Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

Rules at a Continuing Obstruction Redux

Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
Another issue around a "virtual" continuing obstruction.

Green, Yellow and Blue are maneuvering as shown below. Blue establishes an overlap on Yellow approximately 1.5 boat lengths from buoy 1. The buoys shown are midchannel buoys between two rock jetties. They are not marks of the course. There is no contact at any point.

The sailing instructions state:  "A straight line connecting adjacent center of channel marker buoys within the jetty shall be considered a continuous obstruction in accordance with Racing Rule 19.2. NO YACHT MAY CROSS SAID LINE."

The sailing instructions also require boats to douse spinnakers as they enter the channel.

Neither Yellow nor Blue protest.

Red, about 200 yards behind the three boats and in a position to observe, protests Blue for breaking rule 28.1 since Blue passed to the wrong side of buoy 1. Red informs Blue on the dock after the race and files her written protest within the protest time limit.

What do you all think?

jetty.png 49.8 KB
Created: 20-Nov-21 20:21

Comments

David Allsebrook
Nationality: Canada
1
If the boats were not allowed to cross the line between the channel marker buoys then blue has violated that rule. It would also seem that because of that rule, the first channel marker was a mark of the course..

Created: 20-Nov-21 21:15
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
As I read the OP description, there is no SI specifying on which side the mid-channel buoys or the line joining them must be left or passed.

Seemingly Blue would have been permitted to not cross the joining line by continuing to sail leaving all the buoys to starboard.

Blue breaks the SI, but does not break rule 28.1.

That might cause problems for the validity of Red's protest.

We would normally say that the special provision exempting hail and flag in rule 61.1(a)(3) applies to protests for breaches of rule 28, and we might say that a breach of the SI is not a breach of rule 28.1 and is an incident in the racing area, and that at least a display of a red flag at the time of the incident is required.

Looking more carefully at rule 61.1(a)(3), it does NOT refer to rule 28:  it just refers to 'an error in sailing the course'.  I think that description matches B's actions, so the requirements of rule 61.1(a)(3) do apply to the incident, and Red had met those requirements.

Of course Red's protest is not invalid because she cited the wrong rule (case 22).


Created: 20-Nov-21 21:48
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Red felt that she was beyond hailing distance so did not hail. I believe she did promptly display a red flag, carry it through the finish and inform the RC at the finish line of her intent to protest (an SI requirement in this case)
Created: 20-Nov-21 22:40
Fields Gunsett
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
John, the assumption is that in order for Red's protest to be valid, her informing Blue on the dock was her "first reasonable opportunity" to meet the requirements of RRS 61.1 (a) (1).  So, the protest committee (PC) would need to determine if this was the case.  If the protest is considered valid, an interesting discussion then is - what additional rules may have been broken, and did boats other than Blue break a rule?  During the hearing, the protest committee should have discovered that Blue, Yellow and Green were all overlapped as they approached the obstruction.  Blue was trying to inform yellow that he needed room, yellow was informing Green that he needed room - both yellow and green failed to give Blue room and RRS 19 needs to be considered.  The PC will now look at RRS 21, EXONERATION.  It would appear that Green may be disqualified for breaking RRS 19, Yellow is exonerated under RRS 21 - but, what do you do with Blue?  I do not see RRS 28 listed in either RRS 21 (a) or (b).  Certainly,  if the obstruction that is defined as the channel markers would have been a pier, Blue would have had to circle back around and hopefully would have protested, but they would not have been allowed to benefit from the errors made by Yellow and Green.  So, it would appear that Blue will also get tossed for not sailing the course (RRS 28).

Since the new rules specifically includes defining an area or a line that can be an obstruction, it may help if the race committee also would have designated the first channel marker as a mark of the course with an assigned side to be left on, we could have added Rule 18 into our discussion (which would exclude RRS 19 from our discussion) which may have provided some valuable lead time for boats to round the mark and sail the course.
Created: 20-Nov-21 23:55
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
I think that Fields has quite rightly pointed out that there are quite a few balls in the air in this scenario, not just whether or not it's a rule 28 error.

I would point out that the diagram contains a lot more information than is likely to presented in the first stages of the protest, in particular Red's evidence.

Lets play a role-play game here.

Can someone take the role of Red, and write their description of incident as it would appear on the protest form?

Fields, how about you play the protest committee chair.  If you don't want to play let us know and someone else can step in.

Can I be the moderator and nosey protest committee member.

So let's see what Red says on her protest form.
Created: 20-Nov-22 05:02
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
clearly, a yacht can cross the line so "May" is incorrect it should say, shall not cross, so is there a breach of a SI at all ?this is an incorrectly worded SI.
Even though a continuous obstruction is defined, I think the end could be a regular obstruction.
Blue has not been compelled to break a rule as she chose to cross the line.
Yellow and green would potentially have had to give blue room.
RRS 28 does not apply.
What of the spinnaker remaining up!
.

Created: 20-Nov-22 12:13
Eric Saenger
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
0
I think another challenge with this situation is the applicability of 19.2(c).  Because Blue's overlap is established so close to the buoy that is one end of the line of the continuing obstruction, it may not have been possible for Yellow to obtain enough room from Green to allow room for Blue.  If that can be established, Blue is not entitled to the room she is requesting and while she keeps clear under 19.2(c), she breaks rule 28.1.    For Yellow, showing that it was not possible to give the room may be a tall order, and would depend on the conditions and boat speeds.  However; I think it is Blue who took the real risk of establishing the overlap to the inside, so close to the buoy.

If Yellow cannot show this, and should have given room, can Blue be exonerated for breaking 28.1?
And yes!  What about that spinnaker?

Created: 20-Nov-22 13:51
doi cheung
Nationality: Australia
0
It appears from the language of the SI that the continuous obstruction is just one straight line from buoy 1 through to 2 then 3. The continuous obstruction does not appear to be an area so the boats can either stay to the left of the line (continuous obstruction) or to the right.

