59 replies to this topic

[Ozimandias]

This question arises from a protest following a 3 boat collision at the first mark of the recent RSYS Sesiquicentenary regatta. The decision can be read at http://www.rsys.com....gvValhalla.pdf.
I don’t have any problem with the decision, based on RRS 18. In fact it is what I would have expected. However in talking to one of the race officials it occurred to me that RRS 19 might also be involved. This worries me as it seems to be a barger’s charter.

The diagram is simplified to serve this discussion. It doesn’t try to exactly replicate the protest.

The facts are simple: The wind is very light. All boats are working on starboard tack. Yellow enters the zone slightly below the lay-line and proceeds to shoot the mark. Blue enters clear astern of Yellow and sails directly toward the mark catching yellow at the mark. Green enters clear astern of Blue at a considerably greater speed and acquires a late leeward overlap on Blue. Green and Blue collide and both carry into yellow. Quite a lot of damage was done. (very heavy boats).

My question seems simple, does RRS 19 also apply and what is the effect?

As I read RRS 19.2(:
Yellow, a boat which Green must keep clear of therefore qualifies as an obstruction to Green. When green acquires her inside overlap on Blue, Blue becomes obliged to give Green room between Blue and Yellow. (see also Case 11)

This seems to contradict Green’s obligation under RRS 18 to give Blue mark room. Blue’s exoneration under RRS 18.5 only applies to violations by Blue of RRS 10 to 13, not 19.

I hope the learned scholars of SA can put my agitation to rest. (gently of course)

Attached Files

•  Protest 2.pdf   31.99K   153 downloads

[ChiGuy]

I can't seem to view the decision... but this seems to be a simple case of Rule 18.

I believe you state that green was clear astern of blue when the first of that pair entered the zone. Therefore, green owed blue room to round, even if there was a late inside overlap by green (18.2c).

ISAF case 12 doesn't seem applicable.

[Brass]

You are quite correct. Rule 19 can apply between two boats in the zone when there is an obstruction that is not the mark (in this case another boat having right of way and an entitlement to mark-room: see Definition: Obstruction). Rule 19 applies in addition to rule 18.

In this scenario, relevant cases are:

• Case 114: the 'room to give room' case "When a boat is entitled to room, the space she is entitled to includes space for her to keep clear of or give room to other boats when required to do so by the rules."
• Case 29: the 'lever apart' case: "A leeward boat is an obstruction to an overlapped windward boat and a third boat clear astern. The boat clear astern may sail between the two overlapped boats and be entitled to room from the windward boat to pass between her and the leeward boat, provided that the windward boat has been able to give that room from the time the overlap began."

So, B was required to give G room to pass between her and Y when G became overlapped on B.

B would probably argue that she was compelled to not give G room under rule 19 by G's failure to give B the mark-room to which she was entitled.

In this scenario with heavy unmanoeuverable boats in light marginal conditions, B could also argue that it was not possible for her to change course to respond to G, sailing faster, from the time the overlap began.

The key question is: did B fail to give room to pass between.

In the simplified diagram, it is pretty clear that she did not, and it is then open to argue the 'defences' above.

As Case 114 makes clear, there is certainly no notion of rule 19 'switching off' or trumping rule 18. There is no doubt that B breaks rule 18.

In the protest decision referred to it is not so clear. The facts found describe G first colliding with B hull to hull, causing damage, then, presumably rebouding off B and contacting Y bow to midships. Possibly there was room between B and Y if it had not been for G rebounding off B and sailing down onto Y.

If G did not bring evidence and argument to prove that B did not allow sufficient space as required by rule 19, then the protest committee might not have found facts to support a conclusion that B did not give room.

It's not up to the protest committee to list in their written decision, every rule that is not broken, although when a boat unsuccessfully argues a breach of a rule in the hearing it is nice to make a specific fiinding about that.

[us7070]

The link to the decision doesn't work

[Dog Watch]

That's because there is a full stop at the end, which shouldn't be there!

I think it was a test to see who has the will to work out a way....

[Ozimandias]

Sorry about the protest link. try again


http://www.rsys.com....alhallaNo2x.pdf


Brass, thanks for the reply, but don't you see this as an invitation to barge, especially for a faster boat in a mixed fleet?

[ChiGuy]

You are quite correct. Rule 19 can apply between two boats in the zone when there is an obstruction that is not the mark (in this case another boat having right of way and an entitlement to mark-room: see Definition: Obstruction). Rule 19 applies in addition to rule 18.

In this scenario, relevant cases are:

• Case 114: the 'room to give room' case "When a boat is entitled to room, the space she is entitled to includes space for her to keep clear of or give room to other boats when required to do so by the rules."
• Case 29: the 'lever apart' case: "A leeward boat is an obstruction to an overlapped windward boat and a third boat clear astern. The boat clear astern may sail between the two overlapped boats and be entitled to room from the windward boat to pass between her and the leeward boat, provided that the windward boat has been able to give that room from the time the overlap began."

So, B was required to give G room to pass between her and Y when G became overlapped on B.

B would probably argue that she was compelled to not give G room under rule 19 by G's failure to give B the mark-room to which she was entitled.

In this scenario with heavy unmanoeuverable boats in light marginal conditions, B could also argue that it was not possible for her to change course to respond to G, sailing faster, from the time the overlap began.

The key question is: did B fail to give room to pass between.

In the simplified diagram, it is pretty clear that she did not, and it is then open to argue the 'defences' above.

As Case 114 makes clear, there is certainly no notion of rule 19 'switching off' or trumping rule 18. There is no doubt that B breaks rule 18.

In the protest decision referred to it is not so clear. The facts found describe G first colliding with B hull to hull, causing damage, then, presumably rebouding off B and contacting Y bow to midships. Possibly there was room between B and Y if it had not been for G rebounding off B and sailing down onto Y.

If G did not bring evidence and argument to prove that B did not allow sufficient space as required by rule 19, then the protest committee might not have found facts to support a conclusion that B did not give room.

It's not up to the protest committee to list in their written decision, every rule that is not broken, although when a boat unsuccessfully argues a breach of a rule in the hearing it is nice to make a specific fiinding about that.

No racing for me this weekend, so I gets to prognosticate on rules...

Case 114 doesn't apply to blue/green. Green was required to give room - to both yellow and blue.

Case 29 is a bit of a stretch as well. There was no rule 18 involved there.

Green went where she didn't belong. She had to keep clear of both yellow and blue. Green can't just wait to the last millisecond and say gee, blue has to keep clear of me because I have to keep clear of green.

The P/Cs analysis was correct.

[ojfd]

There is no doubt that B breaks rule 18.

???

There's no overlap between B and G when B enters the Zone (at position 2).

Judging by the speed difference between Y and B ( distance sailed between positions 1 and 2), the overlap, that existed between Y and B at position 1 was broken by the time Y entered the Zone.

[Ozimandias]

There is no doubt that B breaks rule 18.

???

There's no overlap between B and G when B enters the Zone (at position 2).

Judging by the speed difference between Y and B ( distance sailed between positions 1 and 2), the overlap, that existed between Y and B at position 1 was broken by the time Y entered the Zone.

Please disregard the overlap between Y and B at pos. 1. I struggled with the drawing program. Move B a half-lenth astern.

Observe also that this question couldn't have arisen under the 05-08 rules because there was no equivalent of RRS 19. Marks and (non continuing) obstructions were both covered by 18.2.

Chi-Guy, I don't question the PC's decision at all, I just wonder if the current rules create an opportunity for a barger.

[ChiGuy]

Please disregard the overlap between Y and B at pos. 1. I struggled with the drawing program. Move B a half-lenth astern.

Observe also that this question couldn't have arisen under the 05-08 rules because there was no equivalent of RRS 19. Marks and (non continuing) obstructions were both covered by 18.2.

Chi-Guy, I don't question the PC's decision at all, I just wonder if the current rules create an opportunity for a barger.

What do you mean by "barger"? It's not a term defined in RRS. I generally think of barger as someone at the start line trying to make room that he's not entitled to between the r/c boat and a leeward boat. Perhaps you mean simply someone who puts himself in a position where he doesn't belong and owes room to other boats under the rules?

