course of one off the boats is influenced by the obstruction, so the boats are at the obstruction.
Rule 18 and rule 20 apply in US Appeal 2. However rule 20.2(e) turns off rule 18.2 so similar but not the same tension between the competing rules.
Case 133 had a conflict between rule 18 and rule 19 but was withdrawn for revision about 8 or 9 years ago. It is similar to US Appeal 2 but the “inside” boat doesn’t hail for room to tack. On the basis that it still hasn’t been republished I assume the Case Book working group still cannot agree how the rules work.
Also, in Case 133 ... it doesn't involve RRS 19 (or 20). It's about a tension with 18.3. Back then, when 2 boats tacked in the zone, the inside-overlapped boat was entitled to mark-room.
Inside gets her mark-room from M but breaks 18.3 against a 3rd boat that entered on starboard.
PS: Under the 2025 quad, no boat in the Case 133 scenario would be entitled to mark-room after the 2 boats tack.
The tree is an obstruction because when one length away you would have to make a substantial alteration of course. You do not need to have to avoid.
It is like on a beat, a starboard approaching. Leeward calls for water, windward has to be respond even though sataboard and thet would not come in contact.
At position 2 Polar Express's course is being influenced by the obstruction so rule 19 applies. WS Case 150.
When boats are overlapped at an obstruction, including an obstruction that is a right-of-way boat, the outside boat must give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction. WS Case 11.
Agreed at position 2 Polar Express's course is being influenced by the obstruction so rule 19 applies but case 150 isn't required to clarify that part of interpreting 19.1
Respectfully, that case 150, is predicated on a continuing obstruction influencing the course of both of boats. In the context of this tree scenario, and as i have interpreted facts from the diagram, SR did not alter course to avoid the tree. Is was bearing off before the AT was reached FOR SR . The tree was never influencing SR's course around the mark. It never had to sail through the position of the tree.
To say the tree was an obstruction to SR is factually and in reality, incorrect. With respect to case 150 clarification of AT, the case is dissimilar to the tree scenario. Case 150's scenario is a continuing obstruction that is actually affecting the course of both boats but in different ways to the tree. In Ans 2, W as keep clear boat IS constrained by the breakwater to luff up to avoid L on its current course, and their overlap gives L no option to gybe to keep clear of L.
This tree scenario is very different : PE is not constrained by the tree to avoid SR. As shown, they were free to luff up. In case 150, W can't luff up into the breakwater and neither is it clear they can they safely gybe to keep clear of L.
150's answer to Q1 and Q2 is akin to shoe horning those conclusions in into this tree scenario and telling the skipper of SR " the tree is in your way" when the actual facts shown are that it was never in the way, and PE was not constrained by the tree obstruction to keep clear of SR. Those are facts which don't fit the facts of 150, so in my mind, 150's conclusions aren't applicable. There's no safety issue to either boat, if PE simply keeps clear of SR under RRS 11 as it is free to do, and gives mark room under 18.2.a.1.
It all hinges on 19.2.a,) as it is currently written, where PE as the keep clear boat, is NOT eligible to choose. Therefore as it's already obligated under 11 and 18, its only choice is to luff up or slow down and follow SR.
After 19.2.a limits PE's choice, by applying 19.2.b. to SR which was not AT the tree, creates instant / unseamanlike course complications and safety issue for SR in this scenario.
How about this tree case spawning a new rule:
18.1.c: if the zone of a mark contains within it, an obstruction affecting any boat's course through the position of the obstruction, then Rule 18 does not apply and Rule 19 applies from the point at which a boat enters the zone.
I am trying to find out at what point we loose each other.
It looks to me that you find that only PE is at the obstruction and then apply rule 19 only to PE, but I am not sure.
Can you point out when you start to disagree:
For me the 'choice' that PE makes, is not the choice under 19.2.a. She just wants to use the room between SE and the obstruction.
When we are down to interpreting official interpretations...
Anyway, simply Tim,
You are making the error of applying the facts for Questions 2, 3 and 4 to Question 1. Actually, Question 1 is standalone and needs no facts. Question 5 is standalone and has its own facts.
Therefore, Answer 1 applies to any obstruction.
No one (including Case 150) is presenting that the obstruction was in SRs path. (I haven't even considered the other answers. Q1 is sufficient.)
R19 applies between pairs of boats! So long as one boat's course is influenced by the other boat and a obstruction at the same time, the pair are considered to be 'at' the obstruction for the purposes of R19.
Tim also said that PE is not constrained by the obstruction. This is true, but Answer 1 says 'influenced' not constrained.
The influence is that PE physically is not able to sail the same path as SR because of the obstruction. It's irrelevant that other rules prohibit this as a possibility. If the obstruction wasn't there we wouldn't be having this conversation.
So to reiterate, using Case 150 Q1 only, the pair are considered to be at the obstruction and R19 applies.
As for Tim's suggested new rule, I think I went there about a million posts back! #20160
That said , it must definitely clearly emerge which one applies ,from when to when , with absolute clarity on the transitions from one to another , or back and forth.
To begin with in a scenario , If 18 applies and 19 does not , and boats are initially committed according , say the inside one starts rounding , she must have the mark room all the way till the Mark is astern of her .