At position 2 Yellow is overlapped and to leeward of Green. Yellow is the right of way boat and Green has to keep clear. Rule 11.

At position 3 as between Blue and Yellow Blue is overlapped and to leeward of Yellow. Blue is the right of way boat and Yellow has to keep clear Rule 12. As between Green and Yellow Green gybed from starboard tack to port tack, Green remains the keep clear boat but at this position under rule 10. 

As Buoy 1 is not a mark Rule 18 does not apply; also at a continuous obstruction Rule 19 always applies and Rule 18 does not (Rule 19.1)

At a continuous obstruction Blue, as the right of way boat against both Yellow and Blue, may choose to pass either side of the obstruction. It appears Blue asked for room in position 3 to pass the continuous obstruction to port, and both Yellow and Blue failed to do so. 

However perhaps in true club racing spirit Blue did not protest either Yellow or Green.

Between Positions 3 and 4 Blue passed from one side of the channel into the other through the continuing obstruction. 

As we have assumed Buoy 1 was not a mark there is no breach of Rule 28. 

It seems to me this is not a breach of RRS - there is no rules being breach for sailing into a continuous obstruction - but a breach of the SI. We need to look to SI for the penalty for such a breach.

Created: 20-Nov-22 14:05
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
John Allan, Red doesn't care about Yellow and Green, she is only protesting Blue for crossing to the "wrong" side of bouy 1 (Blue is a very successful boat and Red wouldn't mind seeing her DSQ). Red assumes that the bouy is a mark so she protests on 28.1. 

Red directly observed the incident, and the parties agree that notification on the dock was the first reasonable opportunity. 
Created: 20-Nov-22 16:17
doi cheung
Nationality: Australia
0
Tim Hohmann. Can you clarify if the following assumptions are correct? Buoy 1 is not a mark (because it makes no sense to be able to pass a mark either side?). Boats can sail in either the left or right hand side of the channel (with continuous obstruction as a line running from Buoy 1 to 2 to 3) but cannot cross the continuous obstruction line?
Created: 20-Nov-22 16:36
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
The buoy line marks the center of a narrow channel between two rock jetties, which opens into a larger bay where the finish is located (almost exclusively recreational boats, no large commercial traffic). The intent of the sailing instruction (which I'm not sure the wording supports) is that boats racing will remain on the inbound side of the channel. The wind in this area is typically on the port quarter so there's an advantage to staying as far to the left as possible - boats usually hug the buoy line. But the sailing instructions and course diagram do not call out the midchannel buoys as marks or assign them a required side. I don't think anyone has ever tried going entirely down the "wrong" side but I suppose it would be possible to do so. There is a local harbor regulation that requires boats to stay on the proper (inbound or outbound) side of the channel.

Racers typically treat buoy 1 like a mark, so I think part of the issue with this incident is Yellow assumed that Blue was clear astern at 3 boat lengths and not entitled to room. There are a couple of problems with this assumption...
Created: 20-Nov-22 17:34
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Mike Butterfield:

Blue has not been compelled to break a rule as she chose to cross the line.

Blue's choices were to carry on and hit both the buoy and Yellow (potentially causing contact with Green as well), or bear off and cross the obstruction line.

What of the spinnaker remaining up!

While Blue carried her kite further than the other boats she took it down within the legal limit. Nobody alleged that she doused late.
Created: 20-Nov-22 17:49
doi cheung
Nationality: Australia
0
Tim Hohmann thanks for clarifying. 

Plain language of the SI could probably suggested to an outside judge that it is just one line, not an area of continuous obstruction the area of which extend from a point on the shoreline to Buoy 1, then a line from Buoy 1 to 2 and 3 and then back to a point on the shoreline. 

Perhaps amend the SI to clarify that, also amend SI to it clear that Buoy 1 is a mark that should be rounded to port. 

From a club racing point of view blue and yellow did the right thing, their judgment was that this situation did not require protesting green. Blue as the most experienced boat probably read the SI thoroughly and concluded that they can pass either side so would not bother protesting Yellow.

Red protested but 

Buoy 1 is not a mark so can be passed either side. Any boat can decide to sail either side of the channel according to the SI even through that might not have been the original intention of the people who penned them. No spinnaker in channel is another SI issue and the SI needs to deal with the penalty for breaching any particular provision of the SI, if there is none then nothing can be do about it. It’s not an ISAF RRS issue it’s a club issue.

Rules 18, 19 and 20 deal only between boats. The three boats at the mark have no beef with each other.  I have not found any rules that prohibited a boat from sailing into a continuous obstruction so long as they sail the race course.

May I suggest that unless we can find anything in the RRS that prohibit a boat from sailing into a continuous obstruction Red’s protest should be dismissed?
Created: 20-Nov-22 18:21
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Role Play

Tim, thanks for the input.

How about you write up Red's description of incident as she would have written it on her protest form?

And for the sake of the role play, as all the players have agreed, lets take it that the protest is valid.
Created: 20-Nov-22 21:04
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
If I recall correctly it was along the lines of "Blue sailed to the wrong side of buoy 1, breaking rule 28." Not sure if they cited 28.1 or 28.2, but don't think it matters
Created: 20-Nov-23 00:07
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Thanks Tim,

So, everybody who wants to play protest committee members,

Who are the parties to the protest who are going to be given notice of time and place of hearing?