I think in this particular case, rule 18 is pretty clear at identifying the responsibilities of each of the boats. I obviously don't think 19 can trump 18 when the "barger" fails to give room he is required to do. He can't wait until it's too late to do anything and try to use 19 as a shield. I don't believe the 2 appeals cited are germane, but I don't have an appeal at the moment that upholds my point of view.

[Brass]

There is no doubt that B breaks rule 18.

???

Absolutely, my mistype: I should have said "There is no doubt that G breaks rule 18"

You are quite correct. Rule 19 can apply between two boats in the zone when there is an obstruction that is not the mark (in this case another boat having right of way and an entitlement to mark-room: see Definition: Obstruction). Rule 19 applies in addition to rule 18.

In this scenario, relevant cases are:
Case 114: the 'room to give room' case "When a boat is entitled to room, the space she is entitled to includes space for her to keep clear of or give room to other boats when required to do so by the rules."



In this scenario,Case 29: the 'lever apart' case is relevant: "A leeward boat is an obstruction to an overlapped windward boat and a third boat clear astern. The boat clear astern may sail between the two overlapped boats and be entitled to room from the windward boat to pass between her and the leeward boat, provided that the windward boat has been able to give that room from the time the overlap began."

So, B was required to give G room to pass between her and Y when G became overlapped on B.

B would probably argue that she was compelled to not give G room under rule 19 by G's failure to give B the mark-room to which she was entitled.

In this scenario with heavy unmanoeuverable boats in light marginal conditions, B could also argue that it was not possible for her to change course to respond to G, sailing faster, from the time the overlap began.

The key question is: did B fail to give room to pass between.

In the simplified diagram, it is pretty clear that she did not, and it is then open to argue the 'defences' above.

As Case 114 makes clear, there is certainly no notion of rule 19 'switching off' or trumping rule 18. There is no doubt that BG breaks rule 18.

In the protest decision referred to it is not so clear. The facts found describe G first colliding with B hull to hull, causing damage, then, presumably rebouding off B and contacting Y bow to midships. Possibly there was room between B and Y if it had not been for G rebounding off B and sailing down onto Y.

If G did not bring evidence and argument to prove that B did not allow sufficient space as required by rule 19, then the protest committee might not have found facts to support a conclusion that B did not give room.

It's not up to the protest committee to list in their written decision, every rule that is not broken, although when a boat unsuccessfully argues a breach of a rule in the hearing it is nice to make a specific fiinding about that.

No racing for me this weekend, so I gets to prognosticate on rules...

Case 114 doesn't apply to blue/green. Green was required to give room - to both yellow and blue.

Quite correct. I don't know what I was thinking, except that I saw a pinwheel and pulled Case 114 out of the bag.

Case 29 is a bit of a stretch as well. There was no rule 18 involved there.

Quite right: there is no suggestion in Case 29 that rule 19 does not apply in the way described when rule 18 applies.

Green went where she didn't belong. She had to keep clear of both yellow and blue.

Not quite. Once Green became overlapped to leeward of Blue, Blue was required to keep clear, but, being entitled to mark-room would be exonerated if she did not do so.

Green can't just wait to the last millisecond and say gee, blue has to keep clear of me because I have to keep clear of green.

It's not 'keep clear' it's 'give room to pass' under rule 19, and that's exactly what case 29 says she can claim. Rule 19 allows a give-way boat to acquire room to pass at an obstruction in the instant that she becomes overlapped inside.

I think this was an unintended consequence of unhitching room at an obstruction from the concept of zone in the rewrite of rule 19, but so be it.

Unless and until (new thought) Case 114 is to be further interpreted to say that an inside boat having mark-room at the mark is to be treated as an extension of the mark. That's sort of what room to give room means.

The P/Cs analysis was correct.

See comments above and corrections to embarrassing mistakes in my anlysis.

[Ozimandias]

I think we are close on the meaning of "barger": to me its a boat which shoves her way in where she shouldn't, often with a torrent of spurious claims for water, room or whatever. In this case Green. My concern remains, how do we "discount" RRS 19 which does appear to apply here with RRS 18.

[Brass]

Brass, thanks for the reply, but don't you see this as an invitation to barge, especially for a faster boat in a mixed fleet?

I don't think so, the middle, late overlapping boat is always going to deny the outside boat mark-room and break rule 18, so even if she can induce the outside boat to break rule 19, she shoots herself in the foot.

If the middle boat decided to take a DSQ for breaking rule 18 and get the outside boat DSQ for breaking rule 19 to gain some sort of pointscore advantage, then that's deliberately breaking a rule to gain an advantage: classic rule 2 territory.

[Steam Flyer]

I think we are close on the meaning of "barger": to me its a boat which shoves her way in where she shouldn't, often with a torrent of spurious claims for water, room or whatever. In this case Green. My concern remains, how do we "discount" RRS 19 which does appear to apply here with RRS 18.

Rule 19.2 -b and -c both exclude a boat from shoving her nose in where she shouldn't.

{quote}
19.2 Giving Room at an Obstruction
... ... -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.

-c While boats are passing a continuing obstruction, if a boat that
was clear astern and required to keep clear becomes overlapped
between the other boat and the obstruction and, at the
moment the overlap begins, there is not room for her to pass
between them, she is not entitled to room under rule 19.2-b.
While the boats remain overlapped, she shall keep clear and
rules 10 and 11 do not apply.
{end quote}

In fact, if you want to apply Rule 19 to the case beween Blue & Green (which IMHO is correct) then the last bit of R19.2 C earns Green another DSQ.

Kind of a shame that boats can only earn one DSQ per race... wait a minute, is there a rule that says a PC cannot award a boat multiple DSQs ??!?

FB- Doug

[walterbshaffer]

Brass, thanks for the reply, but don't you see this as an invitation to barge, especially for a faster boat in a mixed fleet?

I sort of agree with this: notwithstanding Brass's observation that the "barger" shoots themselves in the foot, it seems that some boats take the attitude that they just might get away with jamming themselves in there and then using rules related to keeping clear to threaten that if you protest me you'll be disqualified also, so they go ahead and take thier chances.

Not so much with larger boats, but seems to be more prevalent with smaller boats.

Used to be I understood what the rules were and how they were applied. Not so much anymore.

[bsainsbury]

What I'm wondering is, how do you say that word?

1342872218[/url]' post='3794778']
Sesiquicentenary

[DickDastardly]

I can't seem to view the decision... but this seems to be a simple case of Rule 18.

I believe you state that green was clear astern of blue when the first of that pair entered the zone. Therefore, green owed blue room to round, even if there was a late inside overlap by green (18.2c).

ISAF case 12 doesn't seem applicable.

Agree. Green did not establish room in time and should have rounded behind or outside blue. That situation predates any potential rule 19 rights.

[Ozimandias]

Brass, thanks for the reply, but don't you see this as an invitation to barge, especially for a faster boat in a mixed fleet?

I don't think so, the middle, late overlapping boat is always going to deny the outside boat mark-room and break rule 18, so even if she can induce the outside boat to break rule 19, she shoots herself in the foot.

If the middle boat decided to take a DSQ for breaking rule 18 and get the outside boat DSQ for breaking rule 19 to gain some sort of pointscore advantage, then that's deliberately breaking a rule to gain an advantage: classic rule 2 territory.

I agree with this. Another way to say it is that Blue's right to mark-room over Green is acquired first, nothing either boat subsequently does negates Blue's mark-room rights, therefore Green's RRS 19 rights (if any) are acquired subject to Blue's right to mark-room. So Green gets 4/5 of nothing.

Regarding spelling, I think it should be: "Sesquicentenary", and I have no idea how to pronounce it.

[Brass]

Brass, thanks for the reply, but don't you see this as an invitation to barge, especially for a faster boat in a mixed fleet?

I don't think so, the middle, late overlapping boat is always going to deny the outside boat mark-room and break rule 18, so even if she can induce the outside boat to break rule 19, she shoots herself in the foot.

If the middle boat decided to take a DSQ for breaking rule 18 and get the outside boat DSQ for breaking rule 19 to gain some sort of pointscore advantage, then that's deliberately breaking a rule to gain an advantage: classic rule 2 territory.

