Forum: Rule 18 and Room at the Mark
R 18.2(a) and exoneration under R 21
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
2
For a port rounding weather mark, two boats enter the zone on port, with Green ahead and to leeward of Yellow. Green tacks to stbd to fetch the mark. Yellow starts to tack, but contact occurs before Yellow completes her tack. There is no damage. Each boat protests the other, and no penalty turns are taken.
Q1. When does Yellow gain mark room under R18.2(a)? As soon the overlap begins as she gains stbd tack after passing htw, or after her tack is completed?
%20incident.JPG)
%20incident.JPG?disposition=attachment){kind=link}
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
RRS 13 applies, but it does not negate 18.
From the diagram it appears that G was giving mark room. If that's the case and Y made contact anyway then I think she was sailing outside of the mark room she was entitled to, so broke rule 13 & 14 and is not exonerated for either. G broke 14 (assuming it was reasonably possible for her to avoid contact) but is exonerated by 14(b).
In this incident, RRS 18.3 never applied. To answer John Ball’s question requires a scenario where RRS 18.2(b) did not or had ceased to apply, Green tacked further away from Yellow or Yellow was further astern when both boats were on port tack (i.e. Green did not break RRS 15) and Yellow completed her tack (did not break RRS 13). Then, RRS 18.1(a) would apply. John, do you want to submit a different scenario and diagram?
John B., (oops) Rick, I’m with’ya all the way except for ...“Because it was not reasonably possible for Yellow to have avoided contact with Green, Yellow did not break RRS 14.”
It’s not clear to me that Yellow, prioritizing missing Green over missing the mark, couldn’t have done so.
Doing the math on how fast various types of boats travel in two seconds, we can determine how much distance there must be between AS's leeward side (aka green, the boat tacking onto starboard) and the bow of BP (aka yellow, the port tack boat), when AS completes their tack onto starboard:
At 3 knots of speed -- a Laser upwind at max speed:
(Here's a google search you can use to see the relationship between knots and feet per second.)
That means if a Laser completes their tack onto starboard with over half a boatlength of clearance, they've broken rule 15. Same for a 420 or Vanguard 15 does so with a boatlength of clearance (and more if they're planing).
I'm not a judge, merely a competitor, but there are lots of races where dinghies are completing their tacks onto starboard with 10-17 feet of clearance between them and a port tacker. The way our sport could evolve, especially in team racing, is a lot of protests by port tackers ducking starboard boats. Port risks nothing by filing such a protest. This could lead to an increase in the number of protests filed. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it seems to be how case 27 and the math play out.
Also, case 27 states that 2 seconds isn't enough, but not how much time IS enough. Is it 3 seconds? 4? This matters because the math dictates the gap that AS/green needs to have coming out of their tack. For example, 4 seconds means a 420 or V15 needs to complete their tack with a two-boatlength gap on port's bow.
Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting anything here.
It's also surprising the number of degrees that port needs to bear away hasn't come up yet. There's a big difference between how much time port/yellow needs to execute a dip if they're bow-to-bow with starboard/green (John's example) versus bow-to-midpoint (case 27). In John's example, port needs to dip ~90 degrees once they complete their bearaway. In case 27, port needs to duck ~20 degrees. Bearing away 90 degrees in two seconds is indeed tough, but bearing away 20 degrees in two seconds is quite doable for a competent, seamanlike team.
My point is, any discussion of whether rule 15 was violated needs to include a discussion of how many degrees port/yellow needs to bear away once blue/starboard has completed their tack. It really can't be determined by "speed and distance", which are the only two variables that case 27 mentions.
Am I missing something?
18.2 (a) doesn't apply as green was clear ahead when she entered the zone.
18.2 (d) applies as green passed head to wind inside the zone. So, 18.2 (b) and (c) don't apply.
18.2 (e) is irrelevant in this situation.
18.2 (f) doesn't apply as the inside overlap wasn't obtained by tacking to windward of the other boat.
18.3 doesn't apply because yellow hasn't been on starboard since entering the zone.