What is the incident being protested?
Created: 20-Nov-23 00:40
Helmer Schweizer
0
There are a number of assumptions made in the above. We only have the information from the SI, that the line connecting the buoys is declared a continuous obstruction. 
Do we know if the SI required the boats to use one 'lane' of the jetty, divided in two lanes by the continuous obstruction? From the picture it may well be that the boats are supposed to only use the starboard lane (in direction of the course). In which case buoy 1 was to left on port (why would the other yachts otherwise behave like this was a limitation. Entry into the jetty could be defined as  ... when passing buoy 1, which would would make the use of the spinnaker up to that mark OK. I would say, there is a lack of additional information, which may be in the SI or may have been given at the skippers meeting before the start of the race, or was on the race board. Helmer  
Created: 20-Nov-23 09:44
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Helmer, the intent of the SI (and the understanding of the skippers) was that all boats would remain on the right-hand inbound side of the channel. As has been pointed out, technically a boat could pass entirely down the "wrong" side of the obstruction and not break the SI but nobody ever tested this. 

As a side note, after this incident the SIs were changed to make the first buoy a mark to be passed to port. 
Created: 20-Nov-23 15:32
David Allsebrook
Nationality: Canada
0
Is it possible the second channel marker is a mark of the course, and blue has passed on the wrong side of it? Under the RRS definitions a "mark" is "an object the sailing instructions require a boat to leave on a specified side." Once a boat has chosen a side at the first mark, it is prohibited by the SIs from going across the centre line to pass a subsequent channel buoy on the other side. If that is correct then blue has not completed the course.
Created: 20-Nov-23 17:14
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Under the SIs in effect at the time none of the channel buoys were marks and none had a specified side. It was generally understood by the RC and the racers that they were to pass all of the channel buoys to port and come down the inbound side of the channel but this was not in writing in the SIs. The only instruction was that the line was an obstruction and boats were not to cross it.

There was also no prescribed penalty for crossing the obstruction line.
Created: 20-Nov-23 17:27
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Responses to the role-play are a bit quiet, so I'll answer my own question.

I think:

Parties to Red's protest are Red and Blue, nobody else.

The incident was Red leaving the buoy to starboard and crossing the line joining the buoys.

Anybody got any disagreement to that?
Created: 20-Nov-26 09:01
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
I thought the incident was the crossing of the line the buoy had no required side.
Created: 20-Nov-26 12:32
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
The protest hearing  hasn't established that yet:  Red is alleging a breach of rule 28.1.

But I would think that one implies the other.
Created: 20-Nov-26 13:08
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
So, to kick the protest hearing role-play along.

The story so far:

Red has hailed 'protest' within Blue's hearing as Blue passes the buoy.

Red, within the protest time limit, has delivered a written protest describing the incident as "Blue sailed to the wrong side of buoy 1, breaking rule 28.".

Notification of the details, time and place of hearing of Red's protest has been given to Red and Blue.

At the time notified time representatives of Red and Blue come to the protest hearing.

The protest committee finds the protest valid and continues the hearing.

Tim H, or anyone, how about you write Red's initial description of the incident?
Created: 20-Dec-03 12:46
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Red's description of the incident is just that she observed Blue passing to the wrong side of  buoy 1, Blue did not correct her error, and alleges a breach of rule 28. She provides a rough diagram showing that but does not mention or show Yellow or Green.
Created: 20-Dec-03 15:06
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Blue Testimony:

I'm really surprised to read Red's protest form.  When I heard Red hail "protest" from so far behind us, I thought she was protesting Green and Yellow for not giving me room between Yellow and the buoy. 

Where is Green and Yellow?  Why aren't they here?  They are the ones that forced me to cross the line.

Also, Red says she was 200 yards behind me, right?  We're 10M boats ... so that's ~20 boat lengths behind us.  Red was not in a position to say when overlap occur or did not occur between Blue, Yellow and Green or the room available between our boats and the buoys or seawall.  Red's description is not accurate.

When Yellow reached the corner of the seawall, there was 2 boat widths between her to the corner, with plenty of room for Blue between her and the corner.  Also, all 3 boat's were on a course that, if held, would have taken us 4 boat-lengths away from the first buoy .. providing more than sufficient room.  It was Yellow's and Green's change of course toward the buoy that "closed me out".

Blue was dousing her spin as she entered the channel.  Green did just before she entered and Yellow earlier still.  The SI's do not state that the spinnakers be doused prior to entering the channel, only that, "require boats to douse spinnakers as they enter the channel."  We complied with that requirement, but given that Yellow and Green choose to douse sooner than the SI's required, we did carry our speed longer and cemented our overlap with Yellow just as we passed the corner.

I kept calling for room to Yellow and Yellow was calling to Green, but Green kept changing course squeezing us out.  By the time we got close to the buoy, I had no choice but to cross the corner of the boundary to avoid a collision.

I kept sailing because the buoys weren't marks of the course and though I broke the SI by crossing the boundary, I was forced to do so by Yellow, who was forced by Green.  

BTW, I really think Yellow tried to get Green to give us room and did her best. 

Created: 20-Dec-04 14:57
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
.... and by the way .. when I saw that Red was protesting me, I filed a protest against Green for not giving us room.  Did you see that protest?  I didn't protest Yellow because I didn't think it was her fault.

I handed the protest in just as I arrived for this hearing.  I didn't fly the red flag on the water or hail protest to anyone at the time of the incident because I heard Red's "protest" and I thought she was protesting Yellow and Green.

- Blue
Created: 20-Dec-04 15:20
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Angelo, you've got Blue's testimony about right, except that Blue agreed that Red was out of hailing distance and that informing Blue on the dock after the race was Red's first reasonable opportunity to inform Blue of her intent to protest.

The actual requirement for dousing spinnakers was a little more specific than I portrayed it but all agreed that Blue met the requirement and did not carry her spinnaker too far so it's not really relevant to the incident.

In the event, Blue did not protest Yellow or Green but brings up a couple of interesting points:
  • Would Blue's protest be valid? Blue didn't know of Red's protest until after all boats had returned to the dock
  • Is it necessary for Blue to protest Green, Yellow or both?
Created: 20-Dec-04 15:37
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
OK John ..you have got Tim and I as Red and Blue.  Who is playing the PC?
Created: 20-Dec-04 15:52
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Just to be clear .. do we have a typo on the SI statement?

