205 replies to this topic

[Estar]

There are three theoretical scenarios after :59. #1 S was overlapped and never broke it, #2 S broke the overlap but F re-established it by driving in (hitting S on the quarter), and #3 S broke the overlap and F never reestablished it and hit S clear on the transom.

We now know the two boats agreed on the facts. We can safely guess that they both thought those facts put them in the right, and that a 'rules judgement call' needed to be made. So, that means #1 was not the scenario because in it S is clearly wrong (windward overlapped boat not keeping clear).

I agree we could simply determine between #2 & #3 by looking at the point of impact - on the quarter = #2 and on the transom = #3. My strong guess from the video is #3 but agree it's not absolutely certain.

#2 & #3 both depend on a rule 15 judgement.

With #2 the question would be did F give S room to keep clear after it re-established the overlap? The consensus here on this is no, and I agree. In this scenario, S could not turn up (because it would sweep their transom into F's bow) and they could not turn down (because they would then be hit broadside), so they were not given room.

With #3 (my preferred scenario) the question would be did S give F room to keep clear after it went clear ahead and broke the overlap? We have not really discussed this yet. My sense would be yes, because F could turn to windward immediately and be clear (at anytime).

>>when the protest committee asked each witness 'What did you do to avoid contact?'<<

F yelled "up up" and S 'generously' gave F room to sail above them. Honestly near the end I think both helms thought they were trapped and that the other boat was the only one who could do anything.

[WHL]

....snip......

>>when the protest committee asked each witness 'What did you do to avoid contact?'<<

F yelled "up up" and S 'generously' gave F room to sail above them. Honestly near the end I think both helms thought they were trapped and that the other boat was the only one who could do anything.

LOL

I agree that seconds before impact, they felt trapped...it would be interesting to hear from S why he turned down in the last few seconds. Was it to avoid being over early? or did he think he could escape across F's bow, hoping F might turn up to narrowly avoid them? Or a combination of both.

Likewise from F, do they think they should have had a bow person? Given that 3 minds were working opposed to each other at the back of the boat, I'm not sure that asking any question of intention in terms of their course, would yield much.

[AndreasE_NO]

The real question is why wasn't your bowman up on the bow calling the overlap & telling you if you could swing or not...

He was busy supporting the backstay

[alymatt]

As an interested skipper in this thread - and someone whom lost a protest similar to this scenerio, I can only assume the following was found.......

1. S tacked roughly 3 boat lengths ahead to windward of F approximately 1 minute prior to the start of the race.

2. S sailed, after completing her tack to starboard, 30 or so degress from a close hauled course while F was sailing close hauled. As S sailed off the wind an overlap was established almost immediately based on her current sailing angle. This overlap placed S as the give way boat.

3. S hardened up and broke the overlap to F with F being less than a boat length behind S at this point. Now F was the give way boat but based on the findings of the Protest Committee, they feel S didn't give F enough time to stay clear, thus exonerating F for hitting S and tossing out S.

After watching the video, F's helmsman should not get too close to other boats in the starting area! He was reactionary at best, he didn't anticipate what was obvious and placed his boat and crew in a dangerous position. Too many people on the boat were just watching what happened and not sailing the boat - and certainly not helping to avoid a bad situation.

We also are missing one very important fact - did either boat do any turns on the course to exonerate themselves of this clusterfcuk? If not - I would have chucked them both!

[Presuming Ed]

:03 is not much time, but F could have luffed or turned immediately to windward at any time in the sequence.

Promptly is not immediately. In umpired races, 2 or 3 seconds the sort of reaction time given under 15/16.1 before a give way boat has to start to manoever to keep clear. I assume that from the moment F were calling "up", they thought that the boats were overlapped and they (F) couldn't luff without making contact.

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

[Presuming Ed]

We also are missing one very important fact - did either boat do any turns on the course to exonerate themselves of this clusterfcuk? If not - I would have chucked them both!

As both boats went ahead with the protest, it looks like they both thought they were in the right, and it all boiled down to a difference of opinion. Which is why we have the protest system. Nothing wrong with neither boat doing turns.

"We should all protest a lot more, and take the results less seriously when we do".

[Presuming Ed]

...But that glimpse of S's stern doesn't demonstrate anything definitive about whether boats are overlapped or not. Subject to reservations about depth perception in photographic evidence,...

Absolutely

But whether contact was 'On' or 'near' the transom makes all the difference in the world, and is easily resolved by physical evidence on S's hull/transom.

I have a strong suspicion that F's bow hooked S's backstay.

[Estar]

:03 is not much time, but F could have luffed or turned immediately to windward at any time in the sequence.

Promptly is not immediately. In umpired races, 2 or 3 seconds the sort of reaction time given under 15/16.1 before a give way boat has to start to manoever to keep clear. I assume that from the moment F were calling "up", they thought that the boats were overlapped and they (F) couldn't luff without making contact.

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

So, do you think they F were given room to "maneuver promptly", or do you think we cannot know from this video? (Note: and if you think we simply can't know from this video, it would seem like the jury is just making a wild ass guess, since they are likely not getting any better info from the participants in the room).

I would NOT assume that F could not luff (without making contact) when they started calling "Up". The guy at the backstay even says (at one point) that they should come up.

[Presuming Ed]

I don't believe you can tell from this video the overlap timings with _any_ degree of comfort.

Doubt very much the PC is making a WAG. What happens in the room is that both boats will have presented cases (& prob been asked questions) about speed, timings and distances. If the facts from both boats agree (not that uncommon), then the facts found by the PC will reflect that.

However, hypothetically, if on the water a distance was actually 2bl, but in the room both boats agree that the distance was 3bl, then the facts found and decision made will be on 3bl. It can't be any other way - the PC weren't there.

If one boat says 1bl, and 1 boat says 5bl, well, then you've got to make a judgement. THAT's where good judges earn their pay (!!). (Incidentally, peoples' perceptions of times and distances does very hugely. When umpiring, boats' guesses about where the zone are vary wildly - and you're there to watch.)

http://www.sailing.o...012-[12282].pdf

K.18 Hearing Procedure: Finding the Facts
In almost all cases the differences of opinion are settled by the quality of the evidence. The racing rules do not give the onus of proof to one boat or the other. Port is not required to prove she kept clear of starboard. A protest committee is required to consider all the evidence, consider who was in the best position to determine what happened, determine which evidence is more credible, then decide the facts of the incident.

It is an unalterable responsibility of the protest committee to establish the “facts” that the decision will be based upon, even when the parties present widely differing testimony. If one party says the boats were one metre apart while the other says ten boat lengths, the protest committee must decide which opinion is more creditable. Varying testimony is common and does not necessarily mean that someone is lying. It may reflect different perspectives or feelings at the time of or after the incident. When all the evidence is reviewed and a distance is determined, that distance will become a “fact” the decision is based upon.

[ice9a]

I don't believe you can tell from this video the overlap timings with _any_ degree of comfort.

Fair enough

From this video, you and I agree the most likely scenario is S was hit on the transom (or backstay). In that case, I would have thought that the finding would be for S (rule 12 against F) UNLESS F provided significant evidence they did not have room to keep clear. And honestly I don't see how they could have. It seems pretty clear to me from the video (including the short view of the transom at :60) that they could have turned up anytime, but importantly anytime after :49 to the collision/backstay hooking (at 1:03 ish). I agree with you that we don't know exactly when overlap was made and broken, but also certainly no-one on F knows that either as there is no-one on the bow. S's helmsman would be the only 'respected' viewpoint on the overlap, and he certainly thought (And still thinks, since he has appealed) he was giving F room. So the jury would seem to have ruled against the best perspective on the key facts.


Doubt very much the PC is making a WAG. What happens in the room is that both boats will have presented cases (& prob been asked questions) about speed, timings and distances. If the facts from both boats agree (not that uncommon), then the facts found by the PC will reflect that.

There is now significant evidence from court cases that, despite their know problems, video is much more reliable than eye witness accounts. Eye witness accounts have proven to be astonishingly unreliable.

[epoxymoron]

If I was the jury here's what I would rule

Facts Found:

S (Shields) and F (Filmer) were near the starting line roughly 2 minutes from the start of their class
Winds were 5-7 knots no appreciable current

S was on Port
F was on Starboard and they were separated by at least 7 boatlengths

S began her tack to starboard well clear of F
S tcompleted her tack when she was at least 3 Boatlengths ahead of F

Under RRS 12 F was now required to Keep Clear of S and had ample "room" to do so.

F was now traveling about 2 knots faster than S
F began to shout "Stay up - Stay Up" - without any rights or basis to do so

Still clear ahead S bore off from her close hauled course to accellerate. F chose a course that would take him to leeward of S

With a separation of 2+ Boat lengths, a momentary overlap was established between the stern of S and the bow of F.. This transfered the Keep Dlear obligation onto S and under section 2 of RRS 15, there was no "initial" room period. F again hailed (correctly this time) "Stay Up Leeward Boat"

S immediately responded by turning to a closer hauld course thereby braking the overlap with 2 BL of separation between her stern and F's Bow

This re-established RRS 12, and thus F was required to Keep Clear. RRS 15 ddid require S to give F "room" to keep clear. As there were 2 BL separating S and F S complied with RRS 15

F continued to carry her speed and to sail a course to leeward of S continuing to hail "Stay Up" but with no force of the rules.

At approximately 30 seconds to the start, F overlapped S from clear astern. wiith approximately 2' laterally between S's stern and F's bow. F was moving at approximately 3 knots and S at approximately 2 knots. Contact occurred between F's Starboard Bow and S's port quarter approximately 3 seconds afterwards spinning S completely 180deg and to leeward of F.

F at no point made any attempt to sail further to leeward of S nor to sail to weather of S, nor to slow down.


Rules that apply at the time of Contact
RRS 11 requires S as windward to Keep Clear of F
RRS 15 requires that when F established overlap with S that F "initially give S Room to keep clear"

Room is defined as the distance and time required to maneuver in a seamanlike manner to keep clear.

CONCLUSIONS

3' and 3 seconds is not sufficient ROOM for windward boat to "keep clear" after a boat "clear astern" establishes overlap

DSQ F for violation of RRS 15 and RRS 14


As for whether F had "room" to sail further below S. The Appeals case (I think its 72 but I don't have time to look that up right now) states that if a boat does not have room to sail between another boat and an obstruction (a boat to leeward of both S and F would countt as an obstcution) before establishing overlap, then that boat is not entitled to Overlap. So if F claims they themselves lacked room to sail below S sufficiently, then they are in violation of RRS 12 since they had no right to establish overlap.


DSQ F.

Reinstate S and this committee is open to hearing a redress petition from S for having been spun 180 degress.

+1 absolutely!

Are we agreed the camera is on the Screamers boat? We use one that attaches to the stern pulpit from time to time. The camera angle never changes so it's not being filmed from a third boat. The screamer does ask someone to go down to his port, but it's not the boat filming.

This is a fairly common situation on beer can M&J racing with inexperienced racers. I think the Shields came down after the tack to protect his position approaching the line - they didn't want to get caught windward of the screamer and get forced off the line at the boat end. This is exactly what the screamer was trying to avoid - he knew if he went windward of the Shields he would be luffed off the line, so he tried to fit into a space that didn't really exist or that at least would not give him any advantage. Actually, I don't think the screamer or his crew were thinking ahead strategically like that - they just didn't want to accept or even realize the fact that they had no rights when they started screaming UP UP!! We've all been caught in that wrong spot once or twice. If I was the Shields I would have not turned back up when they started hailing (unless to avoid an immanent collision) and protected my position on the line. I would try to force the screamer to establish his overlap to windward, by giving him no other reasonable option, and run him off the line if I could when (and if) he could roll me as we approached. The screamer should have luffed up and gone to windward of the Shields and either slowed down a bit and not get pinched off the line or just rolled the slower moving Shields and end up the windward boat on the line. I wonder why the third boat to leeward of the screamer wasn't involved in the protest hearing at least as a witness.

If I were the Shields the screamer woulda got bitch slapped back at the club for being a stupid SOB.

