Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

Proper Course

Nicholas Hirst
Nationality: Canada
In a weekly club race in which our one design J105 races as class we were on a downwind leg in shifty wind between six and eight knots sailing on a broad reach directly to the mark. Another two boats overlapped us to leeward and the nearest yelled that we were not sailing a proper course which is an interpretation of Rule 17. The definitions for proper course say: a course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible. We would argue we were doing so but the J105 has an asymmetrical spinnaker and it can be faster to gybe a downwind course sailing closer to the wind than we were doing. We were in a good position, travelling at good speed and didn't move when the leeward boat attempted to luff us up. The leeward boat was obliged to stay clear and avoid contact by Rule 14 which they did with great annoyance. We also believe that Rule 28 which describes a course as a string pulled taught around the marks supported our view. Thoughts?

Created: 20-Sep-02 17:14

Comments

Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
1
You do not mention what gybe you were on, which way the mark was to be rounded, whether it was the leeward mark or a gybe mark, or whether you were in the Zone.
Regardless, I would ask you both to park your boats until you have read the rule book.
Windward boat has no proper course obligation, but does have an obligation to a leeward boat - usually.

Created: 20-Sep-02 17:30
John Porter
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Club Race Officer
0
The first and most important point is that the proper course of the windward boats is irrelevant. The leeward boat is limited to sail no higher than her proper course. If that pushes a windward boat beyond their proper course, so be it. 

In this situation, the windward boat should comply with rule 11 and head up. If they believe the leeward boat is sailing above her proper course, the windward boat can protest. 

Rule 28 has no bearing on this situation.
Created: 20-Sep-02 17:32
Eric Rimkus
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
17 might be the most misunderstood rule in the book. 
If the outside (leeward most) boat establishes the overlap from outside of 2-boat length (which is highly likely) and the boat next to you was keeping clear of them you broke Rule 11. End of story. 
If the overlap was established from inside 2-boat lengths from clear astern, you still broke Rule 11 by not keeping clear of a leeward boat and they MAY have broken Rule 17 by sailing higher than their proper course. 
This issue happens all the time in mixed asym/sym fleets. The windward boat must keep clear, period. The leeward boat (assume asym) is going to be Sailing a higher course than the sym boat. That is their proper course. 
Created: 20-Sep-02 17:33
Brent Draney
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
0
I would say this is on you.  From your description you are the windward keep clear boat and the J105 is a leeward boat.  Rule 17 bounds the leeward boat to not sail above their (the J105's) proper course.  The windward boats proper course is not considered and immaterial.  See 14
Created: 20-Sep-02 17:37
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Umpire In Training
  • Regional Judge
0
The leeward boat was obliged to stay clear and avoid contact by Rule 14

Avoid contact (if reasonably possible), fine but what rule do you think required leeward to keep clear?

I agree windward boat's proper course is irrelevant in this incident, but would add that two J-105s, even with the same sails up in the same wind and sea conditions, may have different views of  proper course. To a fairly large degree "proper course" is a subjective decision made by an individual boat, not an objective value.
Created: 20-Sep-02 17:53
Nicholas Hirst
Nationality: Canada
0
Tim Hohmann completely understands the situation - two J105s both with asymmetrical spinnakers. We were in the middle of the leg. The boat nearest to us was not being forced up by the boat to leeward of her. Clearly, her skipper thought that her proper course was higher than the one we were pursuing but our view of the 'proper course' is surely as good as theirs so, if they forced us up, we could claim that their view was wrong. They didn't. They yelled instead and as you say, the 'proper course' rule refers to the leeward boat, not ours but and it's a big 'but', it is a subjective decision and I am not sure, in a protect, whose view would prevail.

Created: 20-Sep-02 18:14
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Umpire In Training
  • Regional Judge
0
Clearly, her skipper thought that her proper course was higher than the one we were pursuing but our view of the 'proper course' is surely as good as theirs 

That's true, you each have your own view of proper course and both may be valid.

