Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
Can S (after tacking very close) luff to comply with Rule 15?
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Using the 2021 rules (though I don't believe there is a difference in this case)... Beat to windward. Green tacks, and Red begins her tack promptly when Green reaches close hauled. Green luffs briefly in an effort to comply with rule 15 (as otherwise there would not have been room for Red to complete a seamanlike tack.)
No contact, but should Red protest? My experience tells me this is all good, but a close reading of the rules brings up a few questions relating to the words/phrase "initially", "course", and "avoiding action". comply rule 15 after tack.png87.7 KB A strict reading of these terms could penalize Green as she did not "initially" allow Red room to keep from forcing Green to alter her "course" with an "avoiding action". Alternatively, I could argue that initially simply means during their initial interaction (rather than immediately), and that "course" is her course to the mark while complying with rule 15, rather than her compass heading, and that her action was to comply with 15, not to avoid a collision.
Which interpretation of the terms is more accurate? Which is the intended real-world outcome? Is there any official guidance on this from World Sailing? I have to be able to teach this rule to brand new racers who may nonetheless be Ivy-educated lawyers. Any chance there should be a wording change? How would you word the facts found for this situation (if different from mine)? (edit: update image so red cannot duck in a seamanlike way)
Created: 20-Dec-03 19:59
Comments
Lloyd Causey
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Nicholos let me ask you several questions. 1. At positions 4 is Red obeying rule 13? the part ...If the two boats are sublet to this rule at the same time, the one on the others port side or the one astern shall keep clear."? 2. At position 5 where Red has established leeward postion after acquiring right-of -way has she obeyed rule 15 it the Green boat must loft above close hauled to avoid Red? 3. If Green was a little slow in lofting and there was contact, who broke what rules?
Created: 20-Dec-03 20:31
Lloyd Causey
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Nicholos let me ask you several questions. 1. At positions 4 is Red obeying rule 13? the part ...If the two boats are sublet to this rule at the same time, the one on the others port side or the one astern shall keep clear."? 2. At position 5 where Red has established leeward postion after acquiring right-of -way has she obeyed rule 15 it the Green boat must loft above close hauled to avoid Red? 3. If Green was a little slow in lofting and there was contact, who broke what rules? 4. If Red had held their course , would not Green have passed clear ahead?
Created: 20-Dec-03 20:35
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Lloyd: 1) yes (Red begin their tack once Green completes theirs and has acquired ROW) 2) I think so, but let me think for a second on this... 3) if Green did not luff to comply with RRS 15 (at points 4-5), then Red would break rule 10 and be exonerated because Green compelled her to by breaking rule 15. DSQ Green in that alternate scenario. 4) updated image to make Red ducking Green non-"seamanlike" Thanks for catching this.
Created: 20-Dec-03 20:39
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
On Lloyd's #2: Green owes Red Room to Keep Clear per RRS 15. This includes "...space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2..." so I think that Green continues to owe Red that Room until Red's own RRS 15 is complied with. (Wow! Green owes Red Room to give Green Room!)
Llyod .. on your Q1 .. why is 13's last sentence pertinent at #4?
Created: 20-Dec-03 21:19
Bob Scott
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
-1
@ #3 Green/Starboard and Red/Port are on opposite tacks - RRS 10 - and Red must keep clear. At #4 Red initiates a tack from port to starboard but that tack is not complete until #6. Also @ #4 Green luffs to avoid hitting Red. Red has broken RRS10 as she has not kept clear of Green on starboard. Green also breaks RRS 13 as she has not kept clear of Red during her tack. Since RRS turns off RRS 10, 11 and 12 until the tack is complete, she shall not be penalized for breaking 10 but will be for breaking 13, assuming a valid protest.
Created: 20-Dec-03 21:38
David Chudzicki
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
1
Cxema: Great answer! Thanks.
I still wonder about the reasoning behind that call. I don't understand why heading up from B3 to B4 isn't an "avoiding action". I would have said that at position 3, B can't "sail her course with no need to take avoiding action", which means Y didn't keep clear, which means B didn't give Y room to keep clear.
TR CALL D3 clearly says I'm wrong, but I don't really understand why I'm wrong.
Created: 20-Dec-03 22:33
David Chudzicki
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
0
Also: Seems like TR CALL D3 should be the same in fleet racing, right? I can't think of anything that would make the rules apply differently in that situation. Anyone else?
Created: 20-Dec-03 22:34
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Cxema Pico, thank you so much. That's perfect. I assume this principle would apply for rule 16 as well? For example I luff you too hard prestart I can correct in order to give you room to adjust?
Does it feel to anyone else like this interpretation should be more obvious without going to a team racing call book? (ie. the wording should be looked at over the next four years for clarity?) EDIT: What David said. Thanks again, Niko
Created: 20-Dec-03 23:06
Bob Scott
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
-1
Based on the drawing, Red does not complete her tack to starboard, and "acquire right of way" until closehauled (#5) hence RRS 15 never turns on. She must keep clear of other boats while tacking and does not - RRS 13. TR Call D3 is a totally different situation as both boats start on the same tack.
Created: 20-Dec-03 23:06
Cxema Pico
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
International Umpire
1
@Nicholas
I assume this principle would apply for rule 16 as well? For example I luff you too hard prestart I can correct in order to give you room to adjust?
It does indeed.
Created: 20-Dec-03 23:18
Cxema Pico
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
International Umpire
2
@David
B3 to B4 isn't an "avoiding action"?
It is and it isn't: 1- When a boat tacks on to starboard she becomes right of way only when she completes her tack by reaching a close hauled course. 2- At that point Rule 15 kicks in and "she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear. [...]" 3- def. of Room: "The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way." 4- When B (or Red in the first diagram) acquires right of way, the boats are so close that it will not be possible for Y (or green in the first diagram) to keep clear in a seamanlike way. 5- The only action that Y (or green) can take is to tack, but if B (or red) does nothing contact will occur. Since Y (or green) were complying with her obligations to keep clear (manoeuvring promptly on a seamanlike way, once she becomes keep clear boat), it is the actions of B (or red) acquiring right of way, which would have cause the contact thus breaking rule 15. 6- However, a boat that has to give room to another, can continue to alter course in order to provide additional room and facilitate that the keep clear boat can comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2, which in this case includes rule 13. Y (or red) does this by tacking again or luffing.
Is it avoiding action? Yes, but because Y (or Red) had a limitation imposed by rule 15, those actions are considered consistent with continuing to give room.
I hope it is a bit clearer. In essence, the italics text highlights the principle to apply: "A boat acquiring right of way may comply with rule 15 by altering course herself. This principle applies on any leg of the course."
In umpired fleet racing and match racing is the same. In theory in normal fleet racing applies as well, but it becomes a bit more difficult to convince a Jury (specially if they have not witnessed the incident) to get to facts found that match those actions.
Created: 20-Dec-03 23:34
Murray Cummings
Nationality: New Zealand
1
Robert Scott wrote
Based on the drawing, Red does not complete her tack to starboard, and "acquire right of way" until closehauled (#5) hence RRS 15 never turns on. She must keep clear of other boats while tacking and does not - RRS 13. TR Call D3 is a totally different situation as both boats start on the same tack.
In the drawing, both boats are on the same tack at position 1. From the moment Green passes head to wind at position 2 until she is close hauled at position 3, Green is required to keep clear of Red (rule 13). This means that between positions 2 and 3, Red has right of way over Green. At position 3, Green acquires right of way and Red is required to keep clear.
The only seamanlike manoeuvre available for Red to be able to keep clear of Green from position 3 is to tack and Green is required to give Red room to do so (rule 15). By luffing, Green fulfills her obligation under rule 15 and Red is thereafter able to keep clear of Green. If Green did not luff, Red would not have had room to keep clear of Green from the moment Green acquired right of way. Throughout her tack, Red is sailing within the room she is entitled to and rule 43.1(b) exonerates her if she were to break a rule of Part 2 Section A.
Created: 20-Dec-03 23:58
David Chudzicki
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
0
Thanks Cxema! That's helpful.
Another question:
Suppose the situation is like in TR CALL D3, but Y is a little bit further upwind - not so far they they're crossing B at position 3, but enough that it'd be a small duck for B to avoid Y.
Is Y *required* to tack to avoid, and have the situation play out like in TR CALL D3?
Or is it also OK for Y to hold her course, expecting B to duck?
It seems to me like in either case B is making a course change to give Y room to keep clear. I guess in both cases, no penalty on either boat?
In other words: Whichever decision Y makes (tack or keep sailing), a course change from B is required to give Y room to keep clear. Do the rules prefer one option over the other?
Created: 20-Dec-04 01:48
Lloyd Causey
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Regional Race Officer
-1
I think that at boat position #3 that both boats are lose hauled and rule 10 should apply I think that at boat position #4 Red has passed head to wind and is operating under rule 13 should apply Red also broke rule 10 by beginning to tack in front of starboard and making starboard to sail over close haul to avoid her. I think that in Red came to close hauled in front of Green (acquired R O W) violating rule 15 because she did not initially keep clear of Green I think that in boat position #2 Red could have tacked cleanly onto port and had controlling position without any violations
Think about the interactions position by position.
