Jump to content


Rules question.. Potential overlap at the start


  • Please log in to reply
205 replies to this topic

#1 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,219 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 08 December 2012 - 05:18 PM

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?



#2 Foolish

Foolish

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 892 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 05:38 PM

This is something I've been wondering about for some time. There is an unseen boat below, calling him up, right? And he replies "I'm going to hit that boat if I go up further". So essentially he is calling obstruction.

Is someone allowed to call obstruction at the starting line, and therefore not head up if called to do so?

#3 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,046 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 08 December 2012 - 05:49 PM

Really difficult to tell exactly when the overlap is established.

By the look of things, not a clever move by the Sheids, though.

#4 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,046 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 08 December 2012 - 05:58 PM

This is something I've been wondering about for some time. There is an unseen boat below, calling him up, right? And he replies "I'm going to hit that boat if I go up further". So essentially he is calling obstruction.

Is someone allowed to call obstruction at the starting line, and therefore not head up if called to do so?


The filming boat is the jam in the middle of the sandwich here. The sensible thing to happen is for the leeward boat not to luff the jam - complying with 14 in the process.

#5 forss

forss

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 06:15 PM

Dumb shithead is behind that wheel anyway.

#6 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 08 December 2012 - 06:16 PM

I think the Shields calls out that "you're astern" to the faster overtaking boat doing the filming; if they could have gone over the top of the Shields but did not can the Shields be blamed for not keeping clear? But were it not for the faster boat diving down and trying to stay below the Shields there might not have been a collision.

#7 Lake Shark

Lake Shark

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 December 2012 - 06:35 PM

This is something I've been wondering about for some time. There is an unseen boat below, calling him up, right? And he replies "I'm going to hit that boat if I go up further". So essentially he is calling obstruction.

Is someone allowed to call obstruction at the starting line, and therefore not head up if called to do so?


you would protest the windward boat for not heading up not call an obstruction unless the windward boat was already head to wind.

#8 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 08 December 2012 - 07:19 PM

This is something I've been wondering about for some time. There is an unseen boat below, calling him up, right? And he replies "I'm going to hit that boat if I go up further". So essentially he is calling obstruction.

Is someone allowed to call obstruction at the starting line, and therefore not head up if called to do so?


You are allowed to call obstruction, but only relating to a right of way boat
a keep clear boat, even if you owe them room is not an obstruction (unless capzised, anchored or aground)

So if a boat is calling you up that boat is typically the 'obstruction' in the situation, and the other boat (who you fear you might hit if you go up) is the usually the one who must give room.

#9 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 08 December 2012 - 07:23 PM


This is something I've been wondering about for some time. There is an unseen boat below, calling him up, right? And he replies "I'm going to hit that boat if I go up further". So essentially he is calling obstruction.

Is someone allowed to call obstruction at the starting line, and therefore not head up if called to do so?


you would protest the windward boat for not heading up not call an obstruction unless the windward boat was already head to wind.


doesn't matter if the windward boat is already head to wind
they are still not an obstruction.

#10 Foolish

Foolish

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 892 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:29 AM

You are allowed to call obstruction, but only relating to a right of way boat


What happens if the top boat simply does not head up even if I protest him? Am I, the middle boat, subject to protest if the top boat does not head up?
Part 2, what if I am just a friendly guy and do not call for the top boat to head up? Am I still subject to protest by the bottom boat?

#11 rgscpat

rgscpat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 708 posts
  • Location:New Mexico/southwest USA
  • Interests:sailing, racing, race management, Desert Sea / southwest USA sailing, future of sailing, travel, photography, hiking

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:39 AM

The middle boat may be a candidate to be protested (if leeward wants to bother) and then exonerated/not penalized (assuming no damage to trigger RRS 14 for them if the collision was somehow avoidable for them). In the 2013-2016 rules the role of exoneration will be more clear with the rewrite of part 2 d. It looks like the Shields was initially okay after completing a tack in front, but then bore off down into the path of the other boats and then maybe panicked?

#12 DFL_again

DFL_again

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:37 AM

In the beginning, when the port boat tacked in front of the boat filming, it became a starboard boat CLEAR AHEAD, with all the rights and responsibility of a CLEAR AHEAD BOAT ON THE SAME TACK.