I agree with this.

Thank you but I'm not liking the way you are going after that.

Another way to say it is that Blue's right to mark-room over Green is acquired first,

True but irrelevant.

nothing either boat subsequently does negates Blue's mark-room rights,

Quite right. Rule 19 does not 'trump' Rule 18 (except when the mark is a continuing obstruction). The only way entitlement to mark-room goes OFF is when one of the 'switch-off' conditions in rule 18.1 or rule 18.2( c ) happens. But rule 18 does not 'trump' rule 19 either.

therefore Green's RRS 19 rights (if any) are acquired subject to Blue's right to mark-room.

No, there is no interaction like 'subject to' between rules 18 and 19. Blue is entitled to mark-room. Independently Green is entitled to room to pass between Blue and Yellow. Maybe a nexus arises under rule 64.1( c ) (exoneration).

So Green gets 4/5 of nothing.

Well, if Green does it deliberately she gets a DNE under rule 2, and potentially a smack in the carpark.

Regarding spelling, I think it should be: "Sesquicentenary", and I have no idea how to pronounce it.

You pronounce it "Sesquicentenary" FFS.

[shiny]

What I'm wondering is, how do you say that word?

Sesiquicentenary

sesquicentenary - 'sesqui-' (Latin for one and a half) - centenary (one hundred years). Pronounced 'sess-kwee-cent-TEN-nary', 'sess-kwee-cent-TEN-ree', or 'sess-kwee-cent-TEE-nairy' depending on your school.

According to OED:

sɛskwɪsɛnˈtiːn(ə)ri

or

sɛskwɪsɛnˈtɛn(ə)ri

[bsainsbury]

1343002353[/url]' post='3796428']

1342992589[/url]' post='3796284']
What I'm wondering is, how do you say that word?

1342872218[/url]' post='3794778']
Sesiquicentenary

sesquicentenary - 'sesqui-' (Latin for one and a half) - centenary (one hundred years). Pronounced 'sess-kwee-cent-TEN-nary', 'sess-kwee-cent-TEN-ree', or 'sess-kwee-cent-TEE-nairy' depending on your school.

According to OED:

sɛskwɪsɛnˈtiːn(ə)ri

or

sɛskwɪsɛnˈtɛn(ə)ri

Thanks!

[Ballast Technician]

I think we are close on the meaning of "barger": to me its a boat which shoves her way in where she shouldn't, often with a torrent of spurious claims for water, room or whatever. In this case Green. My concern remains, how do we "discount" RRS 19 which does appear to apply here with RRS 18.

Rule 19.2 -b and -c both exclude a boat from shoving her nose in where she shouldn't.

{quote}
19.2 Giving Room at an Obstruction
... ... -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.

-c While boats are passing a continuing obstruction, if a boat that
was clear astern and required to keep clear becomes overlapped
between the other boat and the obstruction and, at the
moment the overlap begins, there is not room for her to pass
between them, she is not entitled to room under rule 19.2-b.
While the boats remain overlapped, she shall keep clear and
rules 10 and 11 do not apply.
{end quote}

In fact, if you want to apply Rule 19 to the case beween Blue & Green (which IMHO is correct) then the last bit of R19.2 C earns Green another DSQ.

Kind of a shame that boats can only earn one DSQ per race... wait a minute, is there a rule that says a PC cannot award a boat multiple DSQs ??!?

FB- Doug

No, R19.2© does not apply since the obstruction in this case is not a continuing one.

[bye bye]

If blue had attempted to give green room there is practically no way blue could of been DSQ.

By failing to react blue leaves this in the hands of a judgment call by the PC (based on evidence provided). If blue had initiated a seaman like action to give green room between blue and yellow as soon as yellow became overlapped would it have been successful?

When blue is 3 bl from the mark green is 0.1 bl behind blue.
By the time blue is 0.2 bl from the mark green is 0.6 bl overlapped with blue.

So the overlap began at 2.6 boat lengths from the mark.

Yellows turn shows what the boats are capable of in the conditions. If blue had made a similar turn to yellow at 2.6 bl from the mark it would of resulted in space for green between blue and yellow.

Based on the diagram blue is DSQ under RRS19 for failing to give room between blue and yellow for green. Blue is not exonerated for breaking RRS19 due to being owed mark-room by green (RRS19 is not in section A)

Green has broken RRS18 and RRS11 by failing to give mark-room and failing to keep clear of yellow.

Is green entitled to exoneration?

Did blue compel green to fail to keep clear of yellow or to fail to give her mark-room?

Green may "not required to predict blues failure to comply with the rules" but when blue is 2 bl fro the mark and in position that she is incapable of giving green room does yellow have room to duck yellow?

If yes green is DSQ
If no green is exonerated

In terms of "moral hazard" the most likely result of this incident is a DSQ for blue for inaction and a DSQ for green for pushing a marginal and unpredictable move either side of which they would of been flicked and caused a dangerous situation. Either boat taking this to the room is a poor percentage option, in which case it was a poor percentage move from green and a poor percentage reaction from blue.

[Christian]

If blue had attempted to give green room there is practically no way blue could of been DSQ.

By failing to react blue leaves this in the hands of a judgment call by the PC (based on evidence provided). If blue had initiated a seaman like action to give green room between blue and yellow as soon as yellow became overlapped would it have been successful?

When blue is 3 bl from the mark green is 0.1 bl behind blue.
By the time blue is 0.2 bl from the mark green is 0.6 bl overlapped with blue.

So the overlap began at 2.6 boat lengths from the mark.

Yellows turn shows what the boats are capable of in the conditions. If blue had made a similar turn to yellow at 2.6 bl from the mark it would of resulted in space for green between blue and yellow.

Based on the diagram blue is DSQ under RRS19 for failing to give room between blue and yellow for green. Blue is not exonerated for breaking RRS19 due to being owed mark-room by green (RRS19 is not in section A)

Green has broken RRS18 and RRS11 by failing to give mark-room and failing to keep clear of yellow.

Is green entitled to exoneration?

Did blue compel green to fail to keep clear of yellow or to fail to give her mark-room?

Green may "not required to predict blues failure to comply with the rules" but when blue is 2 bl fro the mark and in position that she is incapable of giving green room does yellow have room to duck yellow?

If yes green is DSQ
If no green is exonerated

In terms of "moral hazard" the most likely result of this incident is a DSQ for blue for inaction and a DSQ for green for pushing a marginal and unpredictable move either side of which they would of been flicked and caused a dangerous situation. Either boat taking this to the room is a poor percentage option, in which case it was a poor percentage move from green and a poor percentage reaction from blue.

WTF are you smoking?


That is about the dumbest rules mangling I have heard in a while

[BalticBandit]

Brass, thanks for the reply, but don't you see this as an invitation to barge, especially for a faster boat in a mixed fleet?

I sort of agree with this: notwithstanding Brass's observation that the "barger" shoots themselves in the foot, it seems that some boats take the attitude that they just might get away with jamming themselves in there and then using rules related to keeping clear to threaten that if you protest me you'll be disqualified also, so they go ahead and take thier chances.

Not so much with larger boats, but seems to be more prevalent with smaller boats.
.

It should not be even an issue with smaller boats. While RRS 14 requires me to ATTEMPT to avoid a collision, it does not require me to ANTICIPATE you will break a rule and thus cause me to do so. So that means that UNTIL IT IS OBVIOUS that you are going to break a rule, I do not have to BEGIN to try avoiding contact.

So in this situation in small boats, until the skipper of B sees Green's bow overlap her stern leeward quarter, B does not even have to begin altering course to avoid G.

Since by that drawing, there was no room for G to even make it in between B and Y, an attempt by B to luff up would cause contact as would not luffing up. and in light winds with limited maneuverability, luffing up is going to take time.

So even in smaller boats RRS 14 will actually rebound on G in that even if the situation was such that B and G entered The Zone Overlapped, when it became clear that B was not going to give G room to pass between Y and B, G's RESPONSIBLITY then was to bear away and take Y's stern.

There is no way that RRS 19 induces the kind of "barging" described.


