Editor

they both suck?

Recommended Posts

what-u-think.jpg

The rule experts at the protest hearing must have had a wonderful time establishing who had rights in this Flying 15 contretemps. Was it Part 2, 11 (On the same tack, overlapped, windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat), or maybe this was a “not sail below proper course” situation?

What think you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be no dual protest as there is no one left on board the windward boat to hoist the red hanky....and pommies are fucking useless at swimming so probably still out there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A single shot doesn't give you the information as to what happened before, it's shown for instance they are on opposite tacks. But either may have gybed  during the incident .

You'd need a video to sort that one out..

Share this post


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

A single shot doesn't give you the information as to what happened before, it's shown for instance they are on opposite tacks. But either may have gybed  during the incident .

You'd need a video to sort that one out..

Looks like the same tack to me.  But you're right - what matters is what it looked like 2-5 seconds ago.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

... or maybe this was a “not sail below proper course” situation?

What think you?

I think it is more of a “do not sail below proper water surface“ situation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to me like 3695 is the windward boat, and certainly was when this little shitshow started. They took a gust badly, broached, and in the process clonked the leeward boat - which they are busy trying to push into the drink as the picture was taken.

Pole needed to be further back.

Edit: Oh, hang on, there is no pole. So 3695 gybed onto port and broached in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RantyDave said:

Edit: Oh, hang on, there is no pole. So 3695 gybed onto port and broached in the process.

That's how I see it: I don't see a pole on 3695's port, so figure they were asserting starboard tack rights whilst running by the lee... that went very badly wrong when a crash-gybe ensued, resulting in the broach and uncontrolled luff into 3496; who's tiller is hard to starboard, trying in vain to get out of the bloody way... I wonder if there was an exchange of views on the wisdom of this manoeuvre between the boats prior to the photo?

 3695's helm may be inside the boat, reaching for their chequebook (possible braced against the tiller, judging by the rudder angle?). I think that's the crew we can see assessing the size of the bill from the windward rail.

Cheers,

              W.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Camera MemoryCard corrupted..Data unreadable”... 

Pub,Beer.

Share this post


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

Edit: Oh, hang on, there is no pole. So 3695 gybed onto port and broached in the process.

I'll buy that, so my previous post should be

2 hours ago, Brass said:

Some more evidence might be handy, but based on the picture:

Both boats have poles out to port, booms to starboard:  on port tack and have been for some time.

3496 pole to port, boom to starboard on port tack and has been for some time

3695 no pole, boom to starboard, has involuntary gybed from starboard onto port tack.

Boats are now overlapped, same tack, 3496 to windward (W), 3695 to leeward (L)

W is may be rounding down slightly or may just be responding to impact from L

, while L is rounding up.

Contact between L's bow and W's midships.

W overlapped to windward on same tack did not keep clear of L.  W broke rule 11.

L, changing course rapidly did not give W room to keep clear.  L broke rule 16.1.

W, sailing within the room to which she was entitled is exonerated for breaking rule 11.

It was not reasonably possible for W to avoid contact.  W did not break rule 14.

It was not reasonably possible for L to avoid contact.  L did not break rule 14.

On valid protest disqualify L.

Depending on what evidence she could produce, L might be able to argue that W was rounding down before L was rounding up, and that W failed to keep clear before L began changing course, so W broke rule 11 before rule 16 began to apply, and that when L started to round up, she would have been giving W room to keep clear if W had not been changing course to leeward, so was compelled to break rule 16.1 by W breaking rule 11. 

Based on this pic I would be hard to convince:  L is in a full-on broach, while W is only coming down marginally.  Looking at the broken water around the leach of L's mainsail, that indicates where L was when she began to broach:  at least 1.5 BL away from W, so at the beginning, W was well and truly keeping clear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

There would be no dual protest as there is no one left on board the windward boat to hoist the red hanky....and pommies are fucking useless at swimming so probably still out there.

Flying fifteen.... only 4.6m long so no red hanky required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JohnMB said:

Flying fifteen.... only 4.6m long so no red hanky required.

? Um, a Fifteen is 20' long - 6.1m - so flag is required. (It's 15' on the waterline, hence the name). Uffa Fox designed several keelboats in this vein: http://www.uffafox.com/keelboat.htm

Cheers,

              W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

? Um, a Fifteen is 20' long - 6.1m - so flag is required. (It's 15' on the waterline, hence the name). Uffa Fox designed several keelboats in this vein: http://www.uffafox.com/keelboat.htm

Cheers,

              W.

whoops my bad

I took the first lenght  I saw on (waterline obviously), you are right the ff does need a flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Oh, hang on, there is no pole. So 3695 gybed onto port and broached in the process.