Between two boats at the Mark , with the inside boat in the process of rounding,19 may have switched on too late and can only have an effect on what the inside boat can or can not do after the rounding .
My 2 bits .
Let's consider a situation that occurs really really often. Forget the Xmas tree, we may have 1, 2, 3 or more dinghys overturned in close proximity to a wing mark where everyone is gybing and many are "putting it in the piss" as we say down here.
[BTW, this actually happened recently at an Impulse (4m Sports Dinghy) championship event here in Australia.]
Click on the link to WingMark-1.gif to download and see the animated gif.
How do the rules work differently in this situation?
Facts Found:
Now consider the "unless-clause" in 19.2(b). The obstruction did not exist when the "overlap began" between Tailing and Windy.
I think this could be a practical example in support of the "at the obstruction" interpretation of "since the overlap began" (when the overlap was establish and maintained prior to being "at an obstruction").
Maybe we should add an extra fact between 5 and 6:
The fact that the space avail was 1-1/2 boat-widths establishes that 2 boats could not fit through side-by-side and thus leads to that conclusion.
It's not ridiculous if we interpret and apply the rules as I suggested earlier by interpreting the "unless-clause" as I suggested, and recurse the rule-applications to conclude that:
Simultaneously, from the POV of the MR-obligated boat, she must realize that there will come a point when she can no longer comply with her obligation to provide mark-room to the 1st boat if she "goes in there" (just like a barging-situation realization), therefore she either needs to slow, take a stern and follow through ... or luff around the top or call for room to tack to the other boats.
This interpretation and application does provide an orderly method for boats to deal with this. Stacked-up boats do this all the time at the RC at the start. They slow ... take a stern .. or bail-out. Otherwise, the barging-boat will eventually break a rule for which they are not exonerated.
However, that said, I 100% think we need a Case to establish this definitively ... because it is not clear at all.
Do you have a suggestion to exclude the possibility to duck the mark?
That's not a fact found. The facts do not state that there were any other boats or objects, so generally it is assumed that there are none when writing FF's.
As the FF's are written, the obstruction (the capsized Speedy) to Tailing and Windy did not exist when the 2 following boats entered the zone overlapped with each other.
That is the jugular point this scenario attempts to highlight in an attempt shine a broader light on my previously described proposed-approach.
:
1. An obstruction in the ordinary use of the word, in this sequence of events (AND NOT DEEMED TO BE ONE as has been stated in many interpretations above) is only an obstruction to a boat, IF and only if, it has to pass through it in order to sail its course. i.e. That thing is blocking my path, it's obstructing me, OR the converse: that thing is NOT blocking my path, it's NOT an obstruction. A simple truth.
- If the definition in the RRS adopted that simple and irrefutable truth as the first qualifier of what is an obstruction, then we should do that and modify (a) to say so. e.g:
- (a) an object blocking a boat from sailing its course beyond it without changing course, that in the prevailing conditions, requires that decision to be made when 3 hull lengths from it.
- secondly from a safety perspective, one hull length from it, is to me, way too close for large alterations of course, (particularly for fast boats) and for other subsequent rules to be "AT" it, and be a trigger to invert or change rights of way. So let's deal that too in the definition and include when "AT' demands a course change or becomes a trigger for other rules i.e. 3 boats lengths as suggested above.
If we adopt that very simple truth (even under the current definition), then SR was never obstructed by the tree in its path to round the mark. At this point in the logic, forget about R19 as far as SR is concerned. This is an irrefutable fact for SR. By subsequently saying it's NOW an obstruction (when in reality it still isn't) simply because a different rule deems it so, is part of the problem. So let's deal with that issue :
2. Let's read 19.1 literally, word-for-word and forget about other cases for a moment (e.g. case 150 ans1's generalized application).
- Rule 19 applies between TWO boats AT an obstruction. If you agree with the REAL facts in (1) above, (not the deemed conclusion) then SR is not one of the two. HOLD THAT THOUGHT...... SR , Not being one of the two, it can't be subject to 19, and in this case retains its ROW and mark room.
- Rule 19 doesn't apply when rule 18 applies between them. EXCELLENT ! Under 19.1.(a) the MARK is an obstruction BETWEEN them as was established at the 3 hull length zone. SR retains its ROW, and mark room.
- if rule 19 always applies at a continuing obstruction, then a possible rule change to 19.1 could be:
- 19.1.(c) Continuing Obstruction - at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 applies, however If an obstruction to any boat is contained within the zone of a mark, (excluding this use of obstruction in this rule, other boats racing within the zone) then the obstruction including the mark, becomes the mark, and rule 18 continues to apply
So what happens to PE?? Read on....
19.1 has been taken care of as above, SR was never at the obstruction if you follow the logic above. So far, no safety issue.
Whichever way you look at it, the tree was ALWAYS an obstruction to PE from outside the zone until it only had one option left to avoid it.
