Jump to content


J-22 Crash...whats wrong here?


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#1 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:24 AM

We have a fairly strong J-22 fleet in Jackson, MS. Last weekend there was a collision just after the finish involving a boat who had just finished and a boat still racing. I was not racing but have watched the video. And the long version

Here are the facts (as can be clearly seen in the video):

The finish line was skewed by somewhere around 10-15 degrees. You can see the yacht club in the distance in the first few seconds of the long version of the video (clearly upwind on starboard tack).

As the videoing boat finishes (Boat A), he tacks onto starboard to head back toward the yacht club. After he finishes he dips back on course side of the line (mainly because of the line bias). As he, boat A, is sailing, he notices the is a port tack boat, Boat B, who has not finished, sailing towards him. Boat A then tries to bear away to "duck" boat B. Boat B, still racing, notices boat A's attempt to "duck" him at the last minute and bears off himself to try to avoid the collision. Boat A altered course so fast that he did not even have time to ease his mainsheet or jib sheet until after the collision. The video tells the rest....

What are your thoughts?

#2 dash34

dash34

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,533 posts
  • Location:Nanaimo, B.C.
  • Interests:Sailing my boat, playing bass and classical guitar, flying sailplanes, skiing, cycling and hiking.

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:39 AM

We have a fairly strong J-22 fleet in Jackson, MS. Last weekend there was a collision just after the finish involving a boat who had just finished and a boat still racing. I was not racing but have watched the video. And the long version

Here are the facts (as can be clearly seen in the video):

The finish line was skewed by somewhere around 10-15 degrees. You can see the yacht club in the distance in the first few seconds of the long version of the video (clearly upwind on starboard tack).

As the videoing boat finishes (Boat A), he tacks onto starboard to head back toward the yacht club. After he finishes he dips back on course side of the line (mainly because of the line bias). As he, boat A, is sailing, he notices the is a port tack boat, Boat B, who has not finished, sailing towards him. Boat A then tries to bear away to "duck" boat B. Boat B, still racing, notices boat A's attempt to "duck" him at the last minute and bears off himself to try to avoid the collision. Boat A altered course so fast that he did not even have time to ease his mainsheet or jib sheet until after the collision. The video tells the rest....

What are your thoughts?



This is called the "dance of death". The only incident like this that I have in my memory banks resulted in starboard being found at fault. Not sure if the circumstances are the same.

Has there been a protest hearing? Facts found?

dash

#3 The Advocate

The Advocate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,350 posts
  • Location:32.00.13 S 115.50.73 E

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:39 AM

If I was boat A I would be retiring, apologising profusely and funding the fleets next dock party.

#4 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:42 AM

We have a fairly strong J-22 fleet in Jackson, MS. Last weekend there was a collision just after the finish involving a boat who had just finished and a boat still racing. I was not racing but have watched the video. And the long version

Here are the facts (as can be clearly seen in the video):

The finish line was skewed by somewhere around 10-15 degrees. You can see the yacht club in the distance in the first few seconds of the long version of the video (clearly upwind on starboard tack).

As the videoing boat finishes (Boat A), he tacks onto starboard to head back toward the yacht club. After he finishes he dips back on course side of the line (mainly because of the line bias). As he, boat A, is sailing, he notices the is a port tack boat, Boat B, who has not finished, sailing towards him. Boat A then tries to bear away to "duck" boat B. Boat B, still racing, notices boat A's attempt to "duck" him at the last minute and bears off himself to try to avoid the collision. Boat A altered course so fast that he did not even have time to ease his mainsheet or jib sheet until after the collision. The video tells the rest....

What are your thoughts?

Even though having finished and no longer racing, A is the ROW boat. Good intentions, but A should have held their course and should be DSQ. A cannot exonerate as they are no longer racing.

#5 DRIFTW00D

DRIFTW00D

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,166 posts
  • Location:Blue Water Area Great Lakes

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:53 AM









#6 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:54 AM

Boat A did accept a DSQ for violating rule 14. The boat owner said that he was in the wrong....until the video was put on youtube. He then proceeded to retract his claiming fault, thus placing blame on boat B for violating port/starboard. It is evident that boat A altered course in a rapid manner, thus not giving boat B a "chance to keep clear."

#7 Lake Shark

Lake Shark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Location:midwest
  • Interests:boats, babes, and brews

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:01 AM

RRS 23.1 if reasonably possible a boat that is not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing

RRS RACING A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and clears the finishing line and marks or retires, or until the race committee signals a general recall, postponement or abandonment.

Boat A should be flicked even though they were on starboard. boat B could also be flicked if there was damage

#8 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,758 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:10 AM

Absolute standard on my boat or any boat I am racing on, "clear the line", ie GTFOOTW.(get the f$%# out of the way)
even if the beer is in the other direction.




Reasoning is these are guys we want to race against nexr week? next year>

#9 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:12 AM

RRS 23.1 if reasonably possible a boat that is not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing

RRS RACING A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and clears the finishing line and marks or retires, or until the race committee signals a general recall, postponement or abandonment.

Boat A should be flicked even though they were on starboard. boat B could also be flicked if there was damage


There was damage...lots of damage. Boat B has a hole clear into the hull. I will post pictures as soon as I get them.

#10 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,758 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:16 AM


RRS 23.1 if reasonably possible a boat that is not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing

RRS RACING A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and clears the finishing line and marks or retires, or until the race committee signals a general recall, postponement or abandonment.

Boat A should be flicked even though they were on starboard. boat B could also be flicked if there was damage


There was damage...lots of damage. Boat B has a hole clear into the hull. I will post pictures as soon as I get them.

Me hopes the repairs are rapid, the feelings are repaired and the friendships are intact. Always nice to invite displaced crew or find them a ride.

#11 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:17 AM

Boat B...Attached File  photo 2.JPG   727.31K   107 downloads

#12 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:20 AM

Attached File  photo 3.JPG   561K   151 downloads

Attached File  photo 4.JPG   233.43K   182 downloads

Attached File  photo 5.JPG   642.9K   140 downloads

#13 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:20 AM

Boat A did accept a DSQ for violating rule 14. The boat owner said that he was in the wrong....until the video was put on youtube. He then proceeded to retract his claiming fault, thus placing blame on boat B for violating port/starboard. It is evident that boat A altered course in a rapid manner, thus not giving boat B a "chance to keep clear."


Do you mean he Retired after finishing (RAF)? Or was DSQ by a protest committee.

#14 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:28 AM


Boat A did accept a DSQ for violating rule 14. The boat owner said that he was in the wrong....until the video was put on youtube. He then proceeded to retract his claiming fault, thus placing blame on boat B for violating port/starboard. It is evident that boat A altered course in a rapid manner, thus not giving boat B a "chance to keep clear."


Do you mean he Retired after finishing (RAF)? Or was DSQ by a protest committee.



That is unclear...here is a bit from the owner of Boat A...




"For our part[...]the day's PRO, to post our score as DNF in accordance

with "Rule 14 Avoiding Contact ... (B) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage or injury." We can all agree that to be so.?




"I also believes it reflects we were not at fault, except for violation of Rule 14; for this, we have taken our penalty − a DSQ."



#15 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:43 AM



Boat A did accept a DSQ for violating rule 14. The boat owner said that he was in the wrong....until the video was put on youtube. He then proceeded to retract his claiming fault, thus placing blame on boat B for violating port/starboard. It is evident that boat A altered course in a rapid manner, thus not giving boat B a "chance to keep clear."


Do you mean he Retired after finishing (RAF)? Or was DSQ by a protest committee.



That is unclear...here is a bit from the owner of Boat A...




"For our part[...]the day's PRO, to post our score as DNF in accordance

with "Rule 14 Avoiding Contact ... (B) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage or injury." We can all agree that to be so.?




"I also believes it reflects we were not at fault, except for violation of Rule 14; for this, we have taken our penalty − a DSQ."


He cannot be scored DSQ without a hearing.

If he crossed the finish line correctly he cannot be scored DNF.

He can be scored RAF if he steps up and retires the boat from the race.

#16 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,028 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:46 AM



Boat A did accept a DSQ for violating rule 14. The boat owner said that he was in the wrong....until the video was put on youtube. He then proceeded to retract his claiming fault, thus placing blame on boat B for violating port/starboard. It is evident that boat A altered course in a rapid manner, thus not giving boat B a "chance to keep clear."


Do you mean he Retired after finishing (RAF)? Or was DSQ by a protest committee.



That is unclear...here is a bit from the owner of Boat A...




"For our part[...]the day's PRO, to post our score as DNF in accordance

with "Rule 14 Avoiding Contact ... (B) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage or injury." We can all agree that to be so.?




"I also believes it reflects we were not at fault, except for violation of Rule 14; for this, we have taken our penalty − a DSQ."



Indicator needle leans towards: There was probably a protest hearing, and both boats were probably DSQed. The video doesn't show enough.



Notwithstanding that, what Advocate said, +1.

#17 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:59 AM

I'd be inclined to think that a stb tack (ROW) boat that changes course so dramaticaly that it punches a hole in the port (windward) side of a port tack boat, with its bow, is probably in the wrong and the port tacker should not be DSQ for not being able to avoid contact. Assuming there was no other boat involved.

#18 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:10 AM

Indicator needle leans towards: There was probably a protest hearing, and both boats were probably DSQed.


Notwithstanding that, what Advocate said, +1.


Boat B should not be DSQ's as they did (correctly) try to avoid the ROW A boat but were prevented from doing so by boat A's actions.

I'm not 100% certain that A can't be protested by B & DSQ'd though - Boat A can't take a penalty because they had already finished so I would think that if they lost in the protest hearing they would be DSQ.

If admitting fault & with substantial damage Boat A's only option would be to retire, but if boat A decided to contest either the facts or the correct rule application/interpretation in a hearing a DSQ might result.

#19 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,028 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:37 AM



Indicator needle leans towards: There was probably a protest hearing, and both boats were probably DSQed.


Notwithstanding that, what Advocate said, +1.


Boat B should not be DSQ's as they did (correctly) try to avoid the ROW A boat but were prevented from doing so by boat A's actions.

I'm not 100% certain that A can't be protested by B & DSQ'd though - Boat A can't take a penalty because they had already finished so I would think that if they lost in the protest hearing they would be DSQ.

If admitting fault & with substantial damage Boat A's only option would be to retire, but if boat A decided to contest either the facts or the correct rule application/interpretation in a hearing a DSQ might result.


Boat A was still racing, as they had not cleared the finish. DSQed, they can be.

I can't tell from that video what the boats courses were.

#20 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:43 AM




Indicator needle leans towards: There was probably a protest hearing, and both boats were probably DSQed.


Notwithstanding that, what Advocate said, +1.


Boat B should not be DSQ's as they did (correctly) try to avoid the ROW A boat but were prevented from doing so by boat A's actions.

I'm not 100% certain that A can't be protested by B & DSQ'd though - Boat A can't take a penalty because they had already finished so I would think that if they lost in the protest hearing they would be DSQ.

If admitting fault & with substantial damage Boat A's only option would be to retire, but if boat A decided to contest either the facts or the correct rule application/interpretation in a hearing a DSQ might result.


Boat A was still racing, as they had not cleared the finish. DSQed, they can be.

I can't tell from that video what the boats courses were.



From the OP......


As the videoing boat finishes (Boat A), he tacks onto starboard to head back toward the yacht club. After he finishes he dips back on course side of the line



#21 Lake Shark

Lake Shark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Location:midwest
  • Interests:boats, babes, and brews

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:25 AM

IMO even if there was not a collision and A held her course if B had to adjust that would be interference and they should still be flicked. Although the rules are a bit confusing in this sense since in the preamble to section 2 it says "the rules of part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and inted to race, are racing or have been racing. however, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking any of these rules except rule 23.1"

so how long after you finish are you considered a boat that has been racing? How long after till you are considered not racing? The definition of racing doesn't clear anything up as it is very black and white. "A boat is considered racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and clears the finishing line and marks..." from what i saw in the video it looks like A finishes by the judges boat and then tacks over to starboard, I can't really see where in relationship to the judges boat so its hard to tell if they could be considered having cleared the line.

it is my understanding that "have been racing" is meant to refer to boats on converging courses that would meet soon after they finished not to a boat that has finished and had time to turn around and re-enter the sailing course.

