Jump to content


DQOTD: Downwind Passing Rules


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#1 MidPack

MidPack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,252 posts
  • Location:undecided

Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:26 PM

I did search but didn't find my situation, though I am sure this is an easy one for experienced racers (I'm a newb).

A slightly faster boat (PHRF ∆ 10 secs) chose to pass us to windward downwind. We were prepared and came up to defend, though later than ideal in hindsight. The windward boat did alter course a little, but as we continued to come up, they slowed (or stopped) coming up and just camped there until they could clear us. They could have sailed much higher. We called for them to come up, but they didn't react or say anything. We sailed close but did not want to have a collision, we're aware of the rules re: avoiding collision/allowing them keep clear.

So which takes the priority in this situation, ROW or keeping clear? We did not protest, and in all fairness they were forced to alter their starboard course by a few degrees to pass behind us on port during the last downwind leg, and they did not protest either.

Just asking for future reference...

#2 coyotepup

coyotepup

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:36 PM

If they didn't hit you, then they kept clear. They're not obligated to come up any more than they have to, to avoid a collision. No rule against camping in your breeze.

#3 kano

kano

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Location:Boston

Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:47 PM

Based on the statement below, they were not keeping clear. The windward boat may have a different story, but if they didn't go up and the leeward boat could not alter course freely without hitting windward then windward is not keeping clear.



"The windward boat did alter course a little, but as we continued to come up, they slowed (or stopped) coming up and just camped there until they could clear us. They could have sailed much higher. We called for them to come up, but they didn't react or say anything."

#4 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:54 PM

If they didn't hit you, then they kept clear. They're not obligated to come up any more than they have to, to avoid a collision. No rule against camping in your breeze.


OTOH if they don't respond and the leeward boat has to either give way, or stop a maneuver she has already begun, to avoid a collision, then the windward boat is NOT keeping clear.

"Keep Clear" has a definition in the rule book, and definitions have the force of rules. For consistency, terms which have rulebook definitions are generally used in italics.

from p 151: Keep Clear- One boat keeps clear of another if the other can sail her course wih no need to take avoiding action..."

This means that if a Right-Of-Way boat has to turn or otherwise change what she's doing (such as yank the boom in to avoid touching rigs) then the other boat has not Kept Clear. It's very simple.

Now looking at the specific situation, the definition goes on a bit "... when boats are overlapped on the same tack, if the leeward boat can change course in both directions without immediately making contact with the windward boat."

This is a bit of a problem and tends to make people think "no contact, no foul." IMHO it's prefectly clear and there are other rules which heavily penalize colliding with other boats, so if Leeward has to take action to avoid collision then (again IMHO) Windward has broken the rules.

FB- Doug

#5 stolpsTDI

stolpsTDI

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Location:Huntington Beach, Ca

Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:28 PM

You say you sailed 'close' - how close was it?

#6 MidPack

MidPack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,252 posts
  • Location:undecided

Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:47 PM

If they didn't hit you, then they kept clear. They're not obligated to come up any more than they have to, to avoid a collision. No rule against camping in your breeze.

That wasn't the question FWIW...

#7 MidPack

MidPack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,252 posts
  • Location:undecided

Posted 22 June 2012 - 03:49 PM

You say you sailed 'close' - how close was it?

We sailed as close as possible without hitting them and told them to come up further, but they essentially tacitly refused to come up more than about 10 degrees. When a boat decides to attempt to pass to windward downwind (as was the case here), I thought we had the right to keep taking them up and they were obligated to come up with us, short of us deliberately hitting them. If it matters: There were no other boats or obstructions around us and we weren't anywhere near the next mark, basically two boats on open water. And neither of us was anywhere near luffing/collapsing chutes, we both could have sailed much hotter angles.

#8 movable ballast

movable ballast

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,030 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:10 PM

They were ovetaking boat, so they did not have any rights... If you wanted to come closehauled you could have and they should go up with you. If you needed to fall back down to avoid a collision they screwed you. However if as you state you came up "maybe a bit late" then they might have a room to keep clear case against you. good call to not protest, I have put the breaks of lots of times to let a boat slide under me so I could maintain my prefered side (you must have confidence that you are sailing the right direction).

Quick question though, what was your logic to protect the position against a clearly faster boat. Taking them up only takes both of you away from the mark and adds distance to the mark, this helps everyone in your fleet except you guys. Maybe next time let them go by and them come up a bit to sit on their air and slow them down thus keeping your time on them for the entire leg.

MB.

#9 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,999 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:20 PM

At some point there was an overlap established as they overtook you; how far away were they when that overlap was established. I'm guessing pretty close but the OP did not say.

#10 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:32 PM

They were ovetaking boat, so they did not have any rights... If you wanted to come closehauled you could have and they should go up with you. If you needed to fall back down to avoid a collision they screwed you. However if as you state you came up "maybe a bit late" then they might have a room to keep clear case against you...


Just a quick clarification- the leeward boat has the right to head up to head-to-wind. Obviously the other boat will have to tack away to keep clear. There is no requirement for a hail.

About the 'room to keep clear' stuff... the best defense is a good offense. This means that a windward boat can best avoid DSQ by telling the Protest Committee 'we didn't have room etc ewtc' but it also means that the leeward boat can/should say 'why did you sail in so close in the first place? If you didn't have room to keep clear, then you weren't keeping clear from before the incident started.' The 'I wasn't paying attention' defense has no basis in rules.
:lol:



Quick question though, what was your logic to protect the position against a clearly faster boat. Taking them up only takes both of you away from the mark and adds distance to the mark, this helps everyone in your fleet except you guys. Maybe next time let them go by and them come up a bit to sit on their air and slow them down thus keeping your time on them for the entire leg.

MB.



Depends on the boat. An F40 cat, maybe. A bigger boat with a huge spinnaker that is going to sit on your wind for a couple minutes, f@#% that. "It's only a couple minutes" well the race is often decided by less than a minute, less than 20 seconds even. My motto is, don't hurt me or I'll darn sure hurt you. A bigger faster boat can go to leeward.

FB- Doug

#11 coyotepup

coyotepup

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:34 PM


If they didn't hit you, then they kept clear. They're not obligated to come up any more than they have to, to avoid a collision. No rule against camping in your breeze.

That wasn't the question FWIW...

What was the question then? "Right-of-way" and "keeping clear" are similar things.....that is, the boat without "right of way" has the initial responsibility to keep clear, so there's overlap in the concept and asking which takes priority is a little strange to me. Do you mean "which is more important, the give-way vessel's responsibility to give way, or the stand-on vessel's responsibility to avoid a collision?"

From what I read, the sequence of events was thus:

-- They sailed up to your windward side (meaning you are both "overtaken" and "leeward" giving you rights.)
-- You came up to defend.
-- They came up as well.
-- They stopped coming up.
-- You stopped coming up.
-- You hailed to come up further but did not drive the boat up further.
-- They ignored you.
-- You sailed close but stlil did not come up further so as not to have a collision.

Is this right? If so, then yes, they should react when you go up, but if you're hailing and then not actually coming up, I don't see them as having an obligation. At the same time, I disagree with what movable said a little - yes, technically you probably could take them all the way up to close-hauled, but at some point you're going to be told you're no longer sailing a proper course to the mark.

#12 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:44 PM

... .. asking which takes priority is a little strange to me. Do you mean "which is more important, the give-way vessel's responsibility to give way, or the stand-on vessel's responsibility to avoid a collision?"


I think that's what the question entails.

It's kind of putting the horse before the cart to say that the stand-on vessel's obligation to avoid a collision should take precedence over the give-way vessel's obligation to.. umm.. give way
:rolleyes:

To quote Dave Perry, both the 'avoiding collision' and the 'room to keep clear' rules are a shield, not a sword, for the non-R-O-W boat. Not keeping clear -should- be a cut-n-dried DSQ.

Served cold.


From what I read, the sequence of events was thus:

-- They sailed up to your windward side (meaning you are both "overtaken" and "leeward" giving you rights.)
-- You came up to defend.
-- They came up as well.
-- They stopped coming up.
-- You stopped coming up.
-- You hailed to come up further but did not drive the boat up further.
-- They ignored you.
-- You sailed close but stlil did not come up further so as not to have a collision.

Is this right? If so, then yes, they should react when you go up, but if you're hailing and then not actually coming up, I don't see them as having an obligation.