 "A straight line connecting adjacent center of channel marker buoys within the jetty shall be considered a continuous obstruction in accordance with Racing Rule 19.2. NO YACHT MAY CROSS SAID LINE."

Should "within" be "with" .. such that there is a boundary line connecting the jetty corner they pass with the 1st buoy? 
Created: 20-Dec-04 16:15
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
No, it's definitely "within". And a diagram has been published showing the continuing obstruction as a line connecting the buoys that does not connect at any point with the jetty.
Created: 20-Dec-04 16:29
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
I don’t mind playing Blue, but I’ve got to be honest I don’t fully understand the context of the “continuing obstruction” SI.  

By the looks of the course choices of the boats, they seem to think they need to pass the CO to port. 

Is there some additional traffic separation scheme at play here, or other navigation obstacles, restrictions, channel marks that tie into this CO might have a bearing on the side it must be passed on or that might be important in the mind of Blue?
Created: 20-Dec-04 22:00
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Angelo, the black lines in the diagram represent rock jetties on either side of a channel leading to a bay where the finish line is located. The buoys are midchannel buoys separating the inbound and outbound channels. There isn't a defined TSS (the bay is pretty much strictly recreational, no large commercial traffic).

The intent of the SI is to keep all the boats in the inbound lane of the channel. The wind is usually from the port quarter so boats tend to protect the left to keep their air clear - without the SI boats would tend to crowd into the outbound side. Attached picture is in a SI addenum

Created: 20-Dec-05 00:47
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
"The intent of the SI is to keep all the boats in the inbound lane of the channel. "

Right .. so that's why it feels like I'm missing something.  I don't read the SI dictating one side or the other.  That's why I'm asking if there is something more in the SI's or local TSS.
Created: 20-Dec-05 02:09
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Yes, I agree, it's a shortcoming that the SI doesn't state a required side. The fleet generally understands the intent but that aspect is not in writing.
Created: 20-Dec-05 02:12
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
"The fleet generally understands the intent but that aspect is not in writing."

Has the OA/RC communicated that it anyway to the fleet .. in person at race meetings .. in emails?

How does the fleet obtain their understanding? 
Created: 20-Dec-05 02:40
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
No communication from OA or RC other than the SI, but I think it just made sense to the fleet that the intent of the SI was to keep them in the inbound lane. 
Created: 20-Dec-05 20:03
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Tim and Angelo,

You don't need to 'understand the context of the continuing obstruction', and speculation about the race committee's intent is irrelevant.

Case 32
 
Rule 86, Changes to the Racing RulesRule 90.2(c), Race Committee; Sailing Instructions; Scoring: Sailing Instructions
A competitor is entitled to look exclusively to written sailing instructions and to any written amendments for all details relating to sailing the course.


Created: 20-Dec-07 21:28
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Role Play

Summary so far.

B’s protest against G, even if delivered within the PTL  is invalid for lack of hail and flag.

OK, summarising what the protest committee has heard up to now:

  • Red said she hailed ‘protest’.  B heard R hail ‘protest’  therefore R hailed ‘protest’
  • There is no dispute that R displayed a red flag promptly after she saw B cross the line.
  • The written protest was delivered in time, otherwise the protest committee wold have asked questions about why it was delayed
  • Therefore Red’s protest is valid.
  • B has attacked Red’s ability to judge orientation of B, Y, and G:  B has NOT challenged Red’s ability to see B passing the buoy.  Red’s evidence of this remains unchallenged.
  • based on the words, or lack of words, in the SI we are not dealing with a rule 28 breach.
  • B admits she crossed the boundary and thus broke the SI
  • B’s evidence is that B became overlapped on Y just as they passed the corner (@2)
  • B’s evidence is that G changed course to leeward, Y changed course to leeward, B changed course to leeward to avoid Y.
  • B claims that she was compelled to break the SI by Y and G breaking the rules (at least rule 11, probably rule 19.2(b))

Anyone can play at being on the protest committee:

Question

Is it possible for the protest committee to decide the protest as it stands, bearing in mind that there is no valid protest against Y or G at this stage?
Created: 20-Dec-07 21:29
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
For reference, this incident took place in the United States. 
Created: 20-Dec-07 21:37
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John re: “You don't need to 'understand the context of the continuing obstruction', and speculation about the race committee's intent is irrelevant.”

Acting!!!  I was trying to get into character! (channeling my inner Jon Lovitz LOL)


Created: 20-Dec-07 21:51
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John . doesn't look like anyone out there wants to play PC.  I'll draw upon my years at The Actor's Studio (or was it years watching that show on TV .. I can't remember) and play multiple roles.

John's Q: 
Is it possible for the protest committee to decide the protest as it stands, bearing in mind that there is no valid protest against Y or G at this stage?

Yes, in a couple different ways.

First, the most preferred course would be for the PC to suspend the current proceeding and protest Y and G under 60.3(a)2 because in this case, " .. during the hearing of a valid protest it [the PC] learns that the boat, although not a party to the hearing, was involved in the incident and may have broken a rule; "

This would assume that Y and G were identified by a party or witness in the hearing or identifiable in some other way.  Once reconvened with Y & G, the hearing should start over from the beginning.

If Y and G were not reachable, unavailable after reasonable accommodation or did not respond after appropriate notice and time to respond, the PC can proceed under 63.3(b).  In this case, both B & G are subject to penalty as a party, even though they are not present.

If Y and G were not indefinable, the hearing can proceed, but Y & G cannot be penalized.   Blue being a party to the original valid protest can still be penalized and the hearing can proceed.