[Pomme De Terre]

So, I've watched this a dozen times and continue to come to the same conclusion. I also spent all of last season filming with my GoPro mounted in the same location. So, I know just how distorted the image is due to the wide angle lense. Here's what I see, both in terms of rules and starting tactics:

S(shields) make a nearly 180 degree tack in front of F(filmer) and L(leeward). They are clear ahead, starboard tack, but have little speed.
One minute from start (horn) at the boat end of the line.
S attempts to sail down and cross F and L but in doing so creates an overlap.
F can not sail down as L has an overlap with F
S then heads up, breaking the overlap, but once again has very little speed.
F becomes overlapped with S (based on difference in speed and not GoPro perspective)
F has right of way over S and L has right of way over F and S when the collision occurs (simple vectors would indicate that F hooked S to leeward and not on the transome).
S should have been tossed (was) for W/L AND F should have been tossed for failure to avoid the collision (this is where I disagree with the committee).

Now, what should/could have happened:

S completes tack and sails head to wind. S would have had right of way over both L and F. Both would have either sailed right past S to leeward or L would have pushed F above S. Either way, S would have been in good position and in control with one minute to start.

F, seeing that they were going to be pushed up by L anyway, could have used S as a blocker. By coming up hard, F would have rolled right past S to windward and would have been able to break the overlap with L.

So, both F and S failed to take advantage of the situation and only L came out OK.

Though they were not called for it, F should have gone down to avoid the collision with S. L would have protested F and F would have protested S. The result would have been the same except for the collision. Based on the fact that S was not immediatly spun into L, there should have been room and time for F to avoid S.

[jackdaw]

Are we agreed the camera is on the Screamers boat? We use one that attaches to the stern pulpit from time to time. The camera angle never changes so it's not being filmed from a third boat. The screamer does ask someone to go down to his port, but it's not the boat filming.

I can confirm that the GoPro is transom mounted on the 'screamers' boat. We used to do this, but it does not capture nearly as much as we'd like in front of the boat. So we moved our GoPro to 1/2 way up our radar mast, where the images are much more useful.



Someone also asked about a leeward boat. Yes there was one, and they were available as a witness. But because the two parties agreed on the facts, there was no need to interject a 3rd party.

[Presuming Ed]

There is now significant evidence from court cases that, despite their know problems, video is much more reliable than eye witness accounts. Eye witness accounts have proven to be astonishingly unreliable.

Yes, but I do wonder how much research has been done on the difference between people looking at an event which is a shock and surprise to them, and not expected (like seeing an accident) and an event that they're watching and understanding. It's why making some quick notes immediately after an incident is a good idea as an aide-mémoire. it's also why assessing the quality of the evidence given in a hearing is one of the more important jobs of the PC.

Nothing is as good as a perfectly placed observer or video. As I said, when umpiring match racing, the umpires are following the two boats, but they use the wing umpire - which positions itself abeam the gap - to give details on the overlap situation.

[jackdaw]

Nothing is as good as a perfectly placed observer or video. As I said, when umpiring match racing, the umpires are following the two boats, but they use the wing umpire - which positions itself abeam the gap - to give details on the overlap situation.

I can't image how the filming boat had any idea of overlap, with no one on the bow, and the tiny curved transom of the Shields.

[xyzzy]

0:48, after S luffs and F stops yelling "Hey Hey Hey Up Up" and bearing away, F turns the wheel to starboard and starts heading up. You can see a white tape mark on the one of the spokes go past at 0:48. He's go the wheel turned about two spokes to windward after this.

0:51 Orange Shirt points to leeward and says, "That guy's going to take us up."
0:52-0:53 Much yelling of "Up". F's driver is turning down. Looks like he gets to about three spokes to leeward.
0:53 Someone says "hold you course." I think it's the Green Guy on F who is doing jib trim.
0:54 Another boat yells "Clear Astern", probably S.
0:55 Backstay Guy says, "Go Up" and grabs the wheel.
0:57 F turns to windward, tape mark passes center and he gets about 3 spokes past.
0:57-0:58 Helm on F says, "I'm going to hit that boat if I do."
0:58 Helm on F points to leeward and yells, "Go down please."
0:59 Someone says "We got a boat", can't tell who, it kind of sounds like a teenager we can't see. I'll call him Beavis. Mainsheet guy in the pit points to leeward. Orange Shirt stands up and points at the shields.
1:00 Everyone is in frozen. You can see L above Green Shirts head. It looks like L is sailing a lot higher than F.
1:01 There is a thunk as F hits S. You can see the camera shudder and F briefly bounces to leeward. You can also see S's mast tilt to windward.
1:03 Beavis says, "Opps." Then giggles.
1:03-1:07 S swings around and the hits F.
1:10 Beavis launghs.

One thing to consider is that if S was clear ahead at 0:54, then she is an obstruction to both F and L. As outside boat L owes F room to pass to leeward if L is going to pass to leeward, which she clearly does. As soon as F gains leeward overlap then S is no longer an obstruction and the room L owes F under R19 disappears.

[Aloha 27]

You know, there's a real good chance that F hit the backstay on S which would explain the relative lack of "crunch" during the first contact at 1:01.

[ice9a]

Someone also asked about a leeward boat. Yes there was one, and they were available as a witness. But because the two parties agreed on the facts, there was no need to interject a 3rd party.

Now that you have got us all stirred up on this . . . it would be REALLY nice to know what facts the two boats agreed on. I presume it's public - any way you can post - pretty please?

[ocs]

You know, there's a real good chance that F hit the backstay on S which would explain the relative lack of "crunch" during the first contact at 1:01.

interesting point would explain the big bang at 1.08 which I had trouble perceiving the magnitude unless the boats were apart previously. Hooking the backstay whilst turning across the stern means an overlap existed, whilst hooking whilst getting shunted is clear ahead. Would not leave a contact mark which makes it hard to guage the point of initial contact which is all important here! The PC "facts found" should be available to the protestees.

[Steam Flyer]

So, I've watched this a dozen times and continue to come to the same conclusion. I also spent all of last season filming with my GoPro mounted in the same location. So, I know just how distorted the image is due to the wide angle lense. Here's what I see, both in terms of rules and starting tactics:

S(shields) make a nearly 180 degree tack in front of F(filmer) and L(leeward). They are clear ahead, starboard tack, but have little speed.
One minute from start (horn) at the boat end of the line.
S attempts to sail down and cross F and L but in doing so creates an overlap.

Steam Flyer: How can you see this in the video with enough precision to make a determination?

F can not sail down as L has an overlap with F
S then heads up, breaking the overlap, but once again has very little speed.


Steam Flyer: Sorry but this defies the laws of physics, especially with a Shields. They simply do not accelerate and decelerate so quickly.

F becomes overlapped with S (based on difference in speed and not GoPro perspective)


Steam Flyer: And F is obligated to provide initial room for S to keep clear... it is obvious that there is at most only a couple of feet seperation laterally.

F has right of way over S and L has right of way over F and S when the collision occurs (simple vectors would indicate that F hooked S to leeward and not on the transome).
S should have been tossed (was) for W/L AND F should have been tossed for failure to avoid the collision (this is where I disagree with the committee).

.... ....

Disagree for the reasons stated above. It simply could not have happened this. It's a sore point with me because I have had to deal several times with Protest Committees wanting to "find facts" which could only have occured if boats could teleport sideways, accelerate or decelerate instantly, turn 90deg on a dime, etc etc etc.

It is the obligation of a Protest Committee to make as close a determination as possible -what actually happened- and this may be irrelevant to coincidence that both boats agree, if they both agree on something which is impossible.

FB- Doug

[BalticBandit]

F becomes overlapped with S (based on difference in speed and not GoPro perspective)


Steam Flyer: And F is obligated to provide initial room for S to keep clear... it is obvious that there is at most only a couple of feet seperation laterally.

F has right of way over S and L has right of way over F and S when the collision occurs (simple vectors would indicate that F hooked S to leeward and not on the transome).

and this is where PDT goes off the rails. F DOES NOT HAVE RoW over S because F is Establishing the overlap from Clear Astern and under RRS 15 MUST - absolutely MUST give S "room to keep clear"

And from the time of overlap to the time of contact is too short for S to "keep clear"
And from the Distance that F gives S THERE IS NO ROOM FOR S TO TURN

F should be DSQ'ed for RRS 15 and RRS 14

[Raked aft \\]

F becomes overlapped with S (based on difference in speed and not GoPro perspective)


Steam Flyer: And F is obligated to provide initial room for S to keep clear... it is obvious that there is at most only a couple of feet seperation laterally.

F has right of way over S and L has right of way over F and S when the collision occurs (simple vectors would indicate that F hooked S to leeward and not on the transome).

and this is where PDT goes off the rails. F DOES NOT HAVE RoW over S because F is Establishing the overlap from Clear Astern and under RRS 15 MUST - absolutely MUST give S "room to keep clear"

And from the time of overlap to the time of contact is too short for S to "keep clear"
And from the Distance that F gives S THERE IS NO ROOM FOR S TO TURN

F should be DSQ'ed for RRS 15 and RRS 14

Amen BB! I have no fucking clue why this thread is this long. Do you screamer wonks KNOW THE RULES?? Re-read 15 and try to understand you cant run a boat over from behind!! This is clear and dry R15! And Screamer/Filmer broke it. The next post in this thread should be the news that the AC reversed the local morons decision. Then this thread should be put out of its misery!

[stickboy]

At :49/:50 someone on F says L "is going to take us up". At :54 I hear someone - I assume S - hail 'Clear Astern'. I would tend to believe this as S appears to come up at that moment to show F her transom. At this point F is already restricted from going down by L and is overtaking S if the 'Clear Astern' call is accurate. In my opinion, at this moment F's only legal move is to go above S but instead F goes down and hooks S, simultaneously not leaving S room to keep clear and failing to keep clear of L.

The questionable part is, when S came up, broke the overlap and hailed clear astern, did she leave F room to keep clear or was F already trapped. Also, I'm not sure F should be required to anticipate S's luff that broke the overlap. Until that moment it appears F was overlapped with S and didn't have the option to come up.

S had many opportunities to prevent this incident but instead used the rules as a sword.

[BalticBandit]

S had many opportunities to prevent this incident but instead used the rules as a sword.

F had at least as many opportunities to avoid this - everything from slowing down to going above S from the Start... And instead F used tonnage and a willingness to hit another boat as a sword..Frankly I see nothing wrong with S using the rules to defend the advantaged position they sailed into 1 minute from the start.....it was skill to get there and they should have ZERO obligation to give that up to someone with less skill and less honor

[Beau.Vrolyk]

Jackdaw, don't folks at the club publish the protests? Can't we find out what the PC did? Then, I'm with others, this thread has run it's course.

BTW, it is pretty hard to hook the back stay on a Shields as a lot of the transom, about 10", is aft of the back stay mount point and the stay tends forward much more than a modern design. You can find a nice drawing of the rig here: http://www.shieldsclass.com/. It's possible but very very unlikely with the profile of the bow on a more modern boat like Screamer's.

[jackdaw]

I just emailed the owner of the Shields.... lets see what happens.

[stickboy]

S had many opportunities to prevent this incident but instead used the rules as a sword.

Frankly I see nothing wrong with S using the rules to defend the advantaged position they sailed into 1 minute from the start.....it was skill to get there and they should have ZERO obligation to give that up to someone with less skill and less honor

That's pretty much what I would consider the definition of using the rules as a sword.

You're right, S got perfectly into position under the rules. But in doing so left a much bigger faster boat a window of about 2.5 seconds to avoid a collision. I consider this legal under the rules but incredibly unsafe and S is fortunate to come out of it floating. If F was a little further to the right they might have run right over S, a little further to the left and the spin might have put S's beam right under F's bow for a t-bone.

Yes. S had the right of way and had every right to exert it. And also could have lost their boat doing it. Safety first.

[redmond]

The fact remains that S rammed the boat they were overtaking without giving that boat any opportunity to stay clear. The suggestion that we should have to start assuming that the skippers of other boats do not understand the rules and will not take reasonable action to avoid collissions, is ludricous and it would be time to find something else to do. We do not know what facts the PC were presented with but this video was obviously distributed by S still believing that they were somehow in the right. By now, they must regret that decision and should have erased it at first opportunity.

[WHL]

The fact remains that S rammed the boat they were overtaking without giving that boat any opportunity to stay clear. The suggestion that we should have to start assuming that the skippers of other boats do not understand the rules and will not take reasonable action to avoid collissions, is ludricous and it would be time to find something else to do. We do not know what facts the PC were presented with but this video was obviously distributed by S still believing that they were somehow in the right. By now, they must regret that decision and should have erased it at first opportunity.