18.4 doesn't apply as the diagram doesn't go that far...
Green has completed her tack, so the question is Did she give yellow time and opportunity to keep clear? Rule 13 seems only come into this because yellow insisted on sailing round the mark, when feasibly she could have kept clear by sailing to leeward of the mark.
There is no obligation for green to give yellow mark room, so yellow may well have been able to complete her tack and keep clear if she had gone below the mark. (I'm a novice IOM sailor, so would say conditions and boat speed will be relevant.)
Rule 18.2(d) applies here. When the boats enter the zone on the same tack, Green is clear ahead and therefore entitled to mark-room under rule 18.2(b). However, when Green passes head to wind, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply. When Yellow passes head to wind, rule 18.2(a) applies.
Green might be able to successfully argue that Yellow broke RRS 10 as she was (or would have been) forced to alter course while ROW in anticipation of having to give Yellow the room required once Yellow crossed HTW, i.e. that Yellow was not keeping clear while still on port tack as Green could not sail her course while RRS 10 applied and RRS 18 did not. Provided that you find Green did all they could to give Yellow room starting at the instant Yellow crossed HTW you could conclude that Green would have had to act even sooner to give the required room.
Maybe both boats have broken rules and neither is exonerated. Yellow's breach of RRS 10 did not compel Green to break RRS 18.2(a) so Green is not exonerated under 64.1(a). Yellow is not exonerated for breaking RRS 10 under RRS 21 as she was not entitled to room while luffing up and neither RRS 21 or 64.1(a) apply.
A parallel situation would be a leeward boat subject to RRS 17 sailing above proper course and a windward boat not keeping clear. Both break rules and neither is exonerated.
Edited to add, I think your last post analysis of Position 3 answers my question. Y's proper course after passing HTW is to come down to the mark so she's within her mark room entitlement as long as she does that.
Position 3;
As John Christman observed.
The strange thing is it appears that if Yellow sails her proper course after passing through head to wind she can't get disqualified for breaking rule 13 as she will be exonerated under rule 21.
There is doubt that Yellow obtained an overlap IN TIME for Green to respond.
The rule does not specifically assign IN TIME to the zone boundary, although we customarily apply it there.
Hence, potentially DSQ Yellow for this violation, IF not DSQ'ing Green for tacking too close for Yellow to respond.
Or both.
This would be a conclusion. Not a fact.
The World Sailing Judges Manual - K22 Onus of Satisfying the Protest Committee has relevant information regarding rule 18.2(e).
There are no World Sailing Cases that includes rule 18.2(e), but USA Appeal US92, RYA Case RYA1992-09 and RYA Case RYA2002-15 contain guidance on applying 18.2(e).
Because they're in the zone and rule 18 applies between them, they can be overlapped even if on opposite tacks. So the overlap is established as G is tacking (between 1 and 2), plenty of time for G to respond to her obligation to give mark room.
Y is on starboard tack as soon as she passes HTW (definition of Tack), but she's still tacking until she reaches a close-hauled course (RRS 13). As long as G leaves sufficient room for Y to tack onto the layline and round the mark I think she's meeting her obligation to provide mark room - which is to say that G needs to remain at least a little more than one boat-width above the layline and allow room for Y's stern to swing as she rounds. Y shouldn't require additional room to weather of the layline to complete her tack, I don't think.
Yeah, I knew I looked at that before and forgot. They're also on opposite tacks on a beat to windward, and Y's proper course is to tack at the mark, so you're right, they're not overlapped until they're on the same tack.
At position 2, after Green passes through head to wind, Yellow’s obligation to give Green mark-room under rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply. (see rule 18.2(d) or rule 18.1(b) ). A new obligation under another part of rule 18 does NOT apply between positions 2 and 3 because Green and Yellow are on opposite tacks on a beat to windward, (see rule 18.1(a) ).