Or maybe broached and gybed in the process.  It would make more sense that they gave up starboard tack rights by accident running deep, rather than intentionally gybed in that position.

But from 1 photo who could know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JohnMB said:

Flying fifteen.... only 4.6m long so no red hanky required.

Sorry WRONG! The "15" is an Uffa Fox design and the "15"referred to her LWL NOT LOA. She is actually has a "hull length" (as the RRS 61.1 (2) puts it) of 6.1m LOA so "red hanky" very much required. I sailed 'Saga' for a season many years ago, she was a former Scottish National Champion. The 15 is an absolutely cracking boat and a joy to sail and my best buddy still sails one in Hong Kong where there is quite an active fleet.

On the rules of the incident, not being able to control your boat in the prevailing conditions is not something the RRS makes any allowance for. Difficult to tell from a still photo but L would have to give W Room to keep clear. People often get this part of the rules confused. Room is the space to to keep clear IN THE PREVAILING CONDITIONS which were quite gnarly at the point of the photo but space while manoeuvring in a seaman like manner - so more space than in quieter conditions. Given that "Room", the encumbered boat shall keep clear. Given the indication of the speed of the turn by L (the angle of heel) I would guess (and from a still it is a 'guess') that W could do little if anything to avoid the contact, in other words "Room" was not given - penalty on L.

The angle of the rudder on L has, I would suggest, nothing to do with how the boat has turned but rather because when the photo was taken the helmsperson of L has most likely fallen against the tiller due to the sudden change in heel angle and is currently perhaps even hanging on to it for dear life as the water rushes up his side deck :-)

One final point, I've wracked my brains but cannot think of anywhere in the rules where it says anything about sailing "below proper course" RRS 17 only mentions ABOVE proper course and from a still it is not possible to say whether W was preparing to gybe for the Leeward mark which is somewhere (who knows where) out of shot. Then of course he could be on his proper course.

Then again there are only two boats in shot so who's to say they weren't match racing when there is NO RRS 17 in any case - sorry just being a bugger. 

One final point? Sorry, another final point, with a still photo it is impossible to say how much of W's angle is a wind induced roll or the fact that L has her bow buried under W's forefoot.

Isn't our sport exciting at times and adrenalin brown - he he!

SS

Share this post


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

Sorry WRONG! The "15" is an Uffa Fox design and the "15"referred to her LWL NOT LOA. S

 

Already noted and acknowleded.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, European Bloke said:

I think they both lost it in a gust, they'll have a beer together and get over it.

FF in the UK is a gentleman's class.

 Beer solves everything :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like 3695 approached on starboard and has broached

3496 on port is about to broach

who's overtaking?

Loss of control not an excuse when you break a rule so more info needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lynch said:

 

3496 on port is about to broach

 

Is it still a broach if you are pushed that way?

Best guess so far: 3695 gybed and broached. In doing so it pushes 3496 over. 

Who is at fault? 3695 is out of control. Should 3496 have anticipated that and kept a bit more room? not sure and hopefully the damage has been sorted over a beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Editor said:

what-u-think.jpg

The rule experts at the protest hearing must have had a wonderful time establishing who had rights in this Flying 15 contretemps. Was it Part 2, 11 (On the same tack, overlapped, windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat), or maybe this was a “not sail below proper course” situation?

What think you?

Must be training for J105 sailing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Editor said:

maybe this was a “not sail below proper course” situation?

 

7 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

I've wracked my brains but cannot think of anywhere in the rules where it says anything about sailing "below proper course" RRS 17 only mentions ABOVE proper course and from a still it is not possible to say whether W was preparing to gybe for the Leeward mark which is somewhere (who knows where) out of shot. Then of course he could be on his proper course.

Up until 2008 rule 17.2 obliged a windward boat not to sail below her proper course.

That rule was deleted in 2009.

More important, rules 11 and 17 operate independently.

A leeward boat sailing above her proper course is no excuse for a windward boat not keeping clear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort this one out, top mark.

NZ Sunburst Nationals, Wellington 1996

31051107.thumb.JPG.846b8cab8b803fc4ece359854fd94587.JPG

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Up until 2008 rule 17.2 obliged a windward boat not to sail below her proper course.