I think you have the "S"'s the wrong way round. S is the Shields that was ahead and being overtaken by F (Filming) or otherwise known as Screamer,

[redmond]

I stand corrected. F was obviously the guilty party no matter how closely you disect the video by any sequends expressed in seconds.

[JohnMB]

S had many opportunities to prevent this incident but instead used the rules as a sword.

Frankly I see nothing wrong with S using the rules to defend the advantaged position they sailed into 1 minute from the start.....it was skill to get there and they should have ZERO obligation to give that up to someone with less skill and less honor

That's pretty much what I would consider the definition of using the rules as a sword.

You're right, S got perfectly into position under the rules. But in doing so left a much bigger faster boat a window of about 2.5 seconds to avoid a collision. I consider this legal under the rules but incredibly unsafe and S is fortunate to come out of it floating. If F was a little further to the right they might have run right over S, a little further to the left and the spin might have put S's beam right under F's bow for a t-bone.

Yes. S had the right of way and had every right to exert it. And also could have lost their boat doing it. Safety first.

The point is that IF it was unsafe, THEN it was not within the rules.
Most commentators here feel that F has time to easily avoid S and made poor choices leading to the collision.
You clearly feel that S did not.... in which case you should say that S broke R16 or R15....

The rules are written to prevent a boat exerting right of way at the expense of safety.... that is what R15, R16, R19, R18 and R20 are all about, they are rules which say here are situations where you cannot exert your right of way because if you do you will create an unsafe situation.

What most people mean when the say 'using rules as a sword' is that a boat is using the rules to screw another boat instead of using them to gain the best advantage for themselves.
That is not what the shields did.... they tacked into a position which gave them an advantage at the start, and then tried to defend their lane. This is standard practice in any one design fleet. It maybe was not the best plan in a handicap fleet, but it is possible that the shields expected the boats around them to understand their options better and respond in a different way.

[ocs]

The key to a good start is to hit the line with speed and space to leeward at the favoured end and this allows you to follow your race plan. Tacking early with multiple boats approaching from astern, particularly faster and larger ones means you will run out of space and time pretty quickly. Even if you keep your nose clean from a rule point of view it is unlikely to help you get away well.
A lot of larger OD fleets do tend to rack up early but the boat that sets up ahead of the pack usually ends up in trouble.

[JohnMB]

The key to a good start is to hit the line with speed and space to leeward at the favoured end and this allows you to follow your race plan. Tacking early with multiple boats approaching from astern, particularly faster and larger ones means you will run out of space and time pretty quickly. Even if you keep your nose clean from a rule point of view it is unlikely to help you get away well.
A lot of larger OD fleets do tend to rack up early but the boat that sets up ahead of the pack usually ends up in trouble.

Very true
I was probably being a little loose with my language
what I was trying to say is that tacking into a lane, and protecting it behavior I would consider reasonable and normal in most one design fleets, and would not constitute 'using the rules as a sword'
how well this is executed in terms of timing and positioning is somewhat variable,

[Dog Watch]

At 00:53 Shields broke rule 16.1

There! Case closed.

Nothing to see. Move along.

DW

[JohnMB]

At 00:53 Shields broke rule 16.1

There! Case closed.

Nothing to see. Move along.

DW

DW if you want someone to argue with just say so
writing a dissenting conclusion and finishing with 'nothing to see. move along' sounds like a cry for help from someone who cant afford the proper fee for an argument with a professional

[Dog Watch]

At 00:53 Shields broke rule 16.1

There! Case closed.

Nothing to see. Move along.

DW

DW if you want someone to argue with just say so
writing a dissenting conclusion and finishing with 'nothing to see. move along' sounds like a cry for help from someone who cant afford the proper fee for an argument with a professional :)/>

JMB,

You're right. Although, more was putting it out to see if anyone agrees.

People slammed F for this, yet what I see is is helm never stopping moving to keep his bow clear of S. I have no doubt he was genuinely trying to avoid S.

At about 00:53 Shields puts her bow down.

Backstay-man grabs the helm and shouts, "Go up!" The driver of F says, "I can't, I'll hit that boat!" The boat referredto is S .

F clearly felt he could not get above S safely. (Case 50)

What kind of boat is F. If a full keel or even half keel with a tiny rudder, she would have difficulty turning at that speed. Certainlyfor all her wheel mmovements the boat didn't seem to be light and responsive.

So I afford the driver of F two important conclusions.

1. That he genuinely was interested in avoiding all collusion, and steered his boat to do so.

2. That he knew the handling properties of his boat better than all, and had (shouted) his reasonable apprehension of collision if he'd tried to go up.

People slammed F for not having a bowman. Ok, usual (best practice) is to do so, particularly from the rules point of view. . However, 'avoiding contact can take many forms., including' hailing'. (Case?)

The hails from F were totally consistent with a boat taking steps to 'avoid contact'.

In the end, F calls L down. A last resort? When collision is inevitable, he goes hard to starboard in hope of missing, but it's too late.

JohnMB, often people are quick to jump on the burdened boat, forgetting the limitations of the right of way boat. I think that has happened here.

When S went bow down at 00:53 she put F into a position which F's driver felt he could not safely get out of.

For those who say F should have luffed above then, remember F does not have to at that point. There was space to leeward of S and rule 19 entitles her to it. She does not have to anticipate that boats will break a rule.

Also it is possible that L broke 16.1 as well.

DW

[xyzzy]

At :49/:50 someone on F says L "is going to take us up". At :54 I hear someone - I assume S - hail 'Clear Astern'. I would tend to believe this as S appears to come up at that moment to show F her transom. At this point F is already restricted from going down by L and is overtaking S if the 'Clear Astern' call is accurate. In my opinion, at this moment F's only legal move is to go above S but instead F goes down and hooks S, simultaneously not leaving S room to keep clear and failing to keep clear of L.

The questionable part is, when S came up, broke the overlap and hailed clear astern, did she leave F room to keep clear or was F already trapped. Also, I'm not sure F should be required to anticipate S's luff that broke the overlap. Until that moment it appears F was overlapped with S and didn't have the option to come up.

Originally I agreed with most here that F didn't avoid S when S was ahead and F could have done so. But after watching the video a bunch and making a timeline of what the boats, counting spokes on F's wheel, noting when S moves the tiller, etc. I'm inclined to think this was S's foul under R15, or L's foul under R16.1.

Here's what I see.

S tacks clear ahead, but not my much. It looks farther than it really is, as judged by the boat speeds and how long it takes them to collide.
S bears away, into F. F yells and bears away to avoid.
S luffs back to her previous course, F stops bearing away and comes up some to parallel S.
S almost immediately bears away again, giving F ROW under R11. F yells again and comes down to avoid, briefly (maybe S breaks R11 here), but then stops because L is now taking them up.
F heads up to avoid L. S is windward boat here and needed to keep clear of F.
S luffs again and yells clear astern. If she was in fact clear astern, then here she breaks R15.
F continues to luff hard to avoid L, hits S.
From the sound of the collision, and the way both boats bounce, I think contact was to the side of S on the port quarter.

We can't see L so maybe they broke R16.1. If L luffed hard, F promptly (not immediately, promptly) took action by heading up, and hit S while doing so, then L didn't give F room to keep clear in a seamanlike manner. But maybe L was on the same course the whole time.

Lots of people say F had all the time in the world to go up over S. But if you look at F's helm and compare to a timeline of S's turns, it doesn't seem the way. If anything, F was already heading up to avoid L when S gained ROW.

[WHL]

DW and XYZZY I don't see it that way. What I see is F the Screamer calling UP with NO OVERLAP when in fact, it is they that should have gone up right then when they had an opportunity to avoid a boat that was clear ahead. Yes the Shields turned down and perhaps earned a penalty for giving away an overlap they couldn't turn up from, but F should be tossed for making all the wrong moves to avoid a collision when they could see it coming. The knew they were also being luffed, they knew they had faster boat speed and did nothing about that, and the helmsman did nothing to follow the advice given him by his helm coach Mr. Backstay who tried to stop the helmsman going down and in fact told him to go up at about the time all the hollering started.

F deserves a DSQ under R14.

I'd still like to hear from S re: the overlap and why they turned down to give away the overlap, and when in that video, they broke the overlap again before being hit. I'd also like to know how far in front they were when they completed their tack so we can factor that into what we see on the video from then on.

[stickboy]

S had many opportunities to prevent this incident but instead used the rules as a sword.

Frankly I see nothing wrong with S using the rules to defend the advantaged position they sailed into 1 minute from the start.....it was skill to get there and they should have ZERO obligation to give that up to someone with less skill and less honor

That's pretty much what I would consider the definition of using the rules as a sword.

You're right, S got perfectly into position under the rules. But in doing so left a much bigger faster boat a window of about 2.5 seconds to avoid a collision. I consider this legal under the rules but incredibly unsafe and S is fortunate to come out of it floating. If F was a little further to the right they might have run right over S, a little further to the left and the spin might have put S's beam right under F's bow for a t-bone.

Yes. S had the right of way and had every right to exert it. And also could have lost their boat doing it. Safety first.

That is not what the shields did.... they tacked into a position which gave them an advantage at the start, and then tried to defend their lane. This is standard practice in any one design fleet. It maybe was not the best plan in a handicap fleet, but it is possible that the shields expected the boats around them to understand their options better and respond in a different way.

I'm pretty sure my point is being missed.

I agree that F possibly/probably had 2-3 seconds that they could have escaped by going up and over S.

My point is that S used tactics appropriate in one design but dangerous in a mixed fleet. YES, S WAS PROBABLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS. But they put themselve in a very precarious position and paid a dear price for it.

I sense that most of the folks arguing that S did nothing wrong are one design racers and probably on boats smaller than F. Spend some time at the helm of a 40,000lb boat with an undersized rudder and see how you feel about boats tacking under your pulpit that are 'clear ahead'

If you pull out onto a 55MPH road and get fully out and straight you have the right of way over the car behind you. I just hope for your sake the car behind you isn't a Peterbuilt going 55MPH 2 feet behind you. If there is, hopefully you live to sue the Peterbuilt, after all, you had the right of way.

[xyzzy]

I only see F yelling up when S has born away and given F leeward overlap, in which case they do have all the right to yell up. I guess you think when S bears away she's still far enough ahead to not be overlapped?

Also, go to youtube, watch in 1080 fullscreen and 0.25 speed and just watch the wheel. When Mr Backstay says go up the wheel is turned hard to starboard and they do go up. All the time he's saying he can't go up and please go down, he's turning to starboard to try to avoid but doesn't. It's barely a second between S yells "clear astern" and when F heads up to try to go over him.

[Dog Watch]

WHL, (et Al.)

The problem in all of this is that we don't know where L is.

Maybe when F chose to go down, L was not an issue. L may have had her own bow down, to gain speed. Or L may have been on port tack just rolling into a tack tight to leeward. So F is entitled to duck S. Once committed to leeward, if L changes course (remember Screamer exclaims that L will "take us up" suggesting some late move by L) than L breaks Rule 16.1.

L is the missing link. So aren't we spending all this time when the SA verdict should actually be:

Not Enough Evidence!

All this discussion about changes of ROW due to S' erratic and unpredictable helming becomes rather moot to me, if you accept that initially F was entitled to hold her bow to leeward of S.

It interests me that no one had noted how S stopped HTW in her tack behind F's jib. Her reason for bearing away was probably just to get moving again, rather than protect her lane using the rules as a sword. In fact I think F was on for an awesome start.
DW

[Steam Flyer]

....
often people are quick to jump on the burdened boat, forgetting the limitations of the right of way boat. I think that has happened here.

...
Also it is possible that L broke 16.1 as well.

So in othe words, you feel it's OK for a give-way boat to drive between two boats which BOTH have R-O-W over her (or, if she acquired R-O-W over the windward one, it was so close as to not give any possible room) and ram another boat when she could easily have avoided a collision?

Where exactly is this embodied in the rules? I kind of had the impression that give-way boats were supposed to avoid colliding with R-O-W boats.

FB- Doug

[WHL]

DW, you can see where L and how close they came. Mr Backstay telling the helmsman to go up is some indication too.
I also don't see S head to wind. Admiitedly she didn't trim in after tacking, and neither is she required to. She was already past a close hauled course.

[Dog Watch]

....
often people are quick to jump on the burdened boat, forgetting the limitations of the right of way boat. I think that has happened here.

...
Also it is possible that L broke 16.1 as well.