However, rule 17 allows the leeward boat to sail up to her (leeward's) proper course. If her view of proper course was higher than yours, too bad for you - you must keep clear. So if leeward was attempting to luff up to her proper course and you failed to respond, you broke rule 11. And no hail is required by either boat, although conversation is sometimes helpful.

And for the record, I think even if you could convince a jury that leeward was sailing above her proper course and thereby broke rule 17, you'd still be guilty of breaking rule 11 if you failed to keep clear.

Was there a protest for this incident, or just talk?
Created: 20-Sep-02 18:28
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
0
Rule 17 is clear (if one takes the trouble to read it, which few people do!). If a boat becomes overlapped to leeward from clear astern then shall not sail above HER proper course. The windward boat has only one obligation which is to keep clear under rule 11.
Apparently, windward boat broke rule 11, by obliging leeward boat to take avoiding action. However, IF leeward boat was sailing above her proper course she was breaking rule 17. In which case, she complied with rule 17 by bearing away to or below her proper course. Her change of course was not, therefore, avoiding action but to comply with rule 17. If that is the PC's conclusion then neither boat broke a rule.

Gordon

Created: 20-Sep-02 18:38
Nicholas Hirst
Nationality: Canada
0
Just talk. It's not usual to protest at a weekly club race although they are very competitive. Also, the leeward boat did come up but we didn't respond and she didn't come up further. If she had, even though we would have then considered she was sailing above her proper course we would have kept clear and with the breeze we would have been able to respond quickly. To me, the interesting point is about the judgement of what a proper course is and how it intersects with the rules. Of course, in a protest, interpretation is often necessary and judgement required but, there is wide scope for disagreement as to what is a 'proper course' on a downwind leg with asymmetrical spinnakers and as you say, conversation is helpful.

Created: 20-Sep-02 18:39
J. Conal (Con) Lancaster
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
I have to agree with Phil and John. The "Proper Course" discussion is not relevant since it refers to a leeward boat on the same tack. It was incorrect for that leeward boat to hail regarding said proper course but as long as she abided by rules 14, 15 and 16 she can protest you for rules 11 and 14 because "you didn't move when the leeward boat attempted to luff us up".  
Created: 20-Sep-02 18:48
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
It is also possible that the overlap was created from more than two boat lengths to leeward, or when windward boat was overtaking leeward boat.
In those cases, leeward boat had no proper course limitation at all. She could luff you to the moon.
Created: 20-Sep-02 18:53
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
Three overlapped boats.jpg 63.3 KB

A few thoughts, many of which have been mentioned here already, so my apologies for repeating things.

Each boat has their own 'proper' course.  This is dependent on a number of factors even if they are one design boats.  For example, Blue may be flying a 'running' spinnaker whereas Yellow and Green may be flying reaching spinnakers and thus have a lower proper course based on sail selection.

The definition of Proper Course also includes the words "in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term".  RRS 11 and 17 refer only to windward and leeward boats.  In this case you have 3 pairs of boats to consider; Blue and Yellow, Yellow and Green, and Blue and Green and you apply the rules to each pair.

Blue and Yellow
  • Blue is windward and required to keep clear of Yellow by RRS 11, no matter what.
  • Assuming Yellow established the overlap from clear astern shortly before this picture, Yellow is limited by RRS 17 to sailing no higher than the course she would sail if Blue was not there.  Yellow's proper course may be defined by her obligations to keep clear of Green or what she believes is her proper course.

Yellow and Green
  • Yellow is windward and required to keep clear of Green by RRS 11, no matter what.
  • Depending on how the overlap between Green and Yellow was established  Green may or may not be limited to not sailing above her proper course, that is RRS 17 may or may not apply.

Blue and Green
  • Blue is  windward and required to keep clear of Green by RRS 11, no matter what.  RRS 11 applies here because the boats are overlapped as there is a boat between them that overlaps them both.
  • Assuming the overlap was established from clear astern by Yellow, which created the overlap between Blue and Green, Green is limited by RRS 17, with respect to Blue, to sailing no higher than the course she would sail if Blue was not there.  If Blue were not there, Green's proper course could be to luff Yellow subject to the limitations on Green with respect to Yellow.

