I recently attended a really excellent interactive rules seminar (3 night - 2.5 hours each) hosted by Sail Canada and some excellent Canadian judges who were very generous with their time and expertise! The final scenario presented for discussion is shown below. This got me thinking about the wording of RRS 19 and RRS 20 and the differences in language, particularly how those differences relate to what I think the outcome of this scenario should be. In RRS 19, the phrase 'pass an obstruction' is used ... both in the title and the text. In RRS 20, Pass is not used, but rather 'approaching' and 'avoid' are used. If we assume this is deliberate, it would have implication for what it means to pass an obstruction, rather than to approach and avoid it. I find myself having a different interpretation of the outcome of the protest in this scenario than many others and am interested in opinions/discussion from the group here.
My thought is that at position 1 and 2 Blue is ROW boat (RRS 11). Blue has a choice .... per RRS 19 they could choose to pass the obstruction (Yellow) on their starboard side and under RRS 19.2(b) Green is obligated to give them 'room between her and the obstruction'. However, Blue can also choose to avoid the obstruction by gybing as they did. Given that they have not chosen to pass the obstruction they are not constrained by RRS 19 to give Green room between them and the obstruction (presumably the reason for the hail of protest). Indeed, Blue didn't have a choice to pass the obstruction on their port side as they couldn't cross Yellow, even by changing course. Presumably if the rule writers had wanted to give Green the right to gybe between blue and the obstruction there would be a separate rule entitled 'ROOM TO GYBE AT AN OBSTRUCTION' which would have a similar layout to RRS 20 with a separate section on Hailing and one on Responding etc? By this reasoning the protest would not be successful.
(also at the same seminar assisting with one of the breakout rooms)
Why wouldn't gybing to pass Yellow on "her (Blue's ) port side" not be considered "passing"?
There isn't an explicit requirement to be successful in their attempt to "pass". Blue is simply attempting to "pass Yellow on her port side" as stated in the rule. Blue maintains right-of-way throughout, so in this case gybing doesn't affect the application of 19.2(a).
I don't think that rule 19.1 turns off rule 19 here because the first sentence says, "Rule 19 applies between two boats at an obstruction except when rule 18 applies between them and..." Since there is no mark, rule 18 does not apply between the two boats.
Happily proven wrong, it’s “and” not “or” in 19.1.
I still say disallow because green made the choice to go up instead of down. Had green gone down, and there was room, then blue would have to give room.
Agree that some punctuation would be useful to clarify. Irrespective of how 19.1 says in a convoluted manner, whether 19 does or does not apply, the last "however" in the final sentence in the definition of obstruction, clearly defines yellow as an obstruction. That turns on 19.2 Giving Room at an obstruction, and in particular, 19.2 (a) says that Blue, the ROW boat has the right to choose, which they did by gybing.
With respect to Colin Mann's conundrum, that blue didn't "pass" yellow I think one could interpret that as follows: The only purpose of "passing" an obstruction, is to make a move to avoid colliding with it. By blue gybing and sailing parallel to yellow, they achieved that primary purpose of avoiding contact with it. Therefore it stands to reason that they "passed" / avoided the obstruction. By blue gybing, green was given room and had no constraints on keeping clear, which they did by heading up.
I think blue infringes. He as row chose to gybe and did not allow room for the other boat I think there is a match racing call that showes the priniple
I agree with Mike. World Sailing Case 124 question 2 "the outside boat must give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began." There are no facts that indicate Blue has been unable to give Yellow, the inside boat, room from the time the overlap began.
Blue breaks rule 19.2(b).
Question 2 What rules apply as the right-of-way boat exercises her right to choose on which side to pass the obstruction?
Answer 2 When a right-of-way boat acts to implement a choice she has made under rule 19.2(a), she must both give the other boat room to keep clear of her and also comply with any applicable rules of Section B.
Rule 19.2(b) applies if the boats are overlapped. If they are, the outside boat must give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began.
Rule 43.1(b) applies while the inside boat is sailing within the room to which she is entitled under rule 19.2(b). However, it will not exonerate her if she is the right of way boat and she breaks rule 19.2(a).
I would agree, *if* Blue chose to pass the obstruction. However, did Blue choose instead to simply 'avoid' the obstruction and 19 doesn't apply? Pass, to me, implies approach, then beside, then away from. If by gybing Blue is 'passing' the obstruction, why does RRS 20 not using the language of passing as well? Case 124 is one where both boats will clearly *pass* the obstruction (approach, beside, sail away from) with no gybe or tack involved.