So in othe words, you feel it's OK for a give-way boat to drive between two boats which BOTH have R-O-W over her (or, if she acquired R-O-W over the windward one, it was so close as to not give any possible room) and ram another boat when she could easily have avoided a collision?

Where exactly is this embodied in the rules? I kind of had the impression that give-way boats were supposed to avoid colliding with R-O-W boats.

FB- Doug

Doug!

Don't put words into my mouth, and read my last post about lack of evidence. Do you know where L was at the time F may have been able to luff above?

19.2b is well understood defining when a boat can steer between to others.

16.1 is equally understood.

If F had got her nose in there legally, then the simple fact is, she was sandwiched.

The question is IF!

Without that information, we cannot resolve.

DW

[Dog Watch]

DW, you can see where L and how close they came. Mr Backstay telling the helmsman to go up is some indication too.

I must have missed L in the video. Sorry. Doesn't change the fact that we don't know the state at the point F went down. (T00:52) You only know her proximity at the end of the scenario.

Backstay-man? I think he said "Up!" to the driver to avoid S, not L.

Nevertheless, who's to say that Backstay-man had the big picture, or was a 'competent but not expert' sailor and the driver was not.


Just looked. I see L now.
DW

[WHL]

I only see F yelling up when S has born away and given F leeward overlap, in which case they do have all the right to yell up. I guess you think when S bears away she's still far enough ahead to not be overlapped? YES that's why I wouldn't mind hearing from S. We've heard some valid points that video and wide angle lenses can be deceiving. I agree they can be, but also think the overlap given away was after the yelling UP UP. It looked close but projecting some lines of the courses of both boats and modelng them on the picture, I don't see an overlap when the shouting began. Seconds later, yes.

Also, go to youtube, watch in 1080 fullscreen and 0.25 speed and just watch the wheel. When Mr Backstay says go up the wheel is turned hard to starboard and they do go up. All the time he's saying he can't go up and please go down, he's turning to starboard to try to avoid but doesn't. It's barely a second between S yells "clear astern" and when F heads up to try to go over him. I saw 3 seconds of opportunity squandered to avoid a collision and given L coming onto the scene, F should have taken collision avoidance as a higher priority than turning down towards L which you can see coming up.

All ther same, this is an interesting excercise to help people think of priorities, and they might remember this scenario if ever they approach the line in that windward position.

[WHL]

Oh, and one more thing, Mr Backstay says to the helmsman as S was approaching and turning up to tack, "look out for that blue boat" That tells me thaqt F had lots of time to rag sails to slow down, and maybe turn up then if they were approaching to fast.

You can also see as L comes into the picture when the F helm turns down and shouts he can't turn up, there's another L2 further ahead and to leeward of L, F and S. L2 is coming up too while all this is going on.

Bottom line, they put themselves into that position of not slowing down when they were clearly going to be astern and it was clear that a boat was going to complete their tack clear ahead on their line. To me that says that F failed to take the right action to avoid a collision, starting from when they were clear astern and moving too fast for what could be reasonably anticipated as a tight spot to force themselves into up ahead.

[BalticBandit]

The key to a good start is to hit the line with speed and space to leeward at the favoured end and this allows you to follow your race plan. Tacking early with multiple boats approaching from astern, particularly faster and larger ones means you will run out of space and time pretty quickly.

Only if you don't know how to Start. The Shields was doing just fine. Until it got badly fouled by a bozo clueless about his obligations.

Look the way you do this is you keep your hole to leeward, you protect your place on the line,and then with between 5 and 30 seconds to go (depending on the boat, you put your bow down into the hole to leeward you have protected, accelerate and go

Watch a J-24s worlds start, watch any dingy start. The top guys are in position at about 1 minute to go. Which is what the Shields did.

[BalticBandit]

....
often people are quick to jump on the burdened boat, forgetting the limitations of the right of way boat. I think that has happened here.

...
Also it is possible that L broke 16.1 as well.

So in othe words, you feel it's OK for a give-way boat to drive between two boats which BOTH have R-O-W over her (or, if she acquired R-O-W over the windward one, it was so close as to not give any possible room) and ram another boat when she could easily have avoided a collision?

Where exactly is this embodied in the rules? I kind of had the impression that give-way boats were supposed to avoid colliding with R-O-W boats.

FB- Doug

Doug!

Don't put words into my mouth, and read my last post about lack of evidence. Do you know where L was at the time F may have been able to luff above?

19.2b is well understood defining when a boat can steer between to others.

16.1 is equally understood.

If F had got her nose in there legally, then the simple fact is, she was sandwiched.

The question is IF!

Without that information, we cannot resolve.

DW

Well if she was so "sandwiched" that she had to foul S on RRS 15 - then she broke 19.2

And if she wasn't breaking RRS 19.2 then she broke RRS 15 by failing to "initiall give Room".

Either way F is in the wrong

[JohnMB]

congratulations DW
you achieved your argument, and didn't even have to show anyone any tits.

that my friend is a victory in anyone's books.


The truth of this is that we have a video which doesn't even show when RoW changed, we know that both boats agreed on the facts, but we don't know what they are,we know that the shields was DSQ'd and plans to appeal and we have an enormous quantity of persiflage.


If we see the facts we can discuss the conclusion, and we can discuss whether the boats presented the facts in their best light.
Once we see the appeal we can decide whether we think that was right or not.

But right now we have nothing substantial to work on...... so potentially fruitful grounds for argument but little more than that.

[ocs]

Until it got badly fouled by a bozo clueless about his obligations.
It looks to me like he ran out of real estate and had to use excessive movements to slow down and at the same time try an avoid an overlap. He didn't appear to be doing fine!

Look the way you do this is you keep your hole to leeward, you protect your place on the line,and then with between 5 and 30 seconds to go (depending on the boat, you put your bow down into the hole to leeward you have protected, accelerate and go
There was never going to be a hole to leeward with L's presence there. Dumb place to tack, slightly above a windward end layline with boats overtaking to leeward from astern.

Watch a J-24s worlds start, watch any dingy start. The top guys are in position at about 1 minute to go. Which is what the Shields did.
[/quote]I addressed this in the second part of the comment I made about OD boast racking up. You watch any start with a boat setting up early ahead of the racking up pack and no where to go except run off down the line and hopefully find a hole. If he does manage to hold his spot he will be nailed at the start with no room to accelerate. By all means you can rack up in the lineup and hold your spot by judicious technique and good boat handling, but if you rack up ahead of the bunch like S did you will usually have issues.

[Dog Watch]

congratulations DW
you achieved your argument, and didn't even have to show anyone any tits.

that my friend is a victory in anyone's books.


The truth of this is that we have a video which doesn't even show when RoW changed, we know that both boats agreed on the facts, but we don't know what they are,we know that the shields was DSQ'd and plans to appeal and we have an enormous quantity of persiflage.


If we see the facts we can discuss the conclusion, and we can discuss whether the boats presented the facts in their best light.
Once we see the appeal we can decide whether we think that was right or not.

But right now we have nothing substantial to work on...... so potentially fruitful grounds for argument but little more than that.

JMB,

LOL! Speculation is fun and at times useful.

What amazes me is how people are so willing to shoot on the strength of sketchy or incomplete evidence. When must the speculation stop?

I simply threw a cat in amongst it.

We don't have sufficient facts from this video. We are missing so much crucial info, that I am astounded the discussions have run for so long .

My personal opinion is simply, that based in the quality of the evidence no perfect decision can be made.

Additionally, I do believe that people tend to shoot Goliath first (keep clear) and protect Sampson (right of way). I guess I like to do things the other way first ... Considering tthe un obvious first.

Lastly, I know that online trials often expect perfection, whereas on the water actions are often far from it. It's easy to say F could have gone up... When in the comfort of the living room. Maybe even a forensic investigator could show she technically could have. But add every item of environmental distraction and human performance drastically reduces.

Poor Sampson Shields, turned 180 by a big bad noisy and diaorganised boat which was bearing down from astern.

As said, discussion is good. Speculation has its merits. Let's know when to stop.

If people are so certain of the correct result, based on that video, they don't have a complete understanding of the rules.

DW

[BalticBandit]

Until it got badly fouled by a bozo clueless about his obligations.
It looks to me like he ran out of real estate and had to use excessive movements to slow down and at the same time try an avoid an overlap. He didn't appear to be doing fine!

Um he tacked and he was holding his place. and he had a nice hole to leeward that was protected. That's fine in my book.

Look the way you do this is you keep your hole to leeward, you protect your place on the line,and then with between 5 and 30 seconds to go (depending on the boat, you put your bow down into the hole to leeward you have protected, accelerate and go
There was never going to be a hole to leeward with L's presence there. Dumb place to tack, slightly above a windward end layline with boats overtaking to leeward from astern.

Sure there was. L was to leeward. But L was also behind and also would need to go bow down to accelerate at the start. Remember a "hole" is only about 1/2 bl long. its what you need to push your nose down into as everyone pushes their's down to accelerate

Watch a J-24s worlds start, watch any dingy start. The top guys are in position at about 1 minute to go. Which is what the Shields did.
[/quote]I addressed this in the second part of the comment I made about OD boast racking up. You watch any start with a boat setting up early ahead of the racking up pack and no where to go except run off down the line and hopefully find a hole. If he does manage to hold his spot he will be nailed at the start with no room to accelerate. By all means you can rack up in the lineup and hold your spot by judicious technique and good boat handling, but if you rack up ahead of the bunch like S did you will usually have issues.

S did not "rack up" ahead of the fleet. the line was empty because these other guys were trying to do a Vanderbilt. The problem with the Vanderbilt is exactly what F ran into. You have no meaningful rights and the guy on the line can defend quite effectively. Again, spend some time in an aggressive OD fleet and you will see that what S did was a perfectly rational way to start.

[Steam Flyer]

... ...it's OK for a give-way boat to drive between two boats which BOTH have R-O-W over her (or, if she acquired R-O-W over the windward one, it was so close as to not give any possible room) and ram another boat when she could easily have avoided a collision?
... ...

Doug!

Don't put words into my mouth, and read my last post about lack of evidence. Do you know where L was at the time F may have been able to luff above?

Yes: close enough that F was concerned about keeping clear of her

The rules do not require you to anticipate, but they DO require you to think ahead and not drive your boat into an untenable situation

And as for putting words in your mouth, this is the equivalent of what you're saying.... F was obliged to keep clear of both; she made only a slight move to windward to avoid and then altered course TOWARDS leeward

A collision resulted.

QED

... ...

If F had got her nose in there legally, then the simple fact is, she was sandwiched.

The question is IF!

Agreed. Filmer also has to comply with 15, and at NO time during the video is there enough lateral seperation between Shields and Filmer to give initial room to keep clear, so it almost doesn't matter when (if) the overlap was established.

What you're saying is similar to guy I unfortunately have to race against keeps proposing.... as give-way boat, he doesn't have to keep clear except by "just enough" to avoid a collision. By the time a collision is imminent, there isn't room to keep clear. So therefor the R-O-W boat is violating, not him (except when he's R-O-W of course).

FB- Doug

[BalticBandit]

+1 Doug

[Steam Flyer]

If people are so certain of the correct result, based on that video, they don't have a complete understanding of the rules.

If people think that "Filmer" can completely avoid responsibility for failing to give way to TWO boats which had R-O-W over her, then they don't have ... understanding of the rules

FB- Doug

[ocs]

Until it got badly fouled by a bozo clueless about his obligations.
It looks to me like he ran out of real estate and had to use excessive movements to slow down and at the same time try an avoid an overlap. He didn't appear to be doing fine!

Um he tacked and he was holding his place. and he had a nice hole to leeward that was protected. That's fine in my book.

Look the way you do this is you keep your hole to leeward, you protect your place on the line,and then with between 5 and 30 seconds to go (depending on the boat, you put your bow down into the hole to leeward you have protected, accelerate and go
There was never going to be a hole to leeward with L's presence there. Dumb place to tack, slightly above a windward end layline with boats overtaking to leeward from astern.

Sure there was. L was to leeward. But L was also behind and also would need to go bow down to accelerate at the start. Remember a "hole" is only about 1/2 bl long. its what you need to push your nose down into as everyone pushes their's down to accelerate

Watch a J-24s worlds start, watch any dingy start. The top guys are in position at about 1 minute to go. Which is what the Shields did.
[/quote]I addressed this in the second part of the comment I made about OD boast racking up. You watch any start with a boat setting up early ahead of the racking up pack and no where to go except run off down the line and hopefully find a hole. If he does manage to hold his spot he will be nailed at the start with no room to accelerate. By all means you can rack up in the lineup and hold your spot by judicious technique and good boat handling, but if you rack up ahead of the bunch like S did you will usually have issues.