Note that RRS 19 actually does not apply in this case. Y is an obstruction, but since G and B are both close hauled RRS 20 applys

When approaching an obstruction, a boat sailing close-hauled orabove may hail for room to tack and avoid another boat on the same tack. After a boat hails,
(a) she shall give the hailed boat time to respond;

Notice that G in this case CLEARLY DID NOT give B "time to respond" (remember "time to respond" is dependent on the prevailing wind and sea condistions).

Note that 20.2 would ONLY exonorate G if she the only violations were Section A and RRS 15 and RRS 16

20.2Exoneration
When a boat is taking room to which she is entitled under rule 20.1(, she shall be exonerated if she breaks a rule of Section A or rule 15 or 16.

But since the violation here is RRS 18.. G is SOL.



now if Y were a random boat in the middle of the course luffing up, then YES under RRS 19, G could have asked B for room to pass Y to weather. BUT ONLY IF SHE HAILED FOR ROOM IN TIME.


No the rules don't have any encouragement for "barging"


Basically when asked if RRS 19 would override RRS 18 when the split was first introduced, Dick Rose opined in the presentation he gave that he could see boat like G, hailing for room at the obstruction, but when given that room, immediately taking her penalty turns. The example he gave was of a mark that was say a nasty set of steel pilings. with a current sweep. You don't want to force a boat into the pilings - that's unseamanlike. So you let them hail for Obstruction... BUT since Exonoration DOES NOT include RRS 18, you get penalized.

[Winever]

Doncha just love how easy to understand the Racing Rules of Sailing are? I mean what's not simple about them, and everyone always has a clear understanding of they mean....

Cheers, Win ever.

[bye bye]

Possibly a complete brain fart from start to finish Christian. Particularly the bit you highlighted.

BB, looks like they are fetching to me

[Steam Flyer]

... ...

No, R19.2© does not apply since the obstruction in this case is not a continuing one.

Oops

You're right.

Still R19.2-b covers it.

Blue screwed up by not going wide enough to give Yellow plenty of room to shoot the mark (although she didn't need to give room to tack). Green screwed up by trying to drive between Yellow & Blue when 1- she owed Blue mark-room and 2-didn't have rights to go in there under R19 anyway.

Not sure if there could be a situation where R18 and R19 would be in conflict, in this case if applied they both DSQ the same boats.

Doncha just love how easy to understand the Racing Rules of Sailing are? I mean what's not simple about them, and everyone always has a clear understanding of they mean....

Cheers, Win ever.

Can I briefly rant some more about how the constant rule-changing has screwed it all up?

FB- Doug

[walterbshaffer]

So let me get this straight: Green can jam themselves in there establish an overlap late inside the circle giving blue no chance to keep clear of a WTF situation and if blue fails to keep clear then blue & green can be DSQ. Just how is that not an encouragement to "barge" at the mark?

[DMan]

Just out of curiosity, did green have to pay for the damage to the other boats ?

[Steam Flyer]

So let me get this straight: Green can jam themselves in there establish an overlap late inside the circle giving blue no chance to keep clear of a WTF situation and if blue fails to keep clear then blue & green can be DSQ. Just how is that not an encouragement to "barge" at the mark?

How is getting a DSQ encouraging Green to barge in there?
Blue is mostly in trouble for not giving Yellow mark-room. Since Green owes Blue mark-room also, it's doubly stupid to jam her nose in there.

FB- Doug

[xyzzy]

How about in this scenario:
 r19_2.png   26.44K   2 downloads

Does green, having gained overlap on blue after entering the zone, get room to pass yellow to windward under R19? Blue is entitled to mark-room from green, and green would not normally be able to round inside blue. Does the presence of yellow give green room to round inside of blue?

[Steam Flyer]

How about in this scenario:
 r19_2.png   26.44K   2 downloads

Does green, having gained overlap on blue after entering the zone, get room to pass yellow to windward under R19? Blue is entitled to mark-room from green, and green would not normally be able to round inside blue. Does the presence of yellow give green room to round inside of blue?

I would say that trying to pass between a boat and the mark would NOT be justifiable as "giving mark-room" under 99.9% of circumstances. Maybe if her sails are backwinded and you can see that she is going to start backing up away from the mark before completing the rounding?

Don't forget that Green also owes mark-room to Yellow, and must keep clear of her also.

FB- Doug

[Brass]

Brass, thanks for the reply, but don't you see this as an invitation to barge, especially for a faster boat in a mixed fleet?

I sort of agree with this: notwithstanding Brass's observation that the "barger" shoots themselves in the foot, it seems that some boats take the attitude that they just might get away with jamming themselves in there and then using rules related to keeping clear to threaten that if you protest me you'll be disqualified also, so they go ahead and take thier chances.

Not so much with larger boats, but seems to be more prevalent with smaller boats.

It should not be even an issue with smaller boats. While RRS 14 requires me to ATTEMPT to avoid a collision,

Sorry, NOT correct, not since 1995. Rule 14 requires boats to avoid contact if reasonably possib le, not just make a plucky attempt, but, conversely, if it is never reasonably possible it may be permissible to take no action.

it does not require me to ANTICIPATE you will break a rule and thus cause me to do so. So that means that UNTIL IT IS OBVIOUS that you are going to break have broken a [keep clear, room, or mark-room] rule,

Slight correction made above

I do not have to BEGIN to try avoiding contact.

Correct.

So in this situation in small boats, until the skipper of B sees Green's bow overlap her stern leeward quarter, B does not even have to begin altering course to avoid G.

Correct, but not because of rule 14(a). It's because, when G becomes overlapped on B, B is more than half a boat length to windward of G, and is thus keeping clear.

If G cuddled up to B, then B is in the zone, sailing to the mark, taking mark-room to which she is entitled and will be exonerated for breaking rule 11 if she does not keep clear of G.

Only when G cuddles up so close that it it clear that she is not giving mark-room (which may become clearer because of the proximity of Y to leeward) does B become obliged to begin to act to avoid contact, but being the unobstructed windward boat, she can readily do this. Note that in the actual protest referred to the protest committee concluded that B broke rule 14.

Since by that drawing, there was no room for G to even make it in between B and Y,

Suggest you look at the diagram again. @2 + delta when G becomes overlapped on B, and Y has not yet significantly headed up to the mark, there is at least a boat length between B and Y: there is ample space when the overlap begins.

an attempt by B to luff up would cause contact as would not luffing up.

If you are talking about the time when B and G become overlapped, they are at least half a boat length apart: there is ample room for B to make a small change of course towards the wind and towards G, as long as she curtails it fairly quickly.

B never gets to the close hook-up position when she cannot change course in either direction without immediately making contact with G. @3 G can still bear away, and althought she will inevitably immediatly contact Y, she will not contact G.

and in light winds with limited maneuverability, luffing up is going to take time.

So even in smaller boats RRS 14 will actually rebound on G in that event if the situation was such that B and G entered The Zone Overlapped, when it became clear that B was not going to give G room to pass between Y and B, G's RESPONSIBLITY then was to bear away and take Y's stern.

I don't exactly follow this.

If G makes her overlap late inside B, then G, being to leeward of B, is a boat having right of way and is not obliged to begin taking action to avoid contact until it is clear that B is not keeping clear: that could very well be not until @3 in the diagram: any time before that B could have luffed and avoided contact. I could be persuaded that, with respect to B, G did not break rule 14, but B did.

If G makes her overlap inside B at the zone, then G is both leeward and entitled to mark-room, and all the above applies.

In either case, where B has not luffed up to avoid contact with G, then I think that it was not reasonably possible for G to avoid contact with Y.

[ojfd]

If G makes her overlap late inside B, then G, being to leeward of B, is a boat having right of way and is not obliged to begin taking action to avoid contact until it is clear that B is not keeping clear: that could very well be not until @3 in the diagram: any time before that B could have luffed and avoided contact. I could be persuaded that, with respect to B, G did not break rule 14, but B did.

Depending on the boat speed and size it could be argued by B that RRS 19.2 [b] would apply:

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.

[Brass]

How about in this scenario:
 r19_2.png   26.44K   2 downloads

Does green, having gained overlap on blue after entering the zone, get room to pass yellow to windward under R19? Blue is entitled to mark-room from green, and green would not normally be able to round inside blue.