Created: 20-Dec-04 02:10
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Lloyd C wrote: a) I think that at boat position #3 that both boats are close hauled and rule 10 should apply b) I think that at boat position #4 Red has passed head to wind and is operating under rule 13 should apply Red also broke rule 10 by beginning to tack in front of starboard and making starboard to sail over close haul to avoid her. c) I think that in Red came to close hauled in front of Green (acquired R O W) violating rule 15 because she did not initially keep clear of Green d) I think that in boat position #2 Red could have tacked cleanly onto port and had controlling position without any violations
a) yes but... see below b) yes but... Red is exonerated from these two fouls by RRS 43.1 c) I think you're mis-reading RRS 15. The rule requires a boat acquiring ROW to initially give the other (give-way) boat room to keep clear, not to keep clear herself. This principle applies as well at position 3, where Green acquires ROW. d) At position 2, Red is ROW because Green has passed head-to-wind (is tacking) and rule 13 applies between them.
Think about the interactions position by position.
1) Green is ROW (clear ahead, RRS 12) 2) Red is ROW (Green is tacking, RRS 13) 3) Green is ROW (port/stbd, RRS 10) but owes Red Room to initially Keep Clear (RRS 15) 4) Green is ROW (Red is tacking, RRS 13) but Red is still sailing within the Room to initially keep clear Green is providing (RRS 15) 5) Red is ROW (W/L, RRS 11) and owes Green Room to initially Keep Clear (RRS 15) but Red is still sailing within the Room to initially keep clear Green is providing (RRS 15) 6) Red is ROW (W/L, RRS 11) and initial Room to Keep Clear has been given. No fouls committed
Created: 20-Dec-04 03:20
Bob Lewis
Nationality: Canada
1
Nicholas,
I think your analysis is correct. The wording of the rule leads to a literal interpretation that is inconsistent with the authorities. Since rule 15 requires green to give room to keep clear one should conclude that if green needs to change course to avoid red, then red has not kept clear by the definition of keep clear and therefore green has not given room as required. But the authorities have decided to interpret “room to keeping clear” as “room to avoid a collision” for this rule and rule 16.1, although they don’t state it that way.
Some references: 1. Team Race Call TR D3 above, pretty much the same as your case. 2. US Appeal 119 in the 2020 supplement where a boat clear astern gains a leeward overlap from astern, inches from the new windward boat.Even though the windward boat has not kept clear by the wiggle room definition, rule 15 is held not to have been broken as the new leeward ROW boat bears off before there is a collision. The windward boat is ruled to have broken rule 11 but is exonerated.
A similar concept is applied to rule 16.1 in this US appeal case: 3. US Appeal 120 in the 2020 supplement, where a port tack boat is easily crossing a starboard tack boat but the starboard tack boat seems to hunt up to a position that forces it to then bear off to avoid a collision. Since no collision, no fouls committed by the starboard boat even though the port tack boat was unable to “keep clear” by the usual definition. Indeed the port tack boat is held to have broken rule 10 but is exonerated.
So that’s how I would teach it. It wouldn’t be the first law or rule that doesn’t mean what it says!!
Created: 20-Dec-04 06:28
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
this is also incredible. Thank you Bob. Sorry that I used you guys as an appeals index. Not my intention, though I clearly needed it. If David and I can come up with a SIMPLE potential way to alter the wording to make the appeals more obvious, we will post here so you all can pick it apart. Cheers, Niko
Created: 20-Dec-04 16:44
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Niko, try keying off of something that Bob and others stated.
RRS 15 provides the keep clear boat Room to Keep Clear from the newly ROW boat. The 'room' is the key here. In both the TR Call and the OP, the port boat is entitled to room.
Room always incorporates "... maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike way." Case 103. It also is " .. space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31". Case 114 ... not only complying with the rule in which room was granted.
In the OP, Green could have provided that room to Red by continuing to turn away from the wind at the end of the tack and ducking Red. In that instance, Red could have kept clear by holding her course and in essence taking no affirmative action at all.
Green must provide Red room, though Green is ROW. This is not too far removed from a keep-clear boat being inside at the mark and owed mark-room (which includes room) from a ROW boat or like others have pointed out, a ROW boat changing course and owing the keep clear boat room to keep clear under rule 16.1.
As is stated in the title of the Section B, these are "Limitations" to the ROW boat's ability to exercise their ROW privilege.
Created: 20-Dec-04 17:44
John Thorne
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Regional Race Officer
-1
It appears that Green had not completed her tack at position 3, in which case she broke Rule 13 and Red should protest. On the other hand, if it can be determined that Green had completed her tack at position 3, Rule 15 requires her to give Red room to keep clear. That Green had to luff in order to give Red that room is not relevant.
Created: 20-Dec-05 00:48
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
As promised, I am attempting to offer edits to the available documentation (rules, definitions, cases, appeals, call book) which would clarify the situation and potentially eliminate the need for the cases. My motivation to do this is that in addition to racing regularly, acting as a jury member and judge-in-training, I teach 50-100 new racers a year. We always have some smart lawyer-types who catch inconsistencies in the rules (ie. the two lasers on starboard situation) and I shouldn't have to delve into the case book to teach day 2 of sailboat racing.
As currently written, Cases 119 and 120 interpret Keep Clear to mean something other than the term defined in the rulebook. Indeed, they OK giving room to avoid contact rather than to keep clear. They OK forcing the give-way boat to (however briefly) break a rule of Section A (ie. not keep clear). Changing the definition of Keep Clear in this way makes teaching, following, and judging the rules much more difficult. I present four possible options to fix this:
Within the Appeal briefs, instead of interpreting the definition of Keep Clear, interpret the definitions of "course" and "avoiding action". The ROW boat may steer to comply with her Room obligations in 15 or 16 without deviating from her "course" ie. her route. Similarly, these steering actions are not "avoiding actions" they are instead steering to comply with her obligations. This would allow the same outcomesNo change needed for TR Call D3 as there is limited description already.
Change the intention of the rules to disqualify ROW boats who even MOMENTARILY don't allow Give-Way boats Room to Keep Clear. This would change the outcomes of cases 119 and 120, as well as TR Call D3. It might wreak havoc on starting lines as well as end up with more DSQ's, but it also might reduce tight situations which is ostensibly the goal of the rules, to reduce collisions (and allow fair sailing).
Add to Section B a preamble: While a right-of-way boat is maneuvering to give room, she shall not be penalized if the keep-clear boat is briefly breaking a rule of Section A. Or add a similar such part to rule 43.1
Change RRS 15 and 16 to read "...give the other boat room to avoid contact until she also has room to keep clear..."
I theoretically prefer number 4 but I bet there's a reason/situation it won't work. Anyway, have at em. Rip em apart. Propose your own. Tell me why my second paragraph is wrong. Please just make my head stop spinning with this apparent canonical inconsistency
Created: 20-Dec-05 02:16
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
John Thorne wrote:
It appears that Green had not completed her tack at position 3, in which case she broke Rule 13 and Red should protest. On the other hand, if it can be determined that Green had completed her tack at position 3, Rule 15 requires her to give Red room to keep clear. That Green had to luff in order to give Red that room is not relevant.
How can I adjust the diagram to convince you that the tack was completed at position 3?
Created: 20-Dec-05 02:22
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
0
I believe that Red has not broken 13 because Green's course was to luff to meet her obligations from 15. If Green had not just tacked, then it would be OK for Red to make Green luff at position 5 but not 4.
I find support of this interpretation from :
18.3. Tacking in the Zone If a boat in the zone of a mark to be left to port passes head to wind from port to starboard tack and is then fetching the mark, she shall not cause a boat that has been on starboard tack since entering the zone to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact ....
If Red was never able to force Green to luff, then 18.3 would not be required.
So a tack from Red can cause Green to luff within the rules:
Never when 18.3 applies
At position 4 if green owes room (as she does from 15 in this case)
At position 5 even if green doesn't owe room
Created: 20-Dec-05 10:26
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Niko wrote:
4. Change RRS 15 and 16 to read "...give the other boat room to avoid contact until she also has room to keep clear..."
An alternate wording is simply to replace the word "give" in the original RRS 15 and 16 with the word "make" implying there is a little time to make that room.
Created: 20-Dec-05 14:42
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Niko, it’s all in “room”.
“Room” includes space to comply with ALL of Part 2, which of course includes 10 and 13 here.
The room the RRS 15 obligated ROW boat must give is a limitation on the ROW-rule, until that room as been given.
In this case, the room Red is owed, limits Green’s 10 and then 13 ROW privilege.
Created: 20-Dec-05 14:50
David Chudzicki
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
0
“Room” includes space to comply with ALL of Part 2, which of course includes 10 and 13 here.
Angelo, this is why I find Appeal 120 so confusing. It says that Wonder broke rule 10 but is exonerated under 21(a).
If Wonder was compelled to break rule 10, then that must mean Walloping Swede did not give Wonder room to comply with room 10. So why isn't Walloping Swede penalized for rule 16? (I already appreciate all the great help we've received in this thread, but if there's anything anyone can say to explain this that would be even better.)
(That puzzle is why Niko's thinking about other wordings that might capture the intent better.)
Created: 20-Dec-05 16:19
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Race Officer
International Umpire
International Judge
1
When Green completed her tack to starboard at position 3, she acquired the right-of-way under rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks) and was required by rule 15 (Acquiring Right of Way) to initially give Red room to keep clear. Red, a port tack boat, was required to maneuver promptly in a seamanlike way to keep clear of Green, a starboard tack boat.
After Green completed her tack at position 3, Red maneuvered, by luffing to tack, promptly in a seamanlike way to keep clear as required by rule 10. Green luffed to give Red room to keep clear as required by rule 15.
After position 3, Green was unable to ‘sail her course with no need to take avoiding action;’ therefore, Red broke rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks). However, as Red was sailing within the room to which she was entitled under rule 15 (Acquiring Right of Way), she is exonerated under rule 21(a) (Exoneration).
See WS Case 146, RYA 2008-06, US Appeal 117, US Appeal 119, US Appeal US120, Team Race Call D3.
