Forum: Rules 2 and 69

Reneging on 'Waving Port Through' or 'Tack or Pass?'

P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
We have Case 47, "A boat that deliberately hails “Starboard” when she knows she is on port tack has not acted fairly, and has broken rule 2."

Though the RRS (in fleet racing) only describe 3 pieces of verbal communication, "Protest", "Room to Tack", and "You Tack", the cases and appeals include examples of non-required verbal communication that is used by competitors as part of their process to try to avoid contact and to keep-clear.  "Starboard" from a starboard boat to one on port, "I'll need to give Inside room at the mark" from Middle to Outside, "I have no way" from a boat in irons unable to maneuver are just a couple examples.

Then we have a separate class of communication which are negotiations to avoid contact in which the ROW boat seemingly voluntarily waives their ROW, the most common of these being the "Wave Through" and the "Tack or Pass?".

Given: Port and Starboard are in the middle of the windward leg on opposite tacks, both on beats to windward.  They are on a collision course that puts Starboard's bow impacting Port amidships if neither boat alters course.

Scenario #1:
  • When the boats are 3 BL's apart, Starboard starts calling to Port, "Keep going, you can make it!", while simultaneously gesturing with her free hand and arm for the Port to sail through.   
  • Port nods and waves her arm in acknowledgment and holds her course.  
  • Starboard closely ducks Port and hails "Protest".

Scenario #2:
  • When the boats are 3 BL's apart, Port starts calling to Starboard, "Tack or Pass?" .. "Tack or Pass?"
  • Starboard replies "Pass"
  • Starboard puts her bow down to duck Port and Port slam-dunks Starboard.
  • Starboard hails "Protest".

  1. Rule 2 thoughts?  "recognized principles of sportsmanship"?
  2. In Scenario #1, what about the stress, confusion, indecision this might cause Port as they decide whether to do turns or wait to see if a protest is actually filed. 
    1. Did Port actually break a rule in this instance?
    2. Is Starboard's actions "fair sailing"?
  3. In Scenario #2, does it make a difference that the request was initiated and made by the give-way boat?
Created: 20-Jan-27 16:35

Comments

Justin Scott
Nationality: United States of America
0
Scenario #3:

  • When the boats are 10 BL's apart . Starboard hails to the Port boat " Cross, Keep Going" accompanied by hand signals clearly indicating that Port should cross.
  • S makes a slight alteration of course such that Port is crossing.  
  • Port safely crosses.
  • A third boat (tied with P on points in the championship) observes the signals, the alteration of course and the cross, hails "Protest" on P

Scenarios #4

  • When the boats are 3 BL apart. Starboard hails to the Port boat " Cross, Keep Going" accompanied by hand signals clearly indicating that Port should cross.
  • S makes a sharp and significant alteration of course such that Port is crossing
  • Port safely crosses.
  • A third boat (tied with P on points in the championship) observes the signals, the alteration of course and the cross, hails "Protest" on P
Created: 20-Jan-27 17:46
Justin Scott
Nationality: United States of America
0
Scenario #1 :  
Facts : As Described
Conclusion : S breached a recognized principle of sportsmanship and fair play by inducing P to believe they were encouraging P to think they were crossing and waving for her to cross and then hailing protest.
S breaks Rule 2
P breaks Rule 10

Discussion:  Was P compelled by S's breach of rule 2 to attempt to cross S?  Can P be exonerated from her breach of Rule 10 by Rule 64.1 (a).     

Scenario #3 
Warning this rules rabbit hole has been explored by pages of discussion on SailX moderator pages.  Have at it :) 
Created: 20-Jan-27 17:57
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Justin, I was going to hold-off on the 3rd party complication until later .. but sure .. why not put all the potatoes into the pot and a couple turnips too :-)
Created: 20-Jan-27 17:57
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
1
As far as my Scenario #1, I'd argue that Port did not break Rule 10 in that she kept clear of Starboard.

My argument is that Starboard, once she waives port through, has indicated to Port that she has chosen "her course" to be that, as she approaches Port, she will fall off and duck Port [added later: , and that Port will keep clear of Starboard if Port holds her course].

Therefore, Starboard's alteration in course does not constitute an "avoiding action".