That rule was deleted in 2009

 

Yep, it's no longer prohibited to sail below your proper course under rule 17.  I'm guessing that the OP meant *above* a proper course.  But we'd need to know how the overlap was established and where the boats were trying to go before trying to apply rule 17.

Looks to me that a gust his and both boats went ass over tea kettle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, SloopJohnB said:

Sort this one out, top mark.

NZ Sunburst Nationals, Wellington 1996

31051107.thumb.JPG.846b8cab8b803fc4ece359854fd94587.JPG

Looks like 1258 and 1334 gybed on to port at the mark and 1612 didn't.  Toss 1258 and 1334  under rule 10 unless you can find a reason to exhonerate 1258 under rule 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flying Fifteens are sweet boats. We had a decent 8 boat fleet about 10 years ago. The old guys aged out and now they are sitting in the sheds& yards. They’ve got very advanced for the time keels. I’d buy one if I didn’t have 3 other boats and no time. 

Share this post


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

Flying Fifteens are sweet boats. We had a decent 8 boat fleet about 10 years ago. The old guys aged out and now they are sitting in the sheds& yards. They’ve got very advanced for the time keels. I’d buy one if I didn’t have 3 other boats and no time. 

I couldn't agree more Captain. Uffa Fox was way ahead of his time, almost like the Juan K of his era. He designed a lot of smart boats including the International 14, Avenger which is reckoned to be the first planing dinghy and a remarkable flying lifeboat. Actually it was a lifeboat slung under a bomber that could be para-dropped to downed airmen. A strange man who would perhaps be vilified for some of his views. I have his auto-biography "Joys of Life" and he was never happier than when on the water.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yep, it's no longer prohibited to sail below your proper course under rule 17.  I'm guessing that the OP meant *above* a proper course.  But we'd need to know how the overlap was established and where the boats were trying to go before trying to apply rule 17.

Looks to me that a gust his and both boats went ass over tea kettle.

There are a lot of sailors who forget that the RRS evolves every 4 years while in many ways remaining remarkably similar to the 'original' Vanderbuilt Rules. I still see and hear people using "time and opportunity" although it is  quite some time since I heard anyone talking about 'mast abeam'.

The latest re-write which, unusually (due to COVID delaying Olympics) comes into force 1st January 2021 6 months before the Olympic Regatta instead of 6 months after.

Not much to the changes which are largely bringing rules into a more logical place and changing certain terms so all WS documents use the same or similar terminology

Apologies for correcting John MB after he had already been corrected. I started the post, then went for a cuppa then came back to finish it and in the meantime someone else had posted it.

Of course modern planning asso boats are easier to sail and perhaps faster but many of the older designs have a lot going for them and a decent FF can be picked up for a relative song these days.  Many of the fleets are extremely competitive sailed by knowledgeable sailors. For example the Hong Kong IJ sails one.

Share this post


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

Yep, it's no longer prohibited to sail below your proper course under rule 17.  I'm guessing that the OP meant *above* a proper course.  But we'd need to know how the overlap was established and where the boats were trying to go before trying to apply rule 17.

I'll say it again:  Right of way and room rules are independent of rule 17.

We don't need to know anything about rule 17 to decide the rule 11/16/14 incident shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet the only one debating this are not the ones pictured.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damage is or will be single deciding factor...and, perhaps, swill.

That "Sunburst" class is misnamed...try "Cluster..."which is surely is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SloopJohnB said:

Sort this one out, top mark.

NZ Sunburst Nationals, Wellington 1996

31051107.thumb.JPG.846b8cab8b803fc4ece359854fd94587.JPG

Hey guys, have you seen this photo of the commodore’s wife?

Waaaaiitt!!! One at a time!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2020 at 9:55 AM, Brass said:

I'll say it again:  Right of way and room rules are independent of rule 17.

We don't need to know anything about rule 17 to decide the rule 11/16/14 incident shown.

Actually if 17 is off because W established the overlap when L was previously clear ahead then if L changes course and luffs as she would be entitled to under 17 then although W would have to keep clear under 11, L  would have to give W room under 16.1 so "room rules" are clearly NOT independent of RRS 17.

If L had established the overlap from behind then 17 is on and although L would be wrong to luff W under RRS 17. However W still has an obligation under 11 to keep clear. 

So if it went to the room then L would be judged to have broken 17 but W would be judged to have broken 11 unless the actions of L did not give W room to keep clear.