#22 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,269 posts
  • Location:San Francisco & Santa Cruz
  • Interests:Sailing on any and everything that floats. Skiing when the rainfall turns semi-solid and white.

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:42 AM

Lake Shark,

If we quote the entire preamble to Part 2 we get:

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 23.1.

When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Colli- sions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules. If the sail- ing instructions so state, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right- of-way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way rules.



The boat on Stb is either one that has "been racing" (clearly it is, in my opinion) and therefore is still required to sail under the RRS. Or if it is "not racing" then it is limited by the IRPCAS. Care to guess what IRPACS says about turning toward a boat? Stb get flicked and assumes all damage because she altered course towards another boat. Most racing sailors haven't read and can't even find IRPACS - they're worth reading as they clearly apply a lot of the time.

So.... as far as I can tell, Stb is either at fault under RRS 16. As she changed course so quickly that Port couldn't keep clear. Or, she is guilty under IRPACS for changing course towards another vessel. Either way, Stb eats the penalty, and if it's under IRPACS (meaning she wasn't racing) she gets responsibilit all the damages too.

There is NO circumstance under which she can give herself a DSQ.

BV

#23 Lake Shark

Lake Shark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Location:midwest
  • Interests:boats, babes, and brews

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:11 AM

Lake Shark,

If we quote the entire preamble to Part 2 we get:

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 23.1.

When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Colli- sions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules. If the sail- ing instructions so state, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right- of-way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way rules.



The boat on Stb is either one that has "been racing" (clearly it is, in my opinion) and therefore is still required to sail under the RRS. Or if it is "not racing" then it is limited by the IRPCAS. Care to guess what IRPACS says about turning toward a boat? Stb get flicked and assumes all damage because she altered course towards another boat. Most racing sailors haven't read and can't even find IRPACS - they're worth reading as they clearly apply a lot of the time.

So.... as far as I can tell, Stb is either at fault under RRS 16. As she changed course so quickly that Port couldn't keep clear. Or, she is guilty under IRPACS for changing course towards another vessel. Either way, Stb eats the penalty, and if it's under IRPACS (meaning she wasn't racing) she gets responsibilit all the damages too.

There is NO circumstance under which she can give herself a DSQ.

BV


I would be one of those guilty sailors who has not read IRPCAS (which is why I left it out) thanks for the info. I agree with your assessment that boat A would be found at fault either way.

#24 SemiSalt

SemiSalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,338 posts
  • Location:WLIS

Posted 11 February 2012 - 01:13 PM

If I understand the situation correctly, if boat A had held course on port long enough to tack for home without dipping below the line, he still would have been tacking into Boat B's path. So, quite aside from the racing rules, he did something stupid.

#25 Me too

Me too

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 02:15 PM

If boat A sailed back across the finish line after finishing he has not cleared the line and not
finished properly. He should have been scored dnf not dsq or ret. Having not finished properly he may have been still racing when the accident happened. Although. His intention was obviously that he had retired and was sailing back to the harbor and should have kept well clear of all racers.

#26 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 02:25 PM

Both of those teams are now officially qualified to move up to the 105 class.

Well done.

#27 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,608 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:29 PM

If boat A sailed back across the finish line after finishing he has not cleared the line and not
finished properly. ...


That is not correct.

A boat FINISHES when any part of the boat or it's gear in normal position crosses the finish line. It is not necessary to sail all the way across the line, and it perfectly OK to dip back across the line.

This 'Boat A' was in the wrong on several counts: interfering with a boat that is still racing, preventing a give-way boat from keeping clear, failing to avoid a collision. I suspect the big problem was not thinking ahead and/or not keeping good enough lookout.

Boat 'B' was in the wrong for not avoiding a right-of-way boat although it sounds like she made the best effort possible.

I might raise an eyebrow at DSQ'ing both, but it's possible and depending on details, might be the best response. Whatever 'A' definitely gets the flick. Sounds like the next round should be on her

FB- Doug

#28 Plumber

Plumber

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:34 PM


Lake Shark,

If we quote the entire preamble to Part 2 we get:

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 23.1.

When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Colli- sions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules. If the sail- ing instructions so state, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right- of-way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way rules.



The boat on Stb is either one that has "been racing" (clearly it is, in my opinion) and therefore is still required to sail under the RRS. Or if it is "not racing" then it is limited by the IRPCAS. Care to guess what IRPACS says about turning toward a boat? Stb get flicked and assumes all damage because she altered course towards another boat. Most racing sailors haven't read and can't even find IRPACS - they're worth reading as they clearly apply a lot of the time.

So.... as far as I can tell, Stb is either at fault under RRS 16. As she changed course so quickly that Port couldn't keep clear. Or, she is guilty under IRPACS for changing course towards another vessel. Either way, Stb eats the penalty, and if it's under IRPACS (meaning she wasn't racing) she gets responsibilit all the damages too.

There is NO circumstance under which she can give herself a DSQ.

BV


I would be one of those guilty sailors who has not read IRPCAS (which is why I left it out) thanks for the info. I agree with your assessment that boat A would be found at fault either way.


Definately still racing in my opinion. Not a case for IRPCAS. Flick Boat A...big time...

#29 tuf-luf

tuf-luf

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,571 posts
  • Location:xyz

Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:34 PM

Gawd damn I hate Dacron. Blech.

#30 amro

amro

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,484 posts
  • Location:vancouver bc

Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:09 PM

If boat A sailed back across the finish line after finishing he has not cleared the line and not
finished properly.


dipping the line and sailing away on course side is still a proper finish. you don't get your finish horn when your stern goes over the line.

he should have sailed further on, looked at other finishing boats and then decided when to tack and head back to the club. keeping clear of the finish line is just common courtesy if nothing else.

#31 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:45 PM

If boat A sailed back across the finish line after finishing he has not cleared the line and not finished properly. He should have been scored dnf not dsq or ret. Having not finished properly he may have been still racing when the accident happened. Although. His intention was obviously that he had retired and was sailing back to the harbor and should have kept well clear of all racers.


The only thing you have right is --- "was sailing back to the harbor and should have kept well clear of all racers".

Sit down with the RRS book and read thru it with regard to all your various points.

#32 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:27 PM

If I understand the situation correctly, if boat A had held course on port long enough to tack for home without dipping below the line, he still would have been tacking into Boat B's path. So, quite aside from the racing rules, he did something stupid.


Yep, that is what it boils down to. Pure stupidity!!! Now there is a question that still remains, was he doing this to intentionally mess up the competitions race?, or was it just piss poor boat handling?

#33 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 07:29 PM

Both of those teams are now officially qualified to move up to the 105 class.

Well done.


No, I think boat A should be demoted to a Catalina 22!!

#34 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,028 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 08:49 PM


If I understand the situation correctly, if boat A had held course on port long enough to tack for home without dipping below the line, he still would have been tacking into Boat B's path. So, quite aside from the racing rules, he did something stupid.


Yep, that is what it boils down to. Pure stupidity!!! Now there is a question that still remains, was he doing this to intentionally mess up the competitions race?, or was it just piss poor boat handling?


It's not terribly uncommon to see several levels of brain-function shut down immediately after crossing the finish line.

#35 Rex II

Rex II

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Location:Lake Erie, North America
  • Interests:Cats, Kites,Canters,being on plane and the open ocean

Posted 11 February 2012 - 10:13 PM

If boat "A" was in my feet the next time he showed up at the club there would be a set of optic yellow bow and corner guards 5200'd on his J22. Not to mention that he would find it very embarrassing to be shunned and constantly abused by the rest of the fleet until he switched to PHRF racing that thing.

Bet dad was pissed.

What a fucktard.

#36 Lynch

Lynch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Location:Ireland
  • Interests:Sailing! Beer Wine Winning occasionally

Posted 11 February 2012 - 10:32 PM

Once any part of boat A (in its normal position) crosses the line then he is finished. Once finished he has an obligation to stay clear of other boats. Furthermore even if he was ROW boat he has been involved in a collision causing damage and has no option but to retire. he should also be buying beer for B as he has ruined their race as well as their boat.

#37 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 11:25 PM

If boat "A" was in my feet the next time he showed up at the club there would be a set of optic yellow bow and corner guards 5200'd on his J22. Not to mention that he would find it very embarrassing to be shunned and constantly abused by the rest of the fleet until he switched to PHRF racing that thing.

Bet dad was pissed.

What a fucktard.


You nailed it!


He has gone to PHRF before...he was afraid of getting beat in one design. The race organizers finally said "if you have a one design fleet, you have to race in it"



#38 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 11 February 2012 - 11:36 PM

Attached File  photo 3.JPG   561K   151 downloads

Attached File  photo 4.JPG   233.43K   182 downloads

Attached File  photo 5.JPG   642.9K   140 downloads


Don't you mean this is boat A, the boat from which the video was shot and which was struck amidships by B?????

#39 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:01 AM


Attached File  photo 3.JPG   561K   151 downloads

Attached File  photo 4.JPG   233.43K   182 downloads

Attached File  photo 5.JPG   642.9K   140 downloads


Don't you mean this is boat A, the boat from which the video was shot and which was struck amidships by B?????


The photos are from boat B. the video was shot from boat A

#40 my nuts

my nuts

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • Location:down da Burnie, hon

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:07 AM



Attached File  photo 3.JPG   561K   151 downloads

Attached File  photo 4.JPG   233.43K   182 downloads

Attached File  photo 5.JPG   642.9K   140 downloads


Don't you mean this is boat A, the boat from which the video was shot and which was struck amidships by B?????


The photos are from boat B. the video was shot from boat A

from the video, it looks like the hole was made in boat B.

#41 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 12:37 AM

Yep. You got it. Boat B was the helpless victim.

#42 Matt B

Matt B

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 975 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 01:41 AM


Both of those teams are now officially qualified to move up to the 105 class.

Well done.


No, I think boat A should be demoted to a Catalina 22!!


A Catalina 22 is an upgrade.

#43 Dawg Gonit

Dawg Gonit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,783 posts
  • Location:Channel Islands (oxnard), Calif

Posted 12 February 2012 - 01:51 AM

Boat A Skipper

Posted Image

#44 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 05:56 PM

The video here is ambiguous and doesn't give us enough information, though I'm tempted to toss B on this one. Here's why.

Boat A is still racing. She is in the racing area, has not "cleared the finish line" (regardless of the reason) even though she has "finished". So RRS still applies to both boats.

Boat A as STB has ROW and she does not seem to INITIALLY alter course (this is where it is ambiguous) in a way that keeps B (port) from "keeping clear". B had adequate time to tack, to luff sails or any of a number of other options but instead opted to try and duck.

When B is about 1.5 BL away and closing fast it appears that Boat A skipper alters course in an attempt to avoid what appears to be an imment collision. RRS REQUIRES HIM TO DO SO. That B (port) then gets hit does not mean that A necessarily altered course in a manner that PREVENTED B from keeping clear


Again, the video isn't really that informative so what I would look for is actually a protest filing.


B could well file a protest against A for a interfering with boats stil racing after finishing - and you might toss A on that for not tacking after finishing - but that's a hard one to prove. To some extent you have to prove either INTENT or malicious disregard.... neither of which appears to be the case here.



B tried to cut it close, and it appears ... too close.