Created: 20-Dec-05 17:25
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
David, US 120 does not say that Wonder was "compelled to break rule 10" .. it simply says she broke rule 10.
Maybe its easier to see in something more obvious .. room which is part of mark-room. Yellow breaks Rule 10 because she failed to keep-clear of Blue, a ROW boat, just after #2, but Yellow is exonerated by Rule 43.1(b) [new quad #'s] because Yellow is sailing within the mark-room she is entitled to (which includes room) under rule 18.
does not say that Wonder was "compelled to break rule 10" .. it simply says she broke rule 10.
Thanks. Of course you're right. Sorry. It says she's exonerated under 21(a) ("sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled"). Nothing about "compelled" in 21a.
Created: 20-Dec-05 19:59
Bob Lewis
Nationality: Canada
0
Mark and Angelo, in both of your discussions you seem to cut short without discussing why the right of way boat that is required to give room, either from 15, 16.1 or 18 is not penalized for failing to give room to keep clear. In each case the boat entitled to room, fails to keep clear. Do you agree that the rule as written would penalize the ROW boats and they are only saved by the unusual interpretations of the cases and appeals that seem to be made on the basis of getting the result they want?
Would you agree that, under the current interpretations, for a ROW boat to break rule 15 or 16.1, contact would have to occur? Or can you think of examples where these rules are broken without contact?
Created: 20-Dec-05 23:45
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Bob, to be honest I don’t see it, though I have tried to see it.
Reading through this thread has had me feeling at times like I was being asked to stare at an outlined picture of a candle holder, waiting for a woman’s profile to appear. I know once I see it, it would be impossible to not, but the image has yet to appear.
The closest I’ve gotten is the sense that there is a timing-application issue at hand here. The rules are meant to keep real boats on the water from hurting each other. Real boats with people take time to react and that time from action to reaction is part of what is built into the rules ... rules which apply to a Laser that can react quickly to a Maxi, that cannot.
Since I do not see the woman’s profile, I also do not see the Cases and Appeals as “unusual” or strained because they are “made on the basis of getting the result they want”. These make sense to me as straightforward applications of the rules.
Maybe you can help us see the woman’s profile ....
Mark provided a textbook application of the rules in this scenario above. Maybe you can start with Marks point-by-point application, copy/paste it, and insert where you think rule applications are missing?
Created: 20-Dec-06 13:50
David Chudzicki
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
0
Angelo: I think you're right that it's a timing-application issue.
In my incorrect interpretation, "give room to keep clear" is a thing the ROW boat must be doing at all application points (upon acquiring for 15, throughout any course change for 15). In that incorrect view, the other boat must have room at all those points. (If they don't, the ROW boat wasn't giving it.) I think I'm starting to see the correct interpretation, especially after Mark's point-by-point application. Instead of being a state that must hold at all applicable times, it sounds like "give room to keep clear" is an action the ROW must take at all applicable times.
Some timing applications I'd love some clarification on:
For 15: "When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially...". This sounds like it means the ROW must act to give room pretty much immediately upon acquiring ROW. Is that right?
For 16: "When a right-of-way boat changes course, ...": Does this mean it's okay for a ROW boat's course change to result in no room to keep clear, but if it does they must act immediately to give room?
In the situation of Appeal 120, would it be okay for Walloping Swede to alternate back and forth between Wonder having room and not having room? (Head up a little so no room, then bear away so there's room, then head up so there's no room, then bear away. Repeat a few times before bearing away to pass Wonder's stern.)
Again, I really appreciate everyone's help with this. I think we're fixing a big confusion I had about the rules.
Created: 20-Dec-06 15:50
David Chudzicki
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
0
Or, here's a shorter version of my timing question:
If I interpret "When" in 15 and 16 as "Immediately after", will I be reading it right?
Created: 20-Dec-06 15:55
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Race Officer
International Umpire
International Judge
1
At the moment Green reached a close-hauled course she became the right-of-way boat under rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks) and rule 13 (While Tacking) no longer applies. Red as the port-tack boat is now required to keep clear and must maneuver promptly in a seamanlike manner to fulfill that obligation. As Red’s only way of keeping clear is to tack, she must tack. Immediately after Green completes her tack and as Red is luffing to tack, Green has to luff to avoid contact with Red and breaking rule 14 (Avoiding Contact). At this point Red breaks rule 10 (on Opposite Tacks).
However, because Green acquired right of way through her own actions , rule 15 (Acquiring Right of Way) also applies. Green is required to initially give Red space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31. However, Red is still required to keep clear first under rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks) and then under rule 13 (While Tacking). Provided Red continues to maneuver in a seamanlike manner she is sailing within the room to which she is entitled, and she is exonerated under rule 21 (Exoneration). When Green luffs she allows Red to maneuver promptly in a seamanlike manner and complies with her obligations under rule 15 (Acquiring Right of Way).
At position 4 Red passes through head to wind, Green continues to be the right-of-way boat under rule 15 (While Tacking) and rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks) no longer applies. However, Red must continue to maneuver promptly in a seamanlike manner until position 5 when she becomes the right of way boat under rule 11 (On the Same Tack, Overlapped).
10 ON OPPOSITE TACKS
When boats are on opposite tacks, a port-tack boat shall keep clear of a starboard-tack boat.
13 WHILE TACKING
After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course. During that time rules 10, 11 and 12 do not apply. If two boats are subject to this rule at the same time, the one on the other’s port side or the one astern shall keep clear.
15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY
When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat’s actions.
43 EXONERATION
43.1 (a) When as a consequence of breaking a rule a boat has compelled another boat to break a rule, the other boat is exonerated for her breach.
(b) When a boat is sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled and, as a consequence of an incident with a boat required to give her that room or mark-room she breaks a rule of Section A of Part 2, rule 15, 16, or 31, she is exonerated for her breach.
c) A right-of-way boat, or one sailing within the room or mark room to which she is entitled, is exonerated for breaking rule 14 if the contact does not cause damage or injury.
43.2 A boat exonerated for breaking a rule need not take a penalty and shall not be penalized for breaking that rule.
Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike way.
Created: 20-Dec-06 16:03
Murray Cummings
Nationality: New Zealand
0
Bob Lewis wrote
Would you agree that, under the current interpretations, for a ROW boat to break rule 15 or 16.1, contact would have to occur? Or can you think of examples where these rules are broken without contact?
No, there is no requirement in the rules or interpretations that require contact to occur. In this diagrammed situation, Green acquires ROW at position 3 when she completes her tack and 15 requires her to initially give Red room to keep clear. Red is able to keep clear by promptly tacking in a seamanlike way as Green has given her room to do so. Consider, though, if Green acquired ROW so close to Red that Red's only way to keep clear was to crash tack in an unseamanlike way. Then, by definition, Red has not initially been given room and, although no contact occurs, Green has broken rule 15.
Murray
Created: 20-Dec-06 16:11
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
I know once I see it, it would be impossible to not, but the image has yet to appear.
Yeah, David and I are trying to unsee it! I agree the interpretation should remain as is. I only wish to either see the obviousness of the interpretation, or help make it more obvious in four years, mostly so I can teach this more easily (and thus encourage more racers to partake in our sport).
To take Angelo's suggestion, I've added the bold text and strike-thrus below:
When Green completed her tack to starboard at position 3, she acquired the right-of-way under rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks) and was required by rule 15 (Acquiring Right of Way) to initially give Red room to keep clear. Red, a port tack boat, was required to maneuver promptly in a seamanlike way to keep clear of Green, a starboard tack boat.
After Green completed her tack at position 3, Red maneuvered, by luffing to tack, promptly in a seamanlike way to keep clear as required by rule 10. Green luffed to give Red room to keep clearavoid contact. as required by rule 15.
After position 3, Green was unable to ‘sail her course with no need to take avoiding action;’ therefore, Red broke rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks).However, as Red was sailing within the room to which she was entitled under rule 15 (Acquiring Right of Way), she is exonerated under rule 21(a) (Exoneration). Red's breech of rule 10 indicates that she did not have room to keep clear even though Green helped her avoid contact; DSQ Green.
Again, this is not my preferred outcome, only the reading of the rules that reads most clearly to me. I don't see how we can say Green gave room to keep clear and then also say Red broke rule 10 (regardless of exoneration).
Sorry to bog you guys down with this. Hopefully it's an interesting issue, not two pain in the neck guys trolling on a chat board; certainly not aiming to be. We're obviously sailing under and teaching the established interpretation. Thanks again for all the help from everyone.
P.S. my one-year-old daughter literally just tore up my rule book, so she might be the troll. Good thing we've got a new quad/book coming!
Created: 20-Dec-06 16:42
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Race Officer
International Umpire
International Judge
1
Nicholas: Under what rule are you proposing to disqualify Green?
Created: 20-Dec-06 16:54
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
DSQ green under Rule 15. She did not give room to keep clear, only room to avoid contact. If the room had been enough to keep clear, she would not have need to take "avoiding action after point 3".
Created: 20-Dec-06 17:24
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Mark, from your previous post, I see your statement
When Green luffs she allows Red to maneuver promptly in a seamanlike manner and complies with her obligations under rule 15 (Acquiring Right of Way).
However, in a previous post you said
After position 3, Green was unable to ‘sail her course with no need to take avoiding action;’ therefore, Red broke rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks)".
I don't see how these can both be true, as complying with obligations under rule 15, would mean giving Red space to avoid forcing Green into an "avoiding action" (I'm sorry it has taken me so long to be succinct and to the point.)
Created: 20-Dec-06 17:29
Al Sargent
Nationality: United States
-1
Nicholas, you asked in your original post, "Which is the intended real-world outcome?"
