• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Your Mom

Extreme barging

Recommended Posts

I've been pondering a question for months since I saw it (I was crewing on Green in a scenario like 4...  although I might not be remembering the details precisely now)...  but I'm hesitant to post it because I know barging has been discussed more than enough times already.  (And yes, I know "barging" isn't a formally defined term in the rules).  

I do NOT want to propose re-hashing any old arguments that have been beaten to death.  If my statements about Scenarios 1, 2, or 3 are wrong, then let's not argue about it because I'm confident multiple threads exist that cover those arguments already.  Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are meant to cover my understanding of what is normally discussed...  In 1, if yellow wants to close red out, they can.  Red then has to head up and either wait, luffing, for yellow to go by and leave a lane, or tack out and come back later.  In 2, I tried to show it with a clear lane still existing for red, and a situation where at this point, yellow can't come up and close red out without forcing red to hit RC.  It's too late for yellow to stop red.  (If you disagree, then imagine it with yellow's course still further off the wind, and red so far forward that they're abeam of RC.  Everyone has to agree that there's a point where yellow waited too long, and that's the intent of 2).

In my opinion, the big arguments usually happen when yellow comes up somewhere between 1 and 2, where yellow feels red clearly had enough room to luff up without hitting RC, and red was totally screwed, and red feels there's no way and yellow waited too long.  In my experience, red is usually wrong about that, and in denial.  I realize that between 1 and 2, there's an area for a lot of arguments, and I'm hoping we can leave those arguments out of this thread.

Next is 3.  Hopefully we can all agree that yellow can't push red into RC in 3.

My question is 4.  Grey can and should gybe out ASAP, and hope to salvage something behind black.  Black is slowing down, trying to drop in behind green.  Yellow is thus far leaving the door open for black and even green, but they could still close the door on both of them if they're quick about it, if red wasn't there.  Green patiently hoping yellow leaves the door open so they can crush the boat-end start while closing black out.  But then we on green realized red and grey were there.

Slide1.jpg.32c89642bd652008ad0e390771f83588.jpg

 

What's red's option at this point, assuming it's already too late to gybe and avoid black?  Let's say it's still marginally possible for them to squeeze through if none of the other boats alters course.  They're flying, and green and black are slow.  They can cross black and can get through between yellow/green and RC before green's current course closes the space to less than a boatwidth.  But if yellow or green head up to close the door, red will unavoidably t-bone green at hullspeed.

I can see two completely opposite arguments here (although I'm guessing neither is quite right):

Argument 1: Red has already committed the foul by putting themselves in a place where they cannot avoid hitting leeward boats without hitting RC (and then probably hitting the leeward boats anyway).  All they can do is pray green and yellow give them a lane to avoid holing them, and then apologize and do their turns.

Argument 2: Nope.  Scenario 4 isn't really particularly different from Scenarios 2 and 3, except that it's extreme.  Yellow and green waited too long to close the door.  If it's still possible for red to sneak through there as long as they don't head up, then they can't head up NOW to suddenly make it impossible.  Red has every right to tell yellow and green to hold their course and not come up, and to expect to be able to make a high-speed turn around RC's transom to win the boat.

Apologies if this has been covered before.  I've read a few barging threads over the years, and don't recall seeing Scenarios 3 or 4 discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can force the boat to windward of you into the committee boat by pinching them they are at fault.  You must give room so they don't hit the committee boat and then protest them.  There's no "hold your course" call prior to the gun, when it goes off windward boat keeps clear just like always on a beat.

Downwind starts are conundrum and should not be arranged by the race committee, but the fundamental rule holds.  Take your competitor head to wind if you have rights and it closes the door on him.   It ruins your start but maybe there's the regatta standings to consider.

If in teaching mode in a new fleet close the door on bargers aggressively. OTOH barging sometimes works in the Beer Can loser fleets where you can reach in and dominate a timid racer and end up with a covering position to windward and clear air on the fleet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

My question is 4.  Grey can and should gybe out ASAP, and hope to salvage something behind black.  Black is slowing down, trying to drop in behind green.  Yellow is thus far leaving the door open for black and even green, but they could still close the door on both of them if they're quick about it, if red wasn't there.  Green patiently hoping yellow leaves the door open so they can crush the boat-end start while closing black out.  But then we on green realized red and grey were there.

Slide1.jpg.32c89642bd652008ad0e390771f83588.jpg

Analysis of this scenario really depends on 'what happens next':  at the positions as Diagrammed in 4, no boat is breaking any rule ... YET ....