Does the presence of yellow give green room to round inside of blue?

This is pretty much the situation we have been discussing, except no boats are close hauled.

Answer is 'to some extent': G is entitled to room to pass between B and Y, but if she goes there, she will fail to give B mark-room and expose herself to penalty.

[Brass]

Note that RRS 19 actually does not apply in this case. Y is an obstruction, but since G and B are both close hauled RRS 20 applys

When approaching an obstruction, a boat sailing close-hauled orabove may hail for room to tack and avoid another boat on the same tack. After a boat hails,
(a) she shall give the hailed boat time to respond;

I think that, in this case, rule 20 does not 'apply' in the sense relevant to switching off rule 18, although it could be made to apply by B giving the requisite hail.

Rule 20 does not impose an obligation on any boat until the inside boat hails for room to tack.

We might say that 20 applies to entitle a boat sailing close hauled or above, when safety requires her, to hail for room to tack, but until she does so, rule 20 does not apply to any other boat.

Notice that G in this case CLEARLY DID NOT give B "time to respond" (remember "time to respond" is dependent on the prevailing wind and sea condistions).

The obligation to give time to respond is in rule 20.1( a ) which states "[after a boat hails] she shall give the hailed boat time to respond". G did not hail. Therefore there was no 'hailed boat', and it was not possible for G to break rule 20.1(a).

Note that 20.2 would ONLY exonorate G if she the only violations were Section A and RRS 15 and RRS 16

20.2Exoneration
When a boat is taking room to which she is entitled under rule 20.1( b ), she shall be exonerated if she breaks a rule of Section A or rule 15 or 16.

But since the violation here is RRS 18.. G is SOL.

Rather, since a boat only becomes entitled to room under rule 20.1( b ) if she has hailed and the hailed boat has replied 'You tack', and neither of these things has happened rule 20.2 will not apply at all.

now if Y were a random boat in the middle of the course luffing up, then YES under RRS 19, G could have asked B for room to pass Y to weather. BUT ONLY IF SHE HAILED FOR ROOM IN TIME.

This would probably have been a better place to start discussing rule 20.

Question 1: Out on a leg:, can G hail B for room to tack if G is sailing close hauled or above and safety requires her to make a substantial course change to avoid Y under rule 20?

Answer 1: All of the necesary conditions in rule 20 apply, so Yes, she can.

Question 2: In the same situation can G, becoming overlapped between Y and B, where, at the instant of becoming overlapped B was able to do so, require B to give her room to pass between B and Y under rule 19?

Answer 2: Yes she can, but she is also the right of way boat: G must keep clear of her in any case.

Question 3: Does being near a mark with G required to give B mark-room make any difference to the above entitlements (that is basic entitlements, not how we would expect a scenario to play out)?

Answer 3: Not that I can see: Tell me reasons why it is different?

No the rules don't have any encouragement for "barging"

At least we can agree on this.

Basically when asked if RRS 19 would override RRS 18 when the split was first introduced, Dick Rose opined in the presentation he gave that he could see boat like G, hailing for room at the obstruction, but when given that room, immediately taking her penalty turns. The example he gave was of a mark that was say a nasty set of steel pilings. with a current sweep. You don't want to force a boat into the pilings - that's unseamanlike. So you let them hail for Obstruction... BUT since Exonoration DOES NOT include RRS 18, you the hailing boat gets penalized.

Slight correction?

Dick Rose must have been talking about an early draft.

Rule 19.1 now establishes:

• If the mark is a continuing obstruction rule 19 applies and rule 18 does not;
• If the mark is an obstruction other than a continuing obstruction, rule 18 applies and rule 19 does not.

Where it is the mark that is the obstruction, rules 18 and 19 cannot both apply.

Where the mark is an obstruction of either kind, and a boat wanting room is sailing close hauled or above and safety requires her to make a substantial course change to avoid the obstruction, rule 20 entitles her to hail for room to tack, and once she does so, rule 20 applies and rules 18 and 19 do not.

In this case, if the hailed boat was fetching the mark, the hailing boat breaks rule 20.3 by hailing, but the hailed boat is nevertheless obliged to respond to the hail in accordance with rule 20.1( b ).

Maybe this is the example Dick Rose was talking about.

The scenario being discussed is different. In that case that there is a mark and another object (Yellow) that is an obstruction, all in the same close area, so the rule 18/rule 19 flip/flop does not work: the entitlement to mark-room under rule 18 co-exists with the entitlement for room to pass the intervening obstruction under rule 19, or the entitlements under rule 20.

All good interesting stuff.

[ojfd]

All good interesting stuff.

Most certainly! I'd love to see this situation explained as another Q&A by ISAF.

[ColinG]

I wonder if it makes it clearer to consider it as two separate incidents happening concurrently.

In relation to the mark rounding, R 18 applies. G must give B mark-room. G must also give Y mark-room. If G fails to do either, G breaks R18.2(b ).

Independently of the mark rounding Y is also an obstruction to B and G, so R 19 applies. B must give G room to pass the obstruction (Y) on the same side as B unless B is unable to do so. IF B does not, B has broken R19.2(b ).

So, G sticks its nose in and puts itself in a position where it cannot give B room because of Y and cannot give Y room because of B. Regardless of what B does next, G has broken 18.2(b ).

Even though G has broken one rule, this does not mean it loses its rights under the RRS (pretty sure there is a case on this?). B still has to give G room to avoid the obstruction and so unless it does so, B breaks 19.2(b ).

So, whatevere happens G is stuffed, but B can also be in trouble unless it keeps clear.

If any of the boats make contact, then of course R14 will also apply, but that is just icing on the cake.

I think it makes good sense that R 19 is never turned off becasue it is designed to avoid collisions, as happened in the original incident.

[Ozimandias]

Just out of curiosity, did green have to pay for the damage to the other boats ?

I think that is still under discussion, but the practice here in Oz seems to be that each underwriter pays out its client without trying too hard to recover from the underwriters of the other boats. Also Y Aus has a prescription to RRS 68 "Yachting Australia believes that the question of damages is for the appropriate court of law".

[BalticBandit]

Brass - well done as usual in getting the bit about 20.3 vs 20.1.b Your description is the more accurate one. IOW if another boat hails for room to tack you have to give it to her, even if she has no rights for that request. and the reason for that is in the case where she needs room to avoid damage, but has no RULES based right to it


I do disagree slightly with

Since by that drawing, there was no room for G to even make it in between B and Y,

• Suggest you look at the diagram again. @2 + delta when G becomes overlapped on B, and Y has not yet significantly headed up to the mark, there is at least a boat length between B and Y: there is ample space when the overlap begins.

Its true that at this point RRS 19 does not apply, but because RRS 18 does, and G has no rights under RRS 18 WRT B or Y, she is already fouling Y because her existing course prevents Y from exercising her RRS 18 rights.

[bye bye]

Possibly a complete brain fart from start to finish Christian. Particularly the bit you highlighted.

I forgot that the right of way boat may choose which side to pass an obstruction. Green is exonerated. The rest I'm fine with.

Basically blue fucks her self by not attempting to give room. If she had made the attempt and green had failed to keep clear of anyone then the case would of been open and shut against green. By not reacting they leave it to the room and there is potential for a PC to ur on the side reminding them of their obligation to avoid a collision.

[BalticBandit]

Possibly a complete brain fart from start to finish Christian. Particularly the bit you highlighted.

I forgot that the right of way boat may choose which side to pass an obstruction. Green is exonerated. The rest I'm fine with.

Basically blue fucks her self by not attempting to give room. If she had made the attempt and green had failed to keep clear of anyone then the case would of been open and shut against green. By not reacting they leave it to the room and there is potential for a PC to ur on the side reminding them of their obligation to avoid a collision.

You are not obligated to BEGIN to try and avoid a collision until the other boat BREAKS the rule in a way that is going to cause a collision. That does not BEGIN to occur until G has already trapped her bow between G and Y - because up until the moment she traps her bow she is obligated by RRS 18 to give B (and Y) "room to round [in a seamanlike manner] and has the opportunity to do so by taking Y's stern.