#45 J24_guy

J24_guy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Location:Marion, MA

Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:03 PM

We have a fairly strong J-22 fleet in Jackson, MS. Last weekend there was a collision just after the finish involving a boat who had just finished and a boat still racing. I was not racing but have watched the video. And the long version

Here are the facts (as can be clearly seen in the video):

The finish line was skewed by somewhere around 10-15 degrees. You can see the yacht club in the distance in the first few seconds of the long version of the video (clearly upwind on starboard tack).

As the videoing boat finishes (Boat A), he tacks onto starboard to head back toward the yacht club. After he finishes he dips back on course side of the line (mainly because of the line bias). As he, boat A, is sailing, he notices the is a port tack boat, Boat B, who has not finished, sailing towards him. Boat A then tries to bear away to "duck" boat B. Boat B, still racing, notices boat A's attempt to "duck" him at the last minute and bears off himself to try to avoid the collision. Boat A altered course so fast that he did not even have time to ease his mainsheet or jib sheet until after the collision. The video tells the rest....

What are your thoughts?




Slight tangent, but am I mis-recalling something that I thought I'd learned as a young sailor?: I thought that, in accordance with the so-called string rule, etc., you were not permitted to sail back through the finish line once you have finished. I have done dozens and dozens of regattas over the years and always thought this was the rule. Not so?

#46 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:03 PM

The video here is ambiguous and doesn't give us enough information, though I'm tempted to toss B on this one. Here's why.

Boat A is still racing. She is in the racing area, has not "cleared the finish line" (regardless of the reason) even though she has "finished". So RRS still applies to both boats.

Boat A as STB has ROW and she does not seem to INITIALLY alter course (this is where it is ambiguous) in a way that keeps B (port) from "keeping clear". B had adequate time to tack, to luff sails or any of a number of other options but instead opted to try and duck.

When B is about 1.5 BL away and closing fast it appears that Boat A skipper alters course in an attempt to avoid what appears to be an imment collision. RRS REQUIRES HIM TO DO SO. That B (port) then gets hit does not mean that A necessarily altered course in a manner that PREVENTED B from keeping clear


Again, the video isn't really that informative so what I would look for is actually a protest filing.


B could well file a protest against A for a interfering with boats stil racing after finishing - and you might toss A on that for not tacking after finishing - but that's a hard one to prove. To some extent you have to prove either INTENT or malicious disregard.... neither of which appears to be the case here.



B tried to cut it close, and it appears ... too close.

The BOW of boat A, on STB hits boat B on port, on B's port (windward side. A has dramatically altered course to port for that to happen.

#47 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:10 PM


The video here is ambiguous and doesn't give us enough information, though I'm tempted to toss B on this one. Here's why.

Boat A is still racing. She is in the racing area, has not "cleared the finish line" (regardless of the reason) even though she has "finished". So RRS still applies to both boats.

Boat A as STB has ROW and she does not seem to INITIALLY alter course (this is where it is ambiguous) in a way that keeps B (port) from "keeping clear". B had adequate time to tack, to luff sails or any of a number of other options but instead opted to try and duck.

When B is about 1.5 BL away and closing fast it appears that Boat A skipper alters course in an attempt to avoid what appears to be an imment collision. RRS REQUIRES HIM TO DO SO. That B (port) then gets hit does not mean that A necessarily altered course in a manner that PREVENTED B from keeping clear


Again, the video isn't really that informative so what I would look for is actually a protest filing.


B could well file a protest against A for a interfering with boats stil racing after finishing - and you might toss A on that for not tacking after finishing - but that's a hard one to prove. To some extent you have to prove either INTENT or malicious disregard.... neither of which appears to be the case here.



B tried to cut it close, and it appears ... too close.

The BOW of boat A, on STB hits boat B on port, on B's port (windward side. A has dramatically altered course to port for that to happen.


Yes - when you are trying to kick your stern out of the way of getting hit, that happens. I've been on Boat B in a similar circumstance and we got DSQed... with exactly the logic described. Namely that A, on stb, has ROW and B on Port is putting themselves in danger by trying to "shave" their way around A - B has other options for keeping clear other than staying fully powered and close hauled until the very last second and potentially misjudging it.

#48 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:13 PM

Slight tangent, but am I mis-recalling something that I thought I'd learned as a young sailor?: I thought that, in accordance with the so-called string rule, etc., you were not permitted to sail back through the finish line once you have finished. I have done dozens and dozens of regattas over the years and always thought this was the rule. Not so?

There was a rule change on this... I don't recollect exactly when - but it was put in place to accomodate light wind high adverse current situations where otherwise you would "finish" when your bow crossed, but then you would be obligated to hang around trying to cross the line fully with your whole boat. And that would cause pileups that resulted in the whole "interfering with boats still racing" protests....

So now, if you finish, you need to clear the line without hitting the marks, but you can clear the line even if you get swept back across the line since once you are "finished" it no longer is a "line" for you. IE the string gets "snipped" the moment your boat crosses the line.

#49 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 07:11 PM



The video here is ambiguous and doesn't give us enough information, though I'm tempted to toss B on this one. Here's why.

Boat A is still racing. She is in the racing area, has not "cleared the finish line" (regardless of the reason) even though she has "finished". So RRS still applies to both boats.

Boat A as STB has ROW and she does not seem to INITIALLY alter course (this is where it is ambiguous) in a way that keeps B (port) from "keeping clear". B had adequate time to tack, to luff sails or any of a number of other options but instead opted to try and duck.

When B is about 1.5 BL away and closing fast it appears that Boat A skipper alters course in an attempt to avoid what appears to be an imment collision. RRS REQUIRES HIM TO DO SO. That B (port) then gets hit does not mean that A necessarily altered course in a manner that PREVENTED B from keeping clear


Again, the video isn't really that informative so what I would look for is actually a protest filing.


B could well file a protest against A for a interfering with boats stil racing after finishing - and you might toss A on that for not tacking after finishing - but that's a hard one to prove. To some extent you have to prove either INTENT or malicious disregard.... neither of which appears to be the case here.



B tried to cut it close, and it appears ... too close.

The BOW of boat A, on STB hits boat B on port, on B's port (windward side. A has dramatically altered course to port for that to happen.


Yes - when you are trying to kick your stern out of the way of getting hit, that happens. I've been on Boat B in a similar circumstance and we got DSQed... with exactly the logic described. Namely that A, on stb, has ROW and B on Port is putting themselves in danger by trying to "shave" their way around A - B has other options for keeping clear other than staying fully powered and close hauled until the very last second and potentially misjudging it.

Gunwhale to gunwhale to swing the stern clear, OK. Bow into B's windward side is way overdoing it. Especially as A was turning downwind to go home.

#50 EYESAILOR

EYESAILOR

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 406 posts
  • Interests:Myth busting.
    Bordeaux.
    Block Island Race Week

Posted 12 February 2012 - 07:45 PM

The video here is ambiguous and doesn't give us enough information, though I'm tempted to toss B on this one. Here's why.

Boat A is still racing. She is in the racing area, has not "cleared the finish line" (regardless of the reason) even though she has "finished". So RRS still applies to both boats.

Boat A as STB has ROW and she does not seem to INITIALLY alter course (this is where it is ambiguous) in a way that keeps B (port) from "keeping clear". B had adequate time to tack, to luff sails or any of a number of other options but instead opted to try and duck.

When B is about 1.5 BL away and closing fast it appears that Boat A skipper alters course in an attempt to avoid what appears to be an imment collision. RRS REQUIRES HIM TO DO SO. That B (port) then gets hit does not mean that A necessarily altered course in a manner that PREVENTED B from keeping clear


Again, the video isn't really that informative so what I would look for is actually a protest filing.


B could well file a protest against A for a interfering with boats stil racing after finishing - and you might toss A on that for not tacking after finishing - but that's a hard one to prove. To some extent you have to prove either INTENT or malicious disregard.... neither of which appears to be the case here.



B tried to cut it close, and it appears ... too close.


Baltic,

There is no requirement for intent in rule 23.2. Once you have crossed the finish line, you must not interfere with a boat sailing towards the finish line. Period. If you interfere accidentaly, you can still be dsq.
The boat sailing towards the finish line is considered to be on another leg of the course from the boat that is finished.

Boat A canot claim to be sailing a proper course, because there is no proper course after finishing.

When the dust settles, this will be a straightforward case for a PC.
Boat A broke rule 23.2 and rule 16.1
Boat B will be exonerated from 10 because A broke 16.
Boat A's bow in the side of Boat B will support the facts found that A bore away and broke 16 .

Shit happens. Looks like A didnt see B and responded to yells by pulling helm the wrong way.

#51 EYESAILOR

EYESAILOR

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 406 posts
  • Interests:Myth busting.
    Bordeaux.
    Block Island Race Week

Posted 12 February 2012 - 07:48 PM

Yes - when you are trying to kick your stern out of the way of getting hit, that happens. I've been on Boat B in a similar circumstance and we got DSQed... with exactly the logic described. Namely that A, on stb, has ROW and B on Port is putting themselves in danger by trying to "shave" their way around A - B has other options for keeping clear other than staying fully powered and close hauled until the very last second and potentially misjudging it.


Bbbbut. You said in another thread that you've never lost a protest.

#52 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 09:26 PM



Yes - when you are trying to kick your stern out of the way of getting hit, that happens. I've been on Boat B in a similar circumstance and we got DSQed... with exactly the logic described. Namely that A, on stb, has ROW and B on Port is putting themselves in danger by trying to "shave" their way around A - B has other options for keeping clear other than staying fully powered and close hauled until the very last second and potentially misjudging it.


Bbbbut. You said in another thread that you've never lost a protest.

Not quite what I wrote...

#53 Mr. Squirrel

Mr. Squirrel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,952 posts
  • Location:In a van, down by the river

Posted 13 February 2012 - 04:03 AM

What do you expect? Watch Boat A tack - the guy faces the stern as he passes head to wind. That is reason enough to flick him....

MS

#54 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 06:27 AM

Part 2 of the RRS applied (IRPCAS did not) since Boat A was a sailing in the racing area and had been racing. She was also a 'racing boat' since she had finished, but not yet cleared the finish line.

Boat B was required to keep clear of boat A. The fact that Boat A was unable to sail her course without taking avoiding action means that Boat B did not keep clear of Boat A. Penalise Boat B.

Boat A was required to avoid contact with Boat B. However, she need not take action until it is clear that Boat B was not doing so.

Case 87 illustrates how in crossing situations, the point when it is clear that the other boat is not taking action to avoid contact may be too late for the right-of-way boat to avoid contact.

However, taking reasonable action to avoid contact includes keeping a proper lookout and hailing. (Case 107). The video audio is not clear, but whether Boat A was 'keeping' a proper lookout and whether any timely hail was made to Boat B.

Whether Boat A broke rule 14 would depend on evaluating whether she could reasonably do more to avoid contact or not.

Rule 16.1 requires a right of way boat to make no course changes which prevent the other boat from keeping clear. However, if a course change is to meet an obligation of rule 14, it is obviously required. When a right of way boat is required to take avoiding action, the other boat has already failed her keep clear obligation.

Again, a protest committee would need to evaluate the reason for the course change. Whether the right or wrong action, to me, it seemed appropriately for the purpose of avoiding contact.

Since both boats were racing, rule 23.1 cannot apply.

*Additionally, since a boat cannot have a proper course after she has finished, it would be curious to apply rule 23.2, which requires that a boat has some course to the finish. Rule 23.2 does not apply. (Note: This is different to pre-start, where all boats have at least 'a course to the finish'.)

Rule 2 requires a boat to conform to the principals of sportsmanship, and where she grossly breaches them, she has broken rule 2.

One principal of sportsmanship is to disengage from playing a part in the race after you have finished. Boat A's position on the race course after she had finished, clearly affected the race which was ongoing. Boat A may have broken rule 2 if this is considered a gross breach of that principal. My view is that sailing back through a race course with clearly no regard for racers is a gross breach of that principal. Had Boat A done more to keep out of the way, but just couldn't, then maybe not rule 2. But getting into a collision situation isn't clever.