I think this get closest to capturing the reality of this back-and-forth and does not require getting mired in 64.1(a)'s "compelled" as exoneration isn't necessary.
Created: 20-Jan-27 18:37
Justin Scott
Nationality: United States of America
0
Scenario #2
Facts Found: 
1. Port and Starboard are in the middle of the windward leg on opposite tacks, both on beats to windward.  They are on a collision course that puts Starboard's bow impacting Port amidships if neither boat alters course. 
2.  Starboard puts her bow down to duck Port 

Conclusion:
Port failed to keep clear of Starboard

Decision:
P breaks Rule 10.

Regarding Rule 2, we do not have enough information to determine if it has been "clearly established" that the principles of sportsmanship and fair play have been breached. If P tacked after S altered course, because there was a left shift,  or they suddenly saw pressure right, or they realized they were on lay line, it might NOT be a breach of rule 2.  If when they hailed "Tack of Cross", they did so with a plan and intention of inducing S to duck and then placing a slam dunk and a pin, that they would not otherwise have been able to achieve, then it would rise to a breach of Rule 2.  
However, in practical RW terms, if P is not crossing S, then it is far more likely to succeed by placing a lee bow vs a slam dunk. Trying to slam dunk a Stbd boat that is ducking you is unlikely to end well tactically. You are subject to 13 during the tack, so you cannot start tacking too early. You will likely end up lee bowed and pinched out.
I would dsq on 10 and need some convincing on 2. But  with evidence that clearly establishes the premeditated plan, then 2 would come into play. 
Created: 20-Jan-27 18:59
Justin Scott
Nationality: United States of America
0
 My argument is that Starboard, once she waives port through, has indicated to Port that she has chosen "her course" to be that, as she approaches Port, she will fall off and duck Port.  

Therefore, Starboard's alteration in course does not constitute an "avoiding action". 

Elegant, but I dont think it works.   S chose to alter course...but S still alters course. 

Created: 20-Jan-27 19:05
Justin Scott
Nationality: United States of America
0
 My argument is that Starboard, once she waives port through, has indicated to Port that she has chosen "her course" to be that, as she approaches Port, she will fall off and duck Port.  

Therefore, Starboard's alteration in course does not constitute an "avoiding action". 

Elegant, but I dont think it works.   S chose to alter course to avoid B...but S still alters course to avoid P.   S would have to show that she altered course for another reason to avoid 10 applying. (which is the clue in how to distinguish scenario 3 from 4)

Created: 20-Jan-27 19:07
Clark Chapin
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Club Race Officer
2
Here's my take on all this:
Scenario #1: I agree with Ang. Starboard's "chosen course" is to continue on starboard tack, which she knows will involve an alteration of course to duck Port. Therefore, Port has "kept clear" within the meaning of the definition and rule 10.
Scenario #2: Trickier and possibly a rule 2 violation. Starboard should not use the "pass" hail to sucker Port into a disadvantageous situation.
Scenario #3: The same answer as Scenario #1. Port kept clear because Starboard was able to sail her intended course without the need to take avoiding action. Starboard may have chosen to take an avoiding action (ducking Port) for strategic reasons, but had no "need to".
Scenario #4: The same answer as Scenario #3.

All of this is without introducing the additional question of whether in Scenario #3, Port is then obligated to cross Starboard or whether she can tack before Starboard begins her alteration of course, which is usually when the boats are about 3-4 boat lengths apart. Without of specific set of assumed facts, I don't think that Port is obligated to cross Starboard just because Starboard prefers that she do so.

Regards,
Created: 20-Jan-27 19:14
P
Paul Zupan
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Umpire
  • International Judge
  • National Judge
0
When talking about an RRS 2 question, I think it important to state your response in light of case 138.  
Created: 20-Jan-27 19:22
Andrew Cole
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
1
If exoneration we’re not available, would redress be available to ‘fix’ a scenario where P breaks rule 10 due to S breaking Rule 2?
Created: 20-Jan-27 19:24
Justin Scott
Nationality: United States of America
0
Hello Clark,

I agree that S "chose" to alter course. I think you would be asked  to find as fact whether S chose to alter course to avoid P? 
Created: 20-Jan-27 19:25
Justin Scott
Nationality: United States of America
0
Hello Andy,

Bingo. That would be the route for scenario 1.   

Scenario 3 and 4 are more difficult.
Created: 20-Jan-27 19:32
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Justin, re: “Elegant, but I dont think it works.   S chose to alter course...but S still alters course. ”

Note that “alter(s) course” is not in the def of Keep Clear, but rather that ROW can  “..sail her course with no need to take avoiding action”.  
Created: 20-Jan-27 20:34
Justin Scott
Nationality: United States of America
0
 If the facts are that "S chose to alter course to avoid P"  then I think that course alteration will be determined to have been an avoiding action.