Impossible to tell without video it looks very much like a 16.1 to me, L lost control and W had no chance to avoid. I have seen a very similar situation a number of times with 2 boats running on virtually parallel tracks but opposite tacks (gybes) and one loses it and spins into a gybe all standing taking out the other.

There is a video of an incident during a match race but i can't find it which is even worse where the two boats under spinnaker, both gybe and their rigs become entangled.

Actually persistance pays off - found it - sort that one out!

 

 

Share this post


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

Actually if 17 is off because W established the overlap when L was previously clear ahead then if L changes course and luffs as she would be entitled to under 17 then although W would have to keep clear under 11, L  would have to give W room under 16.1 so "room rules" are clearly NOT independent of RRS 17.

I don't understand how you reach this conclusion (underlined). In what way do W or L's obligations change if R17 is on or off?

If R17 is on, W has to keep clear and L has to give room to keep clear if she changes course.

If R17 is off, W has to keep clear and L has to give room to keep clear if she changes course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JohnMB said:

I don't understand how you reach this conclusion (underlined). In what way do W or L's obligations change if R17 is on or off?

If R17 is on, W has to keep clear and L has to give room to keep clear if she changes course.

If R17 is off, W has to keep clear and L has to give room to keep clear if she changes course.

 

Did you miss the word "still"? as in "However W still has an obligation under 11 to keep clear."

The point I was trying to make was the initial post gave the impression that "Right of way and room are independent of 17"  When in actual fact the whole of Section A of the rules is "Right of Way" while Section B is "General Limitations"(to Right of Way).

Apologies if i gave any impression at all that obligations of W to keep clear under 11 were any different whether 17 was on or off. It is however an assumption many sailors make that just because L has no 'luffing rights' (actually rights to sail above their proper course to be pedantic) they don't have to come up which of course they should under 11 and then protest L for breaking 17.

AS a further pebble in the pond (I have been involved in such an incident) if both boat are sailing deep (below their proper course) there is nothing to prevent L from coming up to their proper course.

Of course opinions differ from boat to boat on proper course. I remember one match where the lead (and windward boat was sailing deep with the genniker 'fluffy' L came from behind and slightly below with their genniker pulling hard. There was around 1 knot speed difference and L was sailing hotter. There was slight contact between L spreader and W 'fluffy' genniker. Courses of both boats had been straight line with tillers centered for multiple boat lengths so W had more than ample room to keep clear (what some people erroneously call "time and opportunity").

W flew their 'Y' Fag and were amazed that they were the boat penalised. Evidence was that L had come from a long way behind holding a straight course and were clearly sailing towards the next mark faster than the (identical boat) W so were actually sailing a more efficient 'proper course' than W.

When we got ashore an upset W crew descended on me asking why they were penalised which rapidly turned into an "Aw shit" and realisation from them when i explained what I saw.

Our viewpoint was from the umpire boat positioned 'in the gap' about half a boat length behind the faster boat just above their wake (any higher would have risked being on their wind and I remember one umpire calling "leeward right, 17 on" and the other responding "windward give, agreed 17 on" but L maintained their proper course and W didn't give.

As you probably know 'proper course' discussions can be an absolute bugger if they happen in the Protest Room which is one area where an on the water independent witness/judge/umpire can be so valuable.

There was another occasion where two J-80s were charging downwind towards the finish on starboard gybe, gennikers up. (Deciding race of a quarter finals) L had established the overlap from behind and both boats were at 10 knots plus, probably more. They approached and passed the port gybe layline ( I allowed for any margin of error) to the finish line pin mark when (largely I suspect out of frustration) W flew their 'Ý' flag. I had no hesitation in giving the penalty to L and they were incensed. The helm started jumping up and down and telling me to "F*** Off" (several times) They had done nothing wrong. In all the melee W doused their kite, L threw themselves into a gybe and laid flat while the other boat sailed round them to a win. After the race the penalised boat even sailed to the Committee Boat and said they wanted to 'Protest the umpires'. They were naturally told they couldn't.

Of course, as soon as they were passed the lay line they were sailing above their proper course which was to gybe onto port for the finish line pin - they didn't gybe - they would have won if they had gybed on the lay line but they were too focussed on the other boat and not where they actually wanted to sail to win the race.