Depends. The "You stopped coming up" step needs to be preceded by "there was risk of collision." As you stated it, if those were the facts found I'd lean towards DSQ'ing the windward boat but might stop short of it.

If there is risk of collision in the R-O-W skipper's judgement, then he needs to avoid it and the other boat is not keeping clear.


At the same time, I disagree with what movable said a little - yes, technically you probably could take them all the way up to close-hauled


Head to wind.

In the true knives-out luffing match, you (as leeward) get up under the other guy so that he has no choice but to put his helm down hard, prefereably without the prior opportunity to get his crew ready on the sheets/guy, and make him tack away into oblivion.

If you can run him aground, so much the better.

This modern pussified nice-guy luffing is one reason why bigger faster boats feel entitled to park on your wind nowadays. Well, you know my reaction to that...
B)



but at some point you're going to be told you're no longer sailing a proper course to the mark.


A overtaken/leeward boat has no obligation whatever to sail her proper course. There is a rule which says a leeward boat who overtook the windward boat may not sail above her proper course (Rule 17). And proper course makes no reference whatever to the direction to the next mark!

FB- Doug

#13 movable ballast

movable ballast

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,030 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:46 PM


They were ovetaking boat, so they did not have any rights... If you wanted to come closehauled you could have and they should go up with you. If you needed to fall back down to avoid a collision they screwed you. However if as you state you came up "maybe a bit late" then they might have a room to keep clear case against you...


Just a quick clarification- the leeward boat has the right to head up to head-to-wind. Obviously the other boat will have to tack away to keep clear. There is no requirement for a hail.

About the 'room to keep clear' stuff... the best defense is a good offense. This means that a windward boat can best avoid DSQ by telling the Protest Committee 'we didn't have room etc ewtc' but it also means that the leeward boat can/should say 'why did you sail in so close in the first place? If you didn't have room to keep clear, then you weren't keeping clear from before the incident started.' The 'I wasn't paying attention' defense has no basis in rules.
:lol:



Quick question though, what was your logic to protect the position against a clearly faster boat. Taking them up only takes both of you away from the mark and adds distance to the mark, this helps everyone in your fleet except you guys. Maybe next time let them go by and them come up a bit to sit on their air and slow them down thus keeping your time on them for the entire leg.

MB.



Depends on the boat. An F40 cat, maybe. A bigger boat with a huge spinnaker that is going to sit on your wind for a couple minutes, f@#% that. "It's only a couple minutes" well the race is often decided by less than a minute, less than 20 seconds even. My motto is, don't hurt me or I'll darn sure hurt you. A bigger faster boat can go to leeward.

FB- Doug


His post mentioned the speed difference at about 10 seconds. Asuming they are in the same fleet it hurt them both...

#14 axolotl

axolotl

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Location:San Diego
  • Interests:Sailing, Camping

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:47 PM

. . . yes, technically you probably could take them all the way up to close-hauled, but at some point you're going to be told you're no longer sailing a proper course to the mark.


So what? Proper course is not involved in this scenario. You can force a windward overtaking boat to head to wind (not close-hauled) if you wish, as long as the overlap is not broken.

#15 movable ballast

movable ballast

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,030 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:56 PM

At the same time, I disagree with what movable said a little - yes, technically you probably could take them all the way up to close-hauled, but at some point you're going to be told you're no longer sailing a proper course to the mark.


Proper course only applies to an overtaking boat to leward. In this case the overtaking boat was windward he has no proper course rights.

#16 GnD

GnD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,043 posts
  • Interests:sailing, Skiing, biking, boating,

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:58 PM

Next time. go deep. let him pass and then surf his bow wake to victory. You will pass more boats then loosing all the ground you did. Nobody won with this one.

#17 MidPack

MidPack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,252 posts
  • Location:undecided

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:03 PM

From what I read, the sequence of events was thus:

-- They sailed up to your windward side (meaning you are both "overtaken" and "leeward" giving you rights.) Yes
-- You came up to defend. Yes, a little late in retrospect or we wouldn't have even let them get windward of us...
-- They came up as well. At first.
-- They stopped coming up. Yep
-- You stopped coming up. Only because any further and we'd have hit them.
-- You hailed to come up further but did not drive the boat up further. Again, we'd have to have hit them to come up any further.
-- They ignored you. Helm looked back very briefly (other crew didn't look, I think they know they were pushing the rules) but didn't come up or acknowledge our "request."
-- You sailed close but still did not come up further so as not to have a collision. Yep.

Is this right? If so, then yes, they should react when you go up, but if you're hailing and then not actually coming up, I don't see them as having an obligation. At the same time, I disagree with what movable said a little - yes, technically you probably could take them all the way up to close-hauled, but at some point you're going to be told you're no longer sailing a proper course to the mark.

Yes, this is correct. They chose to pass us to windward with very little separation. I gather we could have protested and won, but protests are few and far between in our fleet, and we sorta like it that way.

And as I mentioned in the OP, we ended up violating their ROW slightly later in the race, not deliberately or pre-meditated - and they did not protest or make a fuss about it either.

And yes I understand in fleet racing it's questionable to take someone up knowing both boats are giving up time to the rest of the fleet. However, they're our primary competition. We were hoping they'd collapse their chute avoiding us and we'd bear away quickly (chute still flying), we wouldn't have "gone to China" to make the point.

Thanks all...

#18 movable ballast

movable ballast

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,030 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:06 PM

From what I read, the sequence of events was thus:

-- They sailed up to your windward side (meaning you are both "overtaken" and "leeward" giving you rights.) Yes
-- You came up to defend. Yes, a little late in retrospect or we wouldn't have even let them get windward of us...
-- They came up as well. At first.
-- They stopped coming up. Yep
-- You stopped coming up. Only because any further and we'd have hit them.
-- You hailed to come up further but did not drive the boat up further. Again, we'd have to have hit them to come up any further.
-- They ignored you. They looked back but didn't come up or acknowledge our "request."
-- You sailed close but still did not come up further so as not to have a collision. Yep.

Is this right? If so, then yes, they should react when you go up, but if you're hailing and then not actually coming up, I don't see them as having an obligation. At the same time, I disagree with what movable said a little - yes, technically you probably could take them all the way up to close-hauled, but at some point you're going to be told you're no longer sailing a proper course to the mark.

Yes, this is correct. They chose to pass us to windward with very little separation. I gather we could have protested and won, but protests are few and far between in our fleet, and we sorta like it that way.

And as I mentioned in the OP, we ended up violating their ROW slightly later in the race, not deliberately or pre-meditated - and they did not protest or make a fuss about it either.

And yes I understand in fleet racing it's questionable to take someone up knowing both boats are giving up time to the fleet. However, they're our primary competition.

Thanks all...


Sounds like a good fleet! good luck with the series!

#19 coyotepup

coyotepup

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:07 PM


At the same time, I disagree with what movable said a little - yes, technically you probably could take them all the way up to close-hauled, but at some point you're going to be told you're no longer sailing a proper course to the mark.


Proper course only applies to an overtaking boat to leward. In this case the overtaking boat was windward he has no proper course rights.

You're right, my fault.......I was comparing it in my head to the last time I was in a similar situation so I could visualize but I forgot about that key difference. Got smacked by the boom then too, so I'll just blame that.

#20 movable ballast

movable ballast

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,030 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:10 PM



At the same time, I disagree with what movable said a little - yes, technically you probably could take them all the way up to close-hauled, but at some point you're going to be told you're no longer sailing a proper course to the mark.


Proper course only applies to an overtaking boat to leward. In this case the overtaking boat was windward he has no proper course rights.

You're right, my fault.......I was comparing it in my head to the last time I was in a similar situation so I could visualize but I forgot about that key difference. Got smacked by the boom then too, so I'll just blame that.


That's the excuse I would use... Or "I was looking for the rum".

#21 Anonymous Anarchist

Anonymous Anarchist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 358 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:29 PM

I don't think telling the windward boat to head up helps your case. You need to tell them "get out of the way or I'll bear off and protest". It usually doesn't hurt to be considered one of those assholes who will luff to the edge of the world to keep from being passed to windward.

aa

#22 btbotfa

btbotfa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,419 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:40 PM

And though you may not do a lot of protesting in your fleet, the fact that you didn't unfurl the red flag allowed him to continue to break the rules. throw the flag and tell him to do his circles.

#23 MidPack

MidPack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,252 posts
  • Location:undecided

Posted 22 June 2012 - 06:00 PM

And though you may not do a lot of protesting in your fleet, the fact that you didn't unfurl the red flag allowed him to continue to break the rules. throw the flag and tell him to do his circles.