#13 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,690 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:45 AM

Looks like the Shields completed their tack, the filming boat was clear astern, the Shields turned down a little but didn't seem to give away a leeward overlap to the filming boat. It's tough to tell, but to me. it looked like the filming boat started screaming UP UP before they had established a leeward overlap. I think they started screaming because they too were being luffed and didn't want to head up when in fact they had room to do so and miss the Shields. As a further indication that they hadn't established a leeward overlap, just before the collision, the Shileds appeared dead ahead of the screaming boat astern. The screaming boat was moving too fast into a tight spot and ran over the Shields. The shields had every right to be where it was before the start.

The video isn't conclusive in terms of overlaps but I think the filming boat should be tossed at least, or retire for damage to the Shields.

#14 DFL_again

DFL_again

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:49 AM

Oops, hit the wrong button.

The filming boat(boat 1) had to make a choice of following, going above or going below boat 2.
He definitely did not have the option of ramming boat 2.

Why boat 2 fell off and stalled the boat is beyond me.

Boat 1 should have tacked over and protested boat 2.
Instead he just started screaming at a boat that was dead in the water in his path.

The entire crew of boat 1 is a bunch of idiots.

#15 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,690 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:57 AM

On closer inspection of the video:

At 0:39 Shields has completed their tack clear ahead
At 0:43 The Shields turns down but it's debateable whether or not they gave a momentary overlap and ROW to Screamer.
At 0:53 There's a lot of UP UP from Screamer, but it didn't look like they had an overlap and they were clear astern with room to windward to take avoiding action.
At 0:56 Screamer clear astern No overlap
At 0:58 Screamer turns down and screams at leeward boat that's luffing them. What Screamer seems to be forgetting is that they have an obligation to avoid the Shields... and avoid the leeward boat that's taking them up. They needed to bite the bullet and head up themselves to avoid leeward's luff, even if it means they get taken above the committee boat. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time and definitely had room to avoid the Shields as opposed to sticking their nose in there.

At 1:00 Screamer was simply closing fast from clear astern and not taking any positive avoiding action - too many people talking to helmsman who in turn seems to be confused in terms of taking appropriate avoiding action
At 1:03 Screamer helmsman turns down and hooks the Shields

It might have helped having the bowman on the bow clearly calling the overlap.

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

14 AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible.
(it was reasonably possible for Screamer to avoid by heading up)

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY
When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other
boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of
the other boat’s actions.
(If the screamer thought they had acquired the right of way (leeward overlap), judging by the speed of the approach and collision, it didn't look like they gave the Shields any room to keep clear. The Shields probably couldn't have luffed up without their stern swinging to port and hitting the Screamer.)

Jackdaw... do you know what eventually happened in terms of protests?
.

#16 Quagers

Quagers

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:09 AM

As has been said it is hard to call from the video but I would say middle boat starts calling up way before the established an overlap. It seems to me eye like they had the option to luff above the windward boat throughout the entire video, even up till seconds before the collision, so as well as anything else there is definitely a 14 case against them.

As an aside, if they are both clear astern and the leeward boat clearly intends to pass to leeward of the windward boat the middle boat is entitled to call room to duck, as you would when ducking a starboard boat. However I don't think the leeward boat is far enough forward for this to be the case here and they would be entitled to force the middle above windward.

#17 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,046 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:17 AM

In the beginning, when the port boat tacked in front of the boat filming, it became a starboard boat CLEAR AHEAD, with all the rights and responsibility of a CLEAR AHEAD BOAT ON THE SAME TACK.

Dont forget 15

#18 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,119 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:37 PM


In the beginning, when the port boat tacked in front of the boat filming, it became a starboard boat CLEAR AHEAD, with all the rights and responsibility of a CLEAR AHEAD BOAT ON THE SAME TACK.


Dont forget 15


It looks to me like they had plenty of room when their tack was completed... remember, a "tack" is defined as from head-to-wind until you are on a close-hauled course. The Shields happened to have their mainsail eased so it was not filling, but their tack was completed in plenty of time.

IMHO WHL nailed it. The filming boat had the obligation to avoid boats to leeward and a boat clear ahead, but instead of keeping clear steered into a risky course and a collision resulted. They earned a DSQ... the Shields -might- get a DSQ also for bearing away across the bow of a leeward boat, depending on exactly when the windward-leeward overlap was established but that is impossible to determine from this video IMHO.

This is one reason why it's so difficult to take beercan racing seriously... too many snackticians think they are geniuses for ignoring the rules.