Further, if 19 does apply, it raises several questions for me::
if, in the process of gybing, Blue breaks overlap with Green (entirely possible as Blue would have to gybe first), for how long does 19.2 apply or when does it cease to apply?
if overlap were maintained during the gybe, for how far down the leg would 19.2 apply? when does it 'turn off'? It is conceivable that Blue parallels Yellow for some considerable time down the leg yet Yellow is not a Continuing Obstruction (per the definition)
Think about the spectrum of possibilities here. For example, Yellow could have been sailing slower or was a slower boat and Blue actually passed Yellow. Would that be considered "passing"? What if Blue eventually passed Yellow further down the leg? What if Yellow was instead a large motor boat, and Blue chose to take the same action and passed (put it clear astern) almost immediately. What if Yellow was heading directly downwind, and Blue didn't need to gybe?
All of those possibilities could have resulted in the same/similar action by Blue and the same denial of room to Green. Surely we can't have the case where the decision of whether the application of 19.2(b) is determined by the "future" success of actually completing a "pass".
To me, it's reasonably clear that it's about the choice of which side to take the obstruction on and not the act of successfully putting the obstruction clear astern. Put differently, "the choice of which side you would like to be able to pass" ...
Colin, When blue gybes she makes the choice as to which side to pass.
Rule 19 applies between two boats at an obstruction except when rule 18 applies between them. There is no requirement for the boats to be overlapped, they just both have to be at the obstruction.
I believein gybing it is passing so the rule applies. I think the overlap matters for the rule to apply, but the response is independant of overlap, room must be given. If the boat falls astern then 19 does not apply on an ongoing basis If there is an overlap, then the leeward boat has row, the responsabilities have xhanged.
19.2a - blue is ROW boat, and gives Green room to keep clear 19.2b - Green is outside boat, and owes both room and keeping clear. This second bullet is why the situation is so different downwind from upwind. correceted per convo below
I am still not seeing this as anything other than disallowed.
Green is the inside boat relative to blue and with respect to the obstruction yellow at positions 1 & 2.
Green, at position 3, decides to duck yellow, an obstruction, instead of gybing. She has the right to do either. Perhaps if her intention was to gybe she should have done so at position 2-3, but that’s not what she did.
What blue subsequently does after green has made her choice is irrelevant. No rule requires blue to follow green.
How does this scenario change if, assuming no R17 restriction, blue quickly heads up at position 2.5-3, causing green to head up as well, then immediately gybes?
Green is the inside boat relative to blue and with respect to the obstruction yellow at positions 1 & 2.
If Green and Blue both passed behind Yellow, Green would be outside. OP's situation is the mirror image of this situation where green is outside, not inside.
Niko, in your diagram the boats are on a beat to windward. Neither green, nor yellow are overlapped with blue. Blue is an obstruction and 19 & 20 apply. The scenario is very very different from the original diagram.
In the original diagram all boats are overlapped and until green ducks yellow she is the inside boat relative to blue with respect to R19.
[..] If she had approached the police launch sufficiently close to its leeward end so that, with only a slight change of course when one of her hull lengths from it, she could have safely passed to leeward of it, she should have done so.
If so ...I think that's different as I think that's an RRS 20 application and not 19 (though they feel similar). In US15, the "substantial course change" is the one stated in RRS 20.1(a).
In the OP, we are relying only upon def: obstruction's "changing course substantially" test to establish the object's qualification as an obstruction.
I think if u wanted to follow that line of argument, you'd have make a case they they were not "at" an obstruction.
I agree that Blue breaks rule 19.2, but I'm not sure much of this discussion has addressed Colin's original question, which was about the meaning of the word "pass". I think his point is that after Blue jibes she is now sailing alongside another boat at the same speed and, therefore, not passing that boat in the ordinary sense of the word.
I agree with Colin that "pass" is the wrong word. What we really mean by "pass", in this context, is something like "sail alongside or past" the obstruction. But I can't think of any reasonable way to replace it in the context of rule 19. It's clear from the discussion above that at least in this forum no one even notices the problem he brought up, but simply assumes that Blue is passing Yellow at position 4. So I guess maybe there is no practical problem with this missuse of the language, though I agree that if someone were to propose a better word, we could change the wording of the rule.
I learned to use the term "leave" instead of "pass" but I think it has the same issues in general parlance.
In general, the "moving" obstruction has a host of small issues, including this "pass" phrasing, but also the situation outlined by Colin, where Green is initially inside boat at the obstruction, but would become outside boat were Blue to choose to "duck" the starboard boat. Nonetheless, I think Eric is ultimately right that the answers are pretty clear.
19.1 When Rule 19 Applies Rule 19 applies between two boats at an obstruction except when rule 18 applies between them and
(a) the obstruction is the mark, or
(b) the obstruction is another boat overlapped with each of them.However, at a continuingobstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not.
19.2Giving Room at an Obstruction (a) A right-of-way boat may choose to pass [avoid] an obstruction [by keeping leaving it to] on her port or starboard side. If a right-of-way boat changes course when choosing on which side to pass [avoid] the obstruction, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear.
(b) When the boats are overlapped, the outside boat shall give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began.