If during the hearing, the PC decides that Y and/or G broke a rule which compelled Blue to break a rule, the PC can exonerate Blue for that rule breach, but again cannot penalize Y & G.  If on the other hand, the PC finds that Y & G did break a rule, but that rule break did not compel Blue to break a rule for which Blue is not otherwise exonerated, Blue shall be penalized.
Created: 20-Dec-10 22:22
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
John's Q: 
Is it possible for the protest committee to decide the protest as it stands, bearing in mind that there is no valid protest against Y or G at this stage?

Agree with Angelo. US Sailing Appeal 84 speaks to this.

Rule 60.3 says a PC may (not shall) protest a boat so in this instance the PC is not required to protest Y and/or G. Even if the PC believes that they may have broken a rule, the PC is not required to protest them and make them parties to the hearing.

If the PC declines to protest them, it can still find that they broke a rule and that the breach compelled B to break a rule. B can be exonerated but Y and G can't be penalized.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the PC did make Y and G parties. Y and G also stipulate to B's version of the incident as depicted in the diagram in the original post, but as it's a beer can race B, Y and G declined to protest.

I'm happy to play all of the parties if you guys want to be the PC.

Y's testimony: B didn't establish an overlap until we were inside 3 boat lengths from buoy 1 and was not entitled to room. In any case, G gave enough room for us but not enough for B.

G's testimony: We kept clear of and gave room to Y as we were required to. We didn't believe that B was entitled to room so we fulfilled our obligations.
Created: 20-Dec-10 22:50
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Role Play

Tim and Angelo, thanks for displaying thespian flexibility and coming around to the other side of the protest table.

You've both jumped the gun a bit on the question whether the protest can committee decide the protest as it stands

As it stands, B has admitted breaking the SI and seeks exoneration, for which it needs to be proved:
  1. that Y and/or G broke a rule;  and
  2. by so doing compelled B to break the SI.

In the hearing as it stands, we have heard testimony from the representatives of R and B, neither of who have brought any witnesses.

Looking at US Appeal 84, it seems to me that the propriety of the protest committee deciding that an unrepresented boat broke a rule depends on the protest committee being able to find sufficient facts [proved to BOP standard] to decide that the unrepresented boat broke the relevant right of way rule.

On the basis of what R and B have said, have we sufficient evidence to decide that it is more likely than not that Y or G broke a rule?

I am powerfully influenced by the 2021 change to rule 62.1(b) which will require that a boat alleged to have broken a rule and caused injury or damage, have been proved to have done so and penalised, before redress can be given.  If that is a precondition for redress, it seems to me, by extension, that the same principle should be applied to exoneration.

Angelo and Tim have both identifed other ways of moving forward.  I would add one possibility:  the protest committee could call Y or G as witnesses.

Lets rephrase the question:

Should the protest committee proceed to a decision of the protest on the evidence before it?

If not what is the best course of action for the protest committee?
Created: 20-Dec-11 03:13
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
I do not think you can extend a rule like that. If the rule-makers had wanted that result they could have said so. Be careful. 
Created: 20-Dec-11 11:32
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
I agree with Mike. If they wanted to add “took a penalty or was penalized” to the newly formed rule 43, they proved they knew how to do it.

I am suggesting to the Chair that we suspend the current hearing and protest Y & G if identifiable, based upon both R’s drawing/testimony and B’s testimony which are consistent relative to the room avail at the corner of the CO and the course changes of Y & G approaching and at that corner.   They were involved in the incident and may have broken rule 19. 
Created: 20-Dec-11 13:16
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Mike B, Angelo,

Thanks for pointing out that 2021 rule 62.1(b) doesn't extend, as a mandatory rule to requiring a boat to have been penalised or have taken a penalty before a boat can be given exoneration.

I understand that, but it still seems a pretty good idea to me that before a protest committee concludes that a boat has broken a rule, she should be given an opportunity to be heard, if that is reasonably possible.

That woudl be particularly so where, as in this case, the only evidence that Y or G did not keep clear or give room comes from B, which will be self-interested on her behalf, and is not corroborated in any way.  I this case, I would thiink that the protest committee should consider evidence of Y to be necessary to reach a balance of probabilities conclusion  that Y broke a  rule. 
Created: 20-Dec-16 01:24
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Role Play

I agree with Angelo that the best way forward for the protest committee is to initiate a protest committee protest against Y and G, following 62.1(c) and get all the parties in the room together.

As no-one has disagreed with that, lets leave the Role Play there.

If we let Angelo play any more roles, who knows where his Actor's Studio training will lead.
Created: 20-Dec-16 22:24
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
I'm happy to take all of the competitor roles.
Created: 20-Dec-16 23:11
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
OK .. so you know I have had this gnawing at me that "everyone knows" they have to be on a certain side of this continuing obstruction, but as we have determined, the SI's do not specify it.

Tim, instead of us playing roles here, maybe you'd be willing to take the testimony we have so far and write up a decision that we can discuss?

I want to add something to this though to give it a bit more bite if I may.  

Let's establish that the local marine police give out fines/tickets for boaters that do not respect the sides of the in/out corridors defined by these traffic separation buoys on the weekend, and this race is mid day on a busy, beautiful Saturday afternoon. As Blue passes the corner of the seawall, she sees a lot of traffic heading her way and the marine police hanging out monitoring the scene.  

Blue testifies that she felt she had no choice for safety reasons and being a law abiding citizen but to cross the CO once forced to the "wrong side".

Ang
Created: 20-Dec-17 23:58
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Let's start with preliminaries and facts found. In this telling Green and Yellow are not made parties or called as witnesses. The evidence of their involvement in the incident comes from Blue and is not disputed by Red.

Preliminaries:

Red protests Blue for breaking rule 28.2 by passing buoy 1 on the incorrect side.

No member of the PC ha any conflict of interest to disclose and neither Red nor Blue object to any member on the basis of conflict of interest.