The moment G becomes trapped, B only has to BEGIN to try and alter course in any REASONALBE manner to avoide a collision. By this point G has violated

• RRS 18
• RRS 19 (because she did not have room to sail clearly between the boats when her bow gets trapped)
• RRS 14 (by not avoiding an imminent collision)

G does not get exonorated in any way whatsoever as she had fouled Y and B the moment she failed to give them room to round under RRS 18

B has exposure here (as does Y) ONLY IF it can be shown that from the moment that it became clear that G could no longer take Y's stern that the two boats (B and Y) failed to make a REASONABLE attempt (given the wind and sea state) to avoid a collision. There is ZERO evidence of this

G should go home on THREE infractions. B and Y should be exonorated.


RRS 14 is not desinged to be used to penalize an ROW boat simply because a collision occurs. RRS 14 is designed to preclude the forcing of a collision if it is reasonably possible to avoid it. Here it is pretty clear that by the time it is obvious that G can no longer take Y's stern, a collision WILL HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT. That then belongs to G.

[bye bye]

Acknowledging that RRS20 may apply instead but lets continue to look at this as 2 boats fetching...

I'm not raising a question of RRS14. I'm questioning which -- when a situation can be called in two entirely proper ways probably based on ambiguous evidence or judgment required from the PC based on bits of wood begin pushed around a table -- outcome will the PC probably plump for.

I would suggest that faced with two options (blue was able to give room and blue was not able to give room) where blue holds her course shouting 'protest!' the PC will tend to ur towards the version where blue was able to give room as a reminder that next time, if blue wants to be sure of proving that she was not able to give room, then making at least an attempt would be much much smarter than plowing on regardless.

You may differ in your opinion of human nature. That's fair enough.

When blue is right of way boat she chooses to pass to windward of yellow. Blue is not overlapped inside green and has no RRS19 rights over green. How do you conclude green has fouled RRS19? Latter on green may not be entitled to room but that does not mean she breaks RRS19.

When green is right of way boat she chooses to pass to windward of yellow as well. She may not be entitled to exert that right of way entitlement due to owing blue mark-room but she is still right of way, and according to the case (3 isn't it??) that gives her the right to choose which side of the yellow to pass.

So with respect to RRS19 it's clearly a gap to windward of yellow we are considering. Both blue and green intend to pass to windward. There's no argument over that.

So under RRS19 blue must give room between her and the obstruction for green, if she is able from the point the overlap begins. In other words blue should initiate seaman like action to give room to green as soon as green becomes overlapped. She doesn't even try.

This isn't a matter of blues requirement to avoid a collision. This is the requirement for blue to react to give green room once they become overlapped. A requirement she will not be exonerated for due to being owed mark-room if she ignores it.

Blue clearly also break RRS11 but is exonerated
Green clearly also breaks RRS18 but she will be exonerated if the view is that blue broke RRS19.

Now then RRS14.

In choosing to go to windward of yellow green is not required to anticipate the failure of blue to comply with RRS19.

All that turns on the view of whether blue could of given room.

If blue had of attempted to give room, rather than attempting to exert a misguided belief in an unconditional right to mark-room, then she would of proved the case one way or the other (she would of given room, or she would of failed to give room proving that she was not able to from the point the overlap began). It would of been impossible for her to get flicked.

By plowing on she left it to a judgment in the room, a judgment it's more than likely she would loose.

[Brass]

Brass - well done as usual in getting the bit about 20.3 vs 20.1.b Your description is the more accurate one. IOW if another boat hails for room to tack you have to give it to her, even if she has no rights for that request. and the reason for that is in the case where she needs room to avoid damage, but has no RULES based right to it

I do disagree slightly with

Since by that drawing, there was no room for G to even make it in between B and Y,

• Suggest you look at the diagram again. @2 + delta when G becomes overlapped on B, and Y has not yet significantly headed up to the mark, there is at least a boat length between B and Y: there is ample space when the overlap begins.

First comment, I have only just noticed that the 'tests' excusing an outside overlapped boat from giving room differ between rules 19.2( b ) and ( c ):

• rule 19.2( b ) [other than continuing obstruction] outside boat need not give room if 'she has been unable to [give room] from the time the overlap began': that is: at the moment the overlap began she was unable to give room and continues to be unable to do so; and
• rule 19.2( c ) [at a continuing obstruction] outside boat need not give room if at the moment the overlap began there was no room for [the inside boat] to pass between [the outside boat and the obstruction]."

So the relevant test to excuse B in this case is NOT whether there was room enough, but whether B was able to give room.

As I said previously, B as windward boat, with no obstruction further to windward has absolutely nothing to prevent her from keeping clear and giving room, and from the @2 + delta position, when G becomes overlapped, just after she has reached the zone, she has about two boat lengths to do it in.

There can be no doubt that B is able to give G room.

Its true that at this point RRS 19 does not apply, but because RRS 18 does, and G has no rights under RRS 18 WRT B or Y, she is already fouling Y because her existing course prevents Y from exercising her RRS 18 rights.

If you are arguing that @2 + delta, when G becomes overlapped on B, just after B has reached the zone, Y is slightly more than one boat length clear ahead of G and nearly one boat length to leeward, and aboout one and a half boat lengths to leeward of B, and thus that B and G are not yet at the obstruction (where 'at' means, I suppose 'so close that it is necessary for B to change course to allow G space to pass between B and Y'), and therefore rule 19 does not apply by virtue of rule 19.1 "Rule 19 applies between boats at an obstruction ... ", I agree with you. That's not to say that it won't apply a few seconds later.

I agree that rule 18 applies betwen all three boats once B reaches the zone clear ahead of G.

I agree that G, clear astern of both Y and B when they reached the zone shall give both of them mark-room and thus has no entitlements to mark-room herself.

@2 + delta, G's bow has only just overlapped B's quarter, about a boat length to leeward: in no way is she impeding B from sailing to the mark, which is the mark-room B is entitled to at that time.

I do not agree that @2 + delta G is 'already fouling B' (whatever 'fouling' might mean). What will happen a few seconds later if G maintains her course and speed are irrelevant to whether she breaks rule 18 at this point.

I don't think G actually breaks rule 18 until about @1 - delta, when she gets into the V between B and Y, and interferes with them sailing their proper courses at the mark.

It might be said that G breaks rule 18 at least no later than when it is necessary for B to change course away from her course to the mark to give G room under rule 19, That is, that it cannot be said that B breaks rule 19 before G breaks rule 18. This would leave open the defence for B that she was compelled to break rule 19 by G breaking rule 18.

Note that nothing in rule 18 says G 'can't go in there': the rule just says what happens when she does.

[bye bye]

B isn't compelled to break RRS19. She isn't boxed in and can luff. As she's not the right of way boat the choice on which side to pass yellow isn't hers.

If you use the same logic as sued for 'at the mark' then RRS19 starts to apply at the point the boat that is entitled to room is close to the obstruction and at a point it would normally turn to avoid it. That has to be early enough for blue that it would allow her to give room.

[Brass]

B isn't compelled to break RRS19. She isn't boxed in and can luff. As she's not the right of way boat the choice on which side to pass yellow isn't hers.

Yeah, I said that B was windward boat, with no obstruction further to windward has absolutely nothing to prevent her from keeping clear and giving room,

I said the defence was open to her. I didn't say it was likely to be successful <g>.

However, if a Case came out saying that a breach of rule 18 will always compel any breach of rule 19, in an attempt to prevent rule 19 interfering with mark-room, I wouldn't be surprised (not that I have any reason to expect that such a case is under consideration: it may well be that the 2013 rewrite will make any problem go away).

If you use the same logic as used for 'at the mark' then RRS19 starts to apply at the point the boat that is entitled to room is close to the obstruction and at a point it would normally turn to avoid it. That has to be early enough for blue that it would allow her to give room.

OK, but unlike the definition of 'mark-room', rule 19 requires both boats to be at the obstruction. I guess your wording works for that.

[bye bye]

Pretty dangerous as otherwise you'll be creating a whole class of cases where there is a clear overlap from a distance out but that the windward boat will claim that RRS19 didn't apply until it was to later for her to give room.