OK, let's start by looking at the rules that apply (and that don't apply) at the point illustrated in Diagram 4.

Supposing there are about 30 seconds to go before the starting signal:  all boats are approaching the starting mark to start and none of rules 18 (mark-room), 19 (room at an obstruction), or 20 (room to tack) apply (Preamble to Section C).  According to this wording, rule 19 does not apply to any obstruction, such as a give way boat racing, that is at the starting mark.  I have no difficult saying that Y and Green are at the starting boat obstruction, and that rule 19 does not apply to them as obstructions.  B is two boat lengths away from the starting mark:  I do not think that, at the time illustrated in Diagram 4 she is at the starting mark, thus rule 19 will apply with respect to B as an obstruction to boats required to keep clear of her, but when B advances a bit closer to the starting mark she will become at the starting mark, and rule 19 will cease to apply with respect to her.

Unless, or until some boat changes course, rule 16 (room to keep clear) does not apply.

Y is either clear ahead of or to leeward of all the other boats.  Y is not required to keep clear of any other boats.

R, Grey, Green, and B are required to keep clear of Y (rules 11 or 12).

Green is overlapped to leeward of all boats except Y.  G is not required to keep clear of any other boats except Y.

R, Grey and B are required to keep clear of Green (rule 11).

Black is required to keep clear of Y and Green, but she is overlapped (not clear astern of) to leeward of R and Grey.

R and Grey are required to keep clear of B (rule 11).

R is to windward of Grey and is required to keep clear of Grey (rule 11).

At the point diagrammed:

Y is probably happy she is holding ahead of all the others, and is not concerned that any of them are failing to keep clear of her.

Green and B probably have quite reasonable apprehensions that there will be collisions with R and Grey and that R and Grey are breaking rule 11 (Case 50).

It doesn't look like there is any beach of rules between R and Grey.

If Grey gybes away to pass astern of B, then she is required to give R room to do likewise (rule 19), but they both need to be quick about it..

Suppose no boat changes course and Y advances half a boat length, and all others advance accordingly.

Y will put further distance on all the other boats, and remains unlikely to be concerned that any of them are not keeping clear of her.

Collision involving R, Grey, and Green is now very likely.  Working up the food chain, Green has kept clear of Y.  R and Grey fail to keep clear of Green.  B has probably dropped back clear astern of Green and may be able to avoid the mess and keep clear of Green.

Alternatively, starting from the point as diagrammed, suppose Y changes course towards the race committee vessel.

Y is now required to give all the others room to keep clear of her (rule 16).

Given that Green and B are slowing, as Y comes up towards the race committee vessel, she will probably extend the gap between her and Green, leaving Green room to keep clear by either continuing on course at her slower speed, or bearing away below Y.  B is even further away from problems with keeping clear of Y.

Y is required to give R and Grey room to keep clear of her, including space to comply with their obligations under the rules of Part 2 (Definitions:  Room), that is, including space to also keep clear of Green and B, and for Grey to keep clear of R.

Note, Y acquires this obligation by changing course, whether or not there ever was space between Y and the committee vessel for R to do a handbrake turn in there.

So, even if Y, changing course and accelerating, puts R clear astern, if R can't also keep clear of Green and Black, Y hasn't give her the room to keep clear she is entitled to.

If Y changes course, Y will break rule 16.

Presumably, if Green was waiting to see if Y would leave the door open, Green was prepared to bale out, and will be able to bear away out of trouble.  If Green changes courses to windward, she will also be reducing the space available to R and Grey to keep clear of her, and may also break rule 16.

NOTE:  All this analysis depends on the dimensions shown in the diagram, and some supposition about what happens next.  Half a boat length, or a knot of boatspeed can make all the difference.  In a protest hearing it will all depend, not only on what actually did happen, but what the evidence brought to the hearing can prove did happen..

What's red's option at this point, assuming it's already too late to gybe and avoid black?

Cover his eyes and pray?  Start getting the fenders and chequebook up?

Let's say it's still marginally possible for them to squeeze through if none of the other boats alters course.  They're flying, and green and black are slow.  They can cross black and can get through between yellow/green and RC before green's current course closes the space to less than a boatwidth.

If Green, holding her course, closes the space to exactly one boatwidth, that's not enough for R to fit through.  As discussed above, I reckon that Green has a pretty good case that R is not keeping clear even at the start point diagrammed.

But if yellow or green head up to close the door, red will unavoidably t-bone green at hullspeed.