3. If the logic so far, fits in relation to SR, the next issue for me is that most of the opinions above DEEM the tree to be an obstruction to SR because of 19.2.b as an 'OUTSIDE BOAT assuming SR is ALSO AT PE'S OBSTRUCTION. If you agree with what an obstruction really is in ordinary language, it's a fallacy that the tree is an obstruction to SR and we don't even need to apply 19.2.b
if you apply 19.2.a. BEFORE 19.2.b. as follows:
- 19.2.a. A right of way boat may choose to pass an obstruction on her port or starboard side.
Right here, is another fundamental issue for me. It's the sequence of applying the RRS. i don't think any of the previous opinions in this thread have applied this to PE.
Because of the fallacy of DEEMING the tree as an obstruction to SR, and because SR incidentally passes the tree on its starboard side in the process of rounding the mark, you assume it chose to pass that way. That's another fallacy. It didn't choose to. That was its normal course to which it was entitled to sail under pre-existing mark room.
That is an irrefutable fact so the rules need to preserve that when we consider how and when to apply them. If we follow rules in sequence, to the letter, then we are never going to shoehorn 19.2.b into this conundrum.
This is what happens to PE even using the current rules before we get to 19.2.b.
- 19.2.a. PE is not a ROW boat therefore it does not have the right to choose which way to pass the obstruction. It has a combined obstruction of the leeward ROW boat, Mark room it needs to honour, the mark itself, AND the tree which it has no choice but to avoid it. Like a keep clear boat "barging" at the committee boat, it can't stuff it's nose in there, unless the door was already open with room, and it has an obligation to keep clear. In this case, the door wasn't open. PE did what it was supposed to do and luff up avoiding the ROW boat, just like it would do at the committee boat.
Not following this logic presented and following earlier opinions, we arbitrarily invert rights, penalize a ROW, and gives a KEEP CLEAR boat a free pass for not thinking ahead when it entered the zone as it would if approaching a committee boat.
IN NO WAY does this sequence interfere with the safety reasons for 19. It does preserve RIGHTS OF WAY and SAFETY in the context of racing.
If we need to sharpen up and simplify interpreting the language to solve this in future, then perhaps we could do that as follows:
-Definition Obstruction - (a) an object blocking a boat from sailing its course beyond it without changing course, that in the prevailing conditions, requires that decision to be made when 3 hull lengths from it.
- 19.1.(c) Continuing Obstruction - at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 applies, however If an obstruction to any boat is contained within the zone of a mark, (excluding this use of obstruction in this rule, other boats racing within the zone) then the obstruction including the mark, becomes the mark, and rule 18 continues to apply.
Tim.
> obstruction. A simple truth.
I fear I disagree. An obstruction is an object, that just is. Whether or not its actively obstructing (or impeding would be an alternate word) is a separate issue in standard english. I don't much like the definition, and I think one measured in boat's beam could be better, but I am definitely in favour of the universal definition. Don't want boats having to agree whether its an obstruction or not.
Which leads us neatly on to the second half. Is the object obstructing, ie should RRS19 be active. We could say obstructing, or impeding, or influencing course. Or we could just use adjacency. Personally I like adjacency, because, again, there's less of a matter of opinion about it. So we could say adjacent to the obstruction, but 'at the obstruction' is simpler language and uses shorter words. A good thing.
-----
Ok so much for that, but lets go back to the scenario. Is there a problem with the rules that needs fixing? Clearly as we've spent some pages pin dancing and logic chopping there is an issue, but I very greatly doubt it comes up often enough, unlike the mirror situation where its a continuing obstruction, that we need a rewrite. A paragraph in the continuing obstruction case should be enough. So what? I don't much like rules turning on and off or overuling another. Complexity again. Both rules active works well enough provided a case provides a bit of clarity.
It all comes down, for what my opinion is worth, to a single issue. If two boats both have a claim for room to a gap only one will fit through what happens? We have two interpretations, and each has arguments in favour.
One is to say that noone goes through, both boats must go outside both objects. The virtue of this one is that its a simple interpretation and it matches the situation when neither object is a mark.
The other is to take what I call Angelo's interpretation , that required room includes room to give the other boat room, and if there isn't space to do that RRS19 turns off and only 18 is left. The logic of this is somewhat convoluted which I don't really like, but logically perhaps purer. Also the end result is the one most would see as fairer. ROW gets to round the mark and sail her desired course.Give way must go round or waIt. This is also a better match to the continuing obstruction case.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem with either.
That leaves us with the capsized boat scenarios. I sailed skiff types, its familiar territory. I can't get excited about this. In practice if someone p****s it in in front of you rules are out of the window, its just a question of trying to find a gap you can get through without hitting anything.
- when the definition of obstruction applies to BOTH boats within 3 hull lengths from it, and if the transom of an inside keep clear boat is ahead of the mid point of an outside ROW boat, the inside boat shall have the choice to pass the obstruction on either side, and be given room to pass the obstruction.
In the words of Cohen... Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah.
This is what Mark and I have been saying all along.
There have been many incredibly insightful comments but no agreed conclusion.
Personally I like Jim's recent summary of "Angelo's interpretation" as it appears to be the fairest interpretation.
To me, the underlying problem appears to be that the rules themselves are not 'deterministic' in this and some other situations. Ultimately, the rules alone should be sufficient. Cases may help but they should not be required.