Validity:

  • Red displayed a red flag promptly upon witnessing the incident and carried it through the finish line.
  • Red was outside hailing distance at the time of the incident and so was not required to hail at that time. Red informed Blue of her intent to protest on the dock shortly after the race, which was her first opportunity to do so. Blue does not disagree.
  • Red notified the RC of her intent to protest Blue as required by the SIs and filed a written protest within the established protest time limit.

PC finds the protest is valid.

Diagram provided by Blue [see original post] is endorsed by the PC

Neither party desires to call witnesses

Facts:

  1. Wind was approximately 5-7 knots with approximately 1 ft seas. Current was insignificant.
  2. SI X.X defined a line connecting midchannel buoys 1, 2, etc. as a continuing obstruction and prohibited boats from crossing that line. No alternative penalty was prescribed for breaking SI X.X. A local ordinance requires boats to remain to the right of the midchannel buoys while transiting the channel. This ordinance requires inbound boats to pass the midchannel buoys to port and not cross a line connecting the buoys.
  3. Neither the buoys individually nor the continuing obstruction were marks of the course.
  4. Blue broad reaching on starboard established an overlap inside and to leeward of Yellow broad reaching on starboard as they approached the continuing obstruction. The overlap was established approximately 1.5 boat lengths from buoy 1. As the boats approached buoy 1 Blue hailed for room to pass buoy 1 to port.
  5. Green was overlapped outside to weather and bow-forward of Yellow and gybed onto port at buoy 1. 
  6. Since Yellow was between and overlapped with both Blue and Green and since all three boats were sailing more than 90 degrees from true wind, Blue, Yellow and Green were all overlapped with each other both before and after Green’s gybe.
  7. Green and Yellow passed buoy 1 to port but did not leave sufficient room for Blue to pass between Yellow and buoy 1.
  8. The protest committee declined to protest Yellow or Green.
  9. Blue with right of way desired to pass buoy 1 to port but was unable to do so without making contact with Yellow or buoy 1.
  10. Blue passed buoy 1 starboard and promptly crossed the line connecting the buoys to the inbound side of the channel in compliance with the local ordinance. Red was able to observe Blue passing buoy 1 to starboard.

Conclusions & Decision?

Created: 20-Dec-18 22:18
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Oops. I copied and pasted wrong thing.  I deleted my comment and this is the new one. 

Below, #5, were Blue and Yellow still on STB and changed course to avoid Green?  Maybe u can add that to #5 depending on the detail.  The order in which they gybed will be important also if Yellow and Blue were forced to gybe to avoid. 

“5. Green was overlapped outside to weather and bow-forward of Yellow and gybed onto port at buoy 1. “



Created: 20-Dec-18 22:48
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Yes, as shown in the diagram at position 3 B and Y were still on starboard after G's gybe. B & Y each gybed as they passed buoy 1, nearly simultaneously. 
Created: 20-Dec-19 07:17
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Local Port Regulation

Unless the SI (See Rule L1.3) state that the Port Regulations will apply to the race, and thus become rules,   the Port Regulations are irrelevant, as is the threat of prosecution.

Nothing in rule 19 or elsewhere in the RRS is there any entitlement to room to avoid prosecution.

Proceeding to decision without hearing from Y and/or G

I thought we'd agreed that the protest commitee should protest Y and G, and hear the protests combined.

The only relevance Y and G have to Red's original protest is exoneration of B, which depends on concluding that Y and/or G broke a rule and compelled B to break a rule.

I believe that Y and/or G's evidence is absolutely necessary to reach relevant conclusions, and that the protest committee should take steps to obtain that evidence (rule 63.6, end of first sentence).

Just for openers, assuming that boats are NOT overlapped before @3-delta, Blue has no line of sight to see whether Y and G are overlapped @3. 

As a protest committee member, I would be most unwilling to produce a written decision concluding that a fellow sailor had broken a rule, without ever giving them a chance to speak in their own defence.

So, let's omit Tims FF 8, and take it that, to produce the diagram, the protest committee has protested  Y and G, and heard the protests combined.

Tim's Facts Found

I have some comments, interlined below,  on Tim's Facts Found, which I suggest should be tidied up before we proceed to conclusions.

Tim, have you ever played the Diagram to Facts Found and Facts Found to Diagram game?  I don't think I could reproduce the Diagram from the facts found.


  1. Wind was approximately 5-7 knots with approximately 1 ft seas. Current was insignificant.
  2. SI X.X defined a line connecting midchannel buoys 1, 2, etc. as a continuing obstruction and prohibited boats from crossing that line. No alternative penalty was prescribed for breaking SI X.X. A local ordinance requires boats to remain to the right of the midchannel buoys while transiting the channel. This ordinance requires inbound boats to pass the midchannel buoys to port and not cross a line connecting the buoys.

    See Local Port Regulation comment above.  Last sentence is irrelevant.

  3. Neither the buoys individually nor the continuing obstruction were marks of the course.
  4. Blue broad reaching on starboard established an overlap inside and to leeward of Yellow broad reaching on starboard as they approached the continuing obstruction. The overlap was established approximately 1.5 boat lengths from buoy 1. As the boats approached buoy 1 Blue hailed for room to pass buoy 1 to port.

    Which boat was 1.5 boat lengths from the buoy, and which part of the boat?

    Don't we need to say how much space there was between Y and the buoy when the overlap began?


  5. Green was overlapped outside to weather and bow-forward of Yellow and gybed onto port at buoy 1.

    I take it you mean 'at the time B and G became overlapped', but woulldn't it be better to say so?
     
  6. Since Yellow was between and overlapped with both Blue and Green and since all three boats were sailing more than 90 degrees from true wind, Blue, Yellow and Green were all overlapped with each other both before and after Green’s gybe.

    Once you start pulling in significant parts of a definition, this is starting to look like a Conclusion, or perhaps unnecessary explanation.