Actually, the norm in our fleet is to suggest that the offending boat do circle(s) and usually they comply. Haven't had to resort to an actual protest in quite a while for our fleet, though any of us might if there was ever a blatant, deliberate foul and a refusal to do circle(s). Some boats do circle(s) without being asked, we hit a mark a few weeks ago and just did a 360 without anyone asking. A new boat got all hot and bothered in another race and started yelling about protesting recently. The offending skipper just told them, 'why don't you just ask me to take a penalty turn,' they did and everyone was happy.

It's good to have a fleet where everyone has known each other for years, avoids lots of unnecessary issues...

#24 Great Red Shark

Great Red Shark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,467 posts
  • Location:Honolulu

Posted 22 June 2012 - 07:35 PM

Good question and good on you for fostering a fleet that gets along with the fun of racing without being contentious.

Coupla points;

1) Plan ahead - if you want to prevent someone from sailing over you, you have to get unappetizing BEFORE they have the leverage to roll you.

2) The sailing of the pair of you 2 to the moon notwithstanding, if you are gonna luff you should do it in a decisive manner and BEFORE they start to blanket you - and with a bigger boat, that's earlier than you started (by your own observation) - when that is the case, a strong consideration of "What are we to gain by this" should be had, because getting sucked into and then spit out of the lee of a larger faster boat in typically not fast.

3) Once you luff - as the boats rotate to windward, depending on thier placement and proximity, the windward boat may not be ABLE to turn up without bringing thier stern down into you if you are aft of thier mid-ships - this is a sticky situation in the rules - should they have anticipated how hard you would luff and gone up more, earlier ? (probably) are you obliged to not force contact ? (yes) and how ugly are you willing to let this get ? once you get real close rooom to manuver gets tight - which brings us back to # 2 (see above) - try to keep an eye on the Big Picture - keep your lateral separation until you are ready to make the move stick.

You know the old saying: Why do ships collide ? They get too close together.

#25 jeff E of the GWN

jeff E of the GWN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 639 posts
  • Location:butt^&& nowher Great White North
  • Interests:windsurfing, after years of slowboating on a keelboat.

Posted 22 June 2012 - 07:58 PM

in some situations why bother, your competition sails unobstructed and you slow up yourself and one other boat
...............but i digress

as thats not the point of the question

#26 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,641 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 22 June 2012 - 08:04 PM

A slightly faster boat (PHRF ∆ 10 secs) chose to pass us to windward downwind. We were prepared and came up to defend, though later than ideal in hindsight. The windward boat did alter course a little, but as we continued to come up, they slowed (or stopped) coming up and just camped there until they could clear us. They could have sailed much higher. We called for them to come up, but they didn't react or say anything. We sailed close but did not want to have a collision, we're aware of the rules re: avoiding collision/allowing them keep clear.


11 ON THE SAME TACK, OVERLAPPED
When boats are on the same tack and overlapped, a windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat.

12 ON THE SAME TACK, NOT OVERLAPPED
When boats are on the same tack and not overlapped, a boat clear astern shall keep clear of a boat clear ahead.

14 AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room
(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and
(B) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage or injury.

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY
When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of
the other boat’s actions.

16 CHANGING COURSE
16.1 When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear.

17 ON THE SAME TACK; PROPER COURSE
If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above her proper course while they remain on the same tack and overlapped within that distance, unless in doing so she promptly sails astern of the other boat. This rule does not apply if the overlap begins while the windward boat is required by rule 13 to keep clear.


Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.


Keep Clear One boat keeps clear of another if the other can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and, when the boats are overlapped on the same tack, if the leeward boat can change course in both directions without immediately making contact with the windward boat.


While they are clear astern of you, they have to keep clear as a boat clear astern(12). Once they are overlapped to windward, they still have to keep clear of you as windward boat (11). 15 doesn't apply as they establish the overlap, because there has been no change in RoW/GW boats. 16.1 does apply to you as a RoW boat - when you alter course, you have to give them room to keep clear.

You are not restricted by 17 - if you want to, you can sail higher than your proper course. Shoud you want to, you can luff them to head to wind.

If your alteration in course was slow enough that they could have reacted and kept clear of you (but didn't) then by the sounds of it, you complied with 16.1 during your luff.
If you had to alter course away from them - i.e. take avoiding action so avoid contact, then they broke 11.
By not luffing until there was contact, you complied with 14.

Usual SA rule caveats - this is only ever one side of the story.

#27 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 11:45 PM

They broke 11 by your story, but you would need more convincing evidence and proof in the room, then you presented here.

Personally (and don't ever say this out loud ) but I would have gone as close as I dared. Almost a kiss. Check rule 14.a

#28 Great Red Shark

Great Red Shark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,467 posts
  • Location:Honolulu

Posted 22 June 2012 - 11:55 PM

Personally (and don't ever say this out loud ) but I would have gone as close as I dared. Almost a kiss. Check rule 14.a


Which is all well & good until a puff comes along, they heel over and you don't - because you are in thier lee and you lock rigs.

THEN the fun starts. Right Jimmy ?

#29 MidPack

MidPack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,252 posts
  • Location:undecided

Posted 22 June 2012 - 11:58 PM

They broke 11 by your story, but you would need more convincing evidence and proof in the room, then you presented here.

Personally (and don't ever say this out loud ) but I would have gone as close as I dared. Almost a kiss. Check rule 14.a

We did sail as close as we dared. Any closer and we'd have hit them and/or speared their chute, not worth that, especially since we shoulda kept them from attempting a windward pass by defending sooner. Thanks everyone, I appreciate the insights and I learned from the posts. We race tomorrow, ain't no one passing us to windward again soon unless they're way above...

#30 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 23 June 2012 - 06:06 AM


They broke 11 by your story, but you would need more convincing evidence and proof in the room, then you presented here.

Personally (and don't ever say this out loud ) but I would have gone as close as I dared. Almost a kiss. Check rule 14.a

We did sail as close as we dared. Any closer and we'd have hit them and/or speared their chute, not worth that, especially since we shoulda kept them from attempting a windward pass by defending sooner. Thanks everyone, I appreciate the insights and I learned from the posts. We race tomorrow, ain't no one passing us to windward again soon unless they're way above...


Like I said, based on what you say, they broke the rule.

Remember though, in the room you have tho convince the jury. Your word against theirs.

Using correct terms which relate to the definitions of keep clear, hailing (though not required), showing awareness of your own obligations (being able to accurately express what you did to comply with them), and gestures and gathering evidence and witnesses all help to convince the jury. On the water I find eye-to-eye contact really strong means of communicating. It's hard for them to say they didn't know, if you looked the other guy in the eye.

Good luck.

Dw

#31 mh111

mh111

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Location:chain valley bay

Posted 23 June 2012 - 07:01 AM

They broke 11 by your story, but you would need more convincing evidence and proof in the room, then you presented here.

Personally (and don't ever say this out loud ) but I would have gone as close as I dared. Almost a kiss. Check rule 14.a

with a LOT of yelling...UP UP UP always helps. need to leave the other guy in no doubt what you want to do

cheers,

#32 Par Avion

Par Avion

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Location:a foredeck in New York
  • Interests:Firefighting, sailing, beer.

Posted 23 June 2012 - 02:19 PM

I'm gonna jump on this thread and propose an additional point.

Same EXACT scenario, except you're coming to the finish. You push the overtaklng boat up, you will be able to finish holding said newbearing, and they will not. They gybe to port and while still on starboard(maybe a second later) you have to gybe to avoid collision. Who's right here?

#33 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,641 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 23 June 2012 - 03:53 PM

If he's inside you at the finish mark then once one of you is in the zone 18 applies and he has rights to mark room, and you owe him room to sail to the mark. (Assuming he's overlapped at the zone.)

#34 coyotepup

coyotepup

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 23 June 2012 - 08:08 PM

I'm gonna jump on this thread and propose an additional point.

Same EXACT scenario, except you're coming to the finish. You push the overtaklng boat up, you will be able to finish holding said newbearing, and they will not. They gybe to port and while still on starboard(maybe a second later) you have to gybe to avoid collision. Who's right here?

If they're as close as MidPack said, how did they have any room to jibe? If there's enough room to make that turn the way you describe it, either there's no overlap or MidPack's boat wasn't close enough to be pushing them to the wrong side of the pin. Or else they were able to duck behind MidPack.