Summary

Boat A broke rule 2 by positioning on the race course after the race in such a way which had a major affect on another boat's race. She may RAF without a hearing, or be DSQ by a hearing. Until either of those two, her results stand.

Boat A's course change was to avoid contact, and did not break rule 16.1

Boat A may have broken rule 14 by not keeping a proper lookout or by taking avoiding action such as 'hailing'.

Boat B broke rule 10. She was not compelled to do so by Boat A. Her breach caused damage, and her penalty is to retire.

Footnote


If Boat A had become overwhelmed with guilt, her only action was to RETIRE AFTER FINISHING. She could not be marked DSQ without a hearing. Furthermore, she had finished, and therefore DNF would have been wrong too. Her voluntary 'self-penalty' after finishing is limited to RAF.

*I'm not 100% confident with my resolution of 23.2. However, the result would be the same whether Boat A was penalised via that rule or rule 2.

#55 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,182 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 13 February 2012 - 06:46 AM

Boat B...Attached File  photo 2.JPG   727.31K   107 downloads


Three pages and no one has pointed out that this will buff right out?

#56 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 10:04 AM

Part 2 of the RRS applied (IRPCAS did not) since Boat A was a sailing in the racing area and had been racing. She was also a 'racing boat' since she had finished, but not yet cleared the finish line.

Boat B was required to keep clear of boat A. The fact that Boat A was unable to sail her course without taking avoiding action means that Boat B did not keep clear of Boat A. Penalise Boat B.

Boat A was required to avoid contact with Boat B. However, she need not take action until it is clear that Boat B was not doing so.

Case 87 illustrates how in crossing situations, the point when it is clear that the other boat is not taking action to avoid contact may be too late for the right-of-way boat to avoid contact.

However, taking reasonable action to avoid contact includes keeping a proper lookout and hailing. (Case 107). The video audio is not clear, but whether Boat A was 'keeping' a proper lookout and whether any timely hail was made to Boat B.

Whether Boat A broke rule 14 would depend on evaluating whether she could reasonably do more to avoid contact or not.

Rule 16.1 requires a right of way boat to make no course changes which prevent the other boat from keeping clear. However, if a course change is to meet an obligation of rule 14, it is obviously required. When a right of way boat is required to take avoiding action, the other boat has already failed her keep clear obligation.

Again, a protest committee would need to evaluate the reason for the course change. Whether the right or wrong action, to me, it seemed appropriately for the purpose of avoiding contact.

Since both boats were racing, rule 23.1 cannot apply.

*Additionally, since a boat cannot have a proper course after she has finished, it would be curious to apply rule 23.2, which requires that a boat has some course to the finish. Rule 23.2 does not apply. (Note: This is different to pre-start, where all boats have at least 'a course to the finish'.)

Rule 2 requires a boat to conform to the principals of sportsmanship, and where she grossly breaches them, she has broken rule 2.

One principal of sportsmanship is to disengage from playing a part in the race after you have finished. Boat A's position on the race course after she had finished, clearly affected the race which was ongoing. Boat A may have broken rule 2 if this is considered a gross breach of that principal. My view is that sailing back through a race course with clearly no regard for racers is a gross breach of that principal. Had Boat A done more to keep out of the way, but just couldn't, then maybe not rule 2. But getting into a collision situation isn't clever.

Summary

Boat A broke rule 2 by positioning on the race course after the race in such a way which had a major affect on another boat's race. She may RAF without a hearing, or be DSQ by a hearing. Until either of those two, her results stand.

Boat A's course change was to avoid contact, and did not break rule 16.1

Boat A may have broken rule 14 by not keeping a proper lookout or by taking avoiding action such as 'hailing'.

Boat B broke rule 10. She was not compelled to do so by Boat A. Her breach caused damage, and her penalty is to retire.

Footnote


If Boat A had become overwhelmed with guilt, her only action was to RETIRE AFTER FINISHING. She could not be marked DSQ without a hearing. Furthermore, she had finished, and therefore DNF would have been wrong too. Her voluntary 'self-penalty' after finishing is limited to RAF.

*I'm not 100% confident with my resolution of 23.2. However, the result would be the same whether Boat A was penalised via that rule or rule 2.

+1 and I think 23.2 doesn't apply either.

#57 Jem

Jem

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,642 posts
  • Location:South Coast UK
  • Interests:brighton & solent

Posted 13 February 2012 - 12:58 PM

any damage that you have caused that will need any repair, would nedessitate you retiring - so RAF.

The col regs apply post racing, because you have finished and your tell tales were luffign with quite a tight jib at the beginning of the video with about a 50 degree bear away one boat length away, which would be unreasonable for himt to have predicted.

He will be obliged to keep clear despite your actions, only when he realises that a collision is going to happen and his only option was to bear away at which point you impaled him.

You should RAF, buy him beers and he should seek redress

#58 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 03:08 PM

The col regs apply post racing, because you have finished....,


Just to reiterate...

ColRegs (IRPCAS) applied no more for this incident than they did during the race. The incident is clearly governed by the racing rules of sailing.

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near
the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing.

The preamble of Part 2 is clear that the Racing Rules still apply, since both boats are in the racing area and either have raced or are racing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separately, is the question of whether the boats were 'racing'.

Anytime that word is printed in bold or italics, then the definition at the back of the rule book must be applied.


Racing A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and
clears the finishing line and marks or retires, or until the race committee
signals a general recall, postponement or abandonment.

When Boat A crossed the line she finished. However, since she sailed back in the vicinity of the finish line (when she collided with Boat B) she never 'cleared' the finishing line. Therefore she was still 'racing' in terms any instance where that rule is printed in bold or italics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My statement, "ColRegs applied no more for this incident than they did during the race," is carefully worded.

There is a technical and legal debate regarding the authority of the racing rules before, during or after a race. How a law court would view the racing rules, largely depends on where you are in the world.

Nevertheless, if you accept the racing rules applied during the race, then you must accept that they applied when OPs incident occured.

DW

#59 Jem

Jem

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,642 posts
  • Location:South Coast UK
  • Interests:brighton & solent

Posted 13 February 2012 - 03:30 PM


The col regs apply post racing, because you have finished....,


Just to reiterate...

ColRegs (IRPCAS) applied no more for this incident than they did during the race. The incident is clearly governed by the racing rules of sailing.

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near
the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing.

The preamble of Part 2 is clear that the Racing Rules still apply, since both boats are in the racing area and either have raced or are racing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separately, is the question of whether the boats were 'racing'.

Anytime that word is printed in bold or italics, then the definition at the back of the rule book must be applied.


Racing A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and
clears the finishing line and marks or retires, or until the race committee
signals a general recall, postponement or abandonment.

When Boat A crossed the line she finished. However, since she sailed back in the vicinity of the finish line (when she collided with Boat B) she never 'cleared' the finishing line. Therefore she was still 'racing' in terms any instance where that rule is printed in bold or italics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My statement, "ColRegs applied no more for this incident than they did during the race," is carefully worded.

There is a technical and legal debate regarding the authority of the racing rules before, during or after a race. How a law court would view the racing rules, largely depends on where you are in the world.

Nevertheless, if you accept the racing rules applied during the race, then you must accept that they applied when OPs incident occured.

DW

I take your point, but surely the insurer would not consider anything bar the colregs if no protest hearing is held and findings made?

J

#60 chaosmaster

chaosmaster

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,811 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 13 February 2012 - 03:32 PM

Absolute standard on my boat or any boat I am racing on, "clear the line", ie GTFOOTW.(get the f$%# out of the way)
even if the beer is in the other direction.

Reasoning is these are guys we want to race against nexr week? next year>



+1

#61 my nuts

my nuts

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • Location:down da Burnie, hon

Posted 13 February 2012 - 04:08 PM

as far as the racing rules go, I think you guys have covered it. I'd be interested in the insurance aspect of this. it is my understanding that it is not uncommon under the colregs to apply proportional responsibility for damages. while this was a boneheaded move on the part of boat A, it does take (at least) two boats to cause a collision.

#62 Mambo Kings

Mambo Kings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,579 posts
  • Location:Marblehead, MA and Greenwich, CT

Posted 13 February 2012 - 05:20 PM

I disagree with DW and BB here.

I confess that I haven't looked at the video replay, I suspect that Rule 23.2 applies here.

It is commonly applied in team racing to prevent a boat that has finished from going back to interfere with competitors from the opposing team. Once your bow has pierced the finish line you are subject to rule 23.

Rule 14 doesnt impact Rule 16. Either the course change prevented the other boat from keeping clear or it did not. If the course change was away from Boat B then obviously Boat A didnt break rule 16. If the course change was towards Boat A then the PC would have to decide if Boat B could have kept clear but for the course change.

#63 fprintf

fprintf

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Location:Connecticut, USA
  • Interests:Dinghy sailing, Gliders, Atlantic class racing, Cedar Point YC, kitesurfing

Posted 13 February 2012 - 05:41 PM

This is apparently why clubs require insurance for all boats racing, from Optimists on up. So is the end result of all this that boat A's insurance is going to cover the damage, or boat A's skipper going to pony up boat B's deductible?

#64 dudewood

dudewood

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 173 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 05:49 PM

The video here is ambiguous and doesn't give us enough information, though I'm tempted to toss B on this one. Here's why.

Boat A is still racing. She is in the racing area, has not "cleared the finish line" (regardless of the reason) even though she has "finished". So RRS still applies to both boats.

Boat A as STB has ROW and she does not seem to INITIALLY alter course (this is where it is ambiguous) in a way that keeps B (port) from "keeping clear". B had adequate time to tack, to luff sails or any of a number of other options but instead opted to try and duck.

When B is about 1.5 BL away and closing fast it appears that Boat A skipper alters course in an attempt to avoid what appears to be an imment collision. RRS REQUIRES HIM TO DO SO. That B (port) then gets hit does not mean that A necessarily altered course in a manner that PREVENTED B from keeping clear


Again, the video isn't really that informative so what I would look for is actually a protest filing.


B could well file a protest against A for a interfering with boats stil racing after finishing - and you might toss A on that for not tacking after finishing - but that's a hard one to prove. To some extent you have to prove either INTENT or malicious disregard.... neither of which appears to be the case here.



B tried to cut it close, and it appears ... too close.


+1

#65 dog of war

dog of war

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 393 posts
  • Location:bay area
  • Interests:sailing fast

Posted 13 February 2012 - 05:54 PM

The race organizers finally said "if you have a one design fleet, you have to race in it"




Time for a hijack………………………What the fuck is up with that?? I call Bull Shit I sail on a boat that has an OD fleet here on the bay but last year we decided to race BBS in the IRC division and will be racing both OD and IRC this year!!



#66 Christian

Christian

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,110 posts
  • Location:Hopefully on the water

Posted 13 February 2012 - 07:03 PM



If I understand the situation correctly, if boat A had held course on port long enough to tack for home without dipping below the line, he still would have been tacking into Boat B's path. So, quite aside from the racing rules, he did something stupid.


Yep, that is what it boils down to. Pure stupidity!!! Now there is a question that still remains, was he doing this to intentionally mess up the competitions race?, or was it just piss poor boat handling?


It's not terribly uncommon to see several levels of brain-function shut down immediately after crossing the finish even before they cross the starting line.



Fixed it for ya'

#67 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,028 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 08:05 PM

as far as the racing rules go, I think you guys have covered it. I'd be interested in the insurance aspect of this. it is my understanding that it is not uncommon under the colregs to apply proportional responsibility for damages. while this was a boneheaded move on the part of boat A, it does take (at least) two boats to cause a collision.


First thing to look at is whether or not they have different insurance companies.

#68 markr

markr

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Location:here

Posted 13 February 2012 - 09:01 PM

Make sure to bring ONE for the ride in. A gybe after the finish would have created an easier duck. Also would have kept your finish in the old days...