Created: 20-Jan-27 21:13
Justin Scott
Nationality: United States of America
0
What I like about Andy's solution of P seeking redress in scenario 1

(1) We dont have to get into language contortions of trying to persuade an Appeals Committee that "choosing to alter course to avoid P" was not an avoiding action. We don't have to add a distinction of  "choice"  to defining an avoiding action.
(2) "Through no fault of her own" (Rule 62.1) is a lower hurdle than S "has compelled another boat (P) to break a rule" (64.1 (a))  . The outcome is the same and P would be exonerated.
Created: 20-Jan-27 22:30
Alex Davis
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • National Judge
1
I think there is a difference between 'altering course to avoid P' and 'altering to pass astern of P'. 

Created: 20-Jan-27 22:49
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Justin, IMO, "no fault of her own" is a pretty darn high standard and measuring a different thing in many ways than "compelled" .. apples and oranges in some ways .. but the "no" in "no fault" looms pretty large.  If there is any fault .. then there cannot be "no fault".

 I think Port would be hard-pressed to say that she entered into this agreement with Starboard at "no fault of her own".

I'm sticking with my first instincts at this point.  Starboard told Port that if she held her course, she would keep clear of Starboard and Starboard's maneuvers to sail her (chosen) course were not "avoiding actions".

Port kept-clear of Starboard.
Created: 20-Jan-28 00:07
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Paul, was your suggestion to look at Case 138 that 69’s penalty flexibility might be a better fit (down to a warning possible)?  Or did you have a different point?
Created: 20-Jan-28 03:30
Justin Scott
Nationality: United States of America
0
Hello Alex and Angelo....I would feel exposed putting forward the argument that S "altering course to pass astern  of P" is not an avoiding action.  

Angelo, I agree that "no fault of her own" is a high standard.  However I would be sympathetic to a request for redress in the case of Scenario 1.  

Here would be my "one minute justice" rulings:

  • Scenario 1  .      S breaks Rule 2 DNE  P break rule 10 Exonerated :either under 64.1 (a)  or more likely per Andy's suggestion 62.1 (d)    
  • Scenario 2.        P breaks Rule 10 DSQ
  • Scenario 3         Protest Dismissed . No Rule broken
  • Scenario 4         P breaks Rule 10 DSQ        




Created: 20-Jan-28 05:01
Andrew Cole
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
0
Justin and Angelo,

Is there an intellectual conflict between finding that S was choosing her course rather than taking avoiding action in 1 (for exoneration purposes), and dinging P in 2 for not keeping clear?

I may be missing the basis for Justin’s DQ in 2. 
Created: 20-Jan-28 10:22
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Good morning Andrew,

I actually haven't chimed-in on anything except Scenario #1 at this point .. or any of the Rule 2/69 questions in any of the scenarios (other than ask some leading questions).  My comments are only addressing Scenario #1 .. 

In Scenario #1:
Starboard initiates this communication ... and I'm proposing "Wave Through" has embedded within it: 
  1. Starboard is asking Port to hold her course on port and pass ahead of her
  2. Starboard's chosen course is to sail behind and clear Port and that Starboard will make any course modifications in order for that to happen without contact between the boats
  3. Port would meet her obligations to Starboard if Port holds her course. Starboard agrees that Port has kept-clear of her in terms of rule 10  and agrees not to protest Port for a rule 10 violation.

Based upon these offer 'terms', Port agrees.

Now, these arguments might not hold up.  They are offered-up for the hammering of them (and hopefully not me!) :-)   I could certainly be convinced otherwise.

One of the reasons I put both Scenario #1 and #2 up there was to explore if being the initiator in the negotiation makes any difference.
Created: 20-Jan-28 12:15
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
PS: The other thing I am trying to explore are the lessons embedded in Case 47.  As I mentioned in the OP, the call "starboard!" is nowhere in the rules, but in Case 47 we have a boat calling "starboard" with the intent to confuse and induce action from another boat and Case 47 says that boat broke Rule 2 (and maybe Rule 69).

I'm suggesting that Case 47 indicates that good sportsmanship and safety relies upon honest communication between competitors on the water.  We rely upon these words and phrases to avoid banging into each other and though their meanings and use are not described in the rules, competitors should be able to rely upon their common understanding and honest use on the water.

From there how does the "wave through" and "tack or pass" fit in?
Created: 20-Jan-28 14:36
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Justin re: "I would feel exposed putting forward the argument that S "altering course to pass astern  of P" is not an avoiding action."