What about exoneration?  Take away Green for the moment.  If Blue knows Yellow is sailing above her proper course can't she claim that the only reason that she broke RRS 11 was that Yellow broke RRS 17 and be exonerated under RRS 64.1(a)?  It comes down to the word "compelled" in the rule.  Blue was not "compelled" by Yellow to break RRS 11, Blue could easily have come up to meet her obligation to keep clear of Yellow and didn't do it.  Nothing Yellow did "compelled" her not to come up.  Yellow may or may not have broken RRS 17, that's a different story.

Now let's put Green back in the picture.  Green protests Yellow for breaking RRS 11.  In this case Yellow was "compelled" to break RRS 11 because her obligations under RRS 14 was to not hit Blue.  Yellow will be exonerated for breaking RRS 11 w.r.t. Green as a result.
Created: 20-Sep-02 19:26
Nicholas Hirst
Nationality: Canada
0
The situation described by John Christman (thanks for the diagram) is correct except the boats were on port. Green did not try to luff yellow. Yellow came up on Blue (our boat) but didn't keep coming. At that point yellow yelled that we were not sailing a proper course. I now understand (thanks everyone) that whether we were sailing a proper course (as windward boat) is irrelevant. We would have come up even if we thought yellow was breaking 17 to avoid collision and had time, space and speed to do so. We didn't make Yellow take avoiding action, but neither did we move when we thought under 17 she would be sailing above her proper course. We held our position but could have kept clear under 11 had we needed to do so. My question, though, was intended to explore what 'proper course' means on a downwind leg under 17 between boats with asymmetrical spinnakers and it appears that proper course is a subjective decision. 
Created: 20-Sep-02 20:09
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
Proper course for a J105 sailing downwind can be as high as almost a beam reach, if that helps her gain the speed to bear down to catch a wave (surfing).
As a dinghy sailor and sometime 105 crew, it pains me to see a J105 allowing the waves to pass under them downwind!
Created: 20-Sep-02 22:37
Andrew Alberti
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
The leeward boats mistake here was telling you that you were sailing below your proper course.  Whether you were or weren't is irrelevant.  What you are required to do is keep clear of the leeward boat (Rule 11).  If the leeward boats established the overlap from clear astern within two boat lengths, then and only then, under rule 17, is she limited from sailing above her proper course.  Based on the description it sounds to me as if tshe was still at or below her proper course.  Her proper course certainly takes into account the fact that asymmetric spinnakers are faster when sailed higher.  As soon as you say " The leeward boat was obliged to stay clear ...... which they did with great annoyance. " it is pretty clear that you were not keeping clear and therefore at fault.  
Created: 20-Sep-02 23:00
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Umpire In Training
  • Regional Judge
0
Possible that leeward's hail was complaining that windward was sailing below leeward's proper course and windward needed to come up?

Also, is it relevant that the boats were "sailing on a broad reach directly to the mark"? If the boats were pretty much on the layline to the mark, how much higher could leeward justify as proper course?
Created: 20-Sep-02 23:35
Andrew Alberti
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
On a broad reach, it is almost never the proper course for an asymmetrical spinnaker to sail directly to the mark.  Looking up polar plots for J105s in 6-8 knots of wind, their fastest VMG to a downwind mark is about 30-35 degrees above downwind (that is true wind angle, higher apparent wind angle).  If it is broad reach to their best VMG might be even higher.  
Created: 20-Sep-03 00:16
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Umpire In Training
  • Regional Judge
0
Andrew, agreed - certainly from the top mark a 105 isn't going to point at the mark.

But if the boats are already on a good VMG wind angle and pointing at the mark (which is to say, on the downwind layline), how do you justify that proper course isn't to drive to the mark? Is leeward going to argue that they intend another gybe? 
Created: 20-Sep-03 01:52
Andrew Alberti
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0
 Is leeward going to argue that they intend another gybe? 
Yes.
Created: 20-Sep-03 02:00
Brent Draney
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
0
I think the question of how much higher can a leeward boat justify is a question that shows wrong thinking.  A right of way boat doesn't have to justify that they are not limited before a give-way boat has to give way.  Its much easier to give evidence for a windward/leeward rule than a proper course violation.  The definition of proper course allows the Leeward boat to sail the course the way they would if the Windward boat was not present.  This would include sailing hot to cover other boats not involved with the rule or to strategically alter course to avoid other RIght of Way boats.