S did not "rack up" ahead of the fleet. the line was empty because these other guys were trying to do a Vanderbilt. The problem with the Vanderbilt is exactly what F ran into. You have no meaningful rights and the guy on the line can defend quite effectively. Again, spend some time in an aggressive OD fleet and you will see that what S did was a perfectly rational way to start.

You contradicted yourself over your previous answer.You don't need to bear away to build speed if you are doing a vanderbilt or timed start, that is the whole point of that style of start compared to the rack up and accelerate into a gap.BTW I think I could humbly say I am no stranger to an aggressive OD start.

[Dog Watch]

If people are so certain of the correct result, based on that video, they don't have a complete understanding of the rules.

If people think that "Filmer" can completely avoid responsibility for failing to give way to TWO boats which had R-O-W over her, then they don't have ... understanding of the rules

FB- Doug

Totally agree with you there Doug.

I still don't know how anyone can say with certainty, the position of L at the time F chose to go bow down.T+53. She was not in shot. That's my point.

If L was approaching on Port, or if L was say previously dead in the water and bore away to gain speed, OR if both F and L were clear astern of S (rule 19), then I would say AT THAT MOMENT, F was entitled to continue below S.

If on the other hand, L was sailing a constant course, prior to T+53 to the time the guy says, "She's going to take us up!" OR if L was overlapped with S, then I would say F should not have gone in there.

Thereafter, well, it is he said / she said, as to whether F did what she could, whether overlaps were established or broken in time by S.

You may well see it as a hook move, breaking rule 15. I don't necessarily think it is possible to scrutinise it so accurately, and so apply to some extent a 'last point of certainty' approach, which boils down to the first point when F went bow down. Even that is uncertain, as explained above.

WHO ARE WE TO QUESTION A PROTEST COMMITTEE'S DECISION WE HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN AND DID NOT ATTEND, BASED ONLY ON A VIDEO WHICH DOES NOT COVER THE CRUCIAL ELEMENT?

I don't have a problem with people seeing things differently to me. In fact, that just proves what I'm trying to suggest...not enough evidence and differences in perception. My problem is that people cannot agree to the lack of evidence required, making our online convictions only hypothetical.

Cheers,

DW

P.S. Having looked really closely, I see L come into shot for the first time, at T+56. She seems to be high on starboard. How did she get there? Had she just tacked? F went bow down at T+53. Did L luff at that same point? Who knows?

[green03]

Speculation = good, mostly.

If you state your assumption of whatever relevant facts are not knowable from the video, that makes a nice & definite scenario to explore .... even if it's not what happened, or what the two parties agreed to in front of the PC.

Still, us spectators can benefit from dissecting it under the rules.

Just be aware that this then becomes a hypothetical scenario. As long as that is clear.

Even as far as the video is able to give evidence we've seen at least two different hypothetical scenarios. That's OK to, as long as it's clear which one we are talking about.

[Dog Watch]

Starts when S tacks. Point is to show that we don't know what L was doing before F went bow down.

In my hypothetical image and animation, F does NOTHING wrong.

F is TOTALLY OK to go bow down at #3. L is not even on starboard. After that it s marginal, whether F could luff above successfully at any point.

"He's going to take us up!" comes well after #3.

So can anyone for sure tell me that was not the situation at #3, from the video?

DW

Attached Files

•  Interesting.gif   827.94K   33 downloads
•  Interesting.png   31.42K   35 downloads

[Steam Flyer]

...

I still don't know how anyone can say with certainty, the position of L at the time F chose to go bow down.T+53. She was not in shot. That's my point.

Agreed
However, L was close enough that F was concerned about her; and close enough that the presence of L constrained F's course less than 15 seconds later (I think it's less than ten). So F -should- have placed a higher priority on avoiding her under her obligation as give-way boat.

If L was approaching on Port, or if L was say previously dead in the water and bore away to gain speed, OR if both F and L were clear astern of S (rule 19), then I would say AT THAT MOMENT, F was entitled to continue below S.

Possibly but more probably not.
There is nothing in Rule 19 that overturns Rule 15. F had a basic obligation to give initial room to keep clear; and from what we CAN see in the video, there never was enough room.

If there was an overlap, and it was created by S bearing away, then F might be off the hook except that she was obligated to keep clear of a boat clear ahead (which would be S) and she made no move to do so when the boats were converging .

...

WHO ARE WE TO QUESTION A PROTEST COMMITTEE'S DECISION WE HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN AND DID NOT ATTEND, BASED ONLY ON A VIDEO WHICH DOES NOT COVER THE CRUCIAL ELEMENT?

We're the all-knowing all-seeing Internet of course


However I believe the video shows a few key points, such as the lack of lateral seperation between S and F, and S sailing clear across F's bow shortly before the collision then heading up, and the motion of F's helm.

And we are uninfluenced by the personalities of the two skippers, which IMHO is one of the key elements in how Protest Committees made the decisions they make.

I don't have a problem with people seeing things differently to me. In fact, that just proves what I'm trying to suggest...not enough evidence and differences in perception. My problem is that people cannot agree to the lack of evidence required, making our online convictions only hypothetical.
... ...

Agree completely.

FB- Doug

[xyzzy]

At 0:47 you can see L's masthead above Mr Backstay when he leans forward, and L's already on starboard. See picture. L is the boat above Mr Backstay. A bit latter you can see a large spreader patch on L's jib at 0:50. Then when L appears again at 0:56, the spreader patch is more visible. The boat in front of My Backstay with the bowman is a different boat.
 bayfield1.jpg   46.6K   25 downloads

Here is what I think happened. L may have headed up more, we really can't tell the angle of his boat. I've tried to make the four positions correspond to 0:47, 0:52, 0:56, and 1:01. I didn't bother with the tack because I don't think it's really important what happened then. Between positions 1 & 2, S heads up to parallel F, then almost immediately bears away again. Position 3 is when S hails "Clear Astern." I based F's angle on the landmass in front, then tried to match the view of L to the angle of F. Then added in S. From the apparent height of S's mast, it looks like F closes very little between 0:47 and 1:01. Possible rules broken would be R19 by L between position 3 and 4, which requires all boats to be clear astern of S, otherwise S is not an obstruction. And R15 by S and position 3, since F almost immediately heads up hard (for his boat, it clearly turns slowly) after 3 but can't clear S's transom.
 bayfield2.png   67.3K   28 downloads

[Steam Flyer]

At 0:47 you can see L's masthead above Mr Backstay when he leans forward, and L's already on starboard. See picture. L is the boat above Mr Backstay. A bit latter you can see a large spreader patch on L's jib at 0:50. Then when L appears again at 0:56, the spreader patch is more visible. The boat in front of My Backstay with the bowman is a different boat.
 bayfield1.jpg   46.6K   25 downloads

Here is what I think happened. L may have headed up more, we really can't tell the angle of his boat. I've tried to make the four positions correspond to 0:47, 0:52, 0:56, and 1:01. I didn't bother with the tack because I don't think it's really important what happened then. Between positions 1 & 2, S heads up to parallel F, then almost immediately bears away again. Position 3 is when S hails "Clear Astern." I based F's angle on the landmass in front, then tried to match the view of L to the angle of F. Then added in S. From the apparent height of S's mast, it looks like F closes very little between 0:47 and 1:01. Possible rules broken would be R19 by L between position 3 and 4, which requires all boats to be clear astern of S, otherwise S is not an obstruction. And R15 by S and position 3, since F almost immediately heads up hard (for his boat, it clearly turns slowly) after 3 but can't clear S's transom.
 bayfield2.png   67.3K   28 downloads

In your scenario, the blame is clearly on S
However, this is not what I saw (disclaimer, I only watched the video twice and that was a couple days ago. OTOH I observed everything that has been pointed out in stills so far... I'm good at looking at boats sailing...)

There was never as much distance between S and F laterally as you show. At position 1, put S one boatlength further ahead ( I think it's actually more) and cut the lateral seperation in half; that would be more accurate and still IMHO giving S some benefit of the doubt

It's impossible to determine exact distances without parallax or better yet, stereo vision

However I have been trying to call it as I see it, not just crack on F because they are obviously indecisive wankers.

Also, how do you define "heads up hard" ?? Did F spin the wheel to the stop, hard over? Too late in any event.

FB- Doug

[DEAD MONEY]

Best Video of How Not to Start a Boat.

Pretty Pathetic! Why is No One doing anything? No Bow! No Main, No Trimming!

Screamer had absolutely No Clue how to Drive and had no plan, obviously woefully inexperienced. Painful to Watch !

Agree Shields did 't keep clear. He very obviously had NO Respect and knew he had the Biggest Fattest Marshmellow behind him and he shit on him on purpose!

[BalticBandit]

XYZZY you are compressing the distances too much longitudanally and not enough latterally.

S completes her tack 5+ BL AHEAD of F. from then on F is clear astern and is burdened boat and should have immediately started to look at L's course and likely luffing into the line and realized that trying to get below S was not going to happen. Of course the RULES don't require that, but prudent thinking does.

The problem is that no matter what F does, she will be establishing overlap from clear astern. And the real problem is that F starts shouting "don't come down" long before they have any rights to.

Remember that under the rules, if S tacked RIGHT SMACK On F's line, and completed her tack (and remember the definition of a completed tack is that THE HULL is on the new closehauled course - sails can be akimbo) with enough room for F to putt the helm up or down sharply and avoid S, the S has provided ROOM.

And its pretty clear she does that.

F's problem is that by the time she establishes overlap she does so

• from clear astern
• without adequate lateral ROOM for S to keep clear (RRS 15)
• And without adequate ROOM to pass between S and L (RRS 19.2).

There simply is no case for F not to be tossed.

[ocs]

All this is becoming pointless as the video evidence is very hard to derive any actual facts from, due to A/ the camera position and B/ angle and lense distortion. We have no exact way of knowing exactly when, who and how anything occured. The distortion of distance always amazes me when watching sailing footage. It has turned into a bit of silly slanging match with people taking umbrage and trying to find minute details to prove "I know more than you" (myself included, sorry BB).
It began as a bit of a interesting discussion as to what actually happened, which then became quite interesting when it was found both boats agreed on sequence of events. Now it has turned into a merry go round of self justification.
I think we have a simple situation of two boats who both could have done more to avoid the sequence of events with a liitle more common sense and yachting nous.
Compliments of the season to all. I am off to Hobart.

[Presuming Ed]

AFAICS, nobody yet has mentioned the differences in freeboards between the two boats, and how that adds to the difficulties in working out distances.

[BalticBandit]

Both boats agreeing on the sequence of events does not mean that its actually an accurate sequence. As the folks posting about what rules apply and don't and "using the rules as a sword" indicates, the understanding of what is actually happening in a dynamic situation like this is often not very clear.

[green03]

Video provides not just images, but also timing. From that it should be possible to double check possible distances - especially for boats that don't accelerate dramatically or spin on a dime (and for which the speeds are realistically in a narrow range). As this thread has shown, there's more information in the video than most observers extracted on their own, or on first viewing. If this was about plaintiffs or defense trying to establish facts for settling a case of severe damages, it would be worthwhile to use additional techniques. If you did that, I'm sure there's enough information there to rule out some of the proposed details of the tracks for F and S in the diagrams posted here (for example by placing sensible limits on speed and acceleration to provide a bit of "dead reckoning" for periods where S isn't fully visible). It might even be possible to account for some of the distortion from the lens in that analysis. Whether or not the track of L can be similarly constrained, is more doubtful, of course.

I'm waiting to hear more about the actual case.

[The Gardener]

XYZZY you are compressing the distances too much longitudanally and not enough latterally.

S completes her tack 5+ BL AHEAD of F. from then on F is clear astern and is burdened boat and should have immediately started to look at L's course and likely luffing into the line and realized that trying to get below S was not going to happen. Of course the RULES don't require that, but prudent thinking does.

The problem is that no matter what F does, she will be establishing overlap from clear astern. And the real problem is that F starts shouting "don't come down" long before they have any rights to.

Remember that under the rules, if S tacked RIGHT SMACK On F's line, and completed her tack (and remember the definition of a completed tack is that THE HULL is on the new closehauled course - sails can be akimbo) with enough room for F to putt the helm up or down sharply and avoid S, the S has provided ROOM.