Could you say that both boats are at it once the condition has been satisfied for one (the boat entitled to room) ?!

I don't think this is a problem to be honest. RRS19 should overrule RRS18. Imagine if yellow had actually been a rock.

[walterbshaffer]

So let me get this straight: Green can jam themselves in there establish an overlap late inside the circle giving blue no chance to keep clear of a WTF situation and if blue fails to keep clear then blue & green can be DSQ. Just how is that not an encouragement to "barge" at the mark?

How is getting a DSQ encouraging Green to barge in there?
Blue is mostly in trouble for not giving Yellow mark-room. Since Green owes Blue mark-room also, it's doubly stupid to jam her nose in there.

FB- Doug

It's an encouragement in the sense that green might be able to "get away with one" if there is contact between blue & green since both could be dsq'd.

Blue is not mostly in trouble for not giving yellow mark room; if you look at this scenario blue would have avoided yellow but for the intervention of green.

I'm not saying that green did nothing wrong - they most certainly did and are doubly wrong as you point out. But when one boat acquires rights by taking a wrong action that is encouragement.

[Brass]

However, if a Case came out saying that a breach of rule 18 will always compel any breach of rule 19, in an attempt to prevent rule 19 interfering with mark-room, I wouldn't be surprised (not that I have any reason to expect that such a case is under consideration: it may well be that the 2013 rewrite will make any problem go away).

If you use the same logic as used for 'at the mark' then RRS19 starts to apply at the point the boat that is entitled to room is close to the obstruction and at a point it would normally turn to avoid it. That has to be early enough for blue that it would allow her to give room.

OK, but unlike the definition of 'mark-room', rule 19 requires both boats to be at the obstruction. I guess your wording works for that.

Doesn't look like the 2013 rewrite specifically addresses this problem. It removes 'at' from the definition of mark-room, so all the Calls and Q&A attempting to define 'to' and 'at' will fall away, so 'at' in rule 19 will just have it's ordinary dictionary meaning.

Pretty dangerous as otherwise you'll be creating a whole class of cases where there is a clear overlap from a distance out but that the windward boat will claim that RRS19 didn't apply until it was to later for her to give room.

Could you say that both boats are at it once the condition has been satisfied for one (the boat entitled to room) ?!

I would be comfortable to say that an outside boat is "at" an obstruction, for purposes of rule 19, when [an inside boat is at the obstruction and] it is necessary for the outside boat to take action to give the inside boat room to pass between her and the obstruction. Shouldn't rely on the inside boat having to turn, it might be that the inside boat could pass the obstruction without having to change course if the outside boat gives her room to do so.

I don't think this is a problem to be honest. RRS19 should overrule RRS18. Imagine if yellow had actually been a rock.

Surely a race committee would not be so stupid as to put a mark that close to a rock? Would they?

But that's sort of like the situation with rule 20 where a mark is a beacon at the end of a spit or reef that is an obstruction: the obstruction is not a mark that the hailed boat can fetch, so, even if the hailed boat is fetching the mark at the end of the obstruction, the inside boat is not prohibited by rule 20.3 from hailing for room to tack.

I think the problem, such as it is, really only involves an obstruction being a right of way boat, where a boat with entitlements to mark-room is suddenly confronted with a 'conflicting' obligation to swerve away from the mark to give the late insider room to pass the obstructing boat already at the mark.

It might be that the answer to the 'problem' is that, if the mark-room entitled boat has freedom to manoeuvre (windward, unobstructed, whatever) then her obligation to give inside room to pass 'coincides' with her rule 14 obligation to avoid contact, and is not greater than that obligation, so it should not cause any problem?

[bye bye]

Surely a race committee would not be so stupid as to put a mark that close to a rock? Would they?

< thinks back to summers spent doing Salcome Week >

[bye bye]

Blue2 and Yellow2 are on different courses.
Blue2 wants to go to windward of a small rock.
Yellow2 is happy to go to leeward.

When does RRS19 kick in?

Looking into it further I think that yellow will not be flicked for RRS19 until the boats are at the obstruction, effectively along side it, but that the ability to give room is judged from the points the boats became overlapped irrespective of whether they are at the mark yet. That would be (fairly) consistent with the application of overlapped in RRS18.

Attached Files

•  RRS19.png   12.46K   4 downloads

[BalticBandit]

Blue2 and Yellow2 are on different courses.
Blue2 wants to go to windward of a small rock.
Yellow2 is happy to go to leeward.

When does RRS19 kick in?

Looking into it further I think that yellow will not be flicked for RRS19 until the boats are at the obstruction, effectively along side it, but that the ability to give room is judged from the points the boats became overlapped irrespective of whether they are at the mark yet. That would be (fairly) consistent with the application of overlapped in RRS18.

First to answer your earlier question about how G violates RRS 19 WRT B...

RRS 19.1

Rule 19 applies between boats at an obstruction except when it is also a mark the boats are required to leave on the same side. However,at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not.

For the purposes of the initial example, until Y turns to luff, G after establishing an overlap is sailing in violation of RRS 18, and RRS 19 DOES NOT APPLY. And in fact G is NOT "overlapped with the obstruction" at this point.

RRS 19.2.c

While boats are passing a continuing obstruction, if a boat that was clear astern and required to keep clear becomes overlapped[/q\b] between the other boat and the obstruction and, at the moment the overlap begins, there is not room for her to passbetween them, she is not entitled to room under rule 19.2(.While the boats remain overlapped, she shall keep clear and rules 10 and 11 do not apply.

G becomes overlapped WITH THE OBSTRUCTION only when Y turns to luff. And AT THAT POINT, there no longer is room for G to pass between B and G.... which means G IS VIOLATING RRS 19.2.c


Now as to your new drawing.

20.3 reads

20.3 When Not to Hail
A boat shall not hail unless safety requires her to make a substantial course change to avoid the obstruction.

IOW since Y can safely pass to leeward of the rock without substantial course change to avoid the obstruction, B has no rights to complain UNLESS she has luffing rights on Y. In which case she can luff Y above the rock. And the only RRS 19 issue that would apply is if B begins the luff at a point when Y would have to make a substantial course change to avoid the rock - in which case [b]Y has RRS 19 rights to curtail the luff. But in your drawing B never gets RRS 19 rights

[bye bye]

You're thinking about the old rules BB

From the definition of obstruction ... "A vessel under way, including a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction". 19.2 c does not apply.

[Brass]

Pardon me for butting in on a personal discussion, but perhaps the following notes will help.

Blue2 and Yellow2 are on different courses.
Blue2 wants to go to windward of a small rock.
Yellow2 is happy to go to leeward.

When does RRS19 kick in?

See rule 19.1 quoted below by BB: rule 19 kicks in when boats are 'at' the obstruction. 'at' with meaning discussed with ricm a few posts ago, with the 'unable to give room' test applying at the moment the boats become overlapped and thereafter.

Looking into it further I think that yellow will not be flicked for RRS19 until the boats are at the obstruction, effectively along side it, but that the ability to give room is judged from the points the boats became overlapped irrespective of whether they are at the mark yet. I exactly agree. That would be (fairly) consistent with the application of overlapped in RRS18.

First to answer your earlier question about how G violates RRS 19 WRT B...

RRS 19.1

Rule 19 applies between boats at an obstruction except when it is also a mark the boats are required to leave on the same side. However,at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not.

For the purposes of the initial example, until Y turns to luff, G after establishing an overlap

is sailing in violation of RRS 18, Disagree: when she becomes overlapped G is not impeding B from sailing to the mark: she is not yet breaking rule 18 and

RRS 19 DOES NOT APPLY. 50/50 Rule 19 applies to the extent that the 'able to give room' test applies when the overlap begins; B is not yet breaking rule 19 because, 1) at this point (before Y luffs) there is room for G to pass between Y and B, and 2) neither G nor B is yet at the obstruction.

And in fact G is NOT "overlapped with the obstruction" at this point.

G never needs ot be 'overlapped' with the obstruction: being CASTN of Y, she is required to keep clear of Y and Y is an obstruction. What she needs to be is "at" the obstruction.