Once ashore I caught the eye of the aggrieved skipper (he was actually an Olympic FInn sailor) and sat him down on the concrete dock and after advising him never use foul language to an umpire as that is entering black flag and 69 territory, with the aid of a wallet for a committee boat, bottle of water for the pin and 2 x cigarette lighters for the boats explained to him why the penalty. When the light came on he couldn't have apologised more profusely. 

He then asked what else could he have done? I told him, simply slow down (scandalise the main perhaps) just a little, break the overlap and they would have total control over W who could not have gybed (onto port) and he could have sailed him to the moon because he (L) wasn't controlled by 17.

Old story, pre-2017-2020  because of course 17 is now deleted in Appendix C but it does show an example of how some sailors, even at a relatively high level are confused by elements of the RRS.

Anyway, time to walk the dogs.

SS

Share this post


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

 

Did you miss the word "still"? as in "However W still has an obligation under 11 to keep clear."

 

No I didn't miss that, to be honest that seemed to reinforce Brass' original comment:

On 9/8/2020 at 8:55 PM, Brass said:

I'll say it again:  Right of way and room rules are independent of rule 17.

We don't need to know anything about rule 17 to decide the rule 11/16/14 incident shown.

I was trying to make sense of your response to his comment:

15 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

Actually if 17 is off because W established the overlap when L was previously clear ahead then if L changes course and luffs as she would be entitled to under 17 then although W would have to keep clear under 11, L  would have to give W room under 16.1 so "room rules" are clearly NOT independent of RRS 17

I still can't.

(If possible could you give a slightly less verbose answer, there was a lot of irrelevant persiflage in your last comment, most of which also seemed to reinforce Brass's comment.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original topic!

Did any of you notice the red spinnaker on the right? the pole position and the water state, yes there might have been a gust, but me thinks old mate jibed and stuffed it up

Share this post


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

No I didn't miss that, to be honest that seemed to reinforce Brass' original comment:

I was trying to make sense of your response to his comment:

I still can't.

(If possible could you give a slightly less verbose answer, there was a lot of irrelevant persiflage in your last comment, most of which also seemed to reinforce Brass's comment.)

Maybe I misread Brass's comment. As room is a definition it can hardly be independent of a rule especially as a boat exercising its rights under 17 would have to give room (to keep clear) to the give way boat. Or am I reading it wrong? Maybe I am. 

I was being "verbose" to give a couple of actual real life examples of where experienced sailors still get it wrong. I will attempt to be less so in the future. 

Suitably chastised.

SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

Maybe I misread Brass's comment. As room is a definition it can hardly be independent of a rule especially as a boat exercising its rights under 17 would have to give room (to keep clear) to the give way boat. Or am I reading it wrong? Maybe I am. 

I was being "verbose" to give a couple of actual real life examples of where experienced sailors still get it wrong. I will attempt to be less so in the future. 

Suitably chastised.

SS

I still can't understand why you disagree that  rule 17 and the right of way and room rules are independent of each other.

In overlap circumstances where rule 17 applies:

  • A boat can break rule 17 without there being a breach of a right of way rule or rule 15 or 16.
  • A boat can fail to keep clear or give room to keep clear without there being a breach of rule 17.
  • A breach of rule 17 does not compel the windward boat to break rule 11 and does not give rise to exoneration for the windward boat.

Certainly the same set of facts may support conclusions of breach or rule 17 and breach of the right of way rules or rule 15 or 16, but the conclusions are separate and independent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

Maybe I misread Brass's comment. As room is a definition it can hardly be independent of a rule especially as a boat exercising its rights under 17 would have to give room (to keep clear) to the give way boat. Or am I reading it wrong? Maybe I am. 

I was being "verbose" to give a couple of actual real life examples of where experienced sailors still get it wrong. I will attempt to be less so in the future. 

Suitably chastised.

SS

A boat doesn't have rights under R17,

R17 imposes limitations. R16 also imposes limitations.

These limitations are independent. The both limit a boats rights under R11, but in different ways.

 

Examples are great when they are clearly connected to the point you are making, especially real life examples. When the examples are not easy to connect to the argument they just make it harder to understand what you are trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You may want to edit the first part of your post I dont think its saying what you meant to say.

You are correct when you say:

1 hour ago, shanghaisailor said:

You are right both 16 & 17 DO impose limitations, outwith those limitations it can do what it wants as it is its right as long as it complies with all the relevant rules

An this is part of what leads to the conclusion that R17 acts independently of the R11/R16 situation.

 

 

 

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