I did a Google Translate to help me. Here it is.

Obstruction:
 An object that a ship could not pass without substantially changing course, if it were sailing directly towards it and ONE of its hull lengths from it.

At position # 1, B is an obstruction for Y (rule 11) ... they are at almost ONE of their hull lengths.

MY QUESTION IS:

Is green an obstruction for B and Y at position # 1 (rule 10)?

RYA-1962-8.jpg 62.8 KB


We can see this other case in the RYA Casebook

1974/5 DECISION

I know
confirms the protest committee's decision to disqualify PW.


The protest committee correctly decided that S, closed, maintaining right of way under rule 10, WAS AN OBSTRUCTION, as defined, to PL.

OBSTACULO-ENGLES.jpg 118 KB
Created: Today 04:23
Comments

The definition of obstruction uses the "if at one boat length" terms to measure the theoretical impact of it upon course determination.
I do not know what would not be an obstruction, based on that. A broomstick at one boat length would require a significant course change for a boat with a wide beam.
(I have heard one of the rule writers admit it is a weak definition needing work.)
An obstruction does not need to actually be within one boat length's distance to exist and impact ROW.

Thanks you John Ball...I do not know why my PC wrote it in spanish 

Rule 20 beguins when we have an obstruction.
So in this case, Green is an obstruction at position N°3...not earlier.
.......at 8Knts,  30 feet boats has only 2 seconds before the CRASH

La traducción en el reglamento en español de “obstruction” es “OBSTÁCULO”.

 

Verde es, por definición, un obstáculo para ambos; aunque no afecta a la situación entre B y Y. Las situaciones con obstáculos hay que analizarlas en dos pasos. Primero hay que comprobar que el objeto implicado cumple con la definición de obstáculo, y luego, ver si ese objeto está implicado.

 

Por ejemplo, Verde es un obstáculo para Azul desde que van en amuras opuestas, pero eso no quiere decir que afecte a la situación de Azul.

 

No hace falta que el obstáculo esté a una eslora de distancia para que cumpla con la definición.

 

Saludos

 

px

Catalan, John B and Paco,

Thanks for the little excursion into Spanish.  I am studying Spanish and find it very interesting.  I often think that some difficulties people whose mother tongue is not English have with rules, particularly Definitions comes from either nuances between different languages, or the way in which the rules have been translated from English.

I guess that we're lucky that Catalan posted his question in Castilian and not Catalan.

It's also interesting that, as a beginner, I could easily translate Catalan's post, but Paco's post was much more difficult.

Would that be because Catalan used Google Translate, while Paco was drafting in idomatic Spanish 'rules-speak'?

Anyway, thanks for the Spanish lesson.

Catalan,

You seem to be missing the point of the explanations given by Phil and Paco.

The test in the definition of Obstruction is to be applied anywhere, any time.  It is theoretical, or hypothetical.  it does not depend on the actual relative positions of boats in any given situation.

If an object is of such a size that a boat sailing directly towards it would need to substantially change course to pass it hen one hull length away, it is an obstruction.

It matters not whether an obstruction actually 'obstructs' a boat in any given scenario.

Except in the case of boats of hugely different sizes (for example Commanche and an Optimist dinghy) a right-of-way boat will always be an obstruction to a give way boat.

Whether a boat is actually obstructed is taken care of by the 'when the rule applies' part of the relevant rules.  For example, the obligations of Rule 19 apply when boats are 'at' an obstruction and the entitlement of a boat to hail for room to tack begins when a boat is approaching an obstruction and will soon need to make a substantial course change.

In your latest diagram, G is an obstruction for R, Y and B for as long as they have been on opposite tacks, but provisions of rules 19 and 20 will only begin to operate when boats are close together.

For what it's worth, I tried to get the definition obstruction changed, 20 years or so ago.  I pointed out, as Phillip does above, that for an Opti, a pipe sticking up out of the water is an obstruction, but for a Star, it's not.  A second problem is that the hypothetical definition doesn't indicate from what angle the hypothetical boat is approaching.  By general acceptance, a seawall with navigable  water on both sides is an obstruction, even if the boats involved are approaching it end-on, so it's no different, viewed from that angle, than an iron pipe, which for most boats is not seen as an obstruction! A third problem with the definition is that an obstruction doesn't actually have to obstruct anything -- it's just a matter of size.  One of the general principles for rule-writers is that RRS Definitions should, as much as possible, include the ordinary meaning of the word; that way, a reader who isn't interested in the precise meaning of a rule can read it without having to refer to the Definitions, and still get the gyst of it.

Obviously, my initiative failed.  There were several reasons for this:  (1) "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  (Catalan, that's just an expression.  It's not grammatical.)   The definition is not causing real-world problems, so far as we know -- for example, Optis don't think iron pipes are obstructions;  (2) In some situations, the obstruction doesn't actually obstruct the boats involved, but we want rule 19 to apply anyway (for example, boats running two boatlengths away from and parallel to a seawall are passing an obstruction); and (3) I couldn't come up with a better definition that worked in all the places the current definition works.

Oh, man, I just looked again at the original diagram.  Catalan, PW no puede contestar "NO" en posición 2.  Debe virar or contestar "vira".  De otra manera, ella rompe la regla 20.  Si no hay obstáculo, puede PW protestar a PL.