(c) While boats are passing [sailing-along] a continuingobstruction, if a boat that was clear astern and required to keep clear becomes overlapped between the other boat and the obstruction and, at the moment the overlap begins, there is not room for her to pass [sail] between them,
(1) she is not entitled to room under rule 19.2(b), and
(2) while the boats remain overlapped, she shall keep clear and rules 10 and 11 do not apply.
PS: changed "keep it to" to "leaving it to" after initial post.
Here's my take. At positions 1-2, Yellow qualifies as an obstruction for both Blue and Green, since both boats are required to keep clear of her under the definition of Obstruction. Accordingly, Rule 19 applies between Blue and Green — in addition to Rule 11 and any other applicable rules. (The exceptions set in Rule 19.1(a) and 19.1(b) do not come into play, as their prerequisite — that Rule 18 be in effect between the boats — is not met.)
Blue, as the right-of-way boat under Rule 11, is entitled to choose on which side to pass Yellow (Rule 19.2(a), first sentence). When doing so, she shall give Green room to keep clear (Rule 19.2(a), second sentence) — and on the facts, Blue satisfies this obligation.
However, Blue is simultaneously the outside boat at the obstruction. As such, she shall give the inside overlapped boat — Green — room between her and Yellow (Rule 19.2(b)). By gybing so close to Yellow, Blue fails to provide that room and breaks Rule 19.2(b).
It's crucial to determine which of the two boats is the outside boat, and that is not always straightforward. Here, Blue and Green are overlapped with Blue to windward and Green to leeward. Since Yellow is the obstruction and she lies on the leeward side of the pair, Green — being the leeward boat — is closer to Yellow, making her the inside boat. Blue, being further away from Yellow, is the outside boat.
This is now the second time in a couple of months, where the rules as presently written and scenarios, invert rights of way and turn the keep clear obligations on their head, simply because we keep using the state of inside versus outside positions to override a keep clear boat's primary obligation to keep clear.
In both this scenario and the previous Christmas Tree situation, we first say in 19.2(a) the ROW boat has the right to choose which way she wants to pass/avoid/leave the obstruction to avoid hitting it. Whichever word we apply as synonyms, in this context, they all have the same functional meaning. Secondly, we obligate the ROW, in the same way that 16.1 is used, to give the keep clear boat the room and opportunity to keep clear.
As far as 19.2(a), the situation is over. 19.2(a) has successfully done its job. Blue has chosen to use a gybe to keep clear of yellow ; yellow both a starboard ROW boat and an obstruction, can safely sail on; Green as keep clear boat relative to Leeward Blue AND starboard Yellow, has room and opportunity to keep clear of both. There's no safety issue and Green can comply with her obligations to keep clear, irrespective of what blue and yellow do later.
Then along comes 19.2(b) and arbitrarily inverts a situation that 19. 2(a) has already resolved. What for? The situation is over. Inside versus outside is now irrelevant once 19.2(a) has done its job, namely avoid collisions with things to be avoided.
Why do we need to suddenly use inside versus outside to absolve Green from its ongoing obligation to keep clear which, in this scenario, it is easily doing.?
To top it off, the last part of 19.2(b) says..in this scenario, Oops, because i've given you, Green as the new "inside boat", the option to demand inside room (room i don't need to avoid the yellow obstruction, ), what if there was never room to let me give Green that option? Ok guys i tell you what..... forget about it... but GREEN, you're still guilty for stuffing your nose in, as well as Blue, for not letting you stuff your nose in, and you're both exonerated ?? This is perverted.
This is the problem. The application of in 19.2(b) is not needed if another rule, in this case, 19.2(a) has already dealt with the issue.
19 is all about making it safe for boats to avoid things they need to avoid. We should avoid writing rules that complicate rights of way. I agree with the principle that ROW boats can't create a problem for a keep clear boat, hence the limitations of 15, 16, 17.
19.2.(b) is unlike the principle behind 15,16,17. It is in fact, suddenly giving the ROW boat more than a limitation; it is in fact now saying on behalf of Green, " get out of the way, i'm coming through - unless of course you can't give me room,..... but if there is no room, the onus is now on you to prove you're not guilty of not giving it to me."
This can be solved by giving unambiguous directions to skippers if, in a preamble to 19, we say: "The application of RRS 19 is not intended to override a keep clear boat's primary obligation to keep clear. When approaching an obstruction, anticipation is required to ensure that a keep clear boat positions itself to meet its foremost obligations to keep clear of a ROW boat. The rules of 19.2.(a), (b) and (c) shall be applied sequentially to provide safe passage to a ROW boat in avoiding an obstruction."
I wonder if we can go back to the original question about the use of the phrase ‘passing an obstruction’, when it comes to the obstruction being a racing boat.
Let’s suppose this is situation:
Question: Is Blue passing Yellow?