#69 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 10:09 PM

ColRegs (IRPCAS) applied no more for this incident than they did during the race. The incident is clearly governed by the racing rules of sailing.

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near
the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing.

My statement, "ColRegs applied no more for this incident than they did during the race," is carefully worded.

There is a technical and legal debate regarding the authority of the racing rules before, during or after a race. How a law court would view the racing rules, largely depends on where you are in the world.

Nevertheless, if you accept the racing rules applied during the race, then you must accept that they applied when OPs incident occured.

I take your point, but surely the insurer would not consider anything bar the colregs if no protest hearing is held and findings made?


In any common law jurisdiction, the RRS apply. See the cases of the Satanita, and Juno v Endeavour. There may be some obscure local law that overturns this, but none have ever been identified.

The reasoning behind this is that the words ISAF have put into the RRS that must be included in an entry form become a legally binding agreement to abide by the RRS instead of the COLREGS, and that it is perfectly proper for parties to agree to some other form of rules in substitution for the rules provided by statute if they choose to do so and the statute does not plainly forbid it, which the various national statutes adopting the COLREGS do not do.

There are no published reports of the issue being tried in a non-common law jurisdiction, but there is no reason to suppose that the reasoning above would not be persuasive.

RRS Part 2 When boats meet rules apply regardless of any protest or lack thereof. A protest written decision is helpful with insurers because it reminds them of the existence of the RRS, and provides an objective finding, which they may accept instead of investigating themselves.

That said, sometimes insurers, particularly if not advised by a broker familiar with the RRS, will attempt to base liability on the COLREGS rather than RRS. Where there is conflict you might have a dispute on your hands.

as far as the racing rules go, I think you guys have covered it. I'd be interested in the insurance aspect of this. it is my understanding that it is not uncommon under the colregs to apply proportional responsibility for damages. while this was a boneheaded move on the part of boat A, it does take (at least) two boats to cause a collision.


It's certainly true in maritime or admiralty law that proportional responsbility is usually applied. Where this would obviously come into play is where a protest hearing found that one boat had failed to keep clear under rules 10, 11, 12, 13, 23 whatever, but that the other boat had also failed to avoid contact under rule 14.

#70 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 03:37 AM

Jem / MyNuts,

Regarding the insurance, Brass has summarised it well, citing the same case as I would..Juno Vs Endeavour.

In addition, I point you to these two articles by Dick Rose for SailingWorld.

What To Do When There Are Damages - Dick Rose for SailingWorld

Who Pays When There Are Damages - Dick Rose for SailingWorld

As you read the second one, you'll get an idea of the complexity of the subject. You'll also see that Dick Rose mentiones that same case...it was rather a landmark case.

As I mentioned before, how such a case will be resolved is dependent largely on where you are in the world. The RRS rule 68 acknowledges this by referring sailors to their National Prescriptions in the time of damage.

For example, notice the difference between the USS precriptions compared to the RYA prescriptions.

RYA Prescriptions to rule 68 Damages
1. Any issue of liability or claim for damages arising from an incident while a boat is
bound by The Racing Rules of Sailing shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the
courts and not considered by a protest committee.
2. A boat that takes a penalty or retires does not thereby admit liability for damages
or that she has broken a rule.

US Sailing Rule 68 After rule 68 add
US SAILING prescribes that:
(a) A boat that retires from a race or accepts a penalty does not, by that action alone,
admit liability for damages.
(b) A protest committee shall find facts and make decisions only in compliance with
the rules. No protest committee or US SAILING appeal authority shall adjudicate
any claim for damages. Such a claim is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts.
© A basic purpose of the rules is to prevent contact between boats. By participating
in an event governed by the rules, a boat agrees that responsibility for damages
arising from any breach of the rules shall be based on fault as determined by
application of the rules, and that she shall not be governed by the legal doctrine of
'assumption of risk' for monetary damages resulting from contact with other
boats.

Both prescriptions inform protest committees not to 'go there'. Simply say who was right and who was wrong according to the RRS and leave it there. The US Sailing prescriptions take an extra step of reminding sailors, courts and insurers that boats racing under the rules have agreed to do so, and that as far as the rules are concerned, fault based on the RRSis either 'all or none'. There is no proportional fault under RRS. What happens after that is for the insurers, courts and parties to decide.

Get to know your National Prescriptions!

----------------------------------------------------

MamboKings,

I confess that I haven't looked at the video replay, I suspect that Rule 23.2 applies here.

It is commonly applied in team racing to prevent a boat that has finished from going back to interfere with competitors from the opposing team. Once your bow has pierced the finish line you are subject to rule 23.


As I said, I wasn't 100% sure. It was late when I posted, and didn't have time to research properly.

The rule you are referring to (to prevent finished boats from interferring) is surely 23.1 or 23.3 (*see below). Since both boats were technically racing, we have shown that 23.1 does not apply to this situation.

So what about 23.2?

I think 23.2 is a dynamic 'in-race' rule designed to separate two boats who both have a technical right to be anywhere on the race course, but to prevent one from departing sailing towards the finish to interfere with a boat on another leg. I don't think 23.2 is designed (or able) to cover a boat who has finished (and thus no technical right to be on the course other than to clear it) and therefore has no 'course to finish', proper or not!.

In fact, OPs scenario seems to fall in the middle ground doesn't it? It is not covered by 23.1, yet it also doesn't seem to fit 23.2. Under the normal RRS there is not a rule which handles this scenario.

*In team racing, since this is a tempting tactic, Appendix D actually ADDS a new rule to cover this. This is discussed in Team Racing Call K1.

Appendix D1.1(d) Add new rule 23.3: 'A boat that has finished shall not act to
interfere with a boat that has not finished.'

The fact that the Team Racing rules have to add that rule to cover this situation, strengthens my belief that 23.2 does NOT apply to OPs fleet racing scenario.

In fleet racing, the only rule you could penalise Boat A for would be Rule 2 - Sportsmanship.

What do you think?

--------------------------------------------------------------
MamboKings,

As for Rule 16.1 and rule 14, I think you should watch the video.

Quite simply, the course change by Boat A was to minimise the impending damage by reducing the angle of collision by swinging her hip to windward. Unfortunately, Boat B had the same idea. As a result, Boat B's hip swung towards Boat A's bow!!! Haha!

Nevertheless, Boat A's course change was only as a result of an impending collision, and therefore did not break rule 16.1. Rule 10 had already been broken.

Although, Boat A's avoiding action may have eventually been towards Boat B's hip, she cannot be expected to anticipate Boat B's sudden action, after it seemed clear that Boat B was not taking action. Boat A did not break rule 16.1, by her course change.

DW

Attached Files



#71 RobbieB

RobbieB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,481 posts
  • Location:Charleston, SC

Posted 14 February 2012 - 02:50 PM

Skipper on Stb tack boat really blew it. Looks like no one paid attn to the port tack boat coming at all. There was no reason there should have been so much damage and a complete t-bone.

#72 Mambo Kings

Mambo Kings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,579 posts
  • Location:Marblehead, MA and Greenwich, CT

Posted 14 February 2012 - 07:05 PM

DW. Until the wording of the rules is cleared up, I would apply the plain english of rule 23.2 because it produces a common sense result.


"Except when sailing her proper course"

There is no proper course after finishing so there are no exceptions.

"a boat shall not interfere with a boat sailing on another leg"

A boat that has finished is no longer on the last leg of the course. The boat that has not finished is on the last leg of the course. Boat B is on a leg of the course. The only boats that can interfere with Boat B are boats that are on the same leg. Boat A is not on the same leg.

I admit the ambiguity of arguing whether the words "another leg" apply to a boat that is not on any leg. But I recommend PCs go with above because of common sense.

Common sense because in fleet racing because we do not want boats that have finished interfering with boats that have not finished. Nor do we want an artificial distinction between the obligation of a boat that has finished and cleared the line and a boat that has finished by just piercing the line.

You bring up a very good point. As usual the team racers have spotted the potential ambiguity and sorted it out in appendix D. Is there any reason why 23.3 is not included in the manin text of the rules for 2013-16?

#73 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:28 PM

DW. Until the wording of the rules is cleared up, I would apply the plain english of rule 23.2 because it produces a common sense result.


"Except when sailing her proper course"

There is no proper course after finishing so there are no exceptions.

"a boat shall not interfere with a boat sailing on another leg"

A boat that has finished is no longer on the last leg of the course. The boat that has not finished is on the last leg of the course. Boat B is on a leg of the course. The only boats that can interfere with Boat B are boats that are on the same leg. Boat A is not on the same leg.

I admit the ambiguity of arguing whether the words "another leg" apply to a boat that is not on any leg. But I recommend PCs go with above because of common sense.

Common sense because in fleet racing because we do not want boats that have finished interfering with boats that have not finished. Nor do we want an artificial distinction between the obligation of a boat that has finished and cleared the line and a boat that has finished by just piercing the line.

You bring up a very good point. As usual the team racers have spotted the potential ambiguity and sorted it out in appendix D. Is there any reason why 23.3 is not included in the manin text of the rules for 2013-16?


Problem with your wording in removing the "if reasonably possible" is that this means that if I'm in the wind shadow of Boat A as we approach the finish line and they finish 1/2 BL ahead of me, I immediately pop the protest flag and DSQ A for "interfering with a boat still racing"...

#74 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 11:08 PM

The beer was not the other way. The beer was upwind of the finish line.

#75 BigBoatHack

BigBoatHack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 01:55 AM

Sounds like it's the port tack boat's crew making the whoa whoas. How many times have any of us said "hey" or "whoa" to a boat that suddenly turns into our path? A should be chucked for the reasons mentioned - preventing a give-way boat from keeping clear and failing to avoid a collision.

#76 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 09:03 AM

Sounds like it's the port tack boat's crew making the whoa whoas. How many times have any of us said "hey" or "whoa" to a boat that suddenly turns into our path? A should be chucked for the reasons mentioned - preventing a give-way boat from keeping clear and failing to avoid a collision.


It's difficult to ascertain from the video who was making the 'whoa whoa' noises! I personally thought the first grunts came from an unassertive crewmember on Boat A.

I personally think both boats were equally surprised at each other's presence. e.g. neither was keeping a proper lookout.

Look, Boat A's tack and bear away after finishing was done well clear of Boat B. Boat B had more than enough room to keep clear. That did not break rule 16.

Then she got into a collision. We all agree that she was wrong. We must also all agree that the Port Boat B was wrong as well. Which rules they are pinged under respectively is the question.

Boat B, rule 10 for sure.
Boat A is where the debate lies. I think rule 2, since I think no other rule is applicable. Others think 23.2 applies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mambo Kings,

I think you answered the problem yourself.

'another leg'?

When a boat has finished, she is not on a leg, and therefore a boat not finished is not on 'another leg'.

Nor do we want an artificial distinction between the obligation of a boat that has finished and cleared the line and a boat that has finished by just piercing the line.



I think in fact that distinction is useful.

Your suggestion is to include the Team Racing addition (23.3) into the main part of the racing rules. I admit I thought of this myself. However, it is important to think of the consequences in ALL scenarios of doing that.

'A boat that has finished shall not act to interfere with a boat that has not finished.'

While this would work conveniently to resolve OPs scenario this time, I don't think it is necessarily wise to put such an onus on boats in all fleet races.

Team Racing Call Book (K1) shows how a boat's obligation under this rule is effective the moment her bow crosses the finish line. At that point, she must not act to interfere with other boats. That includes actions as passive as creating a windshadow (as per the call).

Would such an obligation work in every fleet race? I don't think so. In fleet races, it is not uncommon for large groups of boats to cross at a similar time, making it impossible for a boat who has pipped the line to avoid 'interfering' with boats still on the course. Skills vary on the average club race course. By implementing such a stringent and immediate regulation in fleet races, we could find an absurd situation where boats are continually protested for interference when they had no chance to avoid that.