And its pretty clear she does that.

F's problem is that by the time she establishes overlap she does so

• from clear astern
• without adequate lateral ROOM for S to keep clear (RRS 15)
• And without adequate ROOM to pass between S and L (RRS 19.2).

There simply is no case for F not to be tossed.

I agree
the room however did not.
It was appealed
I was not on either boat and only heard a bit of shouting was not a witness.

[xyzzy]

XYZZY you are compressing the distances too much longitudanally and not enough latterally.

S completes her tack 5+ BL AHEAD of F.

As I said, I started at 0:47, which is well after S tacks. It doesn't look like F gains much on S from 0:47 to 1:01. A 1 kt speed differential would amount to 23.5 ft in that time.

The problem is that no matter what F does, she will be establishing overlap from clear astern. And the real problem is that F starts shouting "don't come down" long before they have any rights to.

Can you be so sure F isn't overlapped when she yells, "up! up!"

F's problem is that by the time she establishes overlap she does so

• from clear astern
• without adequate lateral ROOM for S to keep clear (RRS 15)
• And without adequate ROOM to pass between S and L (RRS 19.2).

In your last bullet, it is L's foul, not F's. As outside boat L is required to leave room between herself and S for F. The requirement ends when overlap is established and S is not longer an obstruction. F is farther ahead than L, so if F is clear-astern then clearly L must be too. So up until the point that F gets overlap on S, L must be providing room under R19 for F to pass between.

[USA 5184]

Was this a start? My computer has no sound so not sure. The shields was dumb to bare away. Was anyone on the boat looking backward? The boat taping was dumb because the skipper was odiously panicking and trying to steer clear but everyone else on the boat was just watching it happen. Not one person has their hands on any sheet nor was there any attempt to ease any sail.

[TeamGladiator]

... Blue boat violated 16.1 and was properly disqualified. Basically, the boat that has the right of way needs to hold course and failed to do so...

Not exactly correct. Why do so many people read into the rules things that simply aren't there?

So has anyone actually seen a copy of the facts found yet? How about a copy of the PC's diagram? A copy of the appeal? Anything??

[Christian]

... Blue boat violated 16.1 and was properly disqualified. Basically, the boat that has the right of way needs to hold course and failed to do so...

Not exactly correct. Why do so many people read into the rules things that simply aren't there?

So has anyone actually seen a copy of the facts found yet? How about a copy of the PC's diagram? A copy of the appeal? Anything??

You are correct, the rules do not say they have to hold course. They say they need to give room to keep clear and sailing all over the place and being unpredictable, causing the boat behind to first sail one way to keep clear and then the other way is not giving room to keep clear. That is why I said "basically". It doesn't say they need to hold their course, but they need to be predictable or the burdened boat cannot reasonably be expected to keep clear unless they happen to guess right about which way the right of way boat is going to go so basically, they need to hold course. I would love to see more details on the PC's findings but just wanted to give a voice of support for what the PC did.

Nope! They need to initially give room to stay clear - nothing more - nothing less. They gave the filming boat oodles of room to keep clear..........................

[Christian]

... Blue boat violated 16.1 and was properly disqualified. Basically, the boat that has the right of way needs to hold course and failed to do so...

Not exactly correct. Why do so many people read into the rules things that simply aren't there?

So has anyone actually seen a copy of the facts found yet? How about a copy of the PC's diagram? A copy of the appeal? Anything??

You are correct, the rules do not say they have to hold course. They say they need to give room to keep clear and sailing all over the place and being unpredictable, causing the boat behind to first sail one way to keep clear and then the other way is not giving room to keep clear. That is why I said "basically". It doesn't say they need to hold their course, but they need to be predictable or the burdened boat cannot reasonably be expected to keep clear unless they happen to guess right about which way the right of way boat is going to go so basically, they need to hold course. I would love to see more details on the PC's findings but just wanted to give a voice of support for what the PC did.

Nope! They need to initially give room to stay clear - nothing more - nothing less. They gave the filming boat oodles of room to keep clear..........................

They gave the filming boat room to stay clear by going either high or low of them. Lot of room. Filming boat chose to go low. Their choice. Then the blue boat changed course and at that point there was no longer room to stay clear. They can't do that and I would bet that was the basis for them being tossed out.

Here is what I have to say, I looked at the video and thought blue boat was in the wrong. Read tons of comments to the contrary talking about overlap and such. I don't see overlap as an issue. Blue boat was clear ahead and obliged to give room to stay clear. That is why there were only one set of facts. Then I see the PC agrees with my interpolation, or at least its consequences. So, thought I would post that interpretation as the actual thinking of the PC is not given.

Can you post a copy of the decision? If you haven't read it you have NO IDEA what the PC based their decision on

[Steam Flyer]

They ( S ) gave the filming boat room to stay clear by going either high or low of them. Lot of room. Filming boat chose to go low. Their choice. Then the blue boat changed course and at that point there was no longer room to stay clear. They can't do that and I would bet that was the basis for them being tossed out.
.. ...

Rule 16.1 does not shift the Right-Of-Way. In the words of Brad Dellenbaugh, it is a shield not a sword.

FB- Doug

[Christian]

The blue boat tacked and the filming boat altered course toward port to stay clear. The blue boat then changed course also toward port. That is at about 0:40. Then at about 0:48 they changed course again toward starboard such that the filming boat would clear. Then at 0:51 they changed course again to port at which point the filming boat put the wheel hard to starboard. That is not giving room to stay clear. You just can't expect an overtaking boat to stay clear no matter what course you take. Presenting your broadside to an overtaking boat at the last minute is not exactly giving room to stay clear. I would love to read the PC report. I am, of course, guessing that the ruling was a violation of 16.1, which was my first reaction upon viewing the film. But what else could it be?

Let's put this question another way. The PC ruled that the blue boat was at fault. What should we all learn from that? Should the take away be that the PC was wrong? Or should it be that if we acquire right of way that we make it crystal clear what other boats need to do to avoid hitting us? Most of the comments here seem to think that the take away is that if you do what the blue boat did and get hit and tossed out of the race, that the PC is wrong. I find that strange.

But back to the question of overlap. I think that is a red hearing. The blue boat was being asked to head up because the filming boat had committed to stay clear by going to port and the blue boat was changing course to cut that off. They were being asked to continue to give room to stay clear.

With the available information as presented in this thread - absolutely nothing. If we had the fuul set of information available to the PC we might ba able to learn something: That the video is misleading, that the PC is not very good, some other relevant information is totally missed/not known here - I have no clue - and neither do you!

[BalticBandit]

I am posting very late on this topic and I must admit to having been looking for something else when I ended up reading this thread. As a lone voice agreeing with the decision of the protest committee I thought I would go ahead and chime in. The blue boat tacked fairly close and became clear ahead. She was obligated to give the filming boat room to stay clear and the filming boat changed course to go above the blue boat.

There is no video evidence that the bow of filming boat EVER sails a course above the stern of Blue boat... remember the filming is being done from a mount on the stern STB pushpit and you never lose sight of S (Shields)... IF S had tacked as close as you suggest, then any attempt to sail above her would have had her disappearing from view

At that point the blue boat changed course again falling off. The filming boat responded by going hard over to try and go below the blue boat.

This makes no sense. if F was boing ABOVE B, then B bearing off HAS NO IMPACT ON F....Furthermore since S (blueboat) is CLEAR AHEAD until she ceases to be clear ahead, Onus has not changed and thus 16.1 DOES NOT APPLY.Your "two cents" don't make any actual sense

[BalticBandit]

The blue boat tacked and the filming boat altered course toward port to stay clear. The blue boat then changed course also toward port. That is at about 0:40. Then at about 0:48 they changed course again toward starboard such that the filming boat would clear. Then at 0:51 they changed course again to port at which point the filming boat put the wheel hard to starboard. That is not giving room to stay clear. You just can't expect an overtaking boat to stay clear no matter what course you take.

YES YOU CAN.... that is what the rules require.....Because if the boat AHEAD alters course dramatically so as to impede the boat CLEAR ASTERN (there is no such thing as "overtaking boat - read the damn rules)...then her stern plan will swing in a way that causes an overlap to occur..... and since the boat AHEAD's actions cause that to take place, then RRS 15 says the new leeward boat does not have to give ROOM to the boat that WAS clear ahead but now is overlapped

Let's put this question another way. The PC ruled that the blue boat was at fault. What should we all learn from that? Should the take away be that the PC was wrong?

From the video it sure looks that way

But back to the question of overlap. I think that is a red hearing. The blue boat was being asked to head up because the filming boat had committed to stay clear by going to port and the blue boat was changing course to cut that off. They were being asked to continue to give room to stay clear.

And there is NO RIGHT TO ASK FOR THAT... particularly from a Clear Astern boat. a boat Clear Astern MUST CONTINUE TO ALTER COURSE in a manner that keeps her clear.. that she PREFERRED to go below "blue boat" HAS NO BEARING... all that matters is that as long as she was Clear Astern, she had ROOM to turn up to avoid the boat Clear ahead. or ease sheets, or do any one of a number of seamanlike maneuvers to continue to keep clear ... AND SHE DID NOT ONE OF THEM

[Steam Flyer]

... ...

But back to the question of overlap. I think that is a red hearing. The blue boat was being asked to head up because the filming boat had committed to stay clear by going to port and the blue boat was changing course to cut that off. They were being asked to continue to give room to stay clear.

In other words, you believe a boat clear astern can claim a tactical advanage by using rule 16.1 (changing course, giving room to keep clear) when in fact the boat that is clear astern MUST KEEP CLEAR herself. Filmer trying to get a leeward hook on the Shields is not KEEPING CLEAR.

If Filmer was making a real effort to keep clear and Shields did not give her room, then yeah you have a point. This may be how it shook out in front of the Protest Committee. But it's not correct going by the helm movements of Filmer.

As for overlap (red herring), -if- Filmer did gain Right-Of-Way by getting her bow in to leeward of Shields, then she would be obligated to give initial room to keep clear as she established the overlap. Failing that, she is still getting a DSQ. So you're right it doesn't make a big difference to Filmer earning a DSQ

Appreciate your dissenting point of view, but the "R-O-W must give room to keep clear" is a shield not a sword (in the words of Brad Dellenbaugh).

It would be interesting to see what facts were found by the PC but so far I have seen or read nothing that exonerated Filmer... it's fully possible that Shields should get a DSQ also.

FB- Doug

[WHL]

OK, I am changing my story. At 1:03 the filming boat hits the blue boat and spins her. That means the filming boat hit the blue boat on her port side. Therefore, they were overlapped before the collision. If they had not been overlapped, they would not have hit. That may have been all the PC looked at.

That said, I still think the blue boat was changing course way too much which made it difficult to stay clear of her.

You seem to mix IRCPAS concepts and the RRS in the way you want to interpret the rules.
Just because they established a last minute overlap doesn't automatically give them the right to run over a boat ahead. Screamer had an earlier opportunity to avoid the whole thing. If they want to play it tight in the starting area, then having a decent lookout on the bow would have been useful. As the video and audio indicates, they saw the Shields going into a lee bow tack and did nothing about it when they had the chance. They persisted in sailing into a spot where there really wasn't room, particularly considering that a boat to leeward of them was coming up. As you can see by all the indecisive actions on Screamer, they really put themselves in a bad starting spot to begin with and were lucky to get the Shields tossed and not themselves too.

[BalticBandit]

|

OK, I am changing my story. At 1:03 the filming boat hits the blue boat and spins her. That means the filming boat hit the blue boat on her port side. Therefore, they were overlapped before the collision.

For F to spin B the way they did, the contact had to occur well aft of the keel of B (B is a full keel “Shields” class boat and only spins that way with a lot of leverage). That means the overlap was no more than 6’ in. And given that the speed differential was about 2 knots, that is 3 seconds or less.
That means that upon establishing overlap Filmer violated RRS 15 that requires he Initially give B “room” to “keep clear” – which is defined as B having the Room to put her helm down and not have immediate contact.

IOW Filmer STARTED HIS OVERLAP TOO CLOSE TO B LATRALLY

If they had not been overlapped, they would not have hit. That may have been all the PC looked at.

In which case it is a brain dead committee

That said, I still think the blue boat was changing course way too much which made it difficult to stay clear of her.