Michael touched on a MR Call. Yes, there are MR B 13 and B 15 that are dealing with ‘stationary boat’ and ‘continuing obstruction.’
MR Call B 15: (1 of 4)
Yellow has right of way and can choose to luff or bear away as she pleases provided she complies with rule 16.1. If Yellow and Blue bear away to pass the obstruction to port, Yellow must give room to Blue while the boats are overlapped.
Yes, Blue is “passing” Yellow in the same manner as a semi on I-5 going up a hill at 60.001mph in the fast lane is “passing” another going 60mph in the slow lane; an hour later one is still “passing” the other.
Thanks to all for the robust discussion. It has been helpful for me. Rob, you are correct that some of my conundrum is around the word 'pass'. I still feel there are very deliberate reasons why it is not used in RRS 20 and 'avoid' is used. Angelo, your suggestion seems a better one.
It is clear that I don't have support for my musing that in this instance - that if Blue chooses to gbye and parallel Green she is avoiding (not passing) the obstruction and 19 doesn't apply (where it would if she chose to head up, burdening Green with giving Blue room to pass). So, starting from belief that RRS 19.2 applies .....
I still have discomfort, if that is the case, that there is no guidance (as there is in RRS 20) about communication between Blue and Green as to intention. Green is wondering whether she is going to be required to not just keep clear of the ROW boat but do so in enough time to leave room between her and Yellow. Blue is wondering whether, if she choses to gybe, she will need to do so in time to leave room for Green to do the same between her and Yellow. Further, it seems likely to me that in the process of Blue gybing, the overlap will be broken, leaving question in my mind about how long the obligation to give room endures? Once the overlap is broken during the gybe does the obligation on Blue to give room expire and therefore, if an overlap is re-established by Green between Blue and Yellow, only the usual RRS 11,14, 15,17 apply? If it does not expire with the break in overlap, how far down the leg does it it endure if the boats remain parallel and close to the same speed? When does Yellow cease to be an obstruction - they do not meet the definition of a continuing obstruction.
Hands up, i really had a feeling this only applied if overlappzd. My mistake now acknowledged. The match racing call i referred to was b13, yes i have been checking it, different i think when passing to leeward with the windward boat advanced.
Here why is the leeward boat not giving room if the other boat is given room to keep clear? This is by passing astern of the obstruction.
Similarly, if blue gybes and the overlap is broken, why should she be burdened when the other boat can keep clear by luffing astern.
This goes against all my previous understanding, butmay actually comply with what the rule says.
Mike and Eric, asking "why" is not always the best way to learn the rules. In The present case, the reason blue is required to give room between her and Yellow is, "because the rule says so". Nothing could be clearer than "the outside boat shall give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction". Yellow is the obstruction, Blue is the outside boat, and Green is the inside boat. The rule doesn't say "room to keep clear", so what is your comment about?
Rule 19.2(b) s one of the oldest rules in the book, certainly more than 100 years old. The reason for the rule is, I think, obvious in most cases: say two boats are reaching along the breakwater and the leeward boat is on course to hit the breakwater. If rule 19.2 did not exist, the leewar boat could just crush the windward boat into the breakwater without changing course. To avoid that fate, the windward boat would have to let her sheets go, slow down and drop behind the leeward boat. The writers of the racing rules thought that would be a bad idea.
The equivalent of rule 19.2(b) was identical to the mark rounding rules until 1996, when it was separated out. The reason for treating it differently was that passing obstructions didn't normally require the complexity of rounding marks, and because a third boat could suddenly gain right of weight in less than a zone radius, the whole concept of coming up to a zone around an obstruction and preparing which boats should be given room and which both shouldn't. I made no sense.
Rule 19.2(a), in contrast, is very recent. It is almost unique in that it is redundant. The right-of-way boat has always had the right to determine which side of an obstruction she wishes to pass, because she has right away, but that fact was not widely understood and was a frequent topic of argument so we wrote a rule to make it explicit.
The part in rule 19.2(a) about the right-of-way boat making a late decision and changing course is very new and solves a problem: Without that rule, it could be argued that the right-of-way boat is sailing within the room to which she is entitled and therefore exonerated from breaking rule 16.1. that's why the wording of rule 16.1 is repeated in rule 19.2(a), Rather than just referencing the rule.
Rob .. maybe one source of confusion in the OP drawing is that it "appears" that Green makes the decision to duck Yellow before Blue "decides" (i,e. Changes course) which side to pass the obstruction .. in that Green alters course first.
Maybe a point to realize in that regard is that when Blue does alter course ... let's call it pos#3.2 ... Blue and Green are still overlapped. In fact .. progressing the boats to logical positions and orientations they are still overlapped up to near #3.5.
So at the moment Blue alters course at #3.2, she chooses the side, she is still overlapped with Yellow at #3.2 and it's clear that Blue did not provide room for Green between Blue and Yellow.