Speaking to that, and not going into rules interpretations, is for Red to begin her tack at the same time as Green. Red does this by watching for signals from Green, such as the crew coming in off the rail (in a keelboat) or from a hiking position (in a dinghy). If Red initiates a tack when Green does, she won't foul at position 3.
On the other hand, if Red starts her tack at position 3, she's not allowing enough time to keep clear. It takes time to turn a boat, and so anticipation is necessary to sail cleanly. Part of seamanship is, when in position 1, for Red to come up with a plan -- if Green were to tack right now onto starboard, would we match their tack, or duck? -- and then continue to revise that decision as the boat might shift position due to differences in boatspeed and wind direction.
That's the real world outcome of how Red should sail to avoid a foul.
Created: 20-Dec-06 17:36
Murray Cummings
Nationality: New Zealand
0
Nicholas, At the moment Green is on a close hauled course at position 3, rule 15 requires her to give Red room to keep clear. In order to comply with rule 15, Green's course is to luff after position 3. Red's tack does not prevent Green from sailing the course Green is required to sail in order to fulfill her obligations under rule 15. Murray
Created: 20-Dec-06 17:53
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Race Officer
International Umpire
International Judge
1
Nicholas, You didn't answer my question. Under what rule are you proposing to disqualify Green?
Also, if you read the first paragraph of the post they are consistent.
Green has to luff to avoid contact with Red and breaking rule 14 (Avoiding Contact). At this point Red breaks rule 10 (on Opposite Tacks).
After position 3, Green was unable to ‘sail her course with no need to take avoiding action;’ therefore, Red broke rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks)".
Created: 20-Dec-06 18:06
Murray Cummings
Nationality: New Zealand
0
Mark,
Green has to luff to avoid contact with Red and breaking rule 14 (Avoiding Contact). At this point Red breaks rule 10 (on Opposite Tacks).
My interpretation is that Green has to luff to fulfill her obligations under rule 15 to give Red room. In other words, Green's course after position 3 is to luff.
After position 3, Green was unable to ‘sail her course with no need to take avoiding action;’ therefore, Red broke rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks)".
As it is Green's course to luff after position 3 to comply with rule 15, she is able to sail her course and Red does not break rule 10. After passing head to wind, Red is turning away from Green and does not break rule 13.
I'm sure you're right Mark, but I'm still missing something in the wording/logic. Maybe you can help me understand which of my logic steps is wrong (and why):
Green acquires ROW after completing her tack at step 3
Green owes room to keep clear
from steps 3-5 Red reacts promptly in a seamanlike way to try to keep clear
from steps 3-4 Green takes avoiding action
Red does not keep clear
Red breaks RRS 10
because she is sailing within the room given to her under rule 15, Red is exonerated via RRS 21/41 for her breech
if Red does not keep clear, but acts promptly in a seamanlike way then there must not have been room to keep clear
Green breaks RRS 15
Basically, if you have steps 2, 3, 4 & 5, I don't understand how steps 8 and 9 don't follow (logically)
World Sailing Cases and Calls are authoritative interpretations of the racing rules. See Racing Rules of Sailing Introduction. They tell us how to interpret the rules. You need to be a little careful using Match Race or Team Race Calls to interpret how rules work in fleet racing, but as all the operative rules and definitions in this incident are the same; rule 10, rule 15, definition keep clear and definition room then Team Race Call D3 can be used with caution.
This incident is about a rule transition, so you only need a very minor change of timing or facts and the decision would change.
At position 2.99, Red is the right of way boat under rule 13 (While Tacking) and Green must keep clear. Red can continue to sail her course with no need to take avoiding action. Therefore, Green is keeping clear.
At position 3.00, Green is the right of way boat under rule 10 (Opposite Tacks) and Red must keep clear. Green can continue to sail her course with no need to take immediate avoiding action. Therefore, Red is keeping clear. However, as Red and Green are now on a collision course, Red as the keep clear boat must do something.
At position 3.01, Red luffs to tack and keep clear of Green. Red must keep clear and Green must give her room to do so under rule 15 (Acquiring Right of Way). Green has to take avoiding action, so Red has broken rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks). Because Red was maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike manner, she is exonerated for her breaking rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks) under rule 21 (Exoneration). Had Green not altered course and Red had to maneuver in an unseamanlike manner or there was contact then Green would break rule 15. However, Green gave Red room to keep clear so she does not break rule 15.
If Red has to take avoiding action before Yellow completes her tack (position 2.99), Yellow breaks rule 13.
If at position 4 the boats are so close that there is risk of contact, or Red had to tack in an unseamanlike way, then Yellow breaks rule 15.
Created: 20-Dec-06 22:57
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
1
It all hinges on the definition of "her course", which unfortunately there is not one. If G course was to luff then R didn't break 10, no need of exoneration and this did keep clear and this G didn't break 15.
If Gs course doesn't include the luff then R broke 10, is exonerated and G broke 15.
I find this later one strange as it suggests that a ROW boat cannot change course in order to give room. Even if G bore away away behind R she would be dsq'd by this interpretation, since there would be a moment when R was on a collision course.
Created: 20-Dec-06 23:04
Murray Cummings
Nationality: New Zealand
0
Mark Townsend wrote
Red luffs to tack and keep clear of Green. Red must keep clear and Green must give her room to do so under rule 15 (Acquiring Right of Way). Green has to take avoiding action, so Red has broken rule 10
For Green "to take avoiding action" alone is not sufficient to determine that Red has broken rule 10. For Red to break rule 10, Green would have to take avoiding action while sailing her course.
Appendix D does not change any of the rules of Part 2 Section A. Nor does it change rules 15 or 16 or the definition of room and keep clear. Whether the boats are sailing in a fleet race or team race should have no bearing on the decisions in either the original diagrammed case or in the case of Team Race Call D3.
Team Race D3 clearly states that no boat broke a rule. Yet it also says "When B completes her tack onto starboard, both boats immediately have to luff and tack away to avoid contact."
So, if B has to luff and tack away to avoid contact (ie take avoiding action), but Y does not break a rule, then the authoritative interpretation of TR D3 is that B's course is to luff and tack away in order to comply with rule 15 and Y kept clear while B was sailing that course. Similarly, in the OP's diagram, Green's course to comply with rule 15 is to luff.
The answer in TR D3 can be applied to the OP's situation with a slight change in wording.
Answer No penalty. Neither boat breaks a rule. At position 3 Green acquires right of way through her own actions and must initially give Red room to keep clear. By
luffing, she gives Red room to keep clear.
Murray
Created: 20-Dec-07 00:32
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Sorry, I must be dense. I'm still struggling. The bolded is where I'm unable to follow: mark wrote:
Green has to take avoiding action, so Red has broken rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks). Because Red was maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike manner, she is exonerated for her breaking rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks) under rule 21 (Exoneration). Had Green not altered course and Red had to maneuver in an unseamanlike manner or there was contact then Green would break rule 15. However, Green gave Red room to keep clear so she does not break rule 15.
My sense is that Red only breaks rule 10 if she doesn't keep clear and the avoiding action means she doesn't keep clear. How then did Green give Red room to keep clear if Red doesn't keep clear? Also, can you show me where "contact" (or "risk of contact") comes from? My understanding was that the only rule that mentions "contact" is 14, and that rule 15 is predicated on room to keep clear (and that's stricter than contact).
Created: 20-Dec-07 02:13
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
0
the avoiding action means she doesn't keep clear.
Does it? I think that is the logical link that the two different interpretation depend on, which in turn depend on what is meant by "her course".
Is her course to luff? If yes then no rules broken. If no, then 10 or 13 broken, exonerated and 15 is broken
There is no formal definition of course in the rules, so we need to talk back to a common language definition. Unfortunately course could mean sailing in a straight line on her current heading (eg "maintain course") or it could mean the curving trace of where a boat wants to sail to finish the race (eg "race course").
I'm not sure how you pick between them, other than look to cases like TR D3.
Created: 20-Dec-07 08:23
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
1
Answering my own question... I don't think a boats course can include her obligation to luff. All boats are obligated to avoid a collision, so in a simple application of 10 if a starboard boat luffed to comply with 14, it would be silly to argue that was her course and thus the port boat kept clear.
This I'm now thinking the interpretation of "her course" should be as in "maintain course". So I've leaning to agree that Red broke 10or13 but is exonerated and Green broke 15.
But some official clarification would be really good on this one.
Created: 20-Dec-07 08:45
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
I also got here eventually Greg. Plus, the wording of appeals 119 and 120 also use this application of "avoiding action" so we're in good company with this idea. Note that the appeals, as well as team race call D3 do NOT agree with the bolded phrase, and I agree that we don't want to be penalizing Green here. The conundrum is to (easily and simply) explain to those who are newer to the sport how that confusion resolves.
Answering my own question... I don't think a boats course can include her obligation to luff. This I'm now thinking the interpretation of "her course" should be as in "maintain course". So I'm leaning to agree that Red broke 10 but is exonerated and Green broke 15.
But some official clarification would be really good on this one.
I think David is going to post something again that he and I think solve our issue. When he does, tell us what you think. Appreciate you following along with this and helping us think through it.
Created: 20-Dec-07 15:41
David Chudzicki
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
2
Angelo was right to say it's a timing-application issue.
I think my confusion (and some others') arises from ambiguity in the meaning of "when" in rules 15 and 16. In ordinary English, "when" can mean:
Immediately before: "When you cross the street, look both ways."
During: "When you catch a ball, use both hands."
Immediately after: "When a man enters a building, he should take off his hat."