  7. Green and Yellow passed buoy 1 to port but did not leave sufficient room for Blue to pass between Yellow and buoy 1.

    'Did not leave sufficient room' is definitely a conclusion, not a fact.

    Facts would be
    "G passed not more than x metres from Buoy 1"
    "Y passed not more than y metres from Buoy 1"


  8. The protest committee declined to protest Yellow or Green.

    We're omitting this?

  9. Blue with right of way desired to pass buoy 1 to port but was unable to do so without making contact with Yellow or buoy 1.

    "B with right of way" is a conclusion

    B's 'desire' is irrelevant.

    Normally for a right of way conclusion we need to find facts that:

    "The right of way boat changed course (or speed) because she reasonably apprehended that there would be contact (Case 50), and 'reasonableness needs to be supported by distance apart:  OR

    "There was contact":  OR

     Boats overlapped on same tack and right of way boat cannot change course in either direction without immediately making contact (again supported by distance apart)

    But in this case, we're looking to find facts that support conclusion about whether B had right of way and was entitled to room to pass the obstruction or not.  Both of these depend on whether, at the moment the overlap began, there  was space between Y and the Buoy for B to fit through (rule 19.2(c)).  See my comment on FF 4.

    If there was, B is right of way (rule 11) entitled to room to pass the obstruction (rule 19.2(b)), if not, B is required to keep clear of Y and is not entitled to room.


  10. Blue passed buoy 1 starboard and promptly crossed the line connecting the buoys


    to the inbound side of the channel in compliance with the local ordinance.

    See comment on Local Port Regulation:  legal compliance is irrelevant.

    Red was able to observe Blue passing buoy 1 to starboard.

    This is a discussion of evidence, not a Fact Found:  the Fact found is in 10.


Anyone like to have another crack at Facts Found?
Created: 20-Dec-22 11:05
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
See Local Port Regulation comment above.  Last sentence is irrelevant.”

John, (I am channeling Blue again)

Blue can see the writing on the wall and now sees that based upon how SI’s were written, she was not compelled to cross the imaginary line and thus may not be exonerated for breaking the "NO YACHT MAY CROSS SAID LINE " SI.

Given that, Blue will argue that the RC made an error in writing the SI.  That in fact, the CO is either a mark of the course or that the SI’s should have provided a way for a boat forced to the “wrong side” the ability to “cross back”.  That the intent of the RC was to prevent boats from crossing from the course-side to the non-course side of the CO, not the other direction.

Therefore, ambiguity was created by the poorly written SI, which in this case had boats forced to the wrong side stuck in a dangerous situation going in though the out-door, was not the intent or understanding of the course of her competitors or the RC. Blue will call the RC as a witness.

Blue will ask the PC to find the SI ambiguous.

Failing that, Blue intends request redress that failing to list the CO as a mark was an error/omission, failing to meet her J2.1(5) obligation.  Being the US, all of Blue's competitors will be given notice and made a party to the hearing.

Blue will raise US103 and ask that she be scored in her finish position. 
Created: 20-Dec-22 13:00
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Well, Blue, old fella,  I think you have just shot yourself in the foot as far as my opinion is concerned.

Up to now (in the Role Play), I have been labouring under the wrong assumption that if B left Buoy 1 to starboard, then she would inevitably cross the prohibited line, and thus if she was compelled to leave the buoy to starboard, she would be compelled to cross the line, thus breaking the SI, but eligible for exoneration under rule 64.1(a), if she was compelled to leave the buoy to starboard by another boat breaking a rule. 

Angelo/s/B's argument that she crossed the prohibited line deliberately in an attempt to comply with the Port Regulation (and a more careful look at the diagram) demonstrates that it was possible, once she had left the buoy to starboard for B to continue sailing to the finish, leaving the prohibited line to starboard and not crossing it.

Thus,  Red's protest against Blue can be decided, on Red's and Blue's evidence alone and it is not necessary to conclude whether any other boats broke any rules, and is not necessary to raise protest committee protests against any boats.

Here are my Facts Found and Conclusions

Facts Found
1.    SI X.X defined a line connecting midchannel Buoys 1, 2, etc. as a continuing obstruction and prohibited boats from crossing that line.
2.    The SI did not require boats to leave the buoys individually or the continuing obstruction on a specified side.
3.    Blue approached Buoy 1 with other boats on her starboard side.
4.    Blue left Buoy 1 to starboard because of the presence of other boats on her starboard side and then crossed the line connecting the buoys.
5.    The course to the finishing line from a position near Buoy 1 was approximately parallel to the line joining the Buoys and it was possible for boats to reach the finishing line by passing either side of the line joining the buoys.

Conclusions
A.   Blue sailed across the line joining the mid channel buoys.  Blue broke SI XX.
B.   Blue was not compelled to cross the prohibited line by actions of any other boats.  Blue is not exonerated for breaking SI XX by rule 64.1(a), and rule 21 does not provide exoneration for breaking a SI.

Decision
Blue is disqualified.
Created: 20-Dec-22 21:37
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
I agree that’s how it should be decided based on the testimony and the SI’s, unless the PC finds the SI created ambiguity on how to pass the CO.  
Created: 20-Dec-22 21:46
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
 Angelo Guarino
said Created: Today 13:00

John, (I am channeling Blue again)

Blue can see the writing on the wall and now sees that based upon how SI’s were written, she was not compelled to cross the imaginary line and thus may not be exonerated for breaking the "NO YACHT MAY CROSS SAID LINE " SI.

Given that, Blue will argue that the RC made an error in writing the SI.

What if they did?  Race committees make errors all the time.  What a boat would be looking for, to found redress, is an improper action or omission. 

That in fact, the CO is either a mark of the course

It’s clearly not.  The SI did not require boats to leave the buoys individually or the continuing obstruction on a specified side. 

 or that the SI’s should have provided a way for a boat forced to the “wrong side” the ability to “cross back”.