Blue breaks 19.2 at pos#3.2.
PS: Unless one wants to argue that at #3.2 they are no longer "at an obstruction" (my comment to Ric).
Except Rob, that is exactly what the rule says… 19.2
Giving Room at an Obstruction (a) A right-of-way boat may choose to pass an obstruction on her port or starboard side. If a right-of-way boat changes course when choosing on which side to pass the obstruction, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear.
Emphasis mine. Blue has given Green room to “keep clear” of both yellow (which she ducks) and herself. The wording could not be any clearer.
When green heads up and/or when blue gybes there is no overlap. Green heads up, breaks the overlap, and then blue gybes. The logic of the scenario is that green acts and then blue is required to follow her? For how long? As soon as green heads up they are no longer at an obstruction. So why is blue still obligated to follow green?
Eric re: "When green heads up and/or when blue gybes there is no overlap. "
This is where we disagree. By the drawing it appears to me that overlap is not broken until after Blue alters course.
The moment Blue alters course to leeward, she "acts" to choose that side. That, IMHO, is the moment she breaks 19.2.
PS: I think many if not most PC's, once it is well established that a 1/2 BL overlap was established and held for at least the previous 3 BL's before Green alters course, that the burden would be more on Blue to show that overlap was broken prior to Blue altering course. Though that's a rule from RRS 18 (and match racing) and not 19 .. the idea of last point of certainty is still commonly applied when it comes to overlaps being established or broken.
I guess the issueI am having is the inconsistency between this scenario where some are saying DSQ blue and MR Call B 15: (1 of 4) where there is no penalty on yellow.
From Case 124 the rights and obligations under R19 are fluid, so if a right-of-way boat does not act to implement a choice until the other boat acts, and in doing so breaks the overlap with the ROW boat, is the formerly ROW boat still obligated by R19.2? Case 124 would imply that they are not.
There appear to be two interpretations. One allows the right-of way boat to use as an obstruction as a pick to scrape off the windward boat. The other does not.
I will return (with trepidation) to my original stance. In this scenario, unlike on a beam reach for example, I contend that there is only one side that can be chosen by the ROW boat to pass the obstruction and where, therefore, RRS 19 applies. Blue can chose head up and go behind Yellow. In this instance, I think we all agree that the obligation is on Green (RRS 19.2b) to give Blue room to pass between her and the obstruction. Blue's obligation (RRS 19.2a) is to give Green room to keep clear as she changes course. If, however, Blue choses to avoid the obstruction by gybing, she is not passing the obstruction .... indeed, she is not able to pass the obstruction on her port side unless at position 1 she suddenly had a burst of speed and could cross Yellow. Given that she is unable to pass the obstruction on her port side, she chooses, instead of heading up to pass on her starboard side, to avoid the obstruction by gybing. Therefore in this instance, RRS 19 does not apply. Returning to my original post, I believe this is why the language of 'pass' is not used in RRS 20.
In RRS 20 (sailing close hauled or above), there are things that have to happen for the ROW boat (leeward) to be able to safely maneuver to avoid the obstruction (again, it doesn't say pass). Should she chose to avoid the obstruction by tacking (rather than passing it astern per RRS 19) she has to follow RRS 20.1 and things unfold from there.
In our scenario, it seems to me that if the intent was that Blue had obligation to give room for Green to gybe between Blue and Yellow (obstruction), there would be another rule entitled ROOM TO GYBE AT AN OBSTRUCTION with a series of hails and responses. This would be problematic however, for all the reasons that I stated in previous post (broken overlap; uncertain duration of right to room, etc.) However it seems to me that this is NOT the intent since the ROW boat going downwind already has the ability to execute the choice to avoid, rather than pass (which they don't going upwind without the protection of RRS 20), and the give-way boat already has the ability to pass the obstruction safely by heading up astern of the obstruction.
Why wouldn't gybing to pass Yellow on "her (Blue's ) port side" not be considered "passing"?
There isn't an explicit requirement to be successful in their attempt to "pass". Blue is simply attempting to "pass Yellow on her port side" as stated in the rule. Blue maintains right-of-way throughout, so in this case gybing doesn't affect the application of 19.2(a).
Happy to be proven wrong.
Since there is no mark, rule 18 does not apply between the two boats.
I still say disallow because green made the choice to go up instead of down. Had green gone down, and there was room, then blue would have to give room.
With respect to Colin Mann's conundrum, that blue didn't "pass" yellow I think one could interpret that as follows:
The only purpose of "passing" an obstruction, is to make a move to avoid colliding with it. By blue gybing and sailing parallel to yellow, they achieved that primary purpose of avoiding contact with it. Therefore it stands to reason that they "passed" / avoided the obstruction.
By blue gybing, green was given room and had no constraints on keeping clear, which they did by heading up.