If we interpret the "when" in rules 15 and 16 like (1) or (2):
it's against the rules if the ROW boat (having gained right of way, or changed course) hasn't *already* given room to keep clear.
If we interpret "When" like (3):
it's okay to gain right-of-way or change course so that you're in a situation where the other boat does not yet have room to keep clear, and *then* give them room to keep clear.
This interpretation where "When" means something like "Immediately after" seems to be the correct one (the one that's consistent with TR CALL D3, US Appeals 119/120, etc.).
Does that seem right?
Created: 20-Dec-07 16:02
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
0
Nicholas, I've actually come all the way round to thinking that Green should be penalised here.
If the boats were closer, so there was no way that Green could complete her tack prior to contact with Red, then Green will have definitely broken 13 If the boats were further apart so that Green could tack then Red could complete her tack before Green needs to luff, then no rules were broken.
But we are in the middle ground in this situation, so the question is should Green be allowed to tack, forcing Red to tack, but then luff in order to meet her obligations to 15. Initially I thought sure she could, but now I'm thinking she should be penalised for doing so because she is forcing Red to tack when there is not enough room fr Green to tack AND give room to Red to keep clear.
If Green only need luff to avoid Red after Red has completed her tack, then I think that is OK.
Thinking of it the other way around - 15 required Green to give room to Red to keep-clear, giving enough room to not-keep-clear-but-be-exonerated is not sufficient.
cheers
Created: 20-Dec-07 16:29
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
I think I can see where you might be wandering off the ranch here. I still don’t see the problem as you see it, but I think I can tell what you are doing.
As best as I can tell, the issue here is that those of you who see a problem (think that Green broke 15) are incorrectly applying a static analysis of “room” to what is a dynamic solution of “room”.
A ROW boat can have a plan of action to provide room to a keep-clear boat that is entitled to room, and this plan can include alterations of the ROW boat’s course during the period she is room-obligated.
For instance, coming into a leeward mark as a ROW owing room to an inside boat, my obligation to provide mark-room starts when the first of us reach the zone, Right? ...
BUT there is no obligation on me, the ROW, to adopt a course just prior to entering the zone such that at the moment I enter the zone my boat is already on a trajectory which will provide that room without course alteration by me. I can wait until our boats get closer, inside the zone and well after I became room-obligated, and then alter course, for instance to prevent the inside boat from doing a tactical rounding. As long as I provide that room in the end, I can time my alterations in course as I like.
In the OP, the moment that Green completes her tack (or for that matter the moment any ROW boat becomes obligated to provide room to a keep-clear boat) that is the moment, and not before, that the universe of possible ways to give that room are calculated. Those ‘possible-room-solutions’ often include alterations of course by the ROW boat. This is not an indication that the ROW broke a rule.
These ‘possible-room-solutions’ are highly dependent upon the type of boat, speed, crew, sea state, conditions, etc. The OP scenario would likely be too close for 10m boats on a beat in 15kts with the crew on the rail, but not too much for a Laser.
Being highly situational, the room’s proof is in the pudding. In this case, there is no claim that Red’s tack was unseamanlike. Therefore, Green was within her rights to plan to tack, become ROW and then alter her course as necessary to provide Red room. Likewise, Green could have planned to tack, become ROW but continue to fall away from the wind and duck Red.
Also, just because Green alters course does not represent proof that she provided Red room. This conclusion can only be made when analyzing Red’s ability or inability to keep clear in a seamanlike way while also meeting her obligations under Part 2 and Rule 31.
That’s the best I can do fella’s. I don’t know of any other way to explain it.
Created: 20-Dec-07 16:37
Bob Lewis
Nationality: Canada
0
Angelo,
Your discussion seems to me to be an explanation of how the rule works now in practice given the appeal decisions. So that’s all good and I agree with you ... and Mike T. But the issue that some of us have is that on an academic level, the wording of the rule does not seem to logically support the conclusions and some of us think perhaps the rule wording should change to not use the phrase “to keep clear” as the room that must be given. (After all, the give way boat fails to keep clear in these decisions) (I should add that Team Race Call D3 is wrong in regard to stating that no rules are broken as clearly that contradicts US Appeal 120).
Using a mark rounding example is not good as rule 18 does not require room to “keep clear” which is the problematic phrase.
Consider how these decisions would go if there was contact. Wouldn’t you conclude that room to keep clear was not given? But how would you justify that when the only change to the current fact patterns is the contact. That would be tantamount to saying that contact is necessary to break the rule, or more completely I would put it this way:
“For a ROW boat to break rule 15 it must either contact the give way boat or give such little room that only unseamanlike actions by the give way boat avoided the contact.”
Currently, I might call that a corollary to US Appeal 120. Would I be wrong?
Thanks Murray for the “unseamanlike – no contact example, answering my previous question. I like your idea of redefining of course for this rule such that no rules are broken but that would require a rewriting of the US Appeals. Oh, and team race calls are not authoritative for fleet racing per the call book forward.
Created: 20-Dec-07 21:24
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Bob, re: “Using a mark rounding example is not good as rule 18 does not require room to “keep clear” which is the problematic phrase.”
Absolutely it does.
1) Mark-room includes room.
2) Room includes space to comply with her Part 2 obligations.
3) If there is a ROW boat, that means there is a Keep-clear boat under Part 2 by definition.
Therefore, a keep clear boat’s mark-room also includes room to keep clear of the ROW boat which owes her mark-room.
Created: 20-Dec-07 22:05
Murray Cummings
Nationality: New Zealand
0
Bob, The OP did not state that the situation was for a fleet race. The same situation could occur in either a fleet or team race and the same rules would apply. Therefore, call TR D3 is authoritative for the OP situation if the boats were sailing under Appendix D, Do you think the answer would be different for a fleet race where none of the applicable rules are changed by Appendix D? Oh, and US Appeals are not authoritative interpretations unless approved by World Sailing in accordance with Regulation 28.4
Murray PS. I didn't redefine "course". I merely used it "in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use". Green's course from position 3 to 5 is to luff in order to comply with rule 15 and give Red room. While sailing that course, she does not have to avoid Red so long as Red is sailing within the room she is entitled.
Created: 20-Dec-08 00:42
Bob Lewis
Nationality: Canada
0
Murray asked me:
call TR D3 is authoritative for the OP situation if the boats were sailing under Appendix D, Do you think the answer would be different for a fleet race where none of the applicable rules are changed by Appendix D?
Murray, I think I owe you an apology for not reading WS Case 146 that Mark T listed way above. That is a case of a leeward ROW boat starting to luff a windward boat into a start barge and then bearing away to give room under 16.1. Neither boat was penalized but the windward boat was ruled to have broken rule 11 but was exonerated. So I think that case would cover the fleet situation and I think would actually be considered to overrule TR D3 in a team race.
To be clear, I am only talking about the part of TR D3 where they say no rules are broken whereas the WS Case says the keep clear boat does break the ROW rule 11 and is exonerated.
Created: 20-Dec-08 06:23
Bob Lewis
Nationality: Canada
0
Angelo, Yes, of course you are right that "room to keep clear" is embedded in the definition of room. I just thought rule 18 has other room requirements that are hard to sort through to illuminate the issue at hand. I note how you state " 2)Room includes space to comply with her Part 2 obligations." If you agree with Mike T and the Case 146, the boat with room here does not "comply with her Part 2 obligations". She breaks rule 10. So if she didn't comply, and I would say couldn't comply, how is it that she was given the space she needed to comply so that room was given? Don't answer. If it still seems logical to you, we should leave it at that.
Created: 20-Dec-08 06:48
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Honey, when you get to the store, please pick me up some milk and eggs if you can. He returns without milk and eggs.
When asked why, he explains that the milk and eggs are at the back of the store. When he got to the store the entrance was at the front and his arms were too short to reach the milk and eggs .. so he turned around and went home.
Created: 20-Dec-08 15:30
David Chudzicki
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Judge
0
Angelo: Yeah, your example is a good one.
But my other examples above show that the timing of "When" is ambiguous. It seems like maybe something like "Immediately after" instead of "When" would be clearer.
[Edit: Maybe also replace "give" with "make". I'm trying to get at the idea that the room doesn't immediately have to exist, but you have to make it as quick as you can.]
Created: 20-Dec-08 15:38
Tom Sollas
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
National Judge
0
Lot of comments since I last looked at this thread, all good stuff. I'm in the camp (for the original diagram) that neither boat breaks a rule, and anecdotally here.
Several years ago I heard a protest involving two E-Scows, where a port tacker tacks from P to S inside the zone at the windward mark, clear ahead of a starboard tack E-Scow, fetching the mark. P had completed the tack, and became ROW boat via 12, but S had to alter course to avoid making contact as she overtook P (P of course being slower coming out of the tack), there was no contact. Basically a classic situation that we've all heard at one time or another or been involved in at some point in our careers.
The decision boiled down to whether we thought P broke 15 (she didn't break 18.3 in this case). We ended up tossing P for breaking 15, arguing that because S had to alter course almost immediately upon completing her tack, P didn't initially give S room. P appealed.
The area appeals committee reversed the decision, exonerating P, the takeaway was the interpretation of "initially". Essentially (and I don't have the appeal handy to quote it directly), based on the facts written, the appeals committee ruled that because P had completed her tack, acquired ROW, and S didn't immediately need to alter course, P satisfied her obligations under 15.
Now given the original diagram, ruling no boat breaks a rule would be consistent with this particular area appeal (and the TR call mentioned earlier). Since at position 3, green is now close hauled and on S, and she's subject to 15. Red does have room to tack, but Green must alter course to allow Red to complete her tack (e.g. the room Red requires to Keep Clear), she does so and fulfills her 15 obligations. Similarly, at 5, Red is now ROW, and S has room to keep clear she can still head up, and thus Red fulfills her 15 obligations.