If Green goes up, she will certainly break rule 16.1.  You just can't change course towrds a give way boat, then hit them, and not break rule 16.

I can see two completely opposite arguments here (although I'm guessing neither is quite right):

Argument 1: Red has already committed the foul by putting themselves in a place where they cannot avoid hitting leeward boats without hitting RC

There's no rule about 'putting yourself'.  R breaks, or will break rule 11, windward boat not keep clear of leeward boat.  As discussed above, Case 50 says that the rule is broken if the right of way boat has a reasonable apprehension of collision and takes action to avoid.

(and then probably hitting the leeward boats anyway).  All they can do is pray green and yellow give them a lane to avoid holing them, and then apologize and do their turns.

Unless conditions are very soft, turns aren't going to cut it.  R should have been yelling her head off to get Grey to gybe and get the hell out of there for quite a while.

Argument 2: Nope.  Scenario 4 isn't really particularly different from Scenarios 2 and 3, except that it's extreme.

Scenario 4 is quite different from Scenarios 2/3.

In Scenario 4 the extra boats make a difference, and the fact that R is, and probably will remain clear astern of Y throughout, instead of beam to beam.

In Scenario 4, Y, closing the door, would probably leave R room to keep clear of her, but not of Green

Yellow and green waited too long to close the door.  If it's still possible for red to sneak through there as long as they don't head up, then they can't head up NOW to suddenly make it impossible.

As discussed above, that will all depend on the actual distances that the parties can prove to the protest committee.

Red has every right to tell yellow and green to hold their course and not come up,

Under the First Amendment Red had the right to say pretty much anything she wants except to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre.

Yelling and telling, except under rule 20 and rule 61.1 don't get you anything under the RRS.

and to expect to be able to make a high-speed turn around RC's transom to win the boat.

Apologies if this has been covered before.  I've read a few barging threads over the years, and don't recall seeing Scenarios 3 or 4 discussed.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Brass.  Incredible analysis as always.

For the sake of clarity:

- If I understand correctly, you're saying R hasn't fouled anyone yet...  but that if R can't escape by virtue of them and Grey gybing immediately into a hard turn away...  then R committing a foul is inevitable.  R cannot expect a lane to remain open around RC no matter what.  (I mean, they can expect the boats to avoid collision, but then they can also expect protest flags from those boats)  Have I understood correctly?

- You state that if Y alters course to close the door, and Green remains overlapped (not astern), then Y would be fouling Green, assuming I've understood correctly.  So, in this scenario, if R T-bones Green, then both R and Y have committed fouls.  Correct?

 

The only thing I want to clarify in what I was putting forth, is why I was saying 4 is potentially comparable to 2 and 3.  My thought was...  What if it is undeniably too late for R to successfully gybe out without hitting B...  and there is definitely still enough room for R to make the handbrake turn around RC if neither Y nor Green alters course?  In other words, there IS one safe route for R, and ONLY one, and that one route hoses everyone else by snatching the boat-favored start from a ridiculously unsafe "barging" position.  Image 4 was meant to reflect that as the circumstance, but everything was so tight that it's hard to reflect it well.

My thought was...  In 1, Y can close out R because R has another safe route out.  In 2, Y can't close R out because it's too late for them to alter course.  R doesn't have any safe route out anymore.  So, if 4 is like what I described in this clarification...  R has a safe route to win the boat if no one alters course, and he has no safe route out if anyone closes his route.  So...  has R, in that case, achieved a right to expect Y and Green to not close him out, by virtue of putting himself in a place where he has no other safe course?  Seems all kinds of wrong (and recklessly dangerous)...  but I'm thinking you might say yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Your Mom said:

Thanks, Brass.  Incredible analysis as always.

For the sake of clarity:

- If I understand correctly, you're saying R hasn't fouled anyone yet...

I then contradicted myself and said 

"Green and B probably have quite reasonable apprehensions that there will be collisions with R and Grey and that R and Grey are breaking rule 11 (Case 50)."

It may depend on the distances they can prove in the protest room and the state of the protest committee's digestion.

 but that if R can't escape by virtue of them and Grey gybing immediately into a hard turn away...  then R committing a foul is inevitable.

Work with me here, boat's don't 'commit a foul', they 'break a rule'.

But yes, as I see the time and space shown in the diagram, if R and Grey aren't gybing out of there, they're going to fail to keep clear of at least Green or B..

R cannot expect a lane to remain open around RC no matter what.  (I mean, they can expect the boats to avoid collision, but then they can also expect protest flags from those boats)  Have I understood correctly?