In team racing, it is easier to regulate. The numbers of boats are fewer, and every boat on the course belongs to either your team or the other team. Focus is on the other boats in the race, and at most that is 5 others.

As BalticBandit says, for boats who have cleared the line, are not in the competition, or are milling about before the next race, the requirement is to avoid interfering 'if reasonably possible'. This acknowledges that sometimes it is not 'reasonably' possible to avoid interference. Say, if the racing area was a narrow river with lots of other traffic, it might be impossible to avoid meeting boats who are racing.

When a boat has finished, but not cleared the line, I think the same principal of sportsmanship applies. She should 'get clear' and avoid interfering. However, protection for that boat who may have no 'reasonable' way of avoiding interference (due to other fleet boats) needs to be preserved. A boat still not finished, MUST expect the finish line area to be congested, and sail appropriately. Using 23.3 in fleet racing removes that protection since there is no provision to act 'reasonably'.

Rule 23.2 applies (and is intended) only to separate boats on 'legs of the course'. While it may seem convenient to apply it to Boat A (because we all agree that Boat A acted wrong in some way), it does not fit. She was not on a leg of the course. She had no course, not even an 'un-proper one'.

Rule 23.3 could put blame on Boat A in this case, but could unfairly burden boats in other fleet races where the circumstances are different. Blanketly applying 23.3 to fleet racing could be problematic.

So, really, there isn't a specific rule to use to ping Boat A for sailing back through the line. Finish lines are congested places...if you're about to finish keep your eyes open! That is, UNLESS, you consider such careless sailing as a breach of sportsmanship. Then you'd use Rule 2.

I think it is acceptable to leave the subtleties of such a situation in fleet racing undefined. Had Boat A not been so blatently thoughtless, I'd say that she broke no rule.

So let's not forget, Boat B MUST MUST MUST pay more attention. She was keep clear boat sailing into a finish area! She did not. She eats humble (penalty) pie through rule 10.

The rules deliberately extend the keep clear rules until ONE boat has CLEARED the line for a reason. Regardless of how thoughtless Boat A was, the keep clear rules existed.

Using Rule 2, it leaves it to a protest committee to assess the graveness of Boat A's act (probably based on other options, the care and attention, her reasons etc..etc..) If she grossly acted unsportingly, then ping her on that.

To crowbar 23.2 or 23.3 simply to fit this scenario may appease our emotional annoyance at Boat A, but may not work in all cases, since it waters down the basic keep clear obligations while in the vicinity of the finish line.

In which case, I'd rather question Boat A's actions through the principals of sportsmanship instead.

DW

P.S. The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that Boat B was solely wrong. I would have a hard time saying that Boat A grossly broke the principals of sportsmanship. I think she was just careless and thoughtless. I don't think there was any malice in her act. Whether it is rule 2 is subjective, and for the committee to decide.

At the same time, the obligations of Boat B to continue keeping clear are deliberate and necessary. She clearly did not. We cannot exonerate her even partially, simply because we are shocked and angered by Boat A. Doing so sets an awful precedence.

#77 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,608 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 15 February 2012 - 01:37 PM

... ...


Then she got into a collision. We all agree that she was wrong. We must also all agree that the Port Boat B was wrong as well. Which rules they are pinged under respectively is the question.

Boat B, rule 10 for sure.
Boat A is where the debate lies. I think rule 2, since I think no other rule is applicable. Others think 23.2 applies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mambo Kings,

I think you answered the problem yourself.

'another leg'?

When a boat has finished, she is not on a leg, and therefore a boat not finished is not on 'another leg'.


It doesn't matter that Boat A is not "on a leg"

The rule only requires that the boats NOT be on the same leg of the course.
Surely you're not suggesting that they were on the same leg of the course?

Read the rule in plain English. The rule IS what the rule SAYS.


Nor do we want an artificial distinction between the obligation of a boat that has finished and cleared the line and a boat that has finished by just piercing the line.



I think in fact that distinction is useful.

Your suggestion is to include the Team Racing addition (23.3) into the main part of the racing rules. I admit I thought of this myself. However, it is important to think of the consequences in ALL scenarios of doing that.

'A boat that has finished shall not act to interfere with a boat that has not finished.'

While this would work conveniently to resolve OPs scenario this time, I don't think it is necessarily wise to put such an onus on boats in all fleet races.

Team Racing Call Book (K1) shows how a boat's obligation under this rule is effective the moment her bow crosses the finish line. At that point, she must not act to interfere with other boats. That includes actions as passive as creating a windshadow (as per the call).

Would such an obligation work in every fleet race? I don't think so. In fleet races, it is not uncommon for large groups of boats to cross at a similar time, making it impossible for a boat who has pipped the line to avoid 'interfering' with boats still on the course. Skills vary on the average club race course. By implementing such a stringent and immediate regulation in fleet races, we could find an absurd situation where boats are continually protested for interference when they had no chance to avoid that.
...


Agreed. The rules should be practical, and the rules MUST be physically possible. What this suggests is that boats somehow magically teleport out of the way as soon as they ding the finish line.

"Gee, why are those stored trophis stacking up in the clubhouse? We don't have room to drink a beer any more"
"Well ever since they changed the rules, everybody gets a DSQ upon finishing"

:lol:

:lol:

:angry:

FB- Doug

#78 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 02:15 PM

It doesn't matter that Boat A is not "on a leg"

The rule only requires that the boats NOT be on the same leg of the course.
Surely you're not suggesting that they were on the same leg of the course?

Read the rule in plain English. The rule IS what the rule SAYS.
FB- Doug


The rule is: 23.2 Except when sailing her proper course, a boat shall not interfere with a boat taking a penalty or sailing on another leg.

I'm sorry. In plain English (which I've been speaking for a good portion of the last 50 years), for a boat to be on 'another' leg, she must be on a leg herself. No?

DW

#79 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,608 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 15 February 2012 - 03:07 PM

I'm sorry. In plain English (which I've been speaking for a good portion of the last 50 years), for a boat to be on 'another' leg, she must be on a leg herself. No?

DW


You're assuming that the rules says "Both boats must be on a leg of the course, but not on the same leg" and what it really says is

"...a boat shall not interfere with a boat sailing on another leg."

That does not say that Boat A must be on a leg of the course. It just says that the two boats must not be on the same leg.

We've agreed Boat A was still racing because she had not yet cleared the finish line, so Rules 23.1 is out. If you were going to read between the lines and argue about subtle implications, you might infer that if she is still racing then she is still on a leg of the race course... in this case, the leg required to get clear of the finish. But IMHO that is not necessary, it is just necessary that Boat B is not on the same leg which she is.

The way you read the rule says a boat could just reach back & forth across the line without clearing it, and fucking up everybody else's finish. That would be just fine, wouldn't it?
:P

FB- Doug

#80 een

een

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 03:13 PM

Sounds like it's the port tack boat's crew making the whoa whoas. How many times have any of us said "hey" or "whoa" to a boat that suddenly turns into our path? A should be chucked for the reasons mentioned - preventing a give-way boat from keeping clear and failing to avoid a collision.


The "whoa, whoa, whoa" was coming from the guy on boat A with the GoPro strapped to his chest. As boat A made its drastic change of course and boat B started falling off (it is hard to see in the video) also to avoid contact with boat A.

The facts that are indisputable are:

Boat B is sailing upwind on PORT towards the finish

Boat A has FINISHED and sailing on STARBOARD

Boat A makes a hard left turn back onto the course side in an attempt to clear the line for boat B

Boat B sees boat A and tries to fall off herself

Boat A hits boat B on her WINDWARD SIDE

From what I know about sailing around these guys and knowing them personally, Boat A should have remained on her starboard course (upwind back to the Yacht Club) and Boat B would have taken her stern (without much of a duck) to finish the race.

I must add in that the owner of Boat A is a repeat rule offender. Anything from gross misconduct, un-sporstman-like conduct to blatant disregard for the RRS. And he is a poor sport about it all.

#81 Squalamax

Squalamax

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,209 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 03:50 PM


Sounds like it's the port tack boat's crew making the whoa whoas. How many times have any of us said "hey" or "whoa" to a boat that suddenly turns into our path? A should be chucked for the reasons mentioned - preventing a give-way boat from keeping clear and failing to avoid a collision.


The "whoa, whoa, whoa" was coming from the guy on boat A with the GoPro strapped to his chest. As boat A made its drastic change of course and boat B started falling off (it is hard to see in the video) also to avoid contact with boat A.

The facts that are indisputable are:

Boat B is sailing upwind on PORT towards the finish

Boat A has FINISHED and sailing on STARBOARD

Boat A makes a hard left turn back onto the course side in an attempt to clear the line for boat B

Boat B sees boat A and tries to fall off herself

Boat A hits boat B on her WINDWARD SIDE

From what I know about sailing around these guys and knowing them personally, Boat A should have remained on her starboard course (upwind back to the Yacht Club) and Boat B would have taken her stern (without much of a duck) to finish the race.

I must add in that the owner of Boat A is a repeat rule offender. Anything from gross misconduct, un-sporstman-like conduct to blatant disregard for the RRS. And he is a poor sport about it all.


Thats exactly how I saw it in the video. For anybody saying boat B didn't keep clear is just fucking bullshit. In order for boat A to have hit boat B on her WINDWARD SIDE, boat B must have had to bear off considerably as well.
Otherwise it would have been a glancing blow, and not a full blown T BONE! They were attempting a close duck, which every good sailor should do, and A panicked.

Sounds to me like the clown with the go-pro on over-reacted to B's duck and caused the helm to panic and bear away(which is absolutely the wrong move in that case)

The fact that boat A was in the way of a boat still racing boggles my mind anyway. We always do everything possible to clear the line without shadowing anyone, let alone make them duck regardless of who has ROW.

#82 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 03:52 PM

1. You're assuming that the rules says "Both boats must be on a leg of the course, but not on the same leg" and what it really says is

"...a boat shall not interfere with a boat sailing on another leg."

2. That does not say that Boat A must be on a leg of the course. It just says that the two boats must not be on the same leg.

3. We've agreed Boat A was still racing because she had not yet cleared the finish line, so Rules 23.1 is out. If you were going to read between the lines and argue about subtle implications, you might infer that if she is still racing then she is still on a leg of the race course... in this case, the leg required to get clear of the finish. But IMHO that is not necessary, it is just necessary that Boat B is not on the same leg which she is.

6. The way you read the rule says a boat could just reach back & forth across the line without clearing it, and fucking up everybody else's finish. That would be just fine, wouldn't it?
:P

FB- Doug


1. I'm saying that the rule only makes sense if both boats are on a leg.

2. 'Another' means more than one, but not the same. The rule references one boat who is on one leg. Then references a boat on a different leg to her.

3. A leg is defined by marks at the start and finish. I'm not saying (and don't agree) that a finished boat who is not clear of the finish is on a leg. I'm saying the opposite. There are no marks bounding her position as being on a leg, because the course (per rule 28) has finished. She is on no leg. To say she is on a leg is a perversion of the concept of a 'leg' just to suit your assertion.

4. Can you agree that Boat A is NOT on any leg?

5. You said, " it is just necessary that Boat B is not on the same leg which she is."

In your own statement, you mirror the rule by using words and grammar which suggest that the reference boat is on a leg!!!

6. Of course, I'm not saying that she can reach back and forth stuffing people up. I'm saying that rule 23.2 is not the correct rule to penalise her for doing so. That's all.

7. Doing that would be grossly unsportsmanlike wouldn't it? Hmmm...is there a rule we could use?

8. Let me try to put things another way. You wish to apply rule 23.2, to meet the same end as rule 23.1. So if rule 23.2 applied for that purpose, then doesn't that render rule 23.1 pointless. Why not do away with rule 23.1? It's because they are concerned with different scenarios. 23.2 is concerned with two boats who have a right to be on the course. 23.1 is concerned with a boat who is not racing. In fleet racing, there is not a specific rule concerned with when one has finished but is not clear and the other has not finished. I think that's deliberate.