A better question would be what evidence would be sufficient for a Windward boat to protest a Leeward boat for a rule 17 infraction?  Aggressively luffing above 90 to clear air in front of a Windward boat would be one clear example.

Created: 20-Sep-03 02:23
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
John Christman
said Created: Yesterday 19:26

What about exoneration?  Take away Green for the moment.  If Blue knows Yellow is sailing above her proper course can't she claim that the only reason that she broke RRS 11 was that Yellow broke RRS 17 and be exonerated under RRS 64.1(a)?  It comes down to the word "compelled" in the rule.  Blue was not "compelled" by Yellow to break RRS 11, Blue could easily have come up to meet her obligation to keep clear of Yellow and didn't do it.  Nothing Yellow did "compelled" her not to come up.  Yellow may or may not have broken RRS 17, that's a different story.

Rule 11 is completely independent of rule 17.

L sailing above her proper course may be the reason for W being required to keep clear, but in no sense does L compel W to not keep clear, so no exoneration under rule 64.1(a).

W's remedy is to keep clear and protest.

Created: 20-Sep-03 13:22
Nicholas Hirst
Nationality: Canada
0
This has been a fascinating discussion. Thanks to all taking part. I have learned a lot about 11 and 17.  From the conversation, I believe that we should have come up if the boat immediately to leeward had seriously tried to luff us to obey Rule 11 and that we had a protest case under Rule 17 if we believed she was sailing above her proper course. Given the various different arguments given over what a 'proper course' for an asymmetrical spinnaker might be, we would probably have lost. In the discussion, one correspondent said 17 was the most misunderstood rule. There is a reason for that. Upwind 'proper course' is much clearer. Downwind I think there is potential for much confusion.

Created: 20-Sep-03 16:44
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Umpire In Training
  • Regional Judge
0
Nicolas, for safety in your situation as windward boat I'd recommend talking to leeward, telling them "I'm keeping clear" or "come up if you need to" to make it clear to them (and support your case to a jury if necessary) that you're ready and willing to respond to a luff if they make it but won't respond to a luff they choose not to make. Then they can't complain if they don't head up and say you didn't allow them to.
Created: 20-Sep-03 17:43
Nicholas Hirst
Nationality: Canada
0
Exactly. That is the lesson I take from this. 

Created: 20-Sep-03 17:53
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
Tim and Nicholas, that conversation would be prudent and gentlemanly, but keep in mind that the rules do not call for a hail or any conversation from the leeward boat before luffing a windward boat. It is the windward boat's obligation to keep clear of the leeward boat's potential change of course, up or down.
Created: 20-Sep-03 20:53
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Umpire In Training
  • Regional Judge
0
Phil, I agree that the rules require no hail by either boat and windward must be in a position to react to a luff and keep clear. But I think conversation on the race course can be helpful both to avoid a protest and, if necessary, explain and defend one's actions in the room. 
Created: 20-Sep-03 21:45
Greg Eaton
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • National Judge
0
A fellow umpire was on duty for the finals of our 'Keelboat League' aka 'Champions League' in Germany and other European countries. Fairly puffy sailing J70's and loaded with a lot of national/international level talent. They all popped the chute and spread out over about 60-degrees angle downwind. His remark to me was 'How can I tell which one is on a proper course?' and therein lies the challenge.  I am on duty in a few weeks time for our finals in RS21's and it'll be interesting to see whether we get such similar variations. Certainly in light winds winging the kite is really quick, so we'll definitely have an angle spread if others are sailing more conventionally. 
Created: 20-Sep-04 10:29
Nicholas Hirst
Nationality: Canada
0
This discussion is fascinating and revealed more debate than I, as a relative neophyte to asymmetrical spinnaker racing and rules' discussion, ever imagined. Is there a solution that makes 'proper course' clearer? The driver of our boat clarifies that we were closer to the mark on a lay line to leave to port than I had thought and in his view it was hard to imagine how the boat to leeward could have sailed a 'proper course' by forcing us up at that point but, as Greg reports, downwind legs in one-design asymmetrical spinnaker boats regular causes boats to spread out, particularly as boats look for the best wind channels and shifts and in a big fleet overlaps under 17 are going to occur quite often.
Created: 20-Sep-04 17:34
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Cases 14 and 134 are worth a read.