That's what I see from the diagram.  Inches may matter.  Was Red really that good that she could do a harden on from DDW to close hauled all inside less than half a boat length from the committee vessel so that Green could change course in either direction without immediately making contact (Defnitinos:  Keep Clear)?

- You state that if Y alters course to close the door, and Green remains overlapped (not astern), then Y would be fouling Green, assuming I've understood correctly.  So, in this scenario, if R T-bones Green, then both R and Y have committed fouls.  Correct?

Y, initially clear ahead of G, separated by a quarter or a third boat length.  Y changes course to windward, while G holds her course, Y may just become overlapped on G as she rotates, but there will still be about a quarter of a boat length separation, Y going faster than G:  that looks like room for G to bear away behind Y.  Y has given G room to keep clear.   Y breaks no rule.  This could be a bit different if Y jammed up head to wind and slowed appreciably.

As I saw it, as long as Y doesn't slow up, she's sailing away from the mess and all good.

I think it would only be between Red and Green.  If Green changes course, she becomes bound by rule 16, and Red will be exonerated if she breaks rule 11 while sailing within the room to keep clear to which she is entitled (rule 21).  If Green holds a steady course, then it's all on Red and Red will break rule 11..

The only thing I want to clarify in what I was putting forth, is why I was saying 4 is potentially comparable to 2 and 3.  My thought was...  What if it is undeniably too late for R to successfully gybe out without hitting B.

The rules work retrospectively on what did happen, or,.in a protest hearing, what the evidence persuades the protest committee did happen.  They don't deal in what would or should or might happen:  that's the business of tactics coaches.

..  and there is definitely still enough room for R to make the handbrake turn around RC if neither Y nor Green alters course?

From the position of Red's helm, looking down the side of the committee vessel, how good do you think Red's judgement of the space between the stern of the committee vessel and Yellow is going to be?

Advance Red and G by one boat length:  how close is Red's bow to G's after section?

It might all be different if boats were only just a little further apart, but Red is taking a very high risk, win-lose, irreversible option if she decides there is definitely room for her to get round inside.  Remember, all it takes is reasonable apprehension on Green's part.

In other words, there IS one safe route for R, and ONLY one, and that one route hoses everyone else by snatching the boat-favored start from a ridiculously unsafe "barging" position.  Image 4 was meant to reflect that as the circumstance, but everything was so tight that it's hard to reflect it well.

Hypothetically of course it's possible, but if it's that close, 1) you're taking massive risks with being able to prove your case to a protest committee, 2) you're taking a massive risk with execution:  one boat handling mis-step by any of five boats, and you're looking at a serious clusterfuck with T-bones and special sauce.

My thought was...  In 1, Y can close out R because R has another safe route out.  In 2, Y can't close R out because it's too late for them to alter course.  R doesn't have any safe route out anymore.

Think of it that way if you like, but I don't see how that is any better than just looking at rule 16:  the right of way boat shall give the give-way boat room to keep clear if she alters course.

 So, if 4 is like what I described in this clarification...  R has a safe route to win the boat if no one alters course, and he has no safe route out if anyone closes his route.  So...  has R, in that case, achieved a right to expect Y and Green to not close him out,

The rules don't give anyone a 'right to expect' anything except that boats will not break the rules until it is clear that they are breaking them (rule 14( a )).

What a competitor expects of other competitors is, once again, the realm of tactics and coaches and risk-management, not the rules..

by virtue of putting himself in a place where he has no other safe course?  Seems all kinds of wrong (and recklessly dangerous)...  but I'm thinking you might say yes.

OK, 'Yes".

Red is already absolutely in the death seat as illustrated in Diagram 4.  Red should have been moving heaven and earth to get out of being boxed in like that from about three boat-lengths ago.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

Thanks, Brass.  Incredible analysis as always.

For the sake of clarity:

- If I understand correctly, you're saying R hasn't fouled anyone yet...  but that if R can't escape by virtue of them and Grey gybing immediately into a hard turn away...  then R committing a foul is inevitable.  R cannot expect a lane to remain open around RC no matter what.  (I mean, they can expect the boats to avoid collision, but then they can also expect protest flags from those boats)  Have I understood correctly?

- You state that if Y alters course to close the door, and Green remains overlapped (not astern), then Y would be fouling Green, assuming I've understood correctly.  So, in this scenario, if R T-bones Green, then both R and Y have committed fouls.  Correct?