9. Team Racing Appendix D also recognises that 23.2 does not cover when one boat has finished and another has not. Hence, they have had to ADD 23.3.

In my first post on the subject, I acknowledged that it didn't really matter which rule Boat A was penalised under. There is clearly enough misunderstanding about 23.2 that a protest committee would get away with using that rule without fear of appeal. So this discussion is largely moot, right? I just can't see how rule 23.2 was designed or works for a situation where a boat is not on a leg of the course.

----------------------------------------

een,

You speak with very strong words in open public forum about these sailors. That may cause you trouble.

Nevertheless, you say that Boat A put more thought into his actions than I gave him credit for, but it just didn't pay off. That may mitigate what I see could be a breach of sportsmanship; instead it is just silly, dumb, careless.... If being totally careless and thoughtless is deemed to be a gross breach of sportsmanship, then I see no problem applying rule 2 here. If not, then I don't see a rule which could be used to penalise Boat A.

The exact details of the events are sketchy using the video without testimony. However, the case should be evaluated under the Part 2 rules, just as if it was in the middle of the course. no amount of anger or emotion against Boat A should influence how those Part 2 rules are tested. If they show Boat A to be wrong, so be it. If they show Boat B to have failed in her rule 10 obligations then fine too.

Under part 2, I would ask whether after Boat A's hard left turn, Boat B had time to tack away or make an earlier duck to keep clear. I think she did have that time, but did not see Boat A because she was not keeping a proper lookout. So to me, Boat A did not break 16.1 and Boat B did break rule 10.

After that, you can question what Boat A was doing there, and how to penalise her.


DW

#83 Ship o' Fools

Ship o' Fools

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 05:47 PM


Sounds like it's the port tack boat's crew making the whoa whoas. How many times have any of us said "hey" or "whoa" to a boat that suddenly turns into our path? A should be chucked for the reasons mentioned - preventing a give-way boat from keeping clear and failing to avoid a collision.


It's difficult to ascertain from the video who was making the 'whoa whoa' noises! I personally thought the first grunts came from an unassertive crewmember on Boat A.

I personally think both boats were equally surprised at each other's presence. e.g. neither was keeping a proper lookout.

Look, Boat A's tack and bear away after finishing was done well clear of Boat B. Boat B had more than enough room to keep clear. That did not break rule 16.

Then she got into a collision. We all agree that she was wrong. We must also all agree that the Port Boat B was wrong as well. Which rules they are pinged under respectively is the question.

Boat B, rule 10 for sure.
Boat A is where the debate lies. I think rule 2, since I think no other rule is applicable. Others think 23.2 applies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mambo Kings,

I think you answered the problem yourself.

'another leg'?

When a boat has finished, she is not on a leg, and therefore a boat not finished is not on 'another leg'.

Nor do we want an artificial distinction between the obligation of a boat that has finished and cleared the line and a boat that has finished by just piercing the line.



I think in fact that distinction is useful.

Your suggestion is to include the Team Racing addition (23.3) into the main part of the racing rules. I admit I thought of this myself. However, it is important to think of the consequences in ALL scenarios of doing that.

'A boat that has finished shall not act to interfere with a boat that has not finished.'

While this would work conveniently to resolve OPs scenario this time, I don't think it is necessarily wise to put such an onus on boats in all fleet races.

Team Racing Call Book (K1) shows how a boat's obligation under this rule is effective the moment her bow crosses the finish line. At that point, she must not act to interfere with other boats. That includes actions as passive as creating a windshadow (as per the call).

Would such an obligation work in every fleet race? I don't think so. In fleet races, it is not uncommon for large groups of boats to cross at a similar time, making it impossible for a boat who has pipped the line to avoid 'interfering' with boats still on the course. Skills vary on the average club race course. By implementing such a stringent and immediate regulation in fleet races, we could find an absurd situation where boats are continually protested for interference when they had no chance to avoid that.

In team racing, it is easier to regulate. The numbers of boats are fewer, and every boat on the course belongs to either your team or the other team. Focus is on the other boats in the race, and at most that is 5 others.

As BalticBandit says, for boats who have cleared the line, are not in the competition, or are milling about before the next race, the requirement is to avoid interfering 'if reasonably possible'. This acknowledges that sometimes it is not 'reasonably' possible to avoid interference. Say, if the racing area was a narrow river with lots of other traffic, it might be impossible to avoid meeting boats who are racing.

When a boat has finished, but not cleared the line, I think the same principal of sportsmanship applies. She should 'get clear' and avoid interfering. However, protection for that boat who may have no 'reasonable' way of avoiding interference (due to other fleet boats) needs to be preserved. A boat still not finished, MUST expect the finish line area to be congested, and sail appropriately. Using 23.3 in fleet racing removes that protection since there is no provision to act 'reasonably'.

Rule 23.2 applies (and is intended) only to separate boats on 'legs of the course'. While it may seem convenient to apply it to Boat A (because we all agree that Boat A acted wrong in some way), it does not fit. She was not on a leg of the course. She had no course, not even an 'un-proper one'.

Rule 23.3 could put blame on Boat A in this case, but could unfairly burden boats in other fleet races where the circumstances are different. Blanketly applying 23.3 to fleet racing could be problematic.

So, really, there isn't a specific rule to use to ping Boat A for sailing back through the line. Finish lines are congested places...if you're about to finish keep your eyes open! That is, UNLESS, you consider such careless sailing as a breach of sportsmanship. Then you'd use Rule 2.

I think it is acceptable to leave the subtleties of such a situation in fleet racing undefined. Had Boat A not been so blatently thoughtless, I'd say that she broke no rule.

So let's not forget, Boat B MUST MUST MUST pay more attention. She was keep clear boat sailing into a finish area! She did not. She eats humble (penalty) pie through rule 10.

The rules deliberately extend the keep clear rules until ONE boat has CLEARED the line for a reason. Regardless of how thoughtless Boat A was, the keep clear rules existed.

Using Rule 2, it leaves it to a protest committee to assess the graveness of Boat A's act (probably based on other options, the care and attention, her reasons etc..etc..) If she grossly acted unsportingly, then ping her on that.

To crowbar 23.2 or 23.3 simply to fit this scenario may appease our emotional annoyance at Boat A, but may not work in all cases, since it waters down the basic keep clear obligations while in the vicinity of the finish line.

In which case, I'd rather question Boat A's actions through the principals of sportsmanship instead.

DW

P.S. The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that Boat B was solely wrong. I would have a hard time saying that Boat A grossly broke the principals of sportsmanship. I think she was just careless and thoughtless. I don't think there was any malice in her act. Whether it is rule 2 is subjective, and for the committee to decide.

At the same time, the obligations of Boat B to continue keeping clear are deliberate and necessary. She clearly did not. We cannot exonerate her even partially, simply because we are shocked and angered by Boat A. Doing so sets an awful precedence.


I agree with your analysis (which might indicate you are wrong).

I think the conflict arises between what is required by the rules and proper sailing etiquette. Boat B was the burdened boat since B was on port and Boat A still has rights while clearing the line. However, Boat A failed in the common courtesy department by not continuing on port to clear the line as quick as possible before tacking to starboard(assuming there was not another finished boat on starboard the caused Boat A to tack.) Given the short time between Boat A tacking and the collision, Boat A should have been aware of Boat B prior to tacking to starboard and should have been aware that she might delay Boat B's finish which would be poor sailing etiquette.

#84 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,608 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 15 February 2012 - 07:33 PM


1. You're assuming that the rules says "Both boats must be on a leg of the course, but not on the same leg" and what it really says is

"...a boat shall not interfere with a boat sailing on another leg."

2. That does not say that Boat A must be on a leg of the course. It just says that the two boats must not be on the same leg.

3. We've agreed Boat A was still racing because she had not yet cleared the finish line, so Rules 23.1 is out. If you were going to read between the lines and argue about subtle implications, you might infer that if she is still racing then she is still on a leg of the race course... in this case, the leg required to get clear of the finish. But IMHO that is not necessary, it is just necessary that Boat B is not on the same leg which she is.

6. The way you read the rule says a boat could just reach back & forth across the line without clearing it, and fucking up everybody else's finish. That would be just fine, wouldn't it?
:P

FB- Doug


1. I'm saying that the rule only makes sense if both boats are on a leg.

2. 'Another' means more than one, but not the same. The rule references one boat who is on one leg. Then references a boat on a different leg to her.


That is NOT

emphasis NOT

what the rule says

You are reading an imputed meaning into the rule, which by now you hav a vested interest in proving. See if you can give up your confirmation bias for a few moments and think it thru

The rule says "A boat shall not interfere with another boat" and goes on to name two specific circumstances in which a boat SHALL (mandatory) not do so: one of those is when the boat interfered with is "on another leg." The rules also states that it is acceptable to interfere with a boat on another leg if she is on her proper course, but of course there is none after finishing so Boat A cannot take that exemption.

Semantically that could be taken several ways, but they all boil down to the requirement that Boat A and Boat B not be on the same leg of the course. The rule does not specifically state that boat A must be on a leg of the course, as long as one of them is and it is not the same as the other, the wording of the rule is satisfied.



....

4. Can you agree that Boat A is NOT on any leg?

5. You said, " it is just necessary that Boat B is not on the same leg which she is."

In your own statement, you mirror the rule by using words and grammar which suggest that the reference boat is on a leg!!!


Sorry, that is due to sloppy language on my part. I agree that Boat A is not really on a leg of the course although that conflicts with the statement that she is still racing. I do not agree that the wording of the rules requires that both boats be on a leg.

How about- it is just necessary that Boat B is not on the same leg of the course that Boat A is on

This statement is satisfied if either boat is on a leg and the other is not, or if both boats are on a leg but they are different legs. You assume the second part is the ONLY way it can be, but that's not what the rule says verbatim.


6. Of course, I'm not saying that she can reach back and forth stuffing people up. I'm saying that rule 23.2 is not the correct rule to penalise her for doing so. That's all.

7. Doing that would be grossly unsportsmanlike wouldn't it?


Maybe. I've seen "sportmanship" given a pretty wide latitude including blatant cheating on illegal hiking & illegal propulsion because it was "competitive."

In any event, I think that Rules 14 & 16 are plenty sufficient grounds to toss Boat A given the info so far about this case. I also think that the rules need to make sure the scenario in #6 above is plainly illegal without vague reference to sportsmanship, and I think that AS WRITTEN they do so... could be a little better worded perhaps but then I am also against rewritting the rules all the dang time.

FB- Doug

#85 huckster_one

huckster_one

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 08:48 PM

The exact details of the events are sketchy using the video without testimony. However, the case should be evaluated under the Part 2 rules, just as if it was in the middle of the course. no amount of anger or emotion against Boat A should influence how those Part 2 rules are tested. If they show Boat A to be wrong, so be it. If they show Boat B to have failed in her rule 10 obligations then fine too.

Under part 2, I would ask whether after Boat A's hard left turn, Boat B had time to tack away or make an earlier duck to keep clear. I think she did have that time, but did not see Boat A because she was not keeping a proper lookout. So to me, Boat A did not break 16.1 and Boat B did break rule 10.

After that, you can question what Boat A was doing there, and how to penalise her.


DW
[/quote]

You can't act like it happened in the middle of the course cause A and B's actions would have been totally different. Also, there Is no way B could have tacked and not hit A. A is clearly at fault as they hit B when B was trying to keep clear.

#86 Squalamax

Squalamax

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,209 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 09:01 PM

According to this preamble in the RRS, boat A can ONLY be penalized for breaking 23.1:

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near
the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing.
However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one
of these rules, except rule 23.1.

Am I missing something here? All this talk about every other rule of part 2 and the only rule that matters is 23.1.

Am I right?