You may THINK that but the rules don’t SAY that Filmer could have EASILY stayed clear of B… simply by easing his sails and slowing down.
It is true that B did not make it easy for Filmer to sail into a leeward overlap by Filmer….particularly through B’s course alterations…. But that is PRECISELY how the game is played on an aggressive starting line

Yes and? Bottom line Filmer/Screamer broke a slew of rules here including "fair sailing" in calling for B to "stay up" when B was not overlapped. Anyone on Filmer/Screamer needs to talk to the skipper and have him do the honorable thing and withdraw

[Delta Dog]

The key to a good start is to hit the line with speed and space to leeward at the favoured end and this allows you to follow your race plan. Tacking early with multiple boats approaching from astern, particularly faster and larger ones means you will run out of space and time pretty quickly.

Only if you don't know how to Start. The Shields was doing just fine. Until it got badly fouled by a bozo clueless about his obligations.

Look the way you do this is you keep your hole to leeward, you protect your place on the line,and then with between 5 and 30 seconds to go (depending on the boat, you put your bow down into the hole to leeward you have protected, accelerate and go

Watch a J-24s worlds start, watch any dingy start. The top guys are in position at about 1 minute to go. Which is what the Shields did.

+1

[BalticBandit]

I suspect they ruled that Blue Failed to keep clear. I suspect that neither side exlplained the circumstances accurately. I suspect that the jury did not ask very careful questions about how the existence of an overlap was established beyond Filmer/Screamer starting to shout "stay up" long before they had rights to do so. And no, the goPro was not on the backstay but on the stb rear pulpit.... You can tell from the angle And I've videoed enough races with my GoPro in exactly that location. It is very very very clear that Filmer was actually clear astern for all but the last 5 -6 seconds of the video.

[Steam Flyer]

OK, I am changing my story. At 1:03 the filming boat hits the blue boat and spins her. That means the filming boat hit the blue boat on her port side. Therefore, they were overlapped before the collision. If they had not been overlapped, they would not have hit. That may have been all the PC looked at.
... ...

Dunno
Whatever the PC looked at or decided, the fact that they tossed S and did not toss F does not mean F is necessarily innocent in fact, or that S is guilty. In my experience, most Protest Committees base their decisions on a mix of wishful thinking, muddled understanding of the rules themselves, and their personal like/dislike of the skippers involved.

... ...
That said, I still think the blue boat was changing course way too much which made it difficult to stay clear of her.

That depends on your concept of 'keep clear.'
If 'keeping clear' means to take action to avoid collision, then no it's not a bit more difficult. All the Filmer had to do was turn to starboard and slow down a little.

However, that would have been tactically disadvantaged.

So your concept of 'keep clear' must be 'cut as close as possible while pressing your boat into as tactically advantageous a position as you can while not actually committing to avoiding collision. Then at the last second, blame the other boat because they changed course too.' This is not exactly kosher.

BTW the IRPCAS (formerly known as the ColRegs) say that a right-of-way vessel should not change course. The Racing Rules say nothing of the kind. And even under ColRegs a keep-clear vessel would be assigned a major portion of blame for not taking more definite action earlier.

FB- Doug

[green03]

BTW the IRPCAS (formerly known as the ColRegs) say that a right-of-way vessel should not change course. The Racing Rules say nothing of the kind. And even under ColRegs a keep-clear vessel would be assigned a major portion of blame for not taking more definite action earlier.

Even under IRPCAS the duty of the stand-on vessel to hold her course is not absolute. A stand-on vessel may change course for a variety of reasons, such as following a channel, avoid an obstruction or, in one case that was resolved in the courts, to continue circling a special buoy to calibrate a piece of navigational equipment. (Such exceptions are not spelled out in the rules, but follow from case law, that's why its useful to read one of the commentaries, and not just the rules).

In contrast, the give-way vessel is required to take early and substantial action. Under IRPCAS the only objective is to avoid collisions (and reduce/avoid the risk of collisions). There's no cover at all for "cutting it close". If this had reached a court under IRPCAS, the fact that Filmer neither made an early and definite course correction to starboard, nor slowed down - both actions that would have made a collisions a lot less likely - would probably be held against her. To the extent that the maneuvers by the Shields were part of a seamanlike start, it might have been something an overtaking vessel should have predicted and factored in.

The RRS are written with a different mindset. They implicitly acknowledge that situations on the race course are not geared primarily towards collision avoidance, and they therefore apportion tactical advantage or disadvantage in any situation. However, avoiding collision is still an important objective, see the difference in penalties based on collisions with damage. In this example, I tend to agree with those who've come to the conclusion that the Filmer was cutting it too close.

[BalticBandit]

Early and substantial action is the key here... and Screamer/Filmer took no such action. So under IRPCAS they are at fault.......Similarly under RRS, the Give Way vessel (in this case Screamer/Filmer when they are Clear Astern) is required to PROMPTLY act to keep clear in a SEAMANLIKE MANNER.....wiggling your course back and forth as you decide where to go TACTICALLY is not "seamanlike"..... (sure wiggling to slow down can be, but that's not what this clown car was doing).....Nor is yelling for a boat that is Clear Ahead to "not come down" even REMOTELY "fair sailing"....

[The Gardener]

Early and substantial action is the key here... and Screamer/Filmer took no such action. So under IRPCAS they are at fault.......Similarly under RRS, the Give Way vessel (in this case Screamer/Filmer when they are Clear Astern) is required to PROMPTLY act to keep clear in a SEAMANLIKE MANNER.....wiggling your course back and forth as you decide where to go TACTICALLY is not "seamanlike"..... (sure wiggling to slow down can be, but that's not what this clown car was doing).....Nor is yelling for a boat that is Clear Ahead to "not come down" even REMOTELY "fair sailing"....

Early and substantial action is the key here... and Screamer/Filmer took no such action. So under IRPCAS they are at fault.......Similarly under RRS, the Give Way vessel (in this case Screamer/Filmer when they are Clear Astern) is required to PROMPTLY act to keep clear in a SEAMANLIKE MANNER.....wiggling your course back and forth as you decide where to go TACTICALLY is not "seamanlike"..... (sure wiggling to slow down can be, but that's not what this clown car was doing).....Nor is yelling for a boat that is Clear Ahead to "not come down" even REMOTELY "fair sailing"....

I believe you are correct.

[Steam Flyer]

BTW the IRPCAS (formerly known as the ColRegs) say that a right-of-way vessel should not change course. The Racing Rules say nothing of the kind. And even under ColRegs a keep-clear vessel would be assigned a major portion of blame for not taking more definite action earlier.

Even under IRPCAS the duty of the stand-on vessel to hold her course is not absolute. A stand-on vessel may change course for a variety of reasons, such as following a channel, avoid an obstruction or, in one case that was resolved in the courts, to continue circling a special buoy to calibrate a piece of navigational equipment. (Such exceptions are not spelled out in the rules, but follow from case law, that's why its useful to read one of the commentaries, and not just the rules).

In contrast, the give-way vessel is required to take early and substantial action. Under IRPCAS the only objective is to avoid collisions (and reduce/avoid the risk of collisions). There's no cover at all for "cutting it close". If this had reached a court under IRPCAS, the fact that Filmer neither made an early and definite course correction to starboard, nor slowed down - both actions that would have made a collisions a lot less likely - would probably be held against her. To the extent that the maneuvers by the Shields were part of a seamanlike start, it might have been something an overtaking vessel should have predicted and factored in.
... ...

Agree on all, thanks also for the interesting explanation of IRPCAS cases

The obligation on a priviledged vessel to hold a course obviously can't negate the obligation to avoid a collision if possible. IRPCAS (btw wtf was wrong with "ColRegs" as a term??) no longer uses the term 'Right-of-Way' but I personally continue to use it because I think it's a lot clearer and easier to understand. Most of the time I think it's better to use terms from the rules themselves, which for sailboat racing doesn't include "overtaking" (unfortunately for this thread).

Early and substantial action is the key here... and Screamer/Filmer took no such action. So under IRPCAS they are at fault.......Similarly under RRS, the Give Way vessel (in this case Screamer/Filmer when they are Clear Astern) is required to PROMPTLY act to keep clear in a SEAMANLIKE MANNER.....wiggling your course back and forth as you decide where to go TACTICALLY is not "seamanlike"..... (sure wiggling to slow down can be, but that's not what this clown car was doing).....Nor is yelling for a boat that is Clear Ahead to "not come down" even REMOTELY "fair sailing"....

Again, agreed on all

Wait a minute, isn't this supposed to be an argument? Sorry to ruin it for ya


FB- Doug

[walterbshaffer]

Dunno
Whatever the PC looked at or decided, the fact that they tossed S and did not toss F does not mean F is necessarily innocent in fact, or that S is guilty. In my experience, most Protest Committees base their decisions on a mix of wishful thinking, muddled understanding of the rules themselves, and their personal like/dislike of the skippers involved.

Thats partly what I'm thinking.

I've also noticed that different PCs will render based on local custom & precedent which can make it difficult for "vistors" even between clubs.

In this case maybe the PC ruled that the Shields established the overlap by her own actions and too close to the filing boat; ie could the Shileds have altered to weather and kept clear/not had almost immediate contact - if not, then the PC might have determined that the Shields established an overlap too close aboard to the filming boat and needed to keep clear thereafter. On top of that filmer says "I kept trying to bear off and he kept coming down on me even though he had though his own actions established the overlap too closely!"

Not saying thats right, correct or a proper application of the rules but it could be the logic they arrived at.

[Steam Flyer]

... ...
In this case maybe the PC ruled that the Shields established the overlap by her own actions and too close to the filing boat; ie could the Shileds have altered to weather and kept clear/not had almost immediate contact - if not, then the PC might have determined that the Shields established an overlap too close aboard to the filming boat and needed to keep clear thereafter. On top of that filmer says "I kept trying to bear off and he kept coming down on me even though he had though his own actions established the overlap too closely!"

Not saying thats right, correct or a proper application of the rules but it could be the logic they arrived at.

Makes the most sense, out of what's on the menu


However it would/should have been very easy for the Shield's skipper, or an awake member of the Protest Committee, to then say "Filmer: did you, at any point before collision imminent, consider turning to starboard -away- from two boats that had R-O-W over you? If not, why not? If yes, why didn't you do so?"

My problem is that I generally can't resist adding gratuitous remarks like "Maybe your wheel only turns one way" or "Taking those blinders off would have helped" hence my poor personal record with Protest Committees.

FB- Doug

[walterbshaffer]

However it would/should have been very easy for the Shield's skipper, or an awake member of the Protest Committee, to then say "Filmer: did you, at any point before collision imminent, consider turning to starboard -away- from two boats that had R-O-W over you? If not, why not? If yes, why didn't you do so?"

"Because we were overlapped. I should point out again that the overlap was established too closely which is proven by the fact that they could not alter to weather w/o hitting us and the overlap is proven by the fact that we struck them on thier port qtr as a result of them coming down on us. Oh my neck hurts I think I need to go to the hospital"

[BalticBandit]

My experience in sitting on and submitting to PCs is more that the folks presenting

• Suck at presenting the facts
  
• Usually are clueless about the rules that apply
  
• Often don&rsquo;t understand how to tell a cohesive and non-contradictory story

So the PC has the job of sorting through the emotive crap of statements like &ldquo;well I know I could do that because last time I lost on that same rule&rdquo; (which often means they did not understand the ruling from the previous time).

I had the fortune/misfortune of racing collegiately against West Point, SUNY Maritime, US Merchant Marine Academy, and Annapolis. All these folks were very well coached on both sailing and the RULES. Furthermore their choice of livelihood for which they were being trained was very much about being able to CLEARLY present and describe what they saw happen and to do so in the context of a specific set of governing rules. We got very good practice in doing the same every time we went into the room with them.

Most folks are TERRRIBLE at this: they overuse terms like &ldquo;near&rdquo; &ldquo;approximately&rdquo; and &ldquo;maybe&rdquo; when giving ranges (2-3 Boat Lengths) or setting in context of &ldquo;from my perspective I saw&rdquo; And they almost never ever explain why what they think they saw is accurate (ie &ldquo;2+ BL because I could see 2 boats bow to stern between the gap&rdquo;) etc.