RRS 19.2.c

While boats are passing a continuing obstruction, if a boat that was clear astern and required to keep clear becomes overlapped[/q\b] between the other boat and the obstruction and, at the moment the overlap begins, there is not room for her to passbetween them, she is not entitled to room under rule 19.2( b ). While the boats remain overlapped, she shall keep clear and rules 10 and 11 do not apply.

Irrelevant: there is no continuing obstruction. A boat racing is never a continuing obstruction (Definition: Obstruction). The test is 'unable to give room' in rule 19.2( b ).

G becomes overlapped WITH THE OBSTRUCTION only when Y turns to luff. And AT THAT POINT, there no longer is room for G to pass between B and G.... which means G IS VIOLATING RRS 19.2.c

Overlap is not required, and overlap only coincedentally has meaning because Y is a boat racing, but I agree that when Y luffs and G gets her bow in between B and Y, then G breaks rule 18.2( b ) by not giving B mark-room to sail her proper course at the mark AND B breaks rule 19.2( b ) (not 19.2( c )) by not giving G room to pass between B and Y
Now as to your new drawing.

20.3 reads

20.3 When Not to Hail
A boat shall not hail unless safety requires her to make a substantial course change to avoid the obstruction.

Why are we talking about rule 20? Neither boat is sailing close hauled or above. There is no entitlement to make a rule 20 hail.

IOW since Y can safely pass to leeward of the rock without substantial course change to avoid the obstruction,

B has no rights to complain UNLESS she has luffing rights on Y. In which case she can luff Y above the rock.

I presume that by ' has luffing rights' you mean 'is not limited by rule 17'. Could I beg you, yet again, not to use the phrase 'luffing rights': it had a specific meaning under the pre-1995 rules that a leeward boat could 'luff as she pleases'. That rule is long gone and we would be better off without the confusing phrase

In the diagram shown, I can't see why it matters whether B is bound by rule 17 or not. How could it possibly be argued that B's proper course was not to sail to windward of the obstruction?

My simple take on the diagram (bearing in mind that I can't see any Position 2) is that B the right of way boat may choose to pass the obstruction on either side (rule 19.2(a)). If she chooses to pass it to windward she may shape a course to do so, and Y, to windward must keep clear. If she chooses to pass it to leeward, she must give Y room to do likewise under rule 19.2( b ).

MR Call Ump 10 discusses when the right of way boat needs to enact her choice.

And the only RRS 19 issue that would apply is if B begins the luff at a point when Y would have to make a substantial course change to avoid the rock - in which case [b]Y has RRS 19 rights to curtail the luff. But in your drawing B never gets RRS 19 rights

[ojfd]

Blue2 is ROW boat - RRS11, Yellow2 has to keep clear.
Blue2 can choose to go on either side of an obstruction - RRS19.2.
Whether RRS17 apply, depends on conditions prior to position 1, but even then it can be argued by Blue2 that her proper course is to go to windward of a rock.

[BalticBandit]

First to answer your earlier question about how G violates RRS 19 WRT B...

RRS 19.1

Rule 19 applies between boats at an obstruction except when it is also a mark the boats are required to leave on the same side. However,at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not.

For the purposes of the initial example, until Y turns to luff, G after establishing an overlap

is sailing in violation of RRS 18, Disagree: when she becomes overlapped G is not impeding B from sailing to the mark: she is not yet breaking rule 18 and

I disagree. G is on a course to sail to the inside of B, and B as Windward boat is being forced to keep clear of G and thus is havnng to sail a higher course than necessary.

G never needs ot be 'overlapped' with the obstruction: being CASTN of Y, she is required to keep clear of Y and Y is an obstruction. What she needs to be is "at" the obstruction.

Sure it does. Because if she isn't overlapped with Y, then is not an obstruction but rather a boat G has to give mark room to as is B. Essentially in this case both Y ang B are "obstructions" to G from the moment they enter The Zone.

Shame on me for missing the Continuuing Obstruction bit. I know better but was careless. Good catch guys.


Now as to your new drawing.

20.3 reads

20.3 When Not to Hail
A boat shall not hail unless safety requires her to make a substantial course change to avoid the obstruction.

Why are we talking about rule 20? Neither boat is sailing close hauled or above. There is no entitlement to make a rule 20 hail.

Sorry since we had been talking about upwind marks I got stuck in my head on that.

IOW since Y can safely pass to leeward of the rock without substantial course change to avoid the obstruction,

B has no rights to complain UNLESS she has luffing rights on Y. In which case she can luff Y above the rock.

I presume that by ' has luffing rights' you mean 'is not limited by rule 17'. Could I beg you, yet again, not to use the phrase 'luffing rights': it had a specific meaning under the pre-1995 rules that a leeward boat could 'luff as she pleases'. That rule is long gone and we would be better off without the confusing phrase

In the diagram shown, I can't see why it matters whether B is bound by rule 17 or not. How could it possibly be argued that B's proper course was not to sail to windward of the obstruction?

My simple take on the diagram (bearing in mind that I can't see any Position 2) is that B the right of way boat may choose to pass the obstruction on either side (rule 19.2(a)). If she chooses to pass it to windward she may shape a course to do so, and Y, to windward must keep clear. If she chooses to pass it to leeward, she must give Y room to do likewise under rule 19.2( b ).

MR Call Ump 10 discusses when the right of way boat needs to enact her choice.

And the only RRS 19 issue that would apply is if B begins the luff at a point when Y would have to make a substantial course change to avoid the rock - in which case [b]Y has RRS 19 rights to curtail the luff. But in your drawing B never gets RRS 19 rights

Fair enough on RRS 17 vs. Luffing rights.

Good point on the issue of the 'proper course' being dictated by B not Y.... THINK BB... THINK!!!

[Brass]

First to answer your earlier question about how G violates RRS 19 WRT B...

RRS 19.1

Rule 19 applies between boats at an obstruction except when it is also a mark the boats are required to leave on the same side. However,at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not.

For the purposes of the initial example, until Y turns to luff, G after establishing an overlap

is sailing in violation of RRS 18, Disagree: when she becomes overlapped G is not impeding B from sailing to the mark: she is not yet breaking rule 18 and

I disagree. G is on a course to sail to the inside of B, and B as Windward boat is being forced to keep clear of G and thus is havnng to sail a higher course than necessary.

C'mon, have another look at the diagram: when G becomes overlepped to leeward of G, she's the best part of a boat length away. B, at that time, has ample room to change course in any direction, including to bear away if B thinks that to do so is to sail a more direct course to the mark.

Rule 18 does not prohibit a boat from making a late inside overlap: it just says what can happen after that.

Just because a boat taking a late inside overlap will eventually or inevitably deprive the outside boat of mark-room, doesn't mean that she breaks rule 18 at the instant she becomes overlapped.

[Brass]

G never needs ot be 'overlapped' with the obstruction: being CASTN of Y, she is required to keep clear of Y and Y is an obstruction. What she needs to be is "at" the obstruction.

Sure it does. Because if she isn't overlapped with Y, then is not an obstruction but rather a boat G has to give mark room to as is B. Essentially in this case both Y ang B are "obstructions" to G from the moment they enter The Zone.

There is nothing in rule 19 about a boat or boats being 'overlapped' with an obstruction. The requirement in rule 19.1 for the rule to apply is that 'boats [are] at an obstruction'

You seem to be using 'overlapped' in a colloquial rather than a definitional sense with a meaning something like 'when a line abeam from the forwardmost point of a boat intersects the obstruction' (sort of the corollary of the definition of clear astern).

If G isn't overlapped with Y, in the RRS definitional sense, then Y is not only a boat entitled to mark-room, but she is Clear Ahead of G, has right of way, and is an obstruction according to the definition. If G becomes overlapped to windward of Y, Y continues to have right of way and be an obstruction.

Only if G became overlapped to leeward of Y, and thus acquired right of way, would Y not be an obstruction to G.

B is an obstruction to G only while she is clear ahead of G and the right of way boat. Once G becomes overlapped to leeward of G, B ceases to be the right of way boat and ceases to be an obstruction.

Definition: obstruction ' ... a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required tokeep clear of her ...'

[bye bye]

(mark-room includes the room to give mark-room to boats you owe mark-room too)