#87 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 09:04 PM

According to this preamble in the RRS, boat A can ONLY be penalized for breaking 23.1:

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near
the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing.
However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one
of these rules, except rule 23.1.

Am I missing something here? All this talk about every other rule of part 2 and the only rule that matters is 23.1.

Am I right?


You are right!

It's only taken 80 odd posts to arrive BACK at this point. RRS 23.1.

#88 Lake Shark

Lake Shark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Location:midwest
  • Interests:boats, babes, and brews

Posted 15 February 2012 - 10:16 PM

in response to the idea that everyone would be protesting each other if 23.3 were added to the rules. I have only seen that called on a boat that has purposely luffed her sails while she is finishing in order to disturb the air flow to a leeward boat. Never against a boat that is sailing normally with a boat to leeward.

if you look at the callbook it clearly shows A luffing her sails while still being intersected by the line drawn from the pin to the committee boat.

_______


According to this preamble in the RRS, boat A can ONLY be penalized for breaking 23.1:

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near
the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing.
However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one
of these rules, except rule 23.1.

Am I missing something here? All this talk about every other rule of part 2 and the only rule that matters is 23.1.

Am I right?



this all started because it couldn't be agreed on whether boat A had cleared the line although they very well might have if after their bow pierced the line they ended up completely on the windward side or leeward side again at any time. ISAF will hopefully make this easier in 2013

#89 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:28 AM


According to this preamble in the RRS, boat A can ONLY be penalized for breaking 23.1:

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near
the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing.
However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one
of these rules, except rule 23.1.

Am I missing something here? All this talk about every other rule of part 2 and the only rule that matters is 23.1.

Am I right?


You are right!

It's only taken 80 odd posts to arrive BACK at this point. RRS 23.1.


I thought we'd agreed that Boat A had NOT cleared the line, and therefore was still racing (per the definition). In which case, both the preamble and the rule discount rule 23.1 to be used?

After 80 odd posts, and we're back here!!!

Unless now we need to spend another 80 to argue the meaning of 'cleared the line'.

DW



#90 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:40 AM

You are reading an imputed meaning into the rule, which by now you hav a vested interest in proving. See if you can give up your confirmation bias for a few moments and think it thru
FB- Doug


Touche?

OK - Since this is getting nowhere, let's drop this.

BTW...I have NO vested interest in proving anything. I couldn't care less whether your committee use 23.2 to ping Boat A. I see your point, but am not convinced. Until you convince me, an authoritive figure steps forward, or official confirmation either way, I'm happy to continue to be wary of 23.2 for this situation.

Bye.

Huckster, Rule 16, 10 14 are the same whether at the finish line or in the middle of the course.

DW

#91 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:25 AM

According to this preamble in the RRS, boat A can ONLY be penalized for breaking 23.1:

this all started because it couldn't be agreed on whether boat A had cleared the line although they very well might have if after their bow pierced the line they ended up completely on the windward side or leeward side again at any time. ISAF will hopefully make this easier in 2013



I thought we'd agreed that Boat A had NOT cleared the line, and therefore was still racing (per the definition). In which case, both the preamble and the rule discount rule 23.1 to be used?

Unless now we need to spend another 80 to argue the meaning of 'cleared the line'.



I think A has probably cleared the line for the following reasons.

OP said A tacked onto starboard after she had finished.

The long video shows:
  • A tacks onto starboard about 0:58
  • B first comes into shot on port about 1:20
  • Contact occurs about 1:25
So, supposing that A never cleared (all parts of A across the finishing line on the non-course side) the finishing line before she tacked, then A tacks, and bears away from close hauled for 20 seconds or so before she gets close to B. In that time, even allowing for A to be downspeed after the tack, say 2 to 3 kts, A will have travelled 66 to 100 ft from where she had finished. I think it's highly unlikely that she spent that time, and travelled that distance keeping her hull and equipment across the finishing line.

If we are in any doubt about the meaning of 'clears the finishing line', this is answered by Q&A 2006-002

Q&A 2006-002
Revised: 12 January 2009
Question
With respect to the definition Racing, when has a boat 'cleared' the finishing line and marks?
Answer
A boat clears the finishing line and marks when no part of her hull, crew or equipment is on the lineand when neither mark is influencing her course.



So A has cleared the finishing line. A was no longer racing and was subject to rule 23.1

Had A been keeping a good lookout it would have been easily possible for her to avoid interfering with B. A broke rule 23.1. A probably also broke rules 16.1 and 14, but as she was not racing she cannot be penalised for that.

Alternatively,

Suppose that A did NOT clear the finishing line until it was too late for it to be reasonably possible for her to avoid interfering with B.

In that case, I don't think it's at all tenable to suggest that she was sailing on another leg to B to get rule 23.2 into play. To get there, you have to have two legs, one for each boat to be sailing on. at a finishing line, there is only one leg: the leg from the previous mark to the finishing line. Rule 23.2 will not apply.

What happens in this case is A breaks rule 16.1 and rule 14. If she has not cleared the finishing line, she is still racing and can, and should be penalised for breaking those rules.

#92 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,028 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:42 AM

Looks to me the Powers That Be might look to amend the definition of "cleared the line".

I really don't think they had the image of a knucklehead zig-zagging around it, even returning to course side (for not particular reason -to borrow from Forrest Gump), while boats are trying to finish in mind when the wrote that. It is natural for them to assume a certain level of common sense to exist. Sometimes, certain events prove they have assumed a tad too much.

#93 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:58 AM

In that case, I don't think it's at all tenable to suggest that she was sailing on another leg to B to get rule 23.2 into play. To get there, you have to have two legs, one for each boat to be sailing on. at a finishing line, there is only one leg: the leg from the previous mark to the finishing line. Rule 23.2 will not apply.


Bingo and Hallelluja...in that order. Thank you Brass.

1. The Q&A being the most authoritative definition to go by so far as to when a boat cleared the line. Did Boat A clear the line..? probably (since the Q&A defines a pretty narrow corridor; a hull width or length depending on orientation; it is unlikely that Boat A stayed in that corridor for 25 seconds). In which case, 23.1 is the ONLY rule which may disqualify Boat A. However, Part 2 rules still apply between both boats with Boat A's 23.1 breach not impacting a Part 2 breach by Boat B.

2. If Boat A did not clear the line (I thought someone originally said she 'sailed back down the line'), then apply Part 2 rules to both boats with potential penalty under those rules for either of them.

3. Agree with Brass's view of 23.2 does not apply. That's what I've been saying all along.

-----------------------------------------------------
Here is the limit we can discuss to.

I don't think we can debate (with much mileage) which Part 2 rules were broken by either boat or if Boat A 'cleared the line', since we just don't have enough evidence. Just agree that Part 2 applied to both boats, and it is probable that she cleared the line.

All done then?

DW

23 seconds between tack and collision? More than enough time for Port to do more to keep clear. That's how I see it. e.g. I don't see Boat A's 16 and 14. To me then Boat A did not break a part 2 rule.

#94 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,608 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 16 February 2012 - 02:12 AM


You are reading an imputed meaning into the rule, which by now you hav a vested interest in proving. See if you can give up your confirmation bias for a few moments and think it thru
FB- Doug


Touche?

OK - Since this is getting nowhere, let's drop this.


OK

... ...

If we are in any doubt about the meaning of 'clears the finishing line', this is answered by Q&A 2006-002

Q&A 2006-002
Revised: 12 January 2009
Question
With respect to the definition Racing, when has a boat 'cleared' the finishing line and marks?
Answer
A boat clears the finishing line and marks when no part of her hull, crew or equipment is on the lineand when neither mark is influencing her course.



So A has cleared the finishing line. A was no longer racing and was subject to rule 23.1


Hmmm, that clears up a lot. I guess this is going to be in the new rulebook


Suppose that A did NOT clear the finishing line until it was too late for it to be reasonably possible for her to avoid interfering with B.

In that case, I don't think it's at all tenable to suggest that she was sailing on another leg to B to get rule 23.2 into play. To get there, you have to have two legs, one for each boat to be sailing on. at a finishing line, there is only one leg: the leg from the previous mark to the finishing line. Rule 23.2 will not apply.

...


Did either of you guys ever diagram sentences in English class?
Oh well, if we were the PC then I'm outvoted on a matter of plain English.

:(

FB- Doug

#95 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 02:29 AM

Did either of you guys ever diagram sentences in English class?

No.

Why?

Is there anything I have written that you have difficulty understanding?

#96 huckster_one

huckster_one

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 03:10 AM

Huckster, Rule 16, 10 14 are the same whether at the finish line or in the middle of the course.

DW
[/quote]

No shit Sherlock, but watching the video A broke all of those rules in my eyes. Have you ever turned towards a boat that you thought was going to hit you? Remember "tiller towards trouble"? If it was the middle of the course, A would never have turned down as they would have been paying attention to the fact that B was ducking and they were continuing to fall down on starboard. Look up case 26 for rule 14 and 16, case 60 for rule 16. A should be tossed and there for 14 and there is a chance B could be tossed also.

#97 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 03:25 AM

No shit Sherlock, but watching the video A broke all of those rules in my eyes. Have you ever turned towards a boat that you thought was going to hit you? Remember "tiller towards trouble"? If it was the middle of the course, A would never have turned down as they would have been paying attention to the fact that B was ducking and they were continuing to fall down on starboard. Look up case 26 for rule 14 and 16, case 60 for rule 16. A should be tossed and there for 14 and there is a chance B could be tossed also.


Thanks Huckster.

Herein proves my point that we don't have enough evidence to evaluate Part 2 compliance. We can only give opinions...no point in much more than that.

What I saw:


1:01 Boat A's finish horn during the tack to new starboard tack. Jib is untrimmed (still hooked up to windward sheet.)


1:11 Boat A's crew are focused inside the boat. No indication that anyone has seen Boat B. Not that that breaks a rule yet, (but may break rule 14 if there is a collision with damage).


1:22 Boat B's crew as seen all hiking on the rail. Bowman facing to windward. No arm gestures, no looking under the sail. No indication whatsoever that they'd seen Boat A previously. The first they saw of Boat A was when she popped round the front of the headstay.


1:24 Whoa Whoa hails, and action by both boats pretty much simultaneously. Boat B helm full to windward, helmsman facing to leeward. Bewildered deer in headlights look on Boat B bowman.

That's 23 seconds between Boat A's tack to starboard and the collision. That's plenty long enough for Boat B to tack away, bear away harder, make some noise or do anything more to keep clear.

I don't know which course change people are pointing fingers at Boat A for. Certainly not the initial tack and reach. Way too much time for B.

Maybe her final bear away broke 16.2 or 16.1, but IN MY VIEW both boats were simply reacting to the shock of seeing each other by then. I personally feel that her bear away was during (and because of) the inevitable collision. Boat A skipper saw a bow pointing at her hip, and tried to throw her hip out of the way. Yes, I have done this before.

Unfortunately, Boat B did the same thing.

Whether it was an over-reaction appropriate or not by Boat A, by this time Boat B had broken rule 10.

THAT IS ONLY MY OPINION.

If you saw anything different, then so be it. Without testimony, we will never know!

N.E.E. bro = Not Enough Evidence

-----------------------------------------------------

At this point, I'm not really interested in discussing the finer points for which I (no one) has evidence for. All I'm interested is that I am happy I know which rules to apply and when. I summarised my final thoughts in that respect in Post # 97. I can relax now. Happy that for me the discussion has come to an end.

Cheers,

DW

#98 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,608 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:02 AM

Did either of you guys ever diagram sentences in English class?

No.

Why?

Is there anything I have written that you have difficulty understanding?


No, but apparently plain English isn't all that plain when you try to introduce it to Mr Logic

Anyway my wife said I was wrong. You guys carry on.
B)

FB- Doug

#99 bibs

bibs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 04:13 AM

Amazed that DW has got is so wrong for so long.....still watching in an amused state.....




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users