I can very much appreciate &ndash; particularly in beer can racing &ndash; the desire to &ldquo;just go out and have fun&rdquo;. At the same time this is a sport of precision (an inch of trim can make a big boatspeed difference). Furthermore this was a &ldquo;Race week&rdquo; and even at the cheapest way to do a race week (local club, local boat, local crew, using the old cruising rags) you are still looking at a $350+ commitment from each member (vacation time is paid salary time and usually much more than $350/wk) Plus the amortized usage of the boat, and food onboard and the beer tent. This makes it a MINIMUM of a $2,000 commitment. And realistically its more like $10k.

So how many people can afford to invest $10k in a vacation and not bother to read through all of the reviews and suggestions and local rules about what are do&rsquo;s and don&rsquo;ts and best practices? I know I can&rsquo;t.

And yet its pretty clear that NEITHER BOAT bothered to really understand the rules before jumping in&hellip;this just boggles my mind

I think the PC ruled the way it did because neither skipper presented the facts in a cogent way

[Snaggletooth]

Looks like the Shields tacks in front of the boat filming clear ahead but does not hold its lane... falling off it creates overlap.. Then it gets messy. Whatcha think?

Guye in the red hat shouda gone up and overe blue boate, hestitatede and loste chanse to, failled to avoide coll. (didente reade throuht threade)

[Steam Flyer]

However it would/should have been very easy for the Shield's skipper, or an awake member of the Protest Committee, to then say "Filmer: did you, at any point before collision imminent, consider turning to starboard -away- from two boats that had R-O-W over you? If not, why not? If yes, why didn't you do so?"

"Because we were overlapped. I should point out again that the overlap was established too closely which is proven by the fact that they could not alter to weather w/o hitting us and the overlap is proven by the fact that we struck them on thier port qtr as a result of them coming down on us. Oh my neck hurts I think I need to go to the hospital"

Good... except for the long interval of time when Shields-Filmer were very clearly NOT overlapped and Filmer put the helm up (making a tactically advantageous move rather than avoiding the collision).

Also, do we know where the point of contact was?
It looked to me like a case of bow-stern or perhaps bow-pulpit-to-backstay contact.

Now after looking at the video for the 100th time I asked myself what I would have done if I was the filming boat. I would have headed up or tacked and avoided the collision. He had about 10 seconds to do that, which should have been more than enough time.

Back to the question of what rule the blue boat broke. More carefully reading the rules I do see that holding course is not a rule and that the blue boat was obligated to allow the filming boat to keep clear after the tack until she was close hauled, which she did. So then the question becomes did the blue boat have the right to cut in front of the filming boat. Again, trying to read the rules carefully, it looks like she did unless in doing so she created an overlap by the act of changing course. Well, the facts would say that she did create an overlap by virtue of being hit on the port side.

I haven't seen any 'Facts Found' from the PC.
If that's the case, then yeah Shields gets tossed.
It is -still- true that the cause of the collision was Filmer ignoring her obligation to avoid collision with not one but two boas which had R-O-W over her, and her altering course towards them instead of away... there is simply no way she doesn't get tossed without ignoring most of the incident as filmed.

The next question then became one of timing. Where does it say that creating an overlap doesn't become the relevant rule until some amount of time has passed? The only timing thing I see is that the leeward boat can change course without immediately hitting the other boat, which is what happened.


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.

This leads to the following question, do the rules imply that if you are the windward boat, that you cannot allow another boat to hit you on the lee side?

Rule 15- When a boat acquires Right-Of-Way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear unless she acquires R-O-W because of the other boat's actions.

So, it's not a specific amount of time other than "initially" and if the overlap was created by Shields bearing away then Filmer might get off the hook... except that the boats were already so close as to be at risk of collision and Filmer was obligated to not only keep clear of Shields but another boat to leeward of her, making a turn to leeward a move which increases risk of collision instead of a move to keep clear.

The rules are written in such a way as to avoid mention of specific time or disance intervals... in fact, they don't even specify use of the helm. This is because it is assumed that boats are making leeway, that a collision might be avoided by backwinding a sail rather than turning, etc etc. In other words, the skipper & his crew are supposed to do what it takes to make the boat do what it needs to do.

-IF- the Filmer had been clever enough to get his bow in there without causing a nearly-immediate collision, he might have been able to use Rule 19 (obstructions) against the leeward boat and Rule 11 (windward-leeward) on the Shields, finesse the situation into a good start. But he didn't. There was neither enough room nor time and right up until the last second, Filmer was the burdened boat.

... ... ...
This leads to the following question, do the rules imply that if you are the windward boat, that you cannot allow another boat to hit you on the lee side?

I would go one step further and say that you cannot allow another boat close enough to your leeward side to risk collision. Many times, a windward boat blocks a leeward boats wind causing it to heel less all of a sudden... then the rigs make contact sometimes with disastrous results.

FB- Doug

[BalticBandit]

Now after looking at the video for the 100th time I asked myself what I would have done if I was the filming boat. I would have headed up or tacked and avoided the collision. He had about 10 seconds to do that, which should have been more than enough timeOr much much simpler… EASE THE DAMN GENOA.. Let it RAG…

Back to the question of what rule the blue boat broke. More carefully reading the rules I do see that holding course is not a rule and that the blue boat was obligated to allow the filming boat to keep clear after the tack until she was close hauled, which she did.

Correct

So then the question becomes did the blue boat have the right to cut in front of the filming boat. Again, trying to read the rules carefully, it looks like she did unless in doing so she created an overlap by the act of changing course.

NOT quite right. B has the right to tack in front of Filmer EVEN IF doing so creates an overlap. However in such a case B since B creates the overlap the latter part of RRS 15 does not apply and if B is the Windward boat she must IMMEDIATELY “keep clear”

Note also that B cannot tack in front of Filmer in such a manner that if Filmer holds her course UNTIL B is on her new close hauled course then Filmer would be unable to maneuver to avoid B… That clearly is not the case here, but you are so off in your claims about the rules I want to clarify this

Well, the facts would say that she did create an overlap by virtue of being hit on the port side.

Simply NOT TRUE At the time she completes her tack she is CLEAR AHEAD by AT LEAST 3 Boat lengths. Filmer in its actions CLAIMS there is an overlap when B turns her bow down, but even then there is no overlap.

Filmr is moving 1-2 knots FASTER than B… That’s roughly 3’ per second faster. Since the collision occurs some 40 seconds AFTER the tack, Filmer’s bow would be 120’ AHEAD of B’s stern if as a result of the tack. And this is not the case EVEN IF the speed difference is only 1 knot that’s 1.5’/second and we are then talking about 60’ ahead of B’s Stern

INSTEAD the collision occurs LESS THAN 6’ from B’s stern. So even under the slower 1 knot difference scenario, B completed her tack 35’+ ahead of Filmer… a full boat length… So NO OVERLAP EXISTS.

The next question then became one of timing. Where does it say that creating an overlap doesn't become the relevant rule until some amount of time has passed?

First off, since your claim about an overlap being established by B DURING the tack is nonsense… this does not apply BUTT

RRS 15 http://www.sailing.o...acing-rules.php says

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.

Notice the word “initially” that is all about TIME PASSING. After some period of time passes, “initially” no longer applies. Now as with most of the rules “initially” is dependent on “seamanlike handling by an average crew I the prevailing sea and wind state”….. thus in a 40 knot blow with 6’ wind driven chop, this means something different than in 6 knots and flat water (as in this case)

The only timing thing I see is that the leeward boat can change course without immediately hitting the other boat, which is what happened.

I almost hate to ask as to what rules you see this in. Under RRS 15 when a CLEAR ASTERN boat (Filmer) Establishes an overlap, she INITALLY must “GIVE ROOM” f for Windward to “keep clear”….. and as you cite the definition of “keep clear” Windward is keeping clear if leeward can alter helm in EITHER direction and not have contact….

Except in this case we have contact when Leeward alters helm to windward …. IOW Windward FAILS to “initially give the other boat room to keep clear”

My apologies if I’m coming across as snarky, but if you had read the whole thread carefully, you would see that your reading of the rules is way out in space

[Steam Flyer]

...

The fact remains that the blue boat was disqualified. Claiming that the filming boat was wrong is nice and all that but it doesn't address the fact that the PC disqualified the other boat. You may in fact know the rules better than the PC but I don't personally think that examining a situation and concluding that the PC was wrong and there is nothing to be learned from what they said is a good approach. I am trying to understand why they did what they did.

It would be nice to know why the Protest Committee made the decision they did, agreed. However, having watched Protest Committees in action... as a protestee, protestor, witness to incident, member of PC myself... I would say that PC's perform very poorly at enforcing the rules. The only thing that can be said in favor is that using PC's avoids the need for on-water umpires/referees; and I'm not in favor of that either because it fosters a "whatever you can get away with" attitude about the rules. Sailing IMHO should not be like that.

We don't know what facts the Protest Committee found (and I'll bet the farm that at least one of their facts contradicts the film); nor the basis on their decision. I have already said...might as well say it again... that from what the film shows, including giving reasonable doubt and generous interpretations of angles which video tends to distort, that there is no way Filmer doesn't deserve a DSQ under the rules. It is possible that the Shields should also get a DSQ, but that doesn't change Filmer's DSQ... it's not an either-or with the Sailing Rules.

FB- Doug

[redmond]

We still do not know what the PC reasoning was to disqualify the windward boat (Shields). I must be pretty dense because I just cannot understand why anyone would be defending the leeward (Filmer) boat's actions. The Shields tacked clear ahead and dug into the leeward hole that was available at the time. All this was done without the leeward boat (Filmer) having an overlap. The latter (Filmer), being the overtaking boat, had two choices. She either could have headed up and cleared the Shields to windward or headed down and giving the Shields enough room to stay clear. She did neither. She essentially establised an overlap so close that contact was unavoidable and she maintained that course throughout the collission, as the Shields was spun around. The only way the Shields might be quilty if, out of concern that she might be pushed over the line, she thought that she might have an opportunity to gibe away from the line and, by doing that, she did put her stern in front of the overtaking (Filmer) boat. On the video, there is no indication that this is what might have happened.

[BalticBandit]

I don't disagree with what you are saying but you misunderstood what I said. It is clear that there was no overlap from the tack. Likely not an overlap when she fell off to cross in front of the filming boat. But in the microsecond before the collision, there was an overlap. The evidence is that the collision happened and had there been no overlap, the filming boat would have cleared when they swung to starboard. I guess you can argue that the blue boat was not hit on the lee side but that is not my assumption.

The fact remains that the blue boat was disqualified. Claiming that the filming boat was wrong is nice and all that but it doesn't address the fact that the PC disqualified the other boat. You may in fact know the rules better than the PC but I don't personally think that examining a situation and concluding that the PC was wrong and there is nothing to be learned from what they said is a good approach. I am trying to understand why they did what they did.

Ok thanks for clarifying. and that's the key, the overlap did exist but under RRS15 Filmer failed to "Initially give room to keep clear".......I suspect that the PC will have made its decision based on the FALSE notion that somehow B "turned down after the overlap was established" when no such evidence exists, but the muddled testimony of these bozos may have lead them to believe this

We still do not know what the PC reasoning was to disqualify the windward boat (Shields). I must be pretty dense because I just cannot understand why anyone would be defending the leeward (Filmer) boat's actions. The Shields tacked clear ahead and dug into the leeward hole that was available at the time. All this was done without the leeward boat (Filmer) having an overlap. The latter (Filmer), being the overtaking boat, had two choices. She either could have headed up and cleared the Shields to windward or headed down and giving the Shields enough room to stay clear. She did neither. She essentially establised an overlap so close that contact was unavoidable and she maintained that course throughout the collission, as the Shields was spun around. The only way the Shields might be quilty if, out of concern that she might be pushed over the line, she thought that she might have an opportunity to gibe away from the line and, by doing that, she did put her stern in front of the overtaking (Filmer) boat. On the video, there is no indication that this is what might have happened.

+100

[walterbshaffer]

Good... except for the long interval of time when Shields-Filmer were very clearly NOT overlapped and Filmer put the helm up (making a tactically advantageous move rather than avoiding the collision).

Very clear to you and I having watched the video but the PC probably did not see this video and so could not see so very clearly that the boats were not overlapped.

Plus the filmer says "The Shields could not have altered w/o hitting us immediately so he put us and him both in a bad position" from which the PC draws a conclusion that there was an overlap, which overlap is verified when they ask the Shields the same question about whether they could have altered to weather w/o hitting the filming boat but only first asking the Shields if thier own tack, bearing off and heading up is what created the overlap in the first place.