 

The only thing I want to clarify in what I was putting forth, is why I was saying 4 is potentially comparable to 2 and 3.  My thought was...  What if it is undeniably too late for R to successfully gybe out without hitting B...  and there is definitely still enough room for R to make the handbrake turn around RC if neither Y nor Green alters course?  In other words, there IS one safe route for R, and ONLY one, and that one route hoses everyone else by snatching the boat-favored start from a ridiculously unsafe "barging" position.  Image 4 was meant to reflect that as the circumstance, but everything was so tight that it's hard to reflect it well.

My thought was...  In 1, Y can close out R because R has another safe route out.  In 2, Y can't close R out because it's too late for them to alter course.  R doesn't have any safe route out anymore.  So, if 4 is like what I described in this clarification...  R has a safe route to win the boat if no one alters course, and he has no safe route out if anyone closes his route.  So...  has R, in that case, achieved a right to expect Y and Green to not close him out, by virtue of putting himself in a place where he has no other safe course?  Seems all kinds of wrong (and recklessly dangerous)...  but I'm thinking you might say yes.

 

The problem with your thinking is that R does not have any right whatever to put herself into a spot where another boat has to make room for her. It's not a case of any boat closing out a barger, but if any boat has to make room for her then the barger is DSQ'd.

For example: below, boat B is waiting for A to "close the door." A never does, she is already on a course to pass close to the RC boat with no room for B. And she doesn't have to "close the door" nor does she have to hail. B needs to realize in enough time that there will be no room, and bail out.

 

post-30927-0-23632600-1484316013_thumb.gif

 

 

This scenario (below) is even more a case of the leeward boat not needing to close the door.  She is on course to pass close with no room, and if the barger 'B' forces her to change course, then the barger is DSQ. The problem here is that 'B' can really fuck up other boats' race with her expecting to be granted room because "the door was open."

post-30927-0-15495200-1484315545_thumb.gif

It's one of my pet peeves, there is no "open door policy" in the rules. I don't know where the phrase originated but it needs to be eliminated from racing sailors' vocabulary.

I'm certainly not at Brass's level but I hope this helps clarify at least somewhat.

FB- Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys.  Much appreciated.

 

Brass, my interpretation is that I had it right in my head...  Essentially...  If R has recklessly successuflly established a hypothetical position where, since there's no other way out, the fleet can't close them off, so they can get away with it...  but it isn't realistic to expect it to work in reality because the maneuvering would be exceptionally difficult and everyone would have differences of opinion about exactly who was where and whether or not it was possible for R and Grey to gybe out without hitting B (and everyone would also say it WAS possible, if they had done so a boatlength earlier).  It's likely that all witnesses not aboard R would declare that there was never room to get through there in the first place, implying  that R and Grey should have gybed out long before it got to 4.  So even if the hypothetical is a hard-fought yes, without a drone video showing precise proof or something like that, R would likely never be able to prove it and win.  Thanks again.  I always enjoy your analysis.

 

Doug, I also appreciate your feedback.  My take, though, is that in both of your images, the door has been closed from the starting point.  In both cases, the leeward boat is already sailing on a course that does not allow the windward boat room to pass between them and RC.  As far as I understand, leeward can alter course to achieve that course (or higher, up to H2W, if they want) at any point where the windward boat is still capable of staying clear.   The difference in what people are talking about when they're discussing an "open door", in my understanding, is one where L is sailing a low enough course that W has plenty of room to pass between L's projected course and RC.  If L wants to head up to "close the door" by reaching an angle like that shown in either of your images, they're free to do so...  until L and W are overlapped with RC and W would not be able to avoid L anymore by heading up, luffing, tacking out, etc.  If L wants to head up, they need to do it before W's opportunity to escape in another direction has ended.

 

In other words, I absolutely agree that B is very wrong in both images.  But that's different from my Scenario 2.  In Scenario 2, Y cannot head up and drive R into RC.  The opportunity to head up passed as soon as it became impossible for R to avoid RC a different way.

 

But...  this has been argued in plenty of other threads, and I promised this thread was just to ask my question about Scenario 4.  I don't mind if Doug disagrees with my more general understanding, and/of if there are additional folks who dislike the terms "open" and "closed doors", which have no official meaning anyway.  If so, let's agree to disagree and let this thread die.  Just wanted to ask about the extreme scenario from 4.

 

Thanks!

- Mom

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One advantage of having a crew member who gets paid to referees match races, is it quells some of the more aggressive/oblivious moves, and teaches a lot of anticipation to avoid the above scenarios.