This works in this case because of the absence of other boats, US78 adds some wrinkles when other boats are involved (say a yellow on port directly to windward of Red).
Created: 20-Dec-08 16:24
Murray Cummings
Nationality: New Zealand
0
Bob,
I think that case would cover the fleet situation and I think would actually be considered to overrule TR D3 in a team race.
The OP case and TR D3 are quite different than Case 146 and different rules are applicable. I don't think Case 146 can overrule TR D3 in team race situations. Personally, I think Case 146 (and USA 2018/117) need to be thought through and changes made. It is clear that, when L changes course, W will not have room to be able to keep clear of L. It should be deemed that, when W breaks rule 11, L has broken rule 16.1. However, the Case is authoritative and, in the same or similar situations, the decision/s should adhere to that principle. It seems that, when a boat establishes an overlap from astern or changes course and does not give room as required, it is OK as long as room is subsequently given without contact occurring.
Created: 20-Dec-08 17:28
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Last Updated
Rules
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2013-2016; Version 6
December 2015
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2017-2020
August 2017
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2021-2024
December 2020
Prescriptions
Australia
July 2017
Canada
November 2019
Great Britain - RYA has declined to grant a license for prescriptions and cases.
November 2019
New Zealand
July 2017
United States
February 2017
Cases
World Sailing Cases
February 2022
World Sailing Q&As
March 2022
Match Race Calls
January 2020
Match Race Rapid Response Calls
October 2018
Team Race Calls
December 2018
Team Race Rapid Response Calls
February 2016
CAN Cases
October 2017
RYA Cases
November 2019
US Appeals
November 2019
Manuals
World Sailing Judges Manual
December 2019
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more
let me ask you several questions.
1. At positions 4 is Red obeying rule 13? the part ...If the two boats are sublet to this rule at the same time, the one on the others port side or the one astern shall keep clear."?
2. At position 5 where Red has established leeward postion after acquiring right-of -way has she obeyed rule 15 it the Green boat must loft above close hauled to avoid Red?
3. If Green was a little slow in lofting and there was contact, who broke what rules?
let me ask you several questions.
1. At positions 4 is Red obeying rule 13? the part ...If the two boats are sublet to this rule at the same time, the one on the others port side or the one astern shall keep clear."?
2. At position 5 where Red has established leeward postion after acquiring right-of -way has she obeyed rule 15 it the Green boat must loft above close hauled to avoid Red?
3. If Green was a little slow in lofting and there was contact, who broke what rules?
4. If Red had held their course , would not Green have passed clear ahead?
1) yes (Red begin their tack once Green completes theirs and has acquired ROW)
2) I think so, but let me think for a second on this...
3) if Green did not luff to comply with RRS 15 (at points 4-5), then Red would break rule 10 and be exonerated because Green compelled her to by breaking rule 15. DSQ Green in that alternate scenario.
4) updated image to make Red ducking Green non-"seamanlike" Thanks for catching this.
Green owes Red Room to Keep Clear per RRS 15. This includes "...space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2..." so I think that Green continues to owe Red that Room until Red's own RRS 15 is complied with.
(Wow! Green owes Red Room to give Green Room!)
I still wonder about the reasoning behind that call. I don't understand why heading up from B3 to B4 isn't an "avoiding action". I would have said that at position 3, B can't "sail her course with no need to take avoiding action", which means Y didn't keep clear, which means B didn't give Y room to keep clear.
TR CALL D3 clearly says I'm wrong, but I don't really understand why I'm wrong.
Does it feel to anyone else like this interpretation should be more obvious without going to a team racing call book? (ie. the wording should be looked at over the next four years for clarity?) EDIT: What David said.
Thanks again, Niko
1- When a boat tacks on to starboard she becomes right of way only when she completes her tack by reaching a close hauled course.
2- At that point Rule 15 kicks in and "she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear. [...]"
3- def. of Room: "The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way."
4- When B (or Red in the first diagram) acquires right of way, the boats are so close that it will not be possible for Y (or green in the first diagram) to keep clear in a seamanlike way.
5- The only action that Y (or green) can take is to tack, but if B (or red) does nothing contact will occur. Since Y (or green) were complying with her obligations to keep clear (manoeuvring promptly on a seamanlike way, once she becomes keep clear boat), it is the actions of B (or red) acquiring right of way, which would have cause the contact thus breaking rule 15.
6- However, a boat that has to give room to another, can continue to alter course in order to provide additional room and facilitate that the keep clear boat can comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2, which in this case includes rule 13. Y (or red) does this by tacking again or luffing.
Is it avoiding action? Yes, but because Y (or Red) had a limitation imposed by rule 15, those actions are considered consistent with continuing to give room.
I hope it is a bit clearer. In essence, the italics text highlights the principle to apply:
"A boat acquiring right of way may comply with rule 15 by altering course herself. This principle applies on any leg of the course."
In umpired fleet racing and match racing is the same. In theory in normal fleet racing applies as well, but it becomes a bit more difficult to convince a Jury (specially if they have not witnessed the incident) to get to facts found that match those actions.
In the drawing, both boats are on the same tack at position 1. From the moment Green passes head to wind at position 2 until she is close hauled at position 3, Green is required to keep clear of Red (rule 13). This means that between positions 2 and 3, Red has right of way over Green. At position 3, Green acquires right of way and Red is required to keep clear.
The only seamanlike manoeuvre available for Red to be able to keep clear of Green from position 3 is to tack and Green is required to give Red room to do so (rule 15). By luffing, Green fulfills her obligation under rule 15 and Red is thereafter able to keep clear of Green. If Green did not luff, Red would not have had room to keep clear of Green from the moment Green acquired right of way.
Throughout her tack, Red is sailing within the room she is entitled to and rule 43.1(b) exonerates her if she were to break a rule of Part 2 Section A.
Another question:
Suppose the situation is like in TR CALL D3, but Y is a little bit further upwind - not so far they they're crossing B at position 3, but enough that it'd be a small duck for B to avoid Y.
Is Y *required* to tack to avoid, and have the situation play out like in TR CALL D3?
Or is it also OK for Y to hold her course, expecting B to duck?
It seems to me like in either case B is making a course change to give Y room to keep clear. I guess in both cases, no penalty on either boat?
In other words: Whichever decision Y makes (tack or keep sailing), a course change from B is required to give Y room to keep clear. Do the rules prefer one option over the other?
I think that at boat position #4 Red has passed head to wind and is operating under rule 13 should apply Red also broke rule 10 by beginning to tack in front of starboard and making starboard to sail over close haul to avoid her.
I think that in Red came to close hauled in front of Green (acquired R O W) violating rule 15 because she did not initially keep clear of Green
I think that in boat position #2 Red could have tacked cleanly onto port and had controlling position without any violations
Think about the interactions position by position.
b) yes but... Red is exonerated from these two fouls by RRS 43.1
c) I think you're mis-reading RRS 15. The rule requires a boat acquiring ROW to initially give the other (give-way) boat room to keep clear, not to keep clear herself. This principle applies as well at position 3, where Green acquires ROW.
d) At position 2, Red is ROW because Green has passed head-to-wind (is tacking) and rule 13 applies between them.
2) Red is ROW (Green is tacking, RRS 13)
3) Green is ROW (port/stbd, RRS 10) but owes Red Room to initially Keep Clear (RRS 15)
4) Green is ROW (Red is tacking, RRS 13) but Red is still sailing within the Room to initially keep clear Green is providing (RRS 15)
5) Red is ROW (W/L, RRS 11) and owes Green Room to initially Keep Clear (RRS 15) but Red is still sailing within the Room to initially keep clear Green is providing (RRS 15)
6) Red is ROW (W/L, RRS 11) and initial Room to Keep Clear has been given. No fouls committed
I think your analysis is correct. The wording of the rule leads to a literal interpretation that is inconsistent with the authorities. Since rule 15 requires green to give room to keep clear one should conclude that if green needs to change course to avoid red, then red has not kept clear by the definition of keep clear and therefore green has not given room as required. But the authorities have decided to interpret “room to keeping clear” as “room to avoid a collision” for this rule and rule 16.1, although they don’t state it that way.
Some references:
1. Team Race Call TR D3 above, pretty much the same as your case.
2. US Appeal 119 in the 2020 supplement where a boat clear astern gains a leeward overlap from astern, inches from the new windward boat.Even though the windward boat has not kept clear by the wiggle room definition, rule 15 is held not to have been broken as the new leeward ROW boat bears off before there is a collision. The windward boat is ruled to have broken rule 11 but is exonerated.
A similar concept is applied to rule 16.1 in this US appeal case:
3. US Appeal 120 in the 2020 supplement, where a port tack boat is easily crossing a starboard tack boat but the starboard tack boat seems to hunt up to a position that forces it to then bear off to avoid a collision. Since no collision, no fouls committed by the starboard boat even though the port tack boat was unable to “keep clear” by the usual definition. Indeed the port tack boat is held to have broken rule 10 but is exonerated.
So that’s how I would teach it. It wouldn’t be the first law or rule that doesn’t mean what it says!!
If David and I can come up with a SIMPLE potential way to alter the wording to make the appeals more obvious, we will post here so you all can pick it apart.
Cheers, Niko
RRS 15 provides the keep clear boat Room to Keep Clear from the newly ROW boat. The 'room' is the key here. In both the TR Call and the OP, the port boat is entitled to room.
Room always incorporates "... maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike way." Case 103. It also is " .. space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31". Case 114 ... not only complying with the rule in which room was granted.