The way MidPack is describing it, any effort to jibe by the overtaking boat would result in a collision long before the jibe was complete.

#35 familysailor

familysailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,543 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay

Posted 23 June 2012 - 08:59 PM


... .. asking which takes priority is a little strange to me. Do you mean "which is more important, the give-way vessel's responsibility to give way, or the stand-on vessel's responsibility to avoid a collision?"


I think that's what the question entails.

It's kind of putting the horse before the cart to say that the stand-on vessel's obligation to avoid a collision should take precedence over the give-way vessel's obligation to.. umm.. give way
:rolleyes:

To quote Dave Perry, both the 'avoiding collision' and the 'room to keep clear' rules are a shield, not a sword, for the non-R-O-W boat. Not keeping clear -should- be a cut-n-dried DSQ.

Served cold.


From what I read, the sequence of events was thus:

-- They sailed up to your windward side (meaning you are both "overtaken" and "leeward" giving you rights.)
-- You came up to defend.
-- They came up as well.
-- They stopped coming up.
-- You stopped coming up.
-- You hailed to come up further but did not drive the boat up further.
-- They ignored you.
-- You sailed close but stlil did not come up further so as not to have a collision.

Is this right? If so, then yes, they should react when you go up, but if you're hailing and then not actually coming up, I don't see them as having an obligation.



Depends. The "You stopped coming up" step needs to be preceded by "there was risk of collision." As you stated it, if those were the facts found I'd lean towards DSQ'ing the windward boat but might stop short of it.

If there is risk of collision in the R-O-W skipper's judgement, then he needs to avoid it and the other boat is not keeping clear.


At the same time, I disagree with what movable said a little - yes, technically you probably could take them all the way up to close-hauled


Head to wind.

In the true knives-out luffing match, you (as leeward) get up under the other guy so that he has no choice but to put his helm down hard, prefereably without the prior opportunity to get his crew ready on the sheets/guy, and make him tack away into oblivion.

If you can run him aground, so much the better.

This modern pussified nice-guy luffing is one reason why bigger faster boats feel entitled to park on your wind nowadays. Well, you know my reaction to that...
B)



but at some point you're going to be told you're no longer sailing a proper course to the mark.


A overtaken/leeward boat has no obligation whatever to sail her proper course. There is a rule which says a leeward boat who overtook the windward boat may not sail above her proper course (Rule 17). And proper course makes no reference whatever to the direction to the next mark!

FB- Doug


Really? What rule allows this?

#36 Par Avion

Par Avion

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Location:a foredeck in New York
  • Interests:Firefighting, sailing, beer.

Posted 23 June 2012 - 09:25 PM


I'm gonna jump on this thread and propose an additional point.

Same EXACT scenario, except you're coming to the finish. You push the overtaklng boat up, you will be able to finish holding said newbearing, and they will not. They gybe to port and while still on starboard(maybe a second later) you have to gybe to avoid collision. Who's right here?

If they're as close as MidPack said, how did they have any room to jibe? If there's enough room to make that turn the way you describe it, either there's no overlap or MidPack's boat wasn't close enough to be pushing them to the wrong side of the pin. Or else they were able to duck behind MidPack.

The way MidPack is describing it, any effort to jibe by the overtaking boat would result in a collision long before the jibe was complete.


So close that, we had maybe three seconds or less to react or ram them. Not what I think you can call a "seamanship" like move or however the rules phrase it.

The way I view it, they sailed themselves into a corner, and should pay dearly for it. I've overlooked the rules over and over, I can't find anything clear cut saying that the other boat(overtaking, gybeing ontop of us) has ROW.


The GoPro caught it all, but I'll have to chop it down.

#37 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 23 June 2012 - 09:33 PM


... ...
In the true knives-out luffing match, you (as leeward) get up under the other guy so that he has no choice but to put his helm down hard, prefereably without the prior opportunity to get his crew ready on the sheets/guy, and make him tack away into oblivion.

If you can run him aground, so much the better.

This modern pussified nice-guy luffing is one reason why bigger faster boats feel entitled to park on your wind nowadays. Well, you know my reaction to that...
B)


... ...


Really? What rule allows this?


What rule prevents it?

You might say Rule 19.2 B, Room at an Obstruction, but if the boats are of two different drafts (my boat has a daggerboard) then an obstruction for one boat is not for another. And there is certainly no rule requiring that you do another boat's navigating for them.

FB- Doug

#38 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 23 June 2012 - 09:48 PM



... ...
In the true knives-out luffing match, you (as leeward) get up under the other guy so that he has no choice but to put his helm down hard, prefereably without the prior opportunity to get his crew ready on the sheets/guy, and make him tack away into oblivion.

If you can run him aground, so much the better.

This modern pussified nice-guy luffing is one reason why bigger faster boats feel entitled to park on your wind nowadays. Well, you know my reaction to that...
B)


... ...


Really? What rule allows this?


What rule prevents it?

You might say Rule 19.2 B, Room at an Obstruction, but if the boats are of two different drafts (my boat has a daggerboard) then an obstruction for one boat is not for another. And there is certainly no rule requiring that you do another boat's navigating for them.

FB- Doug



You can't possibly be serious?

#39 Monster Mash

Monster Mash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,725 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 23 June 2012 - 09:49 PM

Steam Flyer represents whats wrong with sailing

#40 familysailor

familysailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,543 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay

Posted 23 June 2012 - 10:40 PM

Steam Flyer represents whats wrong with sailing


Too many "racers" out there think like this....... It's not a fucking war, Nascar or a contact sport.

No, you cannot run someone aground.

MM can you imagine what the Cityfront will look like if this mind set begins to prevail?

#41 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 23 June 2012 - 11:42 PM

I'm gonna jump on this thread and propose an additional point.

Same EXACT scenario, except you're coming to the finish. You push the overtaklng boat up, you will be able to finish holding said newbearing, and they will not. They gybe to port and while still on starboard(maybe a second later) you have to gybe to avoid collision. Who's right here?


Very simply, you can push him up as high as you want while outside the zone.

When one gets inside the zone whoever is furthest (outside) from the finish line mark which is closest, must give the other room to finish.

That means if they are going to need to gybe, just before three boat lengths, the outside boat must make enough space so they can do that AT three boat lengths.

Dw

#42 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,641 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 24 June 2012 - 07:41 AM

You might say Rule 19.2 B, Room at an Obstruction, but if the boats are of two different drafts (my boat has a daggerboard) then an obstruction for one boat is not for another. And there is certainly no rule requiring that you do another boat's navigating for them.


19.2.b When boats are overlapped, the outside boat shall give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began.

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.


It's not seamanlike to sail up the beach.

#43 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 24 June 2012 - 08:40 AM

Why not let the faster boat overtake you??.. Handicap racing is about minimal loss against the fleet not sailing yourself out the backdoor.

You also then don't get into the situation where somebody wont abide by the rules and slow you down even more.

Sail a higher percentage of your race in clean air and on your terms is the goal.

To answer your question.. If you called him "Up" and he did not respond to your hails it is a red flag, hail protest and take him to the room, provided you gave him enough room and opportunity to move... The RRS is pretty clear on a situation such as this..

#44 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 24 June 2012 - 10:05 AM

[SNIP]
The way I view it, they sailed themselves into a corner, and should pay dearly for it. I've overlooked the rules over and over, I can't find anything clear cut saying that the other boat(overtaking, gybeing ontop of us) has ROW.


It is not a question of ROW but of entitlement to Mark Room - as others have explained, a boat can be entitled to Mark Room while being the Keep Clear boat.

They were ovetaking boat, so they did not have any rights...


-- They sailed up to your windward side (meaning you are both "overtaken" and "leeward" giving you rights


Please stop this nonsense about "overtaking". The concept has no relevance in connection with the RRS.

#45 coyotepup

coyotepup

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 24 June 2012 - 01:16 PM


-- They sailed up to your windward side (meaning you are both "overtaken" and "leeward" giving you rights


Please stop this nonsense about "overtaking". The concept has no relevance in connection with the RRS.

Bullshit. There would be no reason for Rule 12 if there was no concept of overtaking. Don't you think it would sound silly that a boat clear astern should have to keep clear of the boat clear ahead? Aren't they already "clear"? The rule is there to state that if you ram another boat from behind, it's your fault. Just because it doesn't say the word "overtaking" doesn't change that. Then you have 17 and 19.2.c which, without saying the word "overtaking" give the overtaken boat rights. You can't overtake someone and then fuck with them, and you can't hit someone from behind. It's all the same even if the word isn't present.