 

With mixed fleets of various types, using common marks, occasionally on different courses, no two skippers have a clue on the handling characteristics of the other boats, even if they know their own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Your Mom said:

Thanks, guys.  Much appreciated.

 

Brass, my interpretation is that I had it right in my head...  Essentially...  If R has recklessly successuflly established a hypothetical position where, since there's no other way out, the fleet can't close them off, so they can get away with it...  but it isn't realistic to expect it to work in reality because the maneuvering would be exceptionally difficult and everyone would have differences of opinion about exactly who was where and whether or not it was possible for R and Grey to gybe out without hitting B (and everyone would also say it WAS possible, if they had done so a boatlength earlier).  It's likely that all witnesses not aboard R would declare that there was never room to get through there in the first place, implying  that R and Grey should have gybed out long before it got to 4.  So even if the hypothetical is a hard-fought yes, without a drone video showing precise proof or something like that, R would likely never be able to prove it and win.  Thanks again.  I always enjoy your analysis.

 

Doug, I also appreciate your feedback.  My take, though, is that in both of your images, the door has been closed from the starting point.  In both cases, the leeward boat is already sailing on a course that does not allow the windward boat room to pass between them and RC.  As far as I understand, leeward can alter course to achieve that course (or higher, up to H2W, if they want) at any point where the windward boat is still capable of staying clear.   The difference in what people are talking about when they're discussing an "open door", in my understanding, is one where L is sailing a low enough course that W has plenty of room to pass between L's projected course and RC.  If L wants to head up to "close the door" by reaching an angle like that shown in either of your images, they're free to do so...  until L and W are overlapped with RC and W would not be able to avoid L anymore by heading up, luffing, tacking out, etc.  If L wants to head up, they need to do it before W's opportunity to escape in another direction has ended.

 

In other words, I absolutely agree that B is very wrong in both images.  But that's different from my Scenario 2.  In Scenario 2, Y cannot head up and drive R into RC.  The opportunity to head up passed as soon as it became impossible for R to avoid RC a different way.

 

But...  this has been argued in plenty of other threads, and I promised this thread was just to ask my question about Scenario 4.  I don't mind if Doug disagrees with my more general understanding, and/of if there are additional folks who dislike the terms "open" and "closed doors", which have no official meaning anyway.  If so, let's agree to disagree and let this thread die.  Just wanted to ask about the extreme scenario from 4.

 

Thanks!

- Mom

 

 

You'd be surprised the number of people who aim their boat at the spot just to leeward of the committee boat and think "The door is open, I'm good to go!" You're right that in the two scenarios I diagrammed, the door is pretty firmly closed BUT it is not necessarily apparent.

The case you're talking about, with several boats steering a course well to leeward of the RC boat, it's correct that a leeward R-O-W boat cannot alter course and force a windward boat into a collision.  OTOH in your scenario 4 there are more boats aiming for that spot than there is room, and so it's fairly obvious that going in there will result in hatred and carnage no matter how open the door is. But it isn't the case that they "get away with it" they should get a DSQ.

And yes this has been hashed over many times but it's been a while. We're due!

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah another situation when little exceptions to a rule are being used as an excuse for not following the basic rule in and of itself.

My example:

Our sports most basic rules are avoid collisions and assist boats in distress. After these, the big one is "Port/Starboard"

We're approaching the finish on starboard, a competitor is on port. While there is still plenty of time for P to gybe away, we're hailing "Starboard". Port just keeps on coming. You guessed it, they gybe late, we have a minor collision. We hail protest.

We end up in the room. P starts spewing about "we felt like we were being hunted".  I responded, "we felt like we were racing against another boat that had no idea what the rules of our sport are".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steam Flyer and RATM both express the frustration many of us feel that leads us away from competitive sailing.

It's almost as if there needs to be a penalty greater than DSQ for some infractions but I don't know what or how that could be achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Parma said:

It's almost as if there needs to be a penalty greater than DSQ for some infractions but I don't know what or how that could be achieved.

Shunning generally works until you need rule 69. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Parma said:

It's almost as if there needs to be a penalty greater than DSQ for some infractions but I don't know what or how that could be achieved.

There is  - its DNE  ( DSQ Non-excludable.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily "Extreme Barging" but our club (and every one that I"ve sailed in) has at least one skipper who's more aggressive than expert and relies on intimidation vs bluffing to get their way. 