In the OP, Green could have provided that room to Red by continuing to turn away from the wind at the end of the tack and ducking Red. In that instance, Red could have kept clear by holding her course and in essence taking no affirmative action at all.
Green must provide Red room, though Green is ROW. This is not too far removed from a keep-clear boat being inside at the mark and owed mark-room (which includes room) from a ROW boat or like others have pointed out, a ROW boat changing course and owing the keep clear boat room to keep clear under rule 16.1.
As is stated in the title of the Section B, these are "Limitations" to the ROW boat's ability to exercise their ROW privilege.
As currently written, Cases 119 and 120 interpret Keep Clear to mean something other than the term defined in the rulebook. Indeed, they OK giving room to avoid contact rather than to keep clear. They OK forcing the give-way boat to (however briefly) break a rule of Section A (ie. not keep clear). Changing the definition of Keep Clear in this way makes teaching, following, and judging the rules much more difficult. I present four possible options to fix this:
I theoretically prefer number 4 but I bet there's a reason/situation it won't work. Anyway, have at em. Rip em apart. Propose your own. Tell me why my second paragraph is wrong. Please just make my head stop spinning with this apparent canonical inconsistency
I find support of this interpretation from :
If Red was never able to force Green to luff, then 18.3 would not be required.
So a tack from Red can cause Green to luff within the rules:
“Room” includes space to comply with ALL of Part 2, which of course includes 10 and 13 here.
The room the RRS 15 obligated ROW boat must give is a limitation on the ROW-rule, until that room as been given.
In this case, the room Red is owed, limits Green’s 10 and then 13 ROW privilege.
Angelo, this is why I find Appeal 120 so confusing. It says that Wonder broke rule 10 but is exonerated under 21(a).
If Wonder was compelled to break rule 10, then that must mean Walloping Swede did not give Wonder room to comply with room 10. So why isn't Walloping Swede penalized for rule 16? (I already appreciate all the great help we've received in this thread, but if there's anything anyone can say to explain this that would be even better.)
(That puzzle is why Niko's thinking about other wordings that might capture the intent better.)
Maybe its easier to see in something more obvious .. room which is part of mark-room. Yellow breaks Rule 10 because she failed to keep-clear of Blue, a ROW boat, just after #2, but Yellow is exonerated by Rule 43.1(b) [new quad #'s] because Yellow is sailing within the mark-room she is entitled to (which includes room) under rule 18.
Thanks. Of course you're right. Sorry. It says she's exonerated under 21(a) ("sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled"). Nothing about "compelled" in 21a.
Would you agree that, under the current interpretations, for a ROW boat to break rule 15 or 16.1, contact would have to occur? Or can you think of examples where these rules are broken without contact?
Reading through this thread has had me feeling at times like I was being asked to stare at an outlined picture of a candle holder, waiting for a woman’s profile to appear. I know once I see it, it would be impossible to not, but the image has yet to appear.
The closest I’ve gotten is the sense that there is a timing-application issue at hand here. The rules are meant to keep real boats on the water from hurting each other. Real boats with people take time to react and that time from action to reaction is part of what is built into the rules ... rules which apply to a Laser that can react quickly to a Maxi, that cannot.
Since I do not see the woman’s profile, I also do not see the Cases and Appeals as “unusual” or strained because they are “made on the basis of getting the result they want”. These make sense to me as straightforward applications of the rules.
Maybe you can help us see the woman’s profile ....
Mark provided a textbook application of the rules in this scenario above. Maybe you can start with Marks point-by-point application, copy/paste it, and insert where you think rule applications are missing?
In my incorrect interpretation, "give room to keep clear" is a thing the ROW boat must be doing at all application points (upon acquiring for 15, throughout any course change for 15). In that incorrect view, the other boat must have room at all those points. (If they don't, the ROW boat wasn't giving it.) I think I'm starting to see the correct interpretation, especially after Mark's point-by-point application. Instead of being a state that must hold at all applicable times, it sounds like "give room to keep clear" is an action the ROW must take at all applicable times.
Some timing applications I'd love some clarification on:
For 15: "When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially...". This sounds like it means the ROW must act to give room pretty much immediately upon acquiring ROW. Is that right?
For 16: "When a right-of-way boat changes course, ...": Does this mean it's okay for a ROW boat's course change to result in no room to keep clear, but if it does they must act immediately to give room?
In the situation of Appeal 120, would it be okay for Walloping Swede to alternate back and forth between Wonder having room and not having room? (Head up a little so no room, then bear away so there's room, then head up so there's no room, then bear away. Repeat a few times before bearing away to pass Wonder's stern.)
Again, I really appreciate everyone's help with this. I think we're fixing a big confusion I had about the rules.
If I interpret "When" in 15 and 16 as "Immediately after", will I be reading it right?
No, there is no requirement in the rules or interpretations that require contact to occur.
In this diagrammed situation, Green acquires ROW at position 3 when she completes her tack and 15 requires her to initially give Red room to keep clear. Red is able to keep clear by promptly tacking in a seamanlike way as Green has given her room to do so. Consider, though, if Green acquired ROW so close to Red that Red's only way to keep clear was to crash tack in an unseamanlike way. Then, by definition, Red has not initially been given room and, although no contact occurs, Green has broken rule 15.
Murray
To take Angelo's suggestion, I've added the bold text and strike-thrus below:
Sorry to bog you guys down with this. Hopefully it's an interesting issue, not two pain in the neck guys trolling on a chat board; certainly not aiming to be. We're obviously sailing under and teaching the established interpretation. Thanks again for all the help from everyone.
P.S. my one-year-old daughter literally just tore up my rule book, so she might be the troll. Good thing we've got a new quad/book coming!
(I'm sorry it has taken me so long to be succinct and to the point.)
Speaking to that, and not going into rules interpretations, is for Red to begin her tack at the same time as Green. Red does this by watching for signals from Green, such as the crew coming in off the rail (in a keelboat) or from a hiking position (in a dinghy). If Red initiates a tack when Green does, she won't foul at position 3.
On the other hand, if Red starts her tack at position 3, she's not allowing enough time to keep clear. It takes time to turn a boat, and so anticipation is necessary to sail cleanly. Part of seamanship is, when in position 1, for Red to come up with a plan -- if Green were to tack right now onto starboard, would we match their tack, or duck? -- and then continue to revise that decision as the boat might shift position due to differences in boatspeed and wind direction.
That's the real world outcome of how Red should sail to avoid a foul.
At the moment Green is on a close hauled course at position 3, rule 15 requires her to give Red room to keep clear. In order to comply with rule 15, Green's course is to luff after position 3. Red's tack does not prevent Green from sailing the course Green is required to sail in order to fulfill her obligations under rule 15.
Murray
Also, if you read the first paragraph of the post they are consistent.
My interpretation is that Green has to luff to fulfill her obligations under rule 15 to give Red room. In other words, Green's course after position 3 is to luff.
As it is Green's course to luff after position 3 to comply with rule 15, she is able to sail her course and Red does not break rule 10.
After passing head to wind, Red is turning away from Green and does not break rule 13.
Murray
World Sailing Cases and Calls are authoritative interpretations of the racing rules. See Racing Rules of Sailing Introduction. They tell us how to interpret the rules. You need to be a little careful using Match Race or Team Race Calls to interpret how rules work in fleet racing, but as all the operative rules and definitions in this incident are the same; rule 10, rule 15, definition keep clear and definition room then Team Race Call D3 can be used with caution.
It all hinges on the definition of "her course", which unfortunately there is not one. If G course was to luff then R didn't break 10, no need of exoneration and this did keep clear and this G didn't break 15.
If Gs course doesn't include the luff then R broke 10, is exonerated and G broke 15.
I find this later one strange as it suggests that a ROW boat cannot change course in order to give room. Even if G bore away away behind R she would be dsq'd by this interpretation, since there would be a moment when R was on a collision course.
For Green "to take avoiding action" alone is not sufficient to determine that Red has broken rule 10. For Red to break rule 10, Green would have to take avoiding action while sailing her course.
Appendix D does not change any of the rules of Part 2 Section A. Nor does it change rules 15 or 16 or the definition of room and keep clear. Whether the boats are sailing in a fleet race or team race should have no bearing on the decisions in either the original diagrammed case or in the case of Team Race Call D3.
Team Race D3 clearly states that no boat broke a rule. Yet it also says "When B completes her tack onto starboard, both boats immediately have to luff and tack away to avoid contact."
So, if B has to luff and tack away to avoid contact (ie take avoiding action), but Y does not break a rule, then the authoritative interpretation of TR D3 is that B's course is to luff and tack away in order to comply with rule 15 and Y kept clear while B was sailing that course.
Similarly, in the OP's diagram, Green's course to comply with rule 15 is to luff.
The answer in TR D3 can be applied to the OP's situation with a slight change in wording.
Answer
No penalty. Neither boat breaks a rule. At position 3 Green acquires right of way through her own actions and must initially give Red room to keep clear. By
Murray
mark wrote:
Also, can you show me where "contact" (or "risk of contact") comes from? My understanding was that the only rule that mentions "contact" is 14, and that rule 15 is predicated on room to keep clear (and that's stricter than contact).
Does it? I think that is the logical link that the two different interpretation depend on, which in turn depend on what is meant by "her course".
Is her course to luff? If yes then no rules broken. If no, then 10 or 13 broken, exonerated and 15 is broken
There is no formal definition of course in the rules, so we need to talk back to a common language definition. Unfortunately course could mean sailing in a straight line on her current heading (eg "maintain course") or it could mean the curving trace of where a boat wants to sail to finish the race (eg "race course").