#46 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 24 June 2012 - 02:49 PM



-- They sailed up to your windward side (meaning you are both "overtaken" and "leeward" giving you rights


Please stop this nonsense about "overtaking". The concept has no relevance in connection with the RRS.

Bullshit. There would be no reason for Rule 12 if there was no concept of overtaking. Don't you think it would sound silly that a boat clear astern should have to keep clear of the boat clear ahead? Aren't they already "clear"? The rule is there to state that if you ram another boat from behind, it's your fault. Just because it doesn't say the word "overtaking" doesn't change that. Then you have 17 and 19.2.c which, without saying the word "overtaking" give the overtaken boat rights. You can't overtake someone and then fuck with them, and you can't hit someone from behind. It's all the same even if the word isn't present.

The problem is that most people think of 'overtaking' as relating to a boat which is either intentionally tying to pass another from behind or doing so unintentionally, in the process of being clear astern to alongside eventually to clear ahead.

You said that if you ram a boat from behind, it is your fault. You would probably be right if the boat astern was sailing to pass the other.

However, a recent protest I know, where the boat astern was let off and the boat ahead was penalized proves an exception to what you say. In this case these boat clear ahead (hit from behind) was penalized for rule 15.

The rules no longer evaluate the reason for one boat going from close stern to along side, or even the action of passing.

They just consider the two states and apply rights and obligations.

So using the term 'overtaking' can be misleading. The rules are not applied because one boat is in the act of coming from astern, being overlapped, then being ahead.

The apply at each separate point.

I think that's what Bt was saying.

Furthermore, the word was deliberately taken out to avoid and clean up the related rules.

Using that word in rule discussions is both inaccurate and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the finer aspects of the rules, or at worse a highlights a knowledge of the rules which has not been updated for a few years.

Dw

#47 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 24 June 2012 - 03:17 PM


And though you may not do a lot of protesting in your fleet, the fact that you didn't unfurl the red flag allowed him to continue to break the rules. throw the flag and tell him to do his circles.

Actually, the norm in our fleet is to suggest that the offending boat do circle(s) and usually they comply. Haven't had to resort to an actual protest in quite a while for our fleet, though any of us might if there was ever a blatant, deliberate foul and a refusal to do circle(s). Some boats do circle(s) without being asked, we hit a mark a few weeks ago and just did a 360 without anyone asking. A new boat got all hot and bothered in another race and started yelling about protesting recently. The offending skipper just told them, 'why don't you just ask me to take a penalty turn,' they did and everyone was happy.

It's good to have a fleet where everyone has known each other for years, avoids lots of unnecessary issues...



MidPack,

Sadly, if you take the time to tell someone that they should "do their turns" prior to putting up the Red Flag and hailing "Protest" you've probably left it too long to have a valid protest. A more reasonable approach is to hail and display the Red Flag and then suggest to your friend that she/he do their turns. That way, if they don't, then they suffer the consequences.

I sail with fleets that don't protest and ones that do, each fleet solves its problems in its own ways. But I believe that the competitors in our sport do need to enforce the rules, and that this self-policing is best.

However, if competitors know that there won't be consequences for breaking rules, many of them will break them. Note I did not say "protests" I said "consequences". In the 5O5 fleet, the consequences can be a rather heated discussion in the dingy park after a day of racing, with all of ones peers standing around and someone calling someone else out for breaking a rule and not taking their penalty. In the five 5O5 regattas I've been involved in over the last two years, there has only been one protest and as soon as it was filed the protestee withdrew from the race. However, during that same time period there have been numerous "discussions" in the dingy park and the fleet has quite effectively shamed offending sailors in to retiring after finishing on a number of occasions. Peer pressure works amongst the 5O5 sailors (most of the time). In stark contrast you've got fleets that end up in the Room all the time, in SF Bay it used to be the J-105s but they're a LOT better now. Were you not to protest immediately on every occasion in the J-105 fleet in SF Bay about five years ago you'd get hammered constantly, it used to be the culture of the fleet. The constant protesting amongst J-105s didn't work well and eventually enough folks really did a better job of following the rules that it settled down.

What doesn't work well is a fleet without any consequences for fouling. In those fleets bullies win and the fleet dies. I've seen that happen also. Protesting isn't something to be ashamed of, after all if you hail and fly the flag to cause someone to do their turns, you don't have to file the protest. Experience by a number of us has shown that reasonable and fair application of protests actually improves the racing substantially and absolutely reduces the number of trips to the boat yard to fix busted boats.

BV

#48 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 24 June 2012 - 03:46 PM


[SNIP]
Bullshit. There would be no reason for Rule 12 if there was no concept of overtaking. Don't you think it would sound silly that a boat clear astern should have to keep clear of the boat clear ahead? Aren't they already "clear"? The rule is there to state that if you ram another boat from behind, it's your fault. Just because it doesn't say the word "overtaking" doesn't change that. Then you have 17 and 19.2.c which, without saying the word "overtaking" give the overtaken boat rights. You can't overtake someone and then fuck with them, and you can't hit someone from behind. It's all the same even if the word isn't present.

The problem is that most people think of 'overtaking' as relating to a boat which is either intentionally tying to pass another from behind or doing so unintentionally, in the process of being clear astern to alongside eventually to clear ahead.

You said that if you ram a boat from behind, it is your fault. You would probably be right if the boat astern was sailing to pass the other.

However, a recent protest I know, where the boat astern was let off and the boat ahead was penalized proves an exception to what you say. In this case these boat clear ahead (hit from behind) was penalized for rule 15.

The rules no longer evaluate the reason for one boat going from close stern to along side, or even the action of passing.

They just consider the two states and apply rights and obligations.

So using the term 'overtaking' can be misleading. The rules are not applied because one boat is in the act of coming from astern, being overlapped, then being ahead.

The apply at each separate point.

I think that's what Bt was saying.

Furthermore, the word was deliberately taken out to avoid and clean up the related rules.

Using that word in rule discussions is both inaccurate and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the finer aspects of the rules, or at worse a highlights a knowledge of the rules which has not been updated for a few years.

Dw


Pretty much that. Has been explained eloquently many times before, including:

Here:

There is no state of 'overtaking' in the RRS. For the purpose of the rules, you are either behind, or to the side. The rules say who must keep clear at each time.


And here:

There IS NO SUCH RULE... IE there is NO RULE that says "Overtaking Boat Must Keep Clear".... this rule once existed but has not for MORE THAN A DECADE..

A boat ie EITHER
Clear Astern - in which case she must "keep clear" (ie she cannot run into your stern)
OR
Overlapped - in which case Windward/leeward rules apply as modified by RRS 15 - namely if they gain ROW (ie leeward overlap) as a result of THEIR actions (going faster than you) then they must INITIALLY give you "room to keep clear".

[SNIP]

but one more time

THERE IS NO RULE THAT SAYS "OVERTAKING BOAT SHALL KEEP CLEAR"!!!!!


And here:

[SNIP]
1) There is NO SUCH THING AS AN OVERTAKING BOAT in the Racing Rules. Either you are "overlapped" or you are "clear astern".
[SNIP]



#49 coyotepup

coyotepup

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 24 June 2012 - 04:24 PM




-- They sailed up to your windward side (meaning you are both "overtaken" and "leeward" giving you rights


Please stop this nonsense about "overtaking". The concept has no relevance in connection with the RRS.

Bullshit. There would be no reason for Rule 12 if there was no concept of overtaking. Don't you think it would sound silly that a boat clear astern should have to keep clear of the boat clear ahead? Aren't they already "clear"? The rule is there to state that if you ram another boat from behind, it's your fault. Just because it doesn't say the word "overtaking" doesn't change that. Then you have 17 and 19.2.c which, without saying the word "overtaking" give the overtaken boat rights. You can't overtake someone and then fuck with them, and you can't hit someone from behind. It's all the same even if the word isn't present.

The problem is that most people think of 'overtaking' as relating to a boat which is either intentionally tying to pass another from behind or doing so unintentionally, in the process of being clear astern to alongside eventually to clear ahead.

You said that if you ram a boat from behind, it is your fault. You would probably be right if the boat astern was sailing to pass the other.

However, a recent protest I know, where the boat astern was let off and the boat ahead was penalized proves an exception to what you say. In this case these boat clear ahead (hit from behind) was penalized for rule 15.