Just as we discussed about the protest committee protesting boats, there’s a difference between what ‘should’ happen and what the rules ‘require’ to happen.

There’s nothing in the rules requiring the SI to do what B is suggesting.

  That the intent of the RC was to prevent boats from crossing from the course-side to the non-course side of the CO, not the other direction.

Whatever the race committee may have ‘intended’, A competitor is entitled to look exclusively to written sailing instructions and to any written amendments for all details relating to sailing the course. (Case 32)

Therefore, ambiguity was created by the poorly written SI, which in this case had boats forced to the wrong side stuck in a dangerous situation going in though the out-door, was not the intent or understanding of the course of her competitors or the RC. Blue will call the RC as a witness.

So, which particular SI is Blue alleging is capable of two different meanings?

OK, without the full SI, you can’t answer that, but that’s what ‘ambiguity’ means.

Blue will ask the PC to find the SI ambiguous.

What if they did so find?

There is no rule that says that SI shall not be ambiguous.

Failing that, Blue intends request redress that failing to list the CO as a mark was an error/omission, failing to meet her J2.1(5) obligation.

The prohibited line is not a mark.  The SI did not require boats to leave the buoys individually or the continuing obstruction on a specified side.

Created: 20-Dec-22 22:21
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Alas Blue, an undauntedly cheerful fella, may prove to be more creative and tenacious than successful:-)

The ambiguity comes from the common understanding that the intent of then SI is to keep boats on the proper side from crossing over to the oncoming traffic.  

The RC, at the protest or R4R, admits in horror that they hadn’t realized that the way they wrote the SI meant that a boat compelled to cross the line or forced to the wrong side by another boat breaking a rule, would be stuck on the wrong side of the line for the length of the CO without possibility of crossing back to the “right side” with exoneration.  That being on the correct side of this line is common knowledge after decades of racing.   

That’s Blue’s “best” argument. 
Created: 20-Dec-22 22:52
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
The SI as written may be ambiguous or not well crafted for the intent of the RC but I'm not sure that makes it invalid. I don't think it conflicts with RRS. That said, if the fleet recognized the loophole then everyone would start coming in through the out door, as the boats furthest left have clear air. 

Would the conclusions and decision change if the SI referenced the local ordinance, making it a rule (but still without making the obstruction a mark)? 

And the obvious solution (since implemented) is to make buoy 1 a mark to be passed to port. 
Created: 20-Dec-23 00:54
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
If the local ordinance actually was referenced in the SI, then the buoys have a required side and become marks of the course. (depending how the local ordinance is worded). 

Blue would have to double-back and pass the entire line on its proper side. 

In either case, an improved SI would accommodate a boat compelled to cross the line by another boat breaking a rule, and exonerate her for recrossing at her first reasonable opportunity.  

Created: 20-Dec-23 02:35
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Hmm - is an obstruction that can only be passed on one side automatically a mark? 
Created: 20-Dec-23 03:57
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
If the SI gives an object a side to pass, it’s a mark.   If the local ordinance specified the buoys and their sides to pass and that is ref’d in the SI, then the 3 mid-channel buoys are marks.  The line between the marks is the CO, but it’s not an “object” so the line isn’t a mark.  

Mark
An object the sailing instructions require a boat to leave on a specified side,


Created: 20-Dec-23 04:10
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo,

If the ordinance was made a rule by the SI, I don't think that 'doubling back' would necessarily remedy a breach.  It would depend on the wording of the ordinance.

Tim,

An object that can be safely passed on only side is an obstruction (Definition:  Obstruction).

To be a mark, an object has to be required, by the SI, to be passed on a specified side 

Angelo,

Why do you say that a line is not an object?
Created: 20-Dec-23 07:13
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
“Doubling back”:  this was in context of missing the first mark.  If she passed the 1st buoy on the wrong side she could correct that error.

If she also crossed the line from the non-course side to the course side, we’d need to make the change to the SI’s that deals with line crossings. 

For this  purpose, I’d argue that “Object” is something material that can be seen and touched. Yes, I agree that if u look up “line” some def’s will say “2-dim geometrical object”, but that is a mathematical/theoretical use. 

They are imaginary, like the Lamborghini in my driveway. 


image.png 335 KB
Created: 20-Dec-23 12:54
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo,

I follow you about tangible object:  otherwise rule 31 would have no work to do.

If Buoy 1 was just a mark, then a boat could unwind her string, but if the ordinance is a rule and it says 'inbound boats shall not pass to the north east of the line of buoys', once a boat goes in here she has broken the rule and cannot unbreak it.
Created: 20-Dec-23 13:22
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
FWIW, to encompass the boat behavior and rule applications in a reasonable, exhonerable way, writing the SI’s isn’t trivial. 

1) I wouldn’t label the line a “continuous obstruction”.  “Obstruction” will do.  It’s “continuing” automatically based upon its size and based upon how a boat is approaching which part. Like Mike B mentioned early in this thread, I don’t think it’s a CO to the boats as they approach its edge. 

2) Line crossing .. maybe something like below which takes care of missing the first mark and crossing the line before correcting and returning to the correct side without penalty as well as being forced over mid-line and returning. 

“An imaginary line connecting the 3 mid-channel buoys A,B,C is an obstruction.  On southbound legs,  boats that have passed Buoy A on its proper side shall not cross this line from the west to east side. On northbound legs, boats that have passed Buoy C on its proper side shall not cross this line from the east to west side.  

A boat that breaks this rule and is not exonerated may take a 2-turn penalty in accordance to RRS 44.2 as soon as reasonably possible after exiting the channel in the direction of the current leg.  This delay until exiting the channel changes RRS 44.2”. 

Created: 20-Dec-23 13:29
[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