Not the use of meaningless hails, or perhaps claiming room a half a boat length early, or simply tacking to advantage against Downwind boats but really basic stuff such as failure to duck far enough when on port, or jamming into a layline scrum at a mark, or putting their boat in a position where others must dodge them and then relying on "beercan" protocols to not be protested. 

Then there's the counter example of the guy who tries to sail over you with a chute up and complains when you slowly luff him under genoa that he's not in your fleet. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

Shunning generally works until you need rule 69. 

Shunning only works if everybody participates in the shunning. I was talking more about isolated and individual situations where the skipper says to himself "there is no way I'm going to do X because Y", essentially elevating certain types of fouls to the point where no one dare risk it. A foul with a 360 or 720 just doesn't cut it for some folks.

Very few fouls are intentional but some are seemingly a sort of dare, a game of chicken so to speak. These are frustrating because we think they know what the rules are and they are just daring us to test them on it. Barging is one of those, IMHO (based on personal experience.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Parma said:

Very few fouls are intentional but some are seemingly a sort of dare, a game of chicken so to speak. These are frustrating because we think they know what the rules are and they are just daring us to test them on it. Barging is one of those, IMHO (based on personal experience.)

Agreed, and some of the game of chicken is played by those who don't care about banging into other boats. We have a few skippers who have multiple collisions to their "credit" and are still racing.  It would seem that a minimum penalty for damaging somebody else's boat is that you sit out until they can race as well. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

Agreed, and some of the game of chicken is played by those who don't care about banging into other boats. We have a few skippers who have multiple collisions to their "credit" and are still racing.  It would seem that a minimum penalty for damaging somebody else's boat is that you sit out until they can race as well. 

 

.... It would seem that a minimum penalty for damaging somebody else's boat is that you sit out until they can race as well. 

That's what a Corinthian sailor would do anyway along with paying for the damage without question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long ago & far away I sailed PH in a fleet that had a perpetual barger, sailing a Cheoy Lee 46 that they lived on. he was also on the local PH board. Finally, during a start, as he once again ignored plenty of early calls not to go in there, we quickly hung a bunch of big fenders over the windward side & started closing the gap to the committee boat. The RC group, being no fools, saw this & all crowded to the front of the powerboat cockpit. He called our move & took out the RC swim step. We won the race & the protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, longy said:

Long ago & far away I sailed PH in a fleet that had a perpetual barger, sailing a Cheoy Lee 46 that they lived on. he was also on the local PH board. Finally, during a start, as he once again ignored plenty of early calls not to go in there, we quickly hung a bunch of big fenders over the windward side & started closing the gap to the committee boat. The RC group, being no fools, saw this & all crowded to the front of the powerboat cockpit. He called our move & took out the RC swim step. We won the race & the protest.

Racing a somewhat ponderous, and very well built 1962 vessel, I've occasionally hailed, "10 tons, with rights" , but always felt that rule 14: was explicit. 

 14 AVOIDING CONTACT A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room (a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and (b) shall be exonerated if she breaks this rule and the contact does not cause damage or injury.

Knowing that the the perpetual barger would not keep clear, based on history, it could be argued, that "you should have known better" would be the argument that a reasonable sailor acting prudently would apply, and that all one could do would be to hail loudly, and then fall off to allow them in, while protesting. Based on the actions of some of our fleet, I did go to the local loft and purchase 54" square of 1/2 oz red ripstop and fabricate a Code flag "B" swallowtail, as I was challenged that my 12" square flag was not conspicuous enough. We have it rigged on the mizzen, for instant hoist... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, efrank said:

So YM, what actually happened at the start?  Sailboat handling wizardry or splinters and pain?

Yellow quietly kept his bow down to accelerate away from the impending mess and got a nice start at full speed 2-3 boatlengths down the line.  With no one else cramming in right under him, he had no reason to make the ugly situation worse.  Boat was favored, but not by so much that being 2 boatlengths away at speed would be bad.

Green actually bore off a bit to take Yellow's stern, open things up to avert fleetwide chaos, and put safety ahead of aggression.  Yellow picked up enough speed that Green was then able to cross Yellow's stern again, going closehauled about a boatlenth to the left of RC, and Green started 5-10 seconds late in that position.  The three of us on Green were of different opinions at the time as to whether or not that was the best move, since a more aggressive approach could been on time at the favored end with a melee off our stern, but the two of us that weren't the skipper/helmsman were disciplined enough to not start hailing other boats with information contrary to what our helmsman was doing and/or yelling at out skipper that we thought he was wrong.  We went with it.  Did fine in the race.  Can't remember if we won or not.  None of us was angry with each other about it.  Just all uncertain about the best move in that kind of melee.  In retrospect, he handled it quite well.  Besides, the melee from a more aggressive approach could have been in our stern instead of off it.