The rules no longer evaluate the reason for one boat going from close stern to along side, or even the action of passing.

They just consider the two states and apply rights and obligations.

So using the term 'overtaking' can be misleading. The rules are not applied because one boat is in the act of coming from astern, being overlapped, then being ahead.

The apply at each separate point.

I think that's what Bt was saying.

Furthermore, the word was deliberately taken out to avoid and clean up the related rules.

Using that word in rule discussions is both inaccurate and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the finer aspects of the rules, or at worse a highlights a knowledge of the rules which has not been updated for a few years.

Dw

The effect is still the same, even without the word in the rules. A boat clear astern is either:

- going faster
- going slower
- going the same speed

There is no need for rule 12 in the latter two cases. It exists to prevent the faster boat from hitting the slower one in the stern.

So when the faster boat has fulfilled their obligation and is now passing, they're either going to windward or to leeward. To windward, they obviously still must keep clear. To leeward, rule 17 prevents them from taking advantage of 11 - they still have obligations.

So the effect is the same. Nobody's obligations changed - at all - when they reworded the rules to take "overtaking" out of them. The spirit and the effect of the rule remains the same.

Your citing of rule 15 leads me to guess what happened is that someone tacked smack in front of someone else and got rearended. At least, that's a classic situation that rule 15 is trying to prevent. Again, regardless of wording changes, the spirit of the rule has never changed.

#50 MidPack

MidPack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,252 posts
  • Location:undecided

Posted 24 June 2012 - 05:34 PM



And though you may not do a lot of protesting in your fleet, the fact that you didn't unfurl the red flag allowed him to continue to break the rules. throw the flag and tell him to do his circles.

Actually, the norm in our fleet is to suggest that the offending boat do circle(s) and usually they comply. Haven't had to resort to an actual protest in quite a while for our fleet, though any of us might if there was ever a blatant, deliberate foul and a refusal to do circle(s). Some boats do circle(s) without being asked, we hit a mark a few weeks ago and just did a 360 without anyone asking. A new boat got all hot and bothered in another race and started yelling about protesting recently. The offending skipper just told them, 'why don't you just ask me to take a penalty turn,' they did and everyone was happy.

It's good to have a fleet where everyone has known each other for years, avoids lots of unnecessary issues...



MidPack,

Sadly, if you take the time to tell someone that they should "do their turns" prior to putting up the Red Flag and hailing "Protest" you've probably left it too long to have a valid protest. A more reasonable approach is to hail and display the Red Flag and then suggest to your friend that she/he do their turns. That way, if they don't, then they suffer the consequences.

I sail with fleets that don't protest and ones that do, each fleet solves its problems in its own ways. But I believe that the competitors in our sport do need to enforce the rules, and that this self-policing is best.

However, if competitors know that there won't be consequences for breaking rules, many of them will break them. Note I did not say "protests" I said "consequences". In the 5O5 fleet, the consequences can be a rather heated discussion in the dingy park after a day of racing, with all of ones peers standing around and someone calling someone else out for breaking a rule and not taking their penalty. In the five 5O5 regattas I've been involved in over the last two years, there has only been one protest and as soon as it was filed the protestee withdrew from the race. However, during that same time period there have been numerous "discussions" in the dingy park and the fleet has quite effectively shamed offending sailors in to retiring after finishing on a number of occasions. Peer pressure works amongst the 5O5 sailors (most of the time). In stark contrast you've got fleets that end up in the Room all the time, in SF Bay it used to be the J-105s but they're a LOT better now. Were you not to protest immediately on every occasion in the J-105 fleet in SF Bay about five years ago you'd get hammered constantly, it used to be the culture of the fleet. The constant protesting amongst J-105s didn't work well and eventually enough folks really did a better job of following the rules that it settled down.

What doesn't work well is a fleet without any consequences for fouling. In those fleets bullies win and the fleet dies. I've seen that happen also. Protesting isn't something to be ashamed of, after all if you hail and fly the flag to cause someone to do their turns, you don't have to file the protest. Experience by a number of us has shown that reasonable and fair application of protests actually improves the racing substantially and absolutely reduces the number of trips to the boat yard to fix busted boats.

BV

With all due respect, it works well for us. And like another poster said, we're not professionals with our livelihood on the line. I crewed in Chicago for 3 years where a few self-important sailors made everyone else miserable often over the most trivial esoteric situations imagineable, no thanks. Glad we don't have that happening.

And the request to do turns isn't a debate, the offender either agrees to turns or not, settled almost immediately. I can't remember the last time there was a dispute. Might as well preserve the gentlemen/women, Corinthian spirit of sail racing while it's still possible. YMMV

Though clearly protests have their place in anything beyond local club fleet racing where competitors all know each other and there is a precedent. In any other circumstances, we'd have the red flag handy like anyone else...

#51 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 24 June 2012 - 07:20 PM

You might say Rule 19.2 B, Room at an Obstruction, but if the boats are of two different drafts (my boat has a daggerboard) then an obstruction for one boat is not for another. And there is certainly no rule requiring that you do another boat's navigating for them.


19.2.b When boats are overlapped, the outside boat shall give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began.

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.


It's not seamanlike to sail up the beach.


You can see the beach. However, most boats have draft greater then 0, and will be stuck aground long before reaching the beach. You can't -see- the exact spot where you (or more to the point, the other boat) will run aground. Then there are places where the water is shallower than other places, with no associated shoreline or other visible feature.

A racer is not obligated to know the other boat's draft, nor do their navigating for them.

A racer is obligated to honor a hail for room or water.

I quoted Rule 19.2 myself, did you assume I was not aware of it?

Since

FB- Doug

#52 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 24 June 2012 - 07:23 PM


Steam Flyer represents whats wrong with sailing


Too many "racers" out there think like this....... It's not a fucking war, Nascar or a contact sport.

No, you cannot run someone aground.

MM can you imagine what the Cityfront will look like if this mind set begins to prevail?


Actually, I know exactly what it would look like... exactly the same, only without boats that feel entitled to drive up on your windward hip.

Maybe you all prefer to just roll over and get beaten, because making a move is "too aggressive" or something? Maybe you feel that guys who buy bigger faster boats deserve to win, so you let them?

Or maybe you feel that the rules need not be followed?

FB- Doug

#53 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,641 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 24 June 2012 - 10:45 PM

The amount of room an outside boat must give is as much as the inside boat needs.
An inside boat (with rights) has rights to as much room as she needs - see the definition of room.

If you're outside me, and I have rights, well... tough. I'm not going ploughing just because I draw more than you.

#54 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 24 June 2012 - 11:33 PM

The amount of room an outside boat must give is as much as the inside boat needs.
An inside boat (with rights) has rights to as much room as she needs - see the definition of room.

If you're outside me, and I have rights, well... tough. I'm not going ploughing just because I draw more than you.


Agreed.

If you're trying to drive up my windward hip, you might be lucky enough to be doing so just as we're coming to a shoal and you might be situationally-aware enough to have a good tight nav plot... OTOH if you hail that I need to stop luffing you because you're nervous about running aground, expect me to show up at the protest hearing with a cell phone snap of my depthsounder and/or a GPS plot.

Most of the time, in the heat of the moment, skippers lose track of at least a few details... if you don't hail and you run aground, how is that -my- fault?

Good races are the most fun, good competition makes for good races... and following the rules is an absolute. Any sort of competition against people that are crappy & shrug it off is not fun.

The nice thing about racing sailboats is, it's a great day of sailing regardless of whether the races were any good.

FB- Doug

#55 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:08 AM

The effect is still the same, even without the word in the rules. A boat clear astern is either:

- going faster
- going slower
- going the same speed

There is no need for rule 12 in the latter two cases. It exists to prevent the faster boat from hitting the slower one in the stern.

So when the faster boat has fulfilled their obligation and is now passing, they're either going to windward or to leeward. To windward, they obviously still must keep clear. To leeward, rule 17 prevents them from taking advantage of 11 - they still have obligations.

So the effect is the same. Nobody's obligations changed - at all - when they reworded the rules to take "overtaking" out of them. The spirit and the effect of the rule remains the same.

Your citing of rule 15 leads me to guess what happened is that someone tacked smack in front of someone else and got rearended. At least, that's a classic situation that rule 15 is trying to prevent. Again, regardless of wording changes, the spirit of the rule has never changed.