How about below?  If Blue wants to lee-bow Yellow.  Her chosen course is to tack in front of Yellow.  Is Blue's tack an "avoiding action"?

image.png 50 KB
Created: 20-Jan-28 14:52
Justin Scott
Nationality: United States of America
0
" How about below?  If Blue wants to lee-bow Yellow.  Her chosen course is to tack in front of Yellow.  Is Blue's tack an "avoiding action"? "

I would need some facts about position 2.   If Yellow's testimony is that at position 2, Yellow was ready and able to avoid Blue and that Blue could have continued on her course  without risk of collision...and if Blue agreed with that testimony then rule 10 has not been broken.  Blue did not alter course to avoid Yellow. Blue altered course for another reason.

If Blue's testimony at position 2 was that if Blue had not tacked , then there would have been a reasonable apprehension of a collision. If Yellow agrees with that testimony. Then I would find that rule 10 has been broken.   The fact that Blue chose to avoid a collision and gain the leebow (the no harm, no foul argument) does not exonerate Yellow for failing to keep clear.

If  Blue tacks early enough such that if B had not tacked, yellow had time and opportunity to keep clear then no rule has been broken. If Blue tacked later than that so that if Blue had not tacked, B could reasonably apprehend a collision than rule 10 has been broken.

Its Scenario 3 vs Scenarios 4 for the dip.
Created: 20-Jan-28 16:26
Justin Scott
Nationality: United States of America
0
 Justin and Angelo,

Is there an intellectual conflict between finding that S was choosing her course rather than taking avoiding action in 1 (for exoneration purposes), and dinging P in 2 for not keeping clear?

I may be missing the basis for Justin’s DQ in 2.  

Hello Andrew......as I read the facts in 2. I understood that S had already commenced to alter course to avoid P.  P had already failed to keep clear. The fact that S "chose" to avoid P is consistent with my finding that Rule 10 does not provide a loophole for P if S chooses to alter course to avoid.

However, I may have misinterpreted Angelo's primary intention which was to see if it mattered who initiated the hail.
I thought the issue was that as S bore away, this allowed P to tack unfairly onto S and thus S was no longer bound by rule 2.  I was focused on the fact that P tacked rather than P initiated the hail.  

If P initiated the hail. S ducked and both boats carried on sailing but S protested (scenario 2) or third party protested (scenario 4) ......then my findings would be the same as 1 and 4.
Created: 20-Jan-28 16:36
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
"However, I may have misinterpreted Angelo's primary intention which was to see if it mattered who initiated the hail."

I've since gone back to the OP and made the text bold.  In both Scenario's, it is the boat that initiated the offer that reneges (S#1, Starboard protesting, S#2, Port tacking on Starboard's air).

[In both situations #1 (the "Wave Through") and #2 ("Tack or Pass?"), one could argue as in Case  47 , the boat "reneging" used a commonly understood sailing term, phrase or action, which is regularly used between boats on a collision course to avoid contact between them, to trick another boat into a disadvantaged position.]

In Scenario #2, I think the common understanding of what "Tack or Pass?" means, when hailed from Port to Starboard, is:
  1. I'm a port-boat and you are a starboard-boat and I acknowledge you are ROW and I must keep-clear
  2. I see 2 options, I'm going to have to either tack or duck you in order to keep clear.
  3. I am not willing to duck you, so I'm creating a 3rd option and giving you only 2 choices, "tack or pass".
    1. If you choose "tack", I will attempt do so such that you will be in my dirty air.
    2. If you choose "pass" I will hold my course on port and delay my tack such that you will not be in my dirty air, but it will be up to you Starboard to change your course as necessary to sail behind my stern.  
    3. You also agree that I have kept-clear of you in terms of rule  10  and agree not to protest me for a rule 10 violation

Based upon those "terms", Starboard agrees to "pass".
Created: 20-Jan-28 17:28
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
Angelo, did you not say the rules' purpose was not to avoid collisions?
>>We rely upon these words and phrases to avoid banging into each other 
Created: 20-Jan-31 21:51
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Phillip, I can't remember ever saying that.   I believe one of the fundamental purposes of the rules is to keep boats from hitting each other for safety and fairness.

Angelo, did you not say the rules' purpose was not to avoid collisions?


Created: 20-Jan-31 22:03
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
Sorry, it was John Allan in Leeward Gate Mark Rounding
Created: 20-Jan-31 22:07
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more