The decision in Case 14 says 
 A boat’s proper course is a course her crew chooses because they believe that it will result in them completing the course and finishing sooner than they would if they chose a different course.

And Case 134 says

A boat’s proper course at any moment depends on the existing conditions. Some of those conditions are the wind strength and direction, the pattern of gusts and lulls in the wind, the waves, the current, and the physical characteristics of the boat’s hull and equipment, including the sails she is using.

That is, if it comes to a protest, a boat needs to persuade the protest committee that, to their subjective knowledge, given the characteristics of their boat, their observations  of existing conditions, their skill levels and any other relevant factors they considered, that they believed that the course they sailed was their course to finish soonest.  This belief must be reasonable, in the eyes of the protest committee, that is, at least, not fanciful or concocted.  They might be mistaken, in the mature judgement of the protest commottee, but if their belief is reasonable within their knowledge, experience and understanding, that gets them there.

The other party, of course needs to persuade the protest committee, either that they were flat out lying about observations of wind, sea, etc or that their beliefs were not reasonable.

In practice, despite the continuous low pitched whine emitted by symmetrical boat sailors about Assy boats, it's not usually that difficult

Any rules book will give you examples of what is, and is not a proper course.

Where there are two boats of the same class involved in a protest, I'd be asking each boat why she thought her course was her proper course, and why she thought the other boats course wasn't, and comparing the reasons.

A couple of final comments.

Nowhere in this discussion, including your OP have we discussed the essential conditions for rule 17 to apply in the first place, that is, that the leeward boat must have become overlapped from clear astern within two of her hull lengths.  If this doesn't apply there is absolutely no proper course limitation on any boat.

Possibly your opponent was thinking about an old version of rule 17 which did limit a windward boat sailing below her proper course, but this provision was deleted in 2009.
Created: 20-Sep-04 23:56
Nicholas Hirst
Nationality: Canada
0
There was discussion of the overlap rules. In this particular case, the overlap took place according to Rule 17. Case 134 that you report seems to say that 'proper course' is in the eye of the beholder. Upwind, I really don't think there is a problem but downwind with asymetrical spinnakers, it seems impossible to see while sailing what a 'proper course' is which effectively means that  a boat to leeward can force up a boat to windward in almost any circumstance.
Created: 20-Sep-08 14:02
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
"which effectively means that  a boat to leeward can force up a boat to windward in almost any circumstance"

That is not the conclusion I would come to.  In evaluating a boat's proper course in close proximity to another boat you would want to look at the course they were steering before RRS 17 came into effect.  Did the boat change course as a result of the other boats presence or were there wind and wave changes?  If the boat is sailing the same course they had been sailing for the last 10 boat lengths then that is a pretty good indication they consider that their proper course.  If they gain a half-boat length overlap and then start sailing higher, it is harder to argue that their new course is a "proper" one.  These are the kinds of questions I would be asking in a hearing.
Created: 20-Sep-08 14:49
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
That is a good question to ask. John.
The answer can well be that the course before the overlap was the best one to establish the overlap, but not the best course to finish in the absence of the boat ahead.
Created: 20-Sep-08 15:03
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
My point is that, after W has kept clear and protested L, there are things that a PC can look at to help them determine whether a leeward boat's change of course is tactical or strategic.  The leeward boat does not simply get to claim they were sailing a proper course, especially when changing course after an overlap is established, with impunity.  There has to be some sort of justification for the course change.
Created: 20-Sep-08 15:15
[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