Dude,

If you have such a good handle on the rules, why are you persisting with using this word 'overtaking' when talking about the racing rules?

You may be right about some basic technical aspects of RRS rule 12, but we are talking about using the term 'overtaking', when discussing the obligations and rights of boats while racing. (BTW, as I explain below, the obligations are changed significantly.)

OVERTAKING - That to me has a very clear meaning. 'Coming up from behind and going to the front'!

I'm sure you appreciate the meaning of the word in the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea.

IRPCAS Rule 13

Overtaking

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.

(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the stern light of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

© When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

(d) Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.

This is a very different situation, where the boat is in the act of 'overtaking' from being clear astern, until being past and clear. And I'm sure you know the obligations of the 'stand on vessel' when being overtaken are to hold her steady course and speed.

IRPCAS Rule 17

Action by stand-on vessel

(a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rights and obligations of boats bound by IRPCAS are MASSIVELY DIFFERENT to those bound by RRS in overtaking situations.

Under IRPCAS when a boat overtakes, she shall keep clear and the stand-on vessel shall hold her course and speed. This is regardless of what side the overtaking is being done.

  • In IRPCAS, if she overtakes to windward, the stand-on vessel may not luff her.
  • In IRPCAS, if she overtakes to leeward (and they are sailing below her proper course), she does not suddenly gain rights to luff the boat being overtaken.

Under RRS it is totally different. THAT is mostly why the words were changed. To differentiate betweeen IRPCAS overtaking obligations and RRS ones. That is also MOSTLY people's first mistake when considering RRS. They say 'Overtaking boat keeps clear!' In IRPCAS, yes, RRS NO!

To continue to use the term 'overtaking' is not correct for the RRS. When someone shouts that at me, "OVERTAKING BOAT!" it means NOTHING to me. I'm either on opposite tack, on the same tack and overlapped to windward, on the same tack and overlapped to leeward, on the same tack and clear ahead, on the same tack and clear astern, or tacking boat!

OK - I realise that when you used that word 'overtaking' you probably did not mean it as specifically as I have pointed out. But to continue to persist with defending its use, once it has been pointed out that it is inappropriate, is just stubborn.

(BTW, In the rule 15, the boat swung in from windward.)

DW

#56 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:21 AM

[SNIP]

To continue to use the term 'overtaking' is not correct for the RRS. When someone shouts that at me, "OVERTAKING BOAT!" it means NOTHING to me. I'm either clear astern, windward boat, leeward boat, or clear ahead boat.

DW


Indeed. But we have been over this many times and people still insist on using concept in the rules discussion.

What if boats A managed to briefly obtain an overlap from clear astern of boats B and then drops back to clear astern again - is A an 'overtaking' boat? Was she ever?
It is pointless and just makes no sense to use the concept of 'overtaking'....

#57 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:08 AM

I tend to agree that the new rules make it much harder to defend against an attack from weather gauge.

Yes you can immediately beggin turning up the moment their bow crosses your stern plane but once you BEGIN altering course you have to keep giving them room to avoid you. And unless you have witnesses - there is almost no way to prove that they are not.


Under the old rules you could push them until there was incidental contact (spreader to kite, boom to shrouds etc) but now RRS 14 boots you if you do.

About the only way to defend is to rapidly luff HTW as the other boat gets near to essentially force them around very wide or to leeward.



Do this a couple of times and folk will stay away from you, but you basically have to convince the fleet your a bit of an ass for this to work

#58 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,533 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:10 PM

Under the old rules you could push them until there was incidental contact (spreader to kite, boom to shrouds etc) but now RRS 14 boots you if you do.




No.

A right of way boat can only be penalized under rule 14 if the contact causes damage or injury.

#59 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:55 PM

I tend to agree that the new rules make it much harder to defend against an attack from weather gauge.

Yes you can immediately beggin turning up the moment their bow crosses your stern plane but once you BEGIN altering course you have to keep giving them room to avoid you. And unless you have witnesses - there is almost no way to prove that they are not.


The boat initially clear ahead, having right of way, can begin changing course to windward to defend any time she chooses. Getting to windward of the astern boat's line is the first step in deterring them from trying to roll you.

You have the evidence of all the crew on your boat and you have your own testimony. All you need to prove is that you closed up so close, then ceased changing course in a position where you would have been unable to change coure any further to windward without immediately making contact, and that you then bore away to avoid contact.

Absence of contact is usually pretty good evidence that you gave room to keep clear.

Under the old rules you could push them until there was incidental contact (spreader to kite, boom to shrouds etc) but now RRS 14 boots you if you do.


Old Old rules.

The no-contact rule was introduced as rule 33 in 1977 (that was the silly one yacht must retire or one must protest mechanism).

The get-out was not that contact was 'incidental', but that the contact was 'minor and unavoidable'.

#60 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:20 PM

Furthermore, the word was deliberately taken out to avoid and clean up the related rules.

There IS NO SUCH RULE... IE there is NO RULE that says "Overtaking Boat Must Keep Clear".... this rule once existed but has not for MORE THAN A DECADE..

A lot more than a decade.

It was removed in the 1961 merge of the NAYRU and IYRU rules.

50 years goes past like the twinkling of an eye.

And of course we all know that the RRS still uses the word 'overtaking', don't we?

#61 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 04:24 PM

[SNIP]
And of course we all know that the RRS still uses the word 'overtaking', don't we?


Erm, might want to check that (other than in the rules for windsurfers - freak boats, as you call them ;)).

#62 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:59 PM

I tend to agree that the new rules make it much harder to defend against an attack from weather gauge.

Yes you can immediately beggin turning up the moment their bow crosses your stern plane but once you BEGIN altering course you have to keep giving them room to avoid you. And unless you have witnesses - there is almost no way to prove that they are not.


Under the old rules you could push them until there was incidental contact (spreader to kite, boom to shrouds etc) but now RRS 14 boots you if you do.


As others have pointed out, contact that doesn't cause damage or injury has been OK in the rules for a long time. For a while, racers talked about 'tapping out' other boats to prove a rule infringemen but you're right that this is strongly discouraged nowadays.

A big part of the reason is that it's difficult to calibrate a non-damaging tap, except in small light one-designs. And in many conditions, there is no contact that won't cause serious damage.



About the only way to defend is to rapidly luff HTW as the other boat gets near to essentially force them around very wide or to leeward.



Do this a couple of times and folk will stay away from you, but you basically have to convince the fleet your a bit of an ass for this to work


Well, you don't have to go head-to-wind IMHO, you just have to luff aggressively enough that they can't drive over you... and you also need to have local Protest Committees back up your right to this defensive move.

The sailing race course is (should be) like a chessboard. Within the rules, each skipper employs tactics against the other boats... if the rules are not known or not followed (or not upheld by Protest Committees when protests are made) then racing is no longer systematic move & counter-move, it becomes chaos & bullying.

FB- Doug

#63 Ryley

Ryley

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,016 posts
  • Location:Boston, MA
  • Interests:Sailing, Photography, Sailing, Mountain Biking.. did I mention sailing?

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:16 PM

From what I read, the sequence of events was thus:

-- They sailed up to your windward side (meaning you are both "overtaken" and "leeward" giving you rights.) Yes
-- You came up to defend. Yes, a little late in retrospect or we wouldn't have even let them get windward of us...
-- They came up as well. At first.
-- They stopped coming up. Yep
-- You stopped coming up. Only because any further and we'd have hit them.
-- You hailed to come up further but did not drive the boat up further. Again, we'd have to have hit them to come up any further.
-- They ignored you. Helm looked back very briefly (other crew didn't look, I think they know they were pushing the rules) but didn't come up or acknowledge our "request."
-- You sailed close but still did not come up further so as not to have a collision. Yep.

Is this right? If so, then yes, they should react when you go up, but if you're hailing and then not actually coming up, I don't see them as having an obligation. At the same time, I disagree with what movable said a little - yes, technically you probably could take them all the way up to close-hauled, but at some point you're going to be told you're no longer sailing a proper course to the mark.

Yes, this is correct. They chose to pass us to windward with very little separation. I gather we could have protested and won, but protests are few and far between in our fleet, and we sorta like it that way.

And as I mentioned in the OP, we ended up violating their ROW slightly later in the race, not deliberately or pre-meditated - and they did not protest or make a fuss about it either.

And yes I understand in fleet racing it's questionable to take someone up knowing both boats are giving up time to the rest of the fleet. However, they're our primary competition. We were hoping they'd collapse their chute avoiding us and we'd bear away quickly (chute still flying), we wouldn't have "gone to China" to make the point.