Bottom line: no rules broken. Case closed.
He as row chose to gybe and did not allow room for the other boat
I think there is a match racing call that showes the priniple
Blue breaks rule 19.2(b).
Case 124 is one where both boats will clearly *pass* the obstruction (approach, beside, sail away from) with no gybe or tack involved.
Further, if 19 does apply, it raises several questions for me::
All of those possibilities could have resulted in the same/similar action by Blue and the same denial of room to Green. Surely we can't have the case where the decision of whether the application of 19.2(b) is determined by the "future" success of actually completing a "pass".
To me, it's reasonably clear that it's about the choice of which side to take the obstruction on and not the act of successfully putting the obstruction clear astern. Put differently, "the choice of which side you would like to be able to pass" ...
Rule 19 applies between two boats at an obstruction except when rule 18 applies between them. There is no requirement for the boats to be overlapped, they just both have to be at the obstruction.
I think the overlap matters for the rule to apply, but the response is independant of overlap, room must be given.
If the boat falls astern then 19 does not apply on an ongoing basis
If there is an overlap, then the leeward boat has row, the responsabilities have xhanged.
Blue breaks 19.2(b).
19.2b - Green is outside boat, and owes both room and keeping clear.This second bullet is why the situation is so different downwind from upwind.
correceted per convo belowGreen is the inside boat relative to blue and with respect to the obstruction yellow at positions 1 & 2.
Green, at position 3, decides to duck yellow, an obstruction, instead of gybing. She has the right to do either. Perhaps if her intention was to gybe she should have done so at position 2-3, but that’s not what she did.
What blue subsequently does after green has made her choice is irrelevant. No rule requires blue to follow green.
How does this scenario change if, assuming no R17 restriction, blue quickly heads up at position 2.5-3, causing green to head up as well, then immediately gybes?
Blue is an obstruction and 19 & 20 apply.
The scenario is very very different from the original diagram.
In the original diagram all boats are overlapped and until green ducks yellow she is the inside boat relative to blue with respect to R19.
If so ...I think that's different as I think that's an RRS 20 application and not 19 (though they feel similar).
In US15, the "substantial course change" is the one stated in RRS 20.1(a).
In the OP, we are relying only upon def: obstruction's "changing course substantially" test to establish the object's qualification as an obstruction.
I think if u wanted to follow that line of argument, you'd have make a case they they were not "at" an obstruction.
I agree with Colin that "pass" is the wrong word. What we really mean by "pass", in this context, is something like "sail alongside or past" the obstruction. But I can't think of any reasonable way to replace it in the context of rule 19. It's clear from the discussion above that at least in this forum no one even notices the problem he brought up, but simply assumes that Blue is passing Yellow at position 4. So I guess maybe there is no practical problem with this missuse of the language, though I agree that if someone were to propose a better word, we could change the wording of the rule.
Colin? You brought this up ...
In general, the "moving" obstruction has a host of small issues, including this "pass" phrasing, but also the situation outlined by Colin, where Green is initially inside boat at the obstruction, but would become outside boat were Blue to choose to "duck" the starboard boat. Nonetheless, I think Eric is ultimately right that the answers are pretty clear.
ROOM TO PASS AN OBSTRUCTION
19.1 When Rule 19 Applies
Rule 19 applies between two boats at an obstruction except when rule 18 applies between them and
(a) the obstruction is the mark, or
(b) the obstruction is another boat overlapped with each of them.However, at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not.
19.2Giving Room at an Obstruction
(a) A right-of-way boat may choose to
pass[avoid] an obstruction [bykeepingleaving it to]onher port or starboard side. If a right-of-way boat changes course when choosing on which side topass[avoid] the obstruction, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear.(b) When the boats are overlapped, the outside boat shall give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began.
(c) While boats are
passing[sailing-along] a continuing obstruction, if a boat that was clear astern and required to keep clear becomes overlapped between the other boat and the obstruction and, at the moment the overlap begins, there is not room for her topass[sail] between them,(1) she is not entitled to room under rule 19.2(b), and
(2) while the boats remain overlapped, she shall keep clear and rules 10 and 11 do not apply.
PS: changed "keep it to" to "leaving it to" after initial post.
At positions 1-2, Yellow qualifies as an obstruction for both Blue and Green, since both boats are required to keep clear of her under the definition of Obstruction. Accordingly, Rule 19 applies between Blue and Green — in addition to Rule 11 and any other applicable rules.
(The exceptions set in Rule 19.1(a) and 19.1(b) do not come into play, as their prerequisite — that Rule 18 be in effect between the boats — is not met.)
Blue, as the right-of-way boat under Rule 11, is entitled to choose on which side to pass Yellow (Rule 19.2(a), first sentence). When doing so, she shall give Green room to keep clear (Rule 19.2(a), second sentence) — and on the facts, Blue satisfies this obligation.