BTW let's all remember that it doesn't matter if a windward boat is head-to-wind. A LEEWARD boat is allowed to go head-to-wind, the windward boat just has to keep clear... often that means tacking away which is just too bad for them.

FB- Doug

#19 yoyoboy

yoyoboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:10 PM

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

#20 HobieAnarchy

HobieAnarchy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,805 posts
  • Location:Imported from Detroit

Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:26 PM

This is a perfect example of why judges don't like video evidence in a protest hearing. Distance / overlaps are often impossible to determine due to the position / perspective distortion of the camera.

#21 Grind4Beer

Grind4Beer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 188 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:27 PM

It looks like the video boat doesn't actually have an overlap until about 1:00, maybe a few ticks after that. So regardless of all the yelling and who tacked where, they had no rights (or ability) to luff the Shields up to that point. However, when the video boat, overtaking to leeward, stuck his bow too close under the Shields for it to turn to weather, and then hit and spun it ... That's Rule 15 DSQ on the video boat ...

And he's lucky there weren't people hurt or rigs down ...

G4B

#22 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,219 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:42 PM

Jackdaw... do you know what eventually happened in terms of protests?


WHL, nice. I can check. The race was one of the mid-distance fleet races that runs every day during BRW. Boats are mixed bag, cruisers having a go, boats that don't like buoy racing, and some short handed race boats that normally race buoys. The only player I know is the Shields driver, and he's got game.I don't remember a protest from the mid-distance races, so maybe someone retired. But I'll check.

#23 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 09 December 2012 - 06:12 PM

life Jackets in 5-8knots of wind in the cruising Div.. Chuck them anyway:P

but seriously.. It looks like the filming boat did alter to go above the Clear ahead boat.. Then though "Fuck it im faster and heavier" and ducked below, only to ram them. Watch the helmsman..

the boat CLEAR AHEAD didnt do anything wrong except get moved down.. There is nothing in the rules about "holding a lane" only he completed, started sailing and got wacked hard..

The boat below should also get chucked for luffing a guy with life jackets on in 5 knots... at that speed would have been better to sail around them.

#24 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,219 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 09 December 2012 - 06:25 PM

life Jackets in 5-8knots of wind in the cruising Div.. Chuck them anyway:P

SIs require them at start and finish.

#25 MSA

MSA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 09 December 2012 - 06:33 PM

notice the :P otherwise know as a :P

Was tongue in cheek. I actually applaud people who take safety beyond the bare minimum. Shows seamanship..

If uncomfortable, be over cautious!

#26 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

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

Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:30 PM

First, it would be extremely interesting to know exactly where on the Shields the boat with the video camera struck with their bow. It is not clear to me from the video that there ever was an overlap. Were the Shields going slowly with the tiller pulled up trying to dive down below a boat clear astern (which they have a right to do), then what I saw in the video would have happened even if the boat who made the video struck them in the transom from directly astern.

Jackdaw, can you get your friend with the shields to tell you where the damage is? I'm sure there is some and it wouldn't be hard to find. That kind of evidence is pretty critical to getting this right.

Second, if we assume that the point of contact was along the leeward side of the shields, proving there was some sort of overlap, it would be extremely interesting to know just how far forward that contact point was (again trying to get to physical evidence as opposed to video). If the point of impact was on the leeward quarter within a few feet of the transom, which is my guess from the film, then it appears that the boat who took the video stuck their bow in directly to leeward of the shield's transom and would be a real candidate to get tossed under rules 15 and 14.

The boat who made the video must allow the shields "room to keep clear" after she acquires the right of way. See rules quoted below. For a shields, with a long overhanging transom the boat making the video would need to provide at least 4 or 5 feet of room to leeward of the shields to allow the shields to actually keep clear. I've sailed shields and their transoms go to leeward at least that far when they head up. This isn't well understood by a lot of sailors of modern boats that don't have overhanging transoms.


Rule 15: Acquiring Right of Way

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


Rule 14: Avoiding Contact

A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room

  • (a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and

  • ( B) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage or injury.


#27 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,219 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:58 PM

Beau,

I looked at the results and saw the shields was DSQ'ed. Don't know any of the details, except that it was the only boat tossed, so I assume the contact didn't cause damage that would have triggered 14-B


#28 Christian

Christian

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,400 posts
  • Location:Hopefully on the water

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:06 PM

Beau,

I looked at the results and saw the shields was DSQ'ed. Don't know any of the details, except that it was the only boat tossed, so I assume the contact didn't cause damage that would have triggered 14-B


wow - that doesn't sound right looking at the video - maybe there was other evidence more compelling being presented - or some "not so true" statements being made in the room.