I didn't watch what happened behind us, because I was focused on jib trim after that, but I know there wasn't contact.  I think Black bore off hard after slowing enough to get clear astern of us, and Red and Grey both took our stern with Black giving them room to do so.  Once that was done, I think all three of them came back up and got late starts at the boat.  So Black got kinda screwed but at least no one got hurt.

Typical post-race discussions with different recollections of the facts ensued.  This is just how I remembered it.  I'm guessing the guys on Red have a totally different recollection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

Racing a somewhat ponderous, and very well built 1962 vessel, I've occasionally hailed, "10 tons, with rights" , but always felt that rule 14: was explicit. 

 14 AVOIDING CONTACT A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room (a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and (b) shall be exonerated if she breaks this rule and the contact does not cause damage or injury.

Knowing that the the perpetual barger would not keep clear, based on history, it could be argued, that "you should have known better" would be the argument that a reasonable sailor acting prudently would apply, and that all one could do would be to hail loudly, and then fall off to allow them in, while protesting. Based on the actions of some of our fleet, I did go to the local loft and purchase 54" square of 1/2 oz red ripstop and fabricate a Code flag "B" swallowtail, as I was challenged that my 12" square flag was not conspicuous enough. We have it rigged on the mizzen, for instant hoist... 

  Hails were made long before overlap was established. At this point he had three means of staying clear. There were no boats underneath us, he could have put his bow down at any time, or let sails out to stay behind us. Or tacked away.  Many previous attempts to make him aware of the rules politely had failed. We got tired of his shit & called his bluff. He had escape options until the last 15 seconds. He never tried that on us again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, longy said:

Many previous attempts to make him aware of the rules politely had failed. We got tired of his shit & called his bluff.

Understand the fatigue with those who choose to violate rules. 

Not arguing with calling bluff.

Contributing to the damage of the committee boat, by doing setting him up to be stupid, when you could have fallen off and then protested is a bit stronger tactic than I would use as a first (stated) protest.

But, then perhaps that is what it takes if the more gentle protests went nowhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Others had done that - no change.

We did set him up - but then told him in no uncertain words, exactly what was going to happen, for about 3 minutes before incident. As stated, he had easy options to get out of the situation. The RC moved forward in their boat as soon as they saw the fenders deploy, they could see writing on the wall. We got no condemnation from any party after this, so the fleet (and RC) probably agreed with us. He was a member of the PH rating board, and we did have a number of bullshit attempts to change or rating later, but we felt they were driven by other persons. We beat them all down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In scenario 4, initial mistake of red and grey was to be at that position in the first place. This is the zone of death. Everybody knows to never get caught in the starboard/windward quadrant off the RC boat during the last two minutes or so before the gun! Never! You'll cross the line in third or fourth row if you do and you'll have dirty air all the way to the first mark.

If, like in scenario 4, it was too late for the two bargers to gybe out, then yellow, green, and black would have had to bear away to awoid collision. They protest, and both red and grey would be DSQ.

If green had forced black up and black had to tack to awoid collision with red and/or grey, then maybe green would have been DSQ'd too. Since red and grey had no geometrically possible place to go at that time, they could have been considered an obstruction by the PC. So green would have forced black onto an "obstruction". (The fact that the obstruction was created by the incompetence of red and grey doesn''t add to the point here. They are DSQ anyway.) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 10thTonner said:

If green had forced black up and black had to tack to awoid collision with red and/or grey, then maybe green would have been DSQ'd too.

If Black did tack and avoid contact, what rule do you say Green would have broken in that case?

Since red and grey had no geometrically possible place to go at that time, they could have been considered an obstruction by the PC.

Not unless the protest committee incorrectly applied the Definition of Obstruction:

 ... a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her ...

Red and Grey are required to keep clear of Green and Black (rule 11).  Green and Black are not required to keep clear of Red and Grey.  Red and Grey are not obstructions to Green and Black..

So green would have forced black onto an "obstruction". (The fact that the obstruction was created by the incompetence of red and grey doesn''t add to the point here. They are DSQ anyway.) 

Rather than say it that way, perhaps better to say that to keep clear of Green it would have been necessary for Black to manoeuvre in a way that was not seamanlike, by hitting Grey or Red, and thus Black was not given room to keep clear of Green

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now