However, Blue is simultaneously the outside boat at the obstruction. As such, she shall give the inside overlapped boat — Green — room between her and Yellow (Rule 19.2(b)). By gybing so close to Yellow, Blue fails to provide that room and breaks Rule 19.2(b).
It's crucial to determine which of the two boats is the outside boat, and that is not always straightforward.
Here, Blue and Green are overlapped with Blue to windward and Green to leeward. Since Yellow is the obstruction and she lies on the leeward side of the pair, Green — being the leeward boat — is closer to Yellow, making her the inside boat. Blue, being further away from Yellow, is the outside boat.
In both this scenario and the previous Christmas Tree situation, we first say in 19.2(a) the ROW boat has the right to choose which way she wants to pass/avoid/leave the obstruction to avoid hitting it. Whichever word we apply as synonyms, in this context, they all have the same functional meaning. Secondly, we obligate the ROW, in the same way that 16.1 is used, to give the keep clear boat the room and opportunity to keep clear.
As far as 19.2(a), the situation is over. 19.2(a) has successfully done its job. Blue has chosen to use a gybe to keep clear of yellow ; yellow both a starboard ROW boat and an obstruction, can safely sail on; Green as keep clear boat relative to Leeward Blue AND starboard Yellow, has room and opportunity to keep clear of both.
There's no safety issue and Green can comply with her obligations to keep clear, irrespective of what blue and yellow do later.
Then along comes 19.2(b) and arbitrarily inverts a situation that 19. 2(a) has already resolved. What for? The situation is over.
Inside versus outside is now irrelevant once 19.2(a) has done its job, namely avoid collisions with things to be avoided.
Why do we need to suddenly use inside versus outside to absolve Green from its ongoing obligation to keep clear which, in this scenario, it is easily doing.?
To top it off, the last part of 19.2(b) says..in this scenario, Oops, because i've given you, Green as the new "inside boat", the option to demand inside room (room i don't need to avoid the yellow obstruction, ), what if there was never room to let me give Green that option? Ok guys i tell you what..... forget about it... but GREEN, you're still guilty for stuffing your nose in, as well as Blue, for not letting you stuff your nose in, and you're both exonerated ?? This is perverted.
This is the problem. The application of in 19.2(b) is not needed if another rule, in this case, 19.2(a) has already dealt with the issue.
19 is all about making it safe for boats to avoid things they need to avoid. We should avoid writing rules that complicate rights of way.
I agree with the principle that ROW boats can't create a problem for a keep clear boat, hence the limitations of 15, 16, 17.
19.2.(b) is unlike the principle behind 15,16,17. It is in fact, suddenly giving the ROW boat more than a limitation; it is in fact now saying on behalf of Green, " get out of the way, i'm coming through - unless of course you can't give me room,..... but if there is no room, the onus is now on you to prove you're not guilty of not giving it to me."
This can be solved by giving unambiguous directions to skippers if, in a preamble to 19, we say:
"The application of RRS 19 is not intended to override a keep clear boat's primary obligation to keep clear. When approaching an obstruction, anticipation is required to ensure that a keep clear boat positions itself to meet its foremost obligations to keep clear of a ROW boat. The rules of 19.2.(a), (b) and (c) shall be applied sequentially to provide safe passage to a ROW boat in avoiding an obstruction."
What do you think about this concept?
Yes, Blue is “passing” Yellow in the same manner as a semi on I-5 going up a hill at 60.001mph in the fast lane is “passing” another going 60mph in the slow lane; an hour later one is still “passing” the other.
It is clear that I don't have support for my musing that in this instance - that if Blue chooses to gbye and parallel Green she is avoiding (not passing) the obstruction and 19 doesn't apply (where it would if she chose to head up, burdening Green with giving Blue room to pass). So, starting from belief that RRS 19.2 applies .....
I still have discomfort, if that is the case, that there is no guidance (as there is in RRS 20) about communication between Blue and Green as to intention. Green is wondering whether she is going to be required to not just keep clear of the ROW boat but do so in enough time to leave room between her and Yellow. Blue is wondering whether, if she choses to gybe, she will need to do so in time to leave room for Green to do the same between her and Yellow. Further, it seems likely to me that in the process of Blue gybing, the overlap will be broken, leaving question in my mind about how long the obligation to give room endures? Once the overlap is broken during the gybe does the obligation on Blue to give room expire and therefore, if an overlap is re-established by Green between Blue and Yellow, only the usual RRS 11,14, 15,17 apply?
If it does not expire with the break in overlap, how far down the leg does it it endure if the boats remain parallel and close to the same speed? When does Yellow cease to be an obstruction - they do not meet the definition of a continuing obstruction.
The match racing call i referred to was b13, yes i have been checking it, different i think when passing to leeward with the windward boat advanced.
Here why is the leeward boat not giving room if the other boat is given room to keep clear? This is by passing astern of the obstruction.