In this case if you just look at position 3, it is all on Green provided, after passing through head to wind, Yellow continues to sail within the mark-room she is allowed under 18.2(a).. Yellow breaks rule 13 and rule 14 but is exonerated under rule 21. Even if she hits the mark and breaks rule 31 she is exonerated under rule 21.
If 18.2(a) did not apply, then Green could force Yellow to leeward of the mark. The purpose of Rule 18 is to enable boats to round the mark in a fair and orderly manner. It would be quite chaotic if Rule 18 allowed Green to force Yellow to the wrong side of the mark.
Mark, if G was clear ahead when they entered the zone that's exactly what G could force Y to do, isn't it? (On second thought I guess not - leeward ROW...)
Or if G entered the zone on stbd and Y was tacking in the zone.
Position 1 in the diagram shows G clear ahead of Y by 1-1/2 boat lengths. If we move both boats back two boat lengths, G's bow would be entering the zone and she would be clear ahead of Y. 18.2(b) gives G mark-room.
When G passes head to wind, 18.2(d) turns off 18.2(b) and (c) and G no longer has mark-room. As the boats are on opposite tacks on a beat, rule 18 does not apply..
When Y passes head to wind at position3, both boats are on the same tack. rule 18 applies as none of the exemptions of 18.1 are satisfied. Rule 18.2(a) applies and Y is entitled to mark-room.
However, if we assume that G is sailing faster than Y and the boats are overlapped when G enters the zone (at position1 minus 2 boat lengths), Rule 18.2(b) applies and Y is inside with mark-room.
When G passes head to wind, Rule 18.2(d) does not apply and 18.2(b) and (c) therefore do not get switched off by 18.2(d). However, Rule 18 no longer applies as the boats are on opposite tacks on a beat.
When Y passes head to wind at position 3, Rule 18 is switched on again and Y is entitled to mark-room. Y is leeward boat and not entitled to room to tack.
IF that's true then:
If there is no overlap Green is entitled to mark-room, but that does not include room to tack because she is not the inside boat. 18 turns off when Green passes head-to-wind and Green must keep clear until she reached close-hauled. After that it's a simple port/starboard issue. If Green is in a position to complete the tack without fouling Yellow, then Yellow will need to either duck or tack away. Yellow should have recognized this at position 1, which is when Green starts her tack. Yellow is not obligated to keep clear until Green reaches close-hauled, and Green is obligated to give room to keep clear, but Yellow's late tack and luff to shoot the mark isn't keeping clear. Further, because she never reaches close-hauled, Yellow has no rights as a starboard tack boat.
If Green cannot reach close-hauled without fouling Yellow, Green cannot tack.
If there WAS an overlap, then Yellow is entitled to mark-room which includes room to tack because she is to windward and inside of Green as defined by mark-room.
Is there a case that talks about rule 18 turning back on? If this is the case I need to rethink everything I thought I knew about rule 18.
I think that's a common misconception but I don't think there's anything in the rules that says that once 18 is off it stays off. The terms of the rule still apply.
Rule 18 turns back on in this scenario when:
From that point Y is inside boat and 18.2(a) applies.
RRS 21(a) specifically allows a boat to break a rule and be exonerated regardless of whether she was forced to break the rule. A classic example would be an inside boat entitled to mark room turning the mark quickly and having her stern swing and hit the outside boat. The other boat did not force her to turn quickly but the inside boat is exonerated for breaking RRS 16.1 because she is sailing within the mark room to which she is entitled.
If G failed to give Y mark-room, then G would be penalised. However, if by Y breaking R13 G was unable to give Y mark-room and therefore was compelled to break R18.1(a), then G should be exonerated under R64.1(a)
But what of R14? If, when Y tacks at position3, G is unable to avoid contact, then G does not break R14. However, if it is reasonably possible for Y to avoid contact by bearing away behind G at position 2 instead of tacking, then, by tacking, Y breaks R14 while she is neither a ROW boat or entitled to mark-room. If there is no damage or injury, would Y be exonerated under R14(b) because she is initially entitled to room under R15?
If I have understood the discussion above correctly then I can see real headaches for umpires!