Thanks all...


The problem is, had you protested (as was your right) and they had done their circles (as was their obligation), there would not have been a ROW Violation later in the race, because they would have been in the back of the pack, where they (rightfully) belonged for violating the RRS. I really despise the idea that your two wrongs make it right.

#64 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:27 PM


[SNIP]
And of course we all know that the RRS still uses the word 'overtaking', don't we?

Erm, might want to check that (other than in the rules for windsurfers - freak boats, as you call them ;)).


Ding ding, correct answer.

Definitions

Rule (a) The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals, Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices, but not titles;


I never said sailboards were freak boats <g>.

#65 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:32 PM

As others have pointed out, contact that doesn't cause damage or injury has been OK in the rules for a long time. For a while, racers talked about 'tapping out' other boats to prove a rule infringemen but you're right that this is strongly discouraged nowadays.


I don't know who else may have said that, but it is absolutely wrong.

If you fail to avoid contact when it is reasonably possible to do so you break rule 14. Just because rule 14( b ) provides a circumstance where you shall not be penalised under rule 14, does not mean that you do not break the rule.

If you intentionally break a rule you break rule 2 and, on valid protest should be DNE.

#66 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:53 PM


As others have pointed out, contact that doesn't cause damage or injury has been OK in the rules for a long time. For a while, racers talked about 'tapping out' other boats to prove a rule infringemen but you're right that this is strongly discouraged nowadays.


I don't know who else may have said that, but it is absolutely wrong.

If you fail to avoid contact when it is reasonably possible to do so you break rule 14. Just because rule 14( b ) provides a circumstance where you shall not be penalised under rule 14, does not mean that you do not break the rule.

If you intentionally break a rule you break rule 2 and, on valid protest should be DNE.


Let's see here-

I said "tapping out other boats to prove an infringement is strongly discouraged"

You said "that's absolutely wrong"

You then said basically that I was right... that failing to avoid contact is breaking a rule, and breaking a rule deliberately is a sportmanship violation.

Umm, isn't that pretty strongly discouraging?
:blink:

FB- Doug


Doug,

I think he was responding to your first sentence.

I would agree.

Contact with no damage has not been ok for some time.

We can't have boats tapping people out anymore.

It's not just discouraged. It's forbidden.

Dw

#67 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:08 PM

... ...
Doug,

I think he was responding to your first sentence.

I would agree.

Contact with no damage has not been ok for some time.

We can't have boats tapping people out anymore.

It's not just discouraged. It's forbidden.

Dw


Ah so. Now I think I see. Earlier post removed, sorry.

In any event, "Contact with no damage" is OK as long as it's not intentional.

As for contact which -is- intentional, maybe we'd better not discuss it in front of the children. We all know what happens in the real world.
<_<

FB- Doug

#68 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:49 AM

... ...
Doug,

I think he was responding to your first sentence.

I would agree.

Contact with no damage has not been ok for some time.

We can't have boats tapping people out anymore.

It's not just discouraged. It's forbidden.


Ah so. Now I think I see. Earlier post removed, sorry.

In any event, "Contact with no damage" is OK as long as it's not intentional.

As for contact which -is- intentional, maybe we'd better not discuss it in front of the children. We all know what happens in the real world.
Posted Image


NO

Contact is NOT OK.

If you fail to avoid contact when it is reasonably possible to do so you break rule 14.

#69 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 26 June 2012 - 01:27 AM

... ...
Doug,

I think he was responding to your first sentence.

I would agree.

Contact with no damage has not been ok for some time.

We can't have boats tapping people out anymore.

It's not just discouraged. It's forbidden.


Ah so. Now I think I see. Earlier post removed, sorry.

In any event, "Contact with no damage" is OK as long as it's not intentional.

As for contact which -is- intentional, maybe we'd better not discuss it in front of the children. We all know what happens in the real world.
Posted Image


NO

Contact is NOT OK.

If you fail to avoid contact when it is reasonably possible to do so you break rule 14.


Perhaps "OK" is not the correct the word... wait, it's not even a word...

A boat cannot be penalized for making contact with another boat when she has the Right-Of-Way, if she could not have avoided it and there is no damage or injury.

All better?

FB- Doug

#70 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 01:43 AM

"Contact with no damage" is OK as long as it's not intentional.


NO

Contact is NOT OK.

If you fail to avoid contact when it is reasonably possible to do so you break rule 14.

Perhaps "OK" is not the correct the word... wait, it's not even a word...

A boat cannot be penalized for making contact with another boat when she has the Right-Of-Way, if she could not have avoided it and there is no damage or injury.

All better?


Thanks Doug, that's almost OK <g>.

You have mix-mastered two different provisions.

If a boat could not have avoided contact (not reasonably possible to avoid) then she does not break rule 14 at all, so yes, you might say she cannot be penalised under rule 14, but it's because she did not break the rule in the first place.

If a right of way boat or a boat entitled to mark-room fails to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to do so, she breaks rule 14, but if there is no damage or injury she shall not be penalised under rule 14 (rule 14( b )).

#71 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 26 June 2012 - 01:54 AM

... ...
If a boat could not have avoided contact (not reasonably possible to avoid) then she does not break rule 14 at all, so yes, you might say she cannot be penalised under rule 14, but it's because she did not break the rule in the first place.

If a right of way boat or a boat entitled to mark-room fails to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to do so, she breaks rule 14, but if there is no damage or injury she shall not be penalised under rule 14 (rule 14( b )).


This whole discussion over "OK or not" totally and completely side steps the relevant issue... how does a Right-Of-Way boat PROVE to an obtuse & reluctant Protest Committee that the give-way boat did not keep clear?

"No contact no foul" is a common... wrong but common... slogan applied to situations like the OP's.

FWIW I agree with BB, it's more difficult nowadays to make the chess-like moves & counter-moves that are implicitly part of sailboat racing.

FB- Doug

#72 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:18 AM

Ding ding, correct answer.

Definitions

Rule (a) The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals, Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices, but not titles;


Exactly, for but anything but windsurfing competitions Appendix B is generally not part of the Rules. In corollary, the word "overtake" does not appear in the Rules.



I never said sailboards were freak boats <g>.

You sure implied so here:

[SNIP]The rules don't cope well with freak boats. That's why we have special rules for sailboards and kites.



#73 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:51 AM

I guess you got me there.

My apologies to the sailors of non-self-righting, non-self-rescuing sailing vehicles that cannot manoeuvre in safety in close proximity to other vessels. <g>.

Sorry, but which part of the definition of 'Rules' I cited which said "The rules ... includ[e] ...the rules of relevant appendices' was not clear?

#74 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,493 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:05 AM

This whole discussion over "OK or not" totally and completely side steps the relevant issue

Hmmm, I reckon not hitting another boat is always a relevant issue.

FWIW I agree with BB, it's more difficult nowadays to make the chess-like moves & counter-moves that are implicitly part of sailboat racing.

I don't think the old fashioned 'hard' luff-trap was a chess-move: more like a round-house right.

Anyway, it's gone now, since 1977.

... how does a Right-Of-Way boat PROVE to an obtuse & reluctant Protest Committee that the give-way boat did not keep clear?

"No contact no foul" is a common... wrong but common... slogan applied to situations like the OP's.


To prove a breach of rule 11, as I said in a previous post, you can bring the evidence of all the crew on your boat and your own testimony, and that of any outside witnesses to state that you closed up so close, then ceased changing course in a position where you would have been unable to change coure any further to windward without immediately making contact, and that you then bore away to avoid contact.

You cite the same tack special provision of the definition of Keep Clear 'if the leeward boat can change course in both directions without immediately making contact with the windward boat'.

You make sure that the evidence that you bring includes evidence of precise distances in terms of feet and inches, which are small enough that there is no doubt that if you did not change course there would have been contact.

You bring a copy of Case 50 for the protest committee's delectation and delight.

You give evidence as to your own state of mind (which can hardly be contradicted) that you formed a reasonable apprehension of contact (Case 50).

If there is even a hint of the 'no harm no foul' nonsense, you cite Case 50: A [right of way] boat ... need not hold her course so as to prove, by hitting the [give way] boat, that a collision was inevitable'.

If the protest committee is indeed 'obtuse and reluctant' then quids in, they won't be smart enough to appeal-proof their decision, so if you don't like the decision, appeal.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users