Similarly, if blue gybes and the overlap is broken, why should she be burdened when the other boat can keep clear by luffing astern.
This goes against all my previous understanding, butmay actually comply with what the rule says.
Rule 19.2(b) s one of the oldest rules in the book, certainly more than 100 years old. The reason for the rule is, I think, obvious in most cases: say two boats are reaching along the breakwater and the leeward boat is on course to hit the breakwater. If rule 19.2 did not exist, the leewar boat could just crush the windward boat into the breakwater without changing course. To avoid that fate, the windward boat would have to let her sheets go, slow down and drop behind the leeward boat. The writers of the racing rules thought that would be a bad idea.
The equivalent of rule 19.2(b) was identical to the mark rounding rules until 1996, when it was separated out. The reason for treating it differently was that passing obstructions didn't normally require the complexity of rounding marks, and because a third boat could suddenly gain right of weight in less than a zone radius, the whole concept of coming up to a zone around an obstruction and preparing which boats should be given room and which both shouldn't. I made no sense.
Rule 19.2(a), in contrast, is very recent. It is almost unique in that it is redundant. The right-of-way boat has always had the right to determine which side of an obstruction she wishes to pass, because she has right away, but that fact was not widely understood and was a frequent topic of argument so we wrote a rule to make it explicit.
The part in rule 19.2(a) about the right-of-way boat making a late decision and changing course is very new and solves a problem: Without that rule, it could be argued that the right-of-way boat is sailing within the room to which she is entitled and therefore exonerated from breaking rule 16.1. that's why the wording of rule 16.1 is repeated in rule 19.2(a), Rather than just referencing the rule.
Here is the pic again for convenience ..
Maybe a point to realize in that regard is that when Blue does alter course ... let's call it pos#3.2 ... Blue and Green are still overlapped. In fact .. progressing the boats to logical positions and orientations they are still overlapped up to near #3.5.
So at the moment Blue alters course at #3.2, she chooses the side, she is still overlapped with Yellow at #3.2 and it's clear that Blue did not provide room for Green between Blue and Yellow.
Blue breaks 19.2 at pos#3.2.
PS: Unless one wants to argue that at #3.2 they are no longer "at an obstruction" (my comment to Ric).
19.2
(a) A right-of-way boat may choose to pass an obstruction on her port or starboard side. If a right-of-way boat changes course when choosing on which side to pass the obstruction, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear.
Emphasis mine. Blue has given Green room to “keep clear” of both yellow (which she ducks) and herself. The wording could not be any clearer.
Green heads up, breaks the overlap, and then blue gybes.
The logic of the scenario is that green acts and then blue is required to follow her? For how long? As soon as green heads up they are no longer at an obstruction. So why is blue still obligated to follow green?
Just when is the Blue and yellow going to be 'passing' as on the Hwy? Before or after R 19 may be in play?
Kim
This is where we disagree. By the drawing it appears to me that overlap is not broken until after Blue alters course.
The moment Blue alters course to leeward, she "acts" to choose that side. That, IMHO, is the moment she breaks 19.2.
PS: I think many if not most PC's, once it is well established that a 1/2 BL overlap was established and held for at least the previous 3 BL's before Green alters course, that the burden would be more on Blue to show that overlap was broken prior to Blue altering course. Though that's a rule from RRS 18 (and match racing) and not 19 .. the idea of last point of certainty is still commonly applied when it comes to overlaps being established or broken.
If, however, Blue choses to avoid the obstruction by gybing, she is not passing the obstruction .... indeed, she is not able to pass the obstruction on her port side unless at position 1 she suddenly had a burst of speed and could cross Yellow. Given that she is unable to pass the obstruction on her port side, she chooses, instead of heading up to pass on her starboard side, to avoid the obstruction by gybing. Therefore in this instance, RRS 19 does not apply. Returning to my original post, I believe this is why the language of 'pass' is not used in RRS 20.
In RRS 20 (sailing close hauled or above), there are things that have to happen for the ROW boat (leeward) to be able to safely maneuver to avoid the obstruction (again, it doesn't say pass). Should she chose to avoid the obstruction by tacking (rather than passing it astern per RRS 19) she has to follow RRS 20.1 and things unfold from there.
In our scenario, it seems to me that if the intent was that Blue had obligation to give room for Green to gybe between Blue and Yellow (obstruction), there would be another rule entitled ROOM TO GYBE AT AN OBSTRUCTION with a series of hails and responses. This would be problematic however, for all the reasons that I stated in previous post (broken overlap; uncertain duration of right to room, etc.) However it seems to me that this is NOT the intent since the ROW boat going downwind already has the ability to execute the choice to avoid, rather than pass (which they don't going upwind without the protection of RRS 20), and the give-way boat already has the ability to pass the obstruction safely by heading up astern of the obstruction.