I'm not sure how you pick between them, other than look to cases like TR D3.
Answering my own question... I don't think a boats course can include her obligation to luff. All boats are obligated to avoid a collision, so in a simple application of 10 if a starboard boat luffed to comply with 14, it would be silly to argue that was her course and thus the port boat kept clear.
This I'm now thinking the interpretation of "her course" should be as in "maintain course". So I've leaning to agree that Red broke 10or13 but is exonerated and Green broke 15.
But some official clarification would be really good on this one.
I think David is going to post something again that he and I think solve our issue. When he does, tell us what you think. Appreciate you following along with this and helping us think through it.
I think my confusion (and some others') arises from ambiguity in the meaning of "when" in rules 15 and 16. In ordinary English, "when" can mean:
off his hat."
*already* given room to keep clear.
not yet have room to keep clear, and *then* give them room to keep clear.
This interpretation where "When" means something like "Immediately after" seems to be the correct one (the one that's consistent with TR CALL D3, US Appeals 119/120, etc.).
Does that seem right?
I've actually come all the way round to thinking that Green should be penalised here.
If the boats were closer, so there was no way that Green could complete her tack prior to contact with Red, then Green will have definitely broken 13
If the boats were further apart so that Green could tack then Red could complete her tack before Green needs to luff, then no rules were broken.
But we are in the middle ground in this situation, so the question is should Green be allowed to tack, forcing Red to tack, but then luff in order to meet her obligations to 15.
Initially I thought sure she could, but now I'm thinking she should be penalised for doing so because she is forcing Red to tack when there is not enough room fr Green to tack AND give room to Red to keep clear.
If Green only need luff to avoid Red after Red has completed her tack, then I think that is OK.
Thinking of it the other way around - 15 required Green to give room to Red to keep-clear, giving enough room to not-keep-clear-but-be-exonerated is not sufficient.
cheers
As best as I can tell, the issue here is that those of you who see a problem (think that Green broke 15) are incorrectly applying a static analysis of “room” to what is a dynamic solution of “room”.
A ROW boat can have a plan of action to provide room to a keep-clear boat that is entitled to room, and this plan can include alterations of the ROW boat’s course during the period she is room-obligated.
For instance, coming into a leeward mark as a ROW owing room to an inside boat, my obligation to provide mark-room starts when the first of us reach the zone, Right? ...
BUT there is no obligation on me, the ROW, to adopt a course just prior to entering the zone such that at the moment I enter the zone my boat is already on a trajectory which will provide that room without course alteration by me. I can wait until our boats get closer, inside the zone and well after I became room-obligated, and then alter course, for instance to prevent the inside boat from doing a tactical rounding. As long as I provide that room in the end, I can time my alterations in course as I like.
In the OP, the moment that Green completes her tack (or for that matter the moment any ROW boat becomes obligated to provide room to a keep-clear boat) that is the moment, and not before, that the universe of possible ways to give that room are calculated. Those ‘possible-room-solutions’ often include alterations of course by the ROW boat. This is not an indication that the ROW broke a rule.
These ‘possible-room-solutions’ are highly dependent upon the type of boat, speed, crew, sea state, conditions, etc. The OP scenario would likely be too close for 10m boats on a beat in 15kts with the crew on the rail, but not too much for a Laser.
Being highly situational, the room’s proof is in the pudding. In this case, there is no claim that Red’s tack was unseamanlike. Therefore, Green was within her rights to plan to tack, become ROW and then alter her course as necessary to provide Red room. Likewise, Green could have planned to tack, become ROW but continue to fall away from the wind and duck Red.
Also, just because Green alters course does not represent proof that she provided Red room. This conclusion can only be made when analyzing Red’s ability or inability to keep clear in a seamanlike way while also meeting her obligations under Part 2 and Rule 31.
That’s the best I can do fella’s. I don’t know of any other way to explain it.
Your discussion seems to me to be an explanation of how the rule works now in practice given the appeal decisions. So that’s all good and I agree with you ... and Mike T. But the issue that some of us have is that on an academic level, the wording of the rule does not seem to logically support the conclusions and some of us think perhaps the rule wording should change to not use the phrase “to keep clear” as the room that must be given. (After all, the give way boat fails to keep clear in these decisions) (I should add that Team Race Call D3 is wrong in regard to stating that no rules are broken as clearly that contradicts US Appeal 120).
Using a mark rounding example is not good as rule 18 does not require room to “keep clear” which is the problematic phrase.
Consider how these decisions would go if there was contact. Wouldn’t you conclude that room to keep clear was not given? But how would you justify that when the only change to the current fact patterns is the contact. That would be tantamount to saying that contact is necessary to break the rule, or more completely I would put it this way:
“For a ROW boat to break rule 15 it must either contact the give way boat or give such little room that only unseamanlike actions by the give way boat avoided the contact.”
Currently, I might call that a corollary to US Appeal 120. Would I be wrong?
Thanks Murray for the “unseamanlike – no contact example, answering my previous question. I like your idea of redefining of course for this rule such that no rules are broken but that would require a rewriting of the US Appeals. Oh, and team race calls are not authoritative for fleet racing per the call book forward.
Absolutely it does.
1) Mark-room includes room.
2) Room includes space to comply with her Part 2 obligations.
3) If there is a ROW boat, that means there is a Keep-clear boat under Part 2 by definition.
Therefore, a keep clear boat’s mark-room also includes room to keep clear of the ROW boat which owes her mark-room.
The OP did not state that the situation was for a fleet race. The same situation could occur in either a fleet or team race and the same rules would apply.
Therefore, call TR D3 is authoritative for the OP situation if the boats were sailing under Appendix D, Do you think the answer would be different for a fleet race where none of the applicable rules are changed by Appendix D?
Oh, and US Appeals are not authoritative interpretations unless approved by World Sailing in accordance with Regulation 28.4
Murray
PS. I didn't redefine "course". I merely used it "in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use".
Green's course from position 3 to 5 is to luff in order to comply with rule 15 and give Red room. While sailing that course, she does not have to avoid Red so long as Red is sailing within the room she is entitled.
Murray, I think I owe you an apology for not reading WS Case 146 that Mark T listed way above. That is a case of a leeward ROW boat starting to luff a windward boat into a start barge and then bearing away to give room under 16.1. Neither boat was penalized but the windward boat was ruled to have broken rule 11 but was exonerated.
So I think that case would cover the fleet situation and I think would actually be considered to overrule TR D3 in a team race.
To be clear, I am only talking about the part of TR D3 where they say no rules are broken whereas the WS Case says the keep clear boat does break the ROW rule 11 and is exonerated.
Yes, of course you are right that "room to keep clear" is embedded in the definition of room. I just thought rule 18 has other room requirements that are hard to sort through to illuminate the issue at hand.
I note how you state " 2)Room includes space to comply with her Part 2 obligations." If you agree with Mike T and the Case 146, the boat with room here does not "comply with her Part 2 obligations". She breaks rule 10. So if she didn't comply, and I would say couldn't comply, how is it that she was given the space she needed to comply so that room was given? Don't answer. If it still seems logical to you, we should leave it at that.
When asked why, he explains that the milk and eggs are at the back of the store. When he got to the store the entrance was at the front and his arms were too short to reach the milk and eggs .. so he turned around and went home.
But my other examples above show that the timing of "When" is ambiguous. It seems like maybe something like "Immediately after" instead of "When" would be clearer.
[Edit: Maybe also replace "give" with "make". I'm trying to get at the idea that the room doesn't immediately have to exist, but you have to make it as quick as you can.]
Several years ago I heard a protest involving two E-Scows, where a port tacker tacks from P to S inside the zone at the windward mark, clear ahead of a starboard tack E-Scow, fetching the mark. P had completed the tack, and became ROW boat via 12, but S had to alter course to avoid making contact as she overtook P (P of course being slower coming out of the tack), there was no contact. Basically a classic situation that we've all heard at one time or another or been involved in at some point in our careers.
The decision boiled down to whether we thought P broke 15 (she didn't break 18.3 in this case). We ended up tossing P for breaking 15, arguing that because S had to alter course almost immediately upon completing her tack, P didn't initially give S room. P appealed.
The area appeals committee reversed the decision, exonerating P, the takeaway was the interpretation of "initially". Essentially (and I don't have the appeal handy to quote it directly), based on the facts written, the appeals committee ruled that because P had completed her tack, acquired ROW, and S didn't immediately need to alter course, P satisfied her obligations under 15.
Now given the original diagram, ruling no boat breaks a rule would be consistent with this particular area appeal (and the TR call mentioned earlier). Since at position 3, green is now close hauled and on S, and she's subject to 15. Red does have room to tack, but Green must alter course to allow Red to complete her tack (e.g. the room Red requires to Keep Clear), she does so and fulfills her 15 obligations. Similarly, at 5, Red is now ROW, and S has room to keep clear she can still head up, and thus Red fulfills her 15 obligations.
This works in this case because of the absence of other boats, US78 adds some wrinkles when other boats are involved (say a yellow on port directly to windward of Red).
The OP case and TR D3 are quite different than Case 146 and different rules are applicable. I don't think Case 146 can overrule TR D3 in team race situations.
Personally, I think Case 146 (and USA 2018/117) need to be thought through and changes made. It is clear that, when L changes course, W will not have room to be able to keep clear of L. It should be deemed that, when W breaks rule 11, L has broken rule 16.1. However, the Case is authoritative and, in the same or similar situations, the decision/s should adhere to that principle. It seems that, when a boat establishes an overlap from astern or changes course and does not give room as required, it is OK as long as room is subsequently given without contact occurring.