#29 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:26 AM

From the video the filming boat is completely in the wrong. WHL gets it right. AT MOST there was a momentary overlap early in the process. but for the vast majority of the time, the Shields was Clear Ahead ... QED RRS 12 applies. And there Clearly was room for the filming boat to sail ABOVE the shields - of course TACTICALLY that's undesirable but that's not the Sheilds problem

At ANY POINT the filming boat could have ragged all sails and backed the main and stopped. And it would not have overtaken the Shields and no collision would have occurred

QED violation of RRS 14 by the filming boat.


Finally at 55 seconds, the Filming boat establishes an overlap to leeward of the Shields. But remember that under RRS 15 he must do so in a manner that gives the Shields "ROOM" to keep clear. "Keeping clear" includes the Shields' right to luff. that means basically you need to give about 1/2 a boatlength distance between your bow - and his stern LATERALLY - which the Filming boat clearly does not do


This is a DSQ of the filming boat ON THREE separate opportunities to avoid a problem....

#30 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:29 AM

I cannot see how the Shields is DSQ here.

#31 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,119 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:33 AM

From the video the filming boat is completely in the wrong. WHL gets it right. AT MOST there was a momentary overlap early in the process. but for the vast majority of the time, the Shields was Clear Ahead ... QED RRS 12 applies. And there Clearly was room for the filming boat to sail ABOVE the shields - of course TACTICALLY that's undesirable but that's not the Sheilds problem

At ANY POINT the filming boat could have ragged all sails and backed the main and stopped. And it would not have overtaken the Shields and no collision would have occurred

QED violation of RRS 14 by the filming boat.


Finally at 55 seconds, the Filming boat establishes an overlap to leeward of the Shields. But remember that under RRS 15 he must do so in a manner that gives the Shields "ROOM" to keep clear. "Keeping clear" includes the Shields' right to luff. that means basically you need to give about 1/2 a boatlength distance between your bow - and his stern LATERALLY - which the Filming boat clearly does not do


This is a DSQ of the filming boat ON THREE separate opportunities to avoid a problem....


^ what he said ^

Did the Protest Committee watch the video? It's not clear to me exactly when the overlap was established but it was obvious that the filming boat did not make any attempt to keep clear of a boat clear ahead, nor to establish an overlap in a manner than gave them room to keep clear, nor attempt to avoid the collision.

This is why I am very doubtful of protest committees

FB- Doug

#32 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:50 AM

Its pretty clear the guys onthe filming boat are pretty clueless... guy hanging onto the backstay during the start??? and another guy just sitting in the cockpit??? WTF?

#33 chaosmaster

chaosmaster

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,814 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:46 AM

As an aside, if they are both clear astern and the leeward boat clearly intends to pass to leeward of the windward boat the middle boat is entitled to call room to duck, as you would when ducking a starboard boat. However I don't think the leeward boat is far enough forward for this to be the case here and they would be entitled to force the middle above windward.


Next time I'm in a start, I'm going to call room to duck and see how it works...

Cheers,

Chaos

#34 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,690 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:57 AM

The Shields got DSQ'd???/ Wow there must have been some extravagent testimony !!!
It would be really interesting to see what the Protest Committe concluded were the facts found and what rules they said were broken

#35 stickboy

stickboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts
  • Location:Maine

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:01 AM

I'm going to get my ass seriously reamed for this but I'd still ike to make the point.

First, in my opinion the Shields did nothing wrong and the filming boat should have abandoned his hope of hooking the Shields and gone over them.

Having said that, I'd like to make the observation that the Shields was DEAD RIGHT. Just like a corpse in a crosswalk, he had the right of way but still got hit and tossed ( though that's shocking). The big assumption I'm making my next statement is that the Shields in this video does some one design racing, even if not, I'd still like to express the thought.

Around here we have some extremely talented J24 sailors who spend most of their time racing one design but occasionally join the PHRF ranks and give us a few lessons. What I notice is that the one design racers have what I call very small personal space, they are more comfortable in close quarters than the varied PHRF boats. In their one design venue this is necessary and part of the fun, they are all evenly matched and the speed/manoverability similarities keeps the relative distances between them pretty stable. But when these practices are applied against less skilled racers on boats with different performance charateristics the results can be much different than in their usual one design arena. In the video the Shields pulled a perfectly fine tack but if you can imagine what the situation looked like from the Shields point of view, there were two boats coming at them, the video boat and the boat to leeward of them and yet the shields chose to show both of them his beam when he took his dive down. Yes he had every right to do this but the potential for the eventual result was actually somewhat predictable. Those two boats were coming at him fast, even if the filming boat squeaked above the Shields, the boat to leeward of him would probalby have had nowhere to go. The Shields had all the rights but I believe unnecessarily caused the doomed situation.

Flame on.

#36 Delta Dog

Delta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts
  • Location:Nor Cal
  • Interests:A wana go Fast!

Posted 10 December 2012 - 04:31 AM

On the camera boat, it appears to be a classic case of

Testosterone > Competency.

Fortunately not very windy

#37 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

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

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:33 AM

Jackdaw, I'm stunned. Any chance the PC posted the findings? It would make very interesting reading, given that video. BV

#38 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,046 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:20 AM

I can easily see the Shields getting chucked under 11. Depends on the testimony, but if the PC finds that the overlap was established shortly after the tack was complete, that means that the time that the Shields was clear ahead right was short - a boat length or so and 15 applied the whole time. And I wonder whether the filming boat said that they couldn't luff above the shields, given times,distances and speed she was sailing. As I say, it all depends on the testimony of times and distances.

Promptly is different from instantaneously.

From a seamanship point of view, sticking yourself right in front of 2 larger and faster boats isn't necessarily big or clever.
Wonder why she's wearing an ensign?

Posted Image

#39 shanghaisailor

shanghaisailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:02 AM

On closer inspection of the video:

At 0:39 Shields has completed their tack clear ahead
At 0:43 The Shields turns down but it's debateable whether or not they gave a momentary overlap and ROW to Screamer.
At 0:53 There's a lot of UP UP from Screamer, but it didn't look like they had an overlap and they were clear astern with room to windward to take avoiding action.
At 0:56 Screamer clear astern No overlap
At 0:58 Screamer turns down and screams at leeward boat that's luffing them. What Screamer seems to be forgetting is that they have an obligation to avoid the Shields... and avoid the leeward boat that's taking them up. They needed to bite the bullet and head up themselves to avoid leeward's luff, even if it means they get taken above the committee boat. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time and definitely had room to avoid the Shields as opposed to sticking their nose in there.

At 1:00 Screamer was simply closing fast from clear astern and not taking any positive avoiding action - too many people talking to helmsman who in turn seems to be confused in terms of taking appropriate avoiding action
At 1:03 Screamer helmsman turns down and hooks the Shields

It might have helped having the bowman on the bow clearly calling the overlap.

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

14 AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible.
(it was reasonably possible for Screamer to avoid by heading up)

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY
When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other
boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of
the other boat’s actions.
(If the screamer thought they had acquired the right of way (leeward overlap), judging by the speed of the approach and collision, it didn't look like they gave the Shields any room to keep clear. The Shields probably couldn't have luffed up without their stern swinging to port and hitting the Screamer.)

Jackdaw... do you know what eventually happened in terms of protests?
.


+1 and I would add that from the way the Shields spun the impact was on the transom. If this was so there were no leeward rights as no overlap existed. For a boat to spin like that it is unlikely there was no damage - Rule 14.

As the video boat was clearly going faster perhaps the best action was to use that speed to luff above the shields and run the risk of the committee boat. They had already left themselves vulnerable by being close to the committee boat end with sails not driving and therefore reduced ability to manouver. Not tactically brilliant but as others have said before - tough! They put themselves there.

From the video the only boat that clearly broke a rule is screamer who, with more than adequate room to keep clear drove straight into the Shields - if screamer was right of way boat. Would need more than just the video to find one way or the other.

For the sheilds to exit the room as the loser is difficult to understand - from the video - they didn't break 10,11,12,13, certainly didn't break 14, or any of the others - hard to understand. Screamer but have been crewed by lawyers :)

See ya on the water (or in the room)

SS

#40 bammiller

bammiller

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:00 PM

At the beginning of the video, doesn't someone say "We are a minute and a half...." and considering that this is all happening at the prestart, there is no proper course, regardless of how the overlap occurred. You also dont hear any starting signals and the video was less than 1:30.

If that is really the case, ultimately, the shields was the windward boat once the overlap was established and needed to keep clear. Even if the overlap was broken and re-established, again, she needs to keep clear of the leeward overlapped boat. I didnt see the shields ever attempt to keep clear by heading up, if anything, she seemed to fall down further, as if she was afraid of being over the line.

I didnt see anyone mention that fact that this was in the pre-start, and if I got that part wrong - my mistake.

Bam Miller

#41 F-18 5150

F-18 5150

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,704 posts
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:07 PM

Too many Red Hats on the Filming boat. Should be tossed on that point alone.

#42 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,046 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 10 December 2012 - 01:22 PM

This is a perfect example of why judges don't like video evidence in a protest hearing. Distance / overlaps are often impossible to determine due to the position / perspective distortion of the camera.


IME, it's not about like/don't like. A well placed video can be very helpful. It's more a question of being aware of the shortcomings. The Judges' Manual gives some guidance. Given how hard it can be to determine whether two boats are overlapped or not when you're right behind them in a RIB, (why they use wing umpires in match racing), it's impossible to tell from this video the timings of the overlap, which is the important question.


9.14 Photographic Evidence
Photographic and video recordings may be accepted as evidence at a hearing and can sometimes be useful. However, there are limitations and problems, and these should be appreciated by the protest committee. The following points may be of assistance to juries when video or photographic evidence is used.

• When a video recording is to be shown to the protest committee, it is the party presenting the evidence that should arrange the necessary equipment and ensure an operator (preferably the person who made the recording) is available to operate it.

• The party bringing the video evidence should have seen it before the hearing and provide reasons why he believes it will assist the protest committee.

• It is usually preferable to view the video after the parties have presented their cases.

• Allow the recording to be viewed first without comment, then with the comments of the party bringing the evidence, then with those of the other party. Questions may be asked in the normal way by the parties and the protest committee members.

• The depth of field of any single-lens camera is poor and with a telephoto lens, it is non-existent. When, for example, the camera's view is at right angles to the courses of two overlapped boats, it is impossible to assess the distance between them. Conversely, when the camera is directly ahead or astern, it is impossible to see when an overlap begins or even if one exists, unless it is substantial. Keep these limitations firmly in mind.

• Use the first viewing of the tape to become oriented with the scene. Where was the camera in relation to the boat? What was the angle and distance between them? Was the camera's platform moving? If so, in what direction and how fast? Is the angle changing as the boats approach the critical point? (Beware of a radical change caused by fast panning of the camera.) Did the camera have an unrestricted view throughout? If not, how much does that diminish the value of the evidence? Full orientation may require several viewings; take the time necessary.

• Since it takes only about 30 seconds to run and re-wind a typical incident, view it as many times as needed to extract all the information it can give. Also, be sure that the other party has an equal opportunity to point out what he believes it shows and does not show.

• Hold the equipment in place until the end of the hearing. The tape should be made available during deliberation for review to settle questions as to just what fact or facts it establishes, if any. Also, one of the members may have noticed something that the others did not.

• Do not expect too much from the videotape. Only occasionally, from a fortuitous camera angle, will it clearly establish the central fact of an incident. But, even if it does no more than settle one disputed point, that alone will help in reaching a correct decision.



#43 Tucky

Tucky

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,696 posts
  • Location:Maine

Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:39 PM

Can someone please address the issue of "once the overlap is established, the Shields must . . . . . ." Assuming this is prestart, if there is an overlap briefly soon after the Shields tacks, there clearly isn't one at several later points. Doesn't the overlap get re-established each time and thus require giving the Shields new room to keep clear each time?

#44 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,046 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:22 PM

Each time the Shields changes from clear ahead to windward, she changes from the right of way to give way boat. And vice versa with the filming boat.

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

So on each change between RoW and GW, the new RoW boat has to give the new GW boat room to keep clear. Room and Keep Clear are defined terms.

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.
Keep Clear One boat keeps clear of another if the other can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and, when the boats are overlapped on the same tack, if the leeward boat can change course in both directions without immediately making contact with the windward boat.

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

#45 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,690 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 10 December 2012 - 04:26 PM

It looks like there were 10 seconds between the Shields completing her tack and the beginning of the UP UP hailing..10 seconds seems a reasonable time for Screamer to slow down, and/or avoid the Shields. There's some interesting action and conversation on Screamer. The person sitting to the right is doing the screamming UP UP. and the person on the backstay seems to be coaching the helmsman. It looks like he puts his hand on the wheel to take Screamer up and you can hear someone say "take us up". The Helmsman starts to go up then panics with "I'm going to hit that boat if I do", then immediately goes down while Mr Red Shirt on the right keeps hailing. At that point, the helmsman could have gone up as prompted by Mr. Backstay Coach. Mr Backstay tries to stop the helmsman turning down and sticking his bow in there. The sounds track sounds like someone says hold your course to the helmsman and it's coincident with Mr Backstay moving his hand onto the wheel.

The helmsman is evidently getting too much conflicting info from his own crew and he looks flustered. That may account for some extravagent testimony from Screamer to sway a PC that the Shields tacked too close for Screamer to avoid (R15). Again, 10 seconds at that relatively slow speed seems long enough for Screamer to slow down. I think that Mr Backstay's coaching to go up themselves then hold their course, might have avoided the contact. There was also room between the Shields and the Committee boat to go there.

Having bow person calling overlaps in the starting area may also have given the helmsman and the tactician(s) better information on their rights and options.

Irrespective of a possible infraction by the Shields under Presuming Ed's scenario, I think Screamer should have been DSQ'd too. They had 10 seconds to take action to avoid a collision and if they did have rights, they had the obligation to avoid under R14 and the right to protest too, and not stick their nose in there and run the Shields over.

#46 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

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

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:17 PM

Great thoughts from WHL and Presumed ED, but I would REALLY LIKE to see where the scuff marks on the Shields are. I agree with SS, having sailed a very similarly designed boat (IOD) and been rammed from astern a couple of times, my bet is that the Screamer hit the Shields on the transom. If so, it's hard to see this as a Rule 11 violation by the Shields.

#47 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:23 PM

It looks like there were 10 seconds between the Shields completing her tack and the beginning of the UP UP hailing..10 seconds seems a reasonable time for Screamer to slow down, and/or avoid the Shields. There's some interesting action and conversation on Screamer. The person sitting to the right is doing the screamming UP UP. and the person on the backstay seems to be coaching the helmsman. It looks like he puts his hand on the wheel to take Screamer up and you can hear someone say "take us up". The Helmsman starts to go up then panics with "I'm going to hit that boat if I do", then immediately goes down while Mr Red Shirt on the right keeps hailing. At that point, the helmsman could have gone up as prompted by Mr. Backstay Coach. Mr Backstay tries to stop the helmsman turning down and sticking his bow in there. The sounds track sounds like someone says hold your course to the helmsman and it's coincident with Mr Backstay moving his hand onto the wheel.

The helmsman is evidently getting too much conflicting info from his own crew and he looks flustered. That may account for some extravagent testimony from Screamer to sway a PC that the Shields tacked too close for Screamer to avoid (R15). Again, 10 seconds at that relatively slow speed seems long enough for Screamer to slow down. I think that Mr Backstay's coaching to go up themselves then hold their course, might have avoided the contact. There was also room between the Shields and the Committee boat to go there.

Having bow person calling overlaps in the starting area may also have given the helmsman and the tactician(s) better information on their rights and options.

Irrespective of a possible infraction by the Shields under Presuming Ed's scenario, I think Screamer should have been DSQ'd too. They had 10 seconds to take action to avoid a collision and if they did have rights, they had the obligation to avoid under R14 and the right to protest too, and not stick their nose in there and run the Shields over.

Looks like 2 guys competing to be the tactician: the guy on the backstay does try to take the wheel and force the video boat to go over the Shields and well as quietly telling the helm to head up and the guy in the orange looks like he is initally telling the helm to go up but then starts calling the Shields up instead.

Given that at least a few people on the video boat think they could have gone over the Shieds it is really hard to see why the Shields got DSQ: tack completed clear ahead.

#48 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,119 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:40 PM

...

Given that at least a few people on the video boat think they could have gone over the Shieds it is really hard to see why the Shields got DSQ: tack completed clear ahead.


I can tell you exactly why. It is the inescapable nature of committees to arrive at a consensus that follows the cultural narrative. Engineering committees design bridges that fall down. Protest committees hand DSQs to boats whose faults are mainly social.

I doubt that anybody deliberately lied to the PC in this case. However it is certainly human nature to put the best face possible on one's case no matter how bogus, and we've all done it. The Shields tacked in front of the other boat(s), a transgression against good orderly starting in most fleets. That is what they were really guilty of. If the PC were inclined to actually read the black-and-white of the rules, as so few actually take the time to do, they would have found it hard to avoid DSQ'ing the filming boat also, but apparently they found a way.

FB- Doug

#49 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:49 PM

it does not matter "where the scuff marks are"... the issue is that

1) the Shields tacks very clear ahead. And once she completes here tack, the Filmer MUST IMMEDIATELY BEGIN TAKING ACTION TO AVOID CONTACT as they are the burdened boat (Clear astern).

2) Bam you are wrong. The shields on TWO OCCAISIONS turns back upwind breaking overlap. Which IMMEDIATELY puts th burden back on FILM to avoid the "clear ahead" boat.

3) the overlap was clearly established LESS THAN 1/2 BL to leeward of the Shields. This is INSTANTLY a violation of RRS 15 "giving room to keep clear"... because it means that if the Shields puts her helm down, and pivots around her keel, she will "immediately" cause contact.

And the definition of "keeping clear" is that the other boat can alter course without 'immediately causing contact".



This is a travesty of a jury ruling... What probably happened was that neither side really understood the rules, and the Shields did not defend the fact that no overlap had existed except for about 2 seconds before contact.

But frankly a decent jury should have sussed this out from just the way the these clowns testified

#50 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

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

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:11 PM

BB,

The scuff marks could prove there was no overlap at the time of the collision, or not. On all the rest, I basically agree with you.

I don't believe anyone commenting here has any knowledge of what happened in the "Room", nor has anyone seen a copy of the "Decision" with the attendant finding of facts etc... It is, obviously, up to the Shields if they wish to appeal the decision. In that event, the "facts found" would stand but I have known a case to be sent back to the Protest Committee to "find more facts", something I was not aware that those hearing the appeal could do. It'd sure be nice to know more facts.

BV

#51 Aloha 27

Aloha 27

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 957 posts
  • Location:Canada's Ocean Playground

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:19 PM

Unbelievable to me that the filming boat wasn't binned.

#52 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 10 December 2012 - 06:29 PM

Maybe the Shields said "fuggit" and did not attend the hearing.

Maybe the film boat said the Shields altered course down onto him.

I've noticed that the rules are interpreted & applied or ignored according to area tradion as SF notes.

#53 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,219 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:37 PM

Its interesting that knowing the results of the jury throws the thread off a bit. They were working off of the forms and the memory of involved parties. I thought the video was fascinating to watch; I think my option changed several times during multiple viewings. I'm pretty sure the PC did not see the vid. I know some of the guys on the committee, and they would have giving a fair hearing of all the presented evidence.

As Ed points out, video evidence can be both telling and misleading.

I HAVE heard through a 3rd party that the Shields was unhappy, and had contemplated an appeal with USsailing. Not sure that ever happened. I'll see if I can find anything else. Some of the players are SAers, maybe they will chime in.

#54 Raked aft \\

Raked aft \\

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 972 posts
  • Location:The North Coast

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:33 PM

I would agree video evidence can be misleading, but NOT in this case.

Jury clearly blew the call. Screamer should have been tossed, and had to pay for the almost certain
damage that happened to the Shields.

No question...

#55 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,622 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:59 PM

Each time the Shields changes from clear ahead to windward, she changes from the right of way to give way boat. And vice versa with the filming boat.

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

So on each change between RoW and GW, the new RoW boat has to give the new GW boat room to keep clear. Room and Keep Clear are defined terms.

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.
Keep Clear One boat keeps clear of another if the other can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and, when the boats are overlapped on the same tack, if the leeward boat can change course in both directions without immediately making contact with the windward boat.

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


Haven't we all been a bit careless about the last part of rule 15 unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat’s actions?

When, having completed her tack clear ahead, Shields first bears away, so that Film becomes overlapped to leeward, Film acquired right of way because of Shields' actions and rule 15 did not apply.

Later when Shields changes course to windward, showing her transom to Film, and becoming clear ahead, she acquires right of way through her own actions and is subject to the rule 15 obligation to give Film room to keep clear; there is half an ocean to windward of Film at this time, so she has ample room to keep clear.

I have a little difficulty with the situation where a faster boat becomes overlapped close to leeward of a slower boat with neither boat changeing course: what 'action' by either boat has caused her to 'acquire' right of way? Given that it is clearly necessary to protect the newly give way boat, I am inclined to think that rule 15 should apply in this situation (but I wouldn't mind a case to tell me so). Of course, rule 15 will not apply if there some action, such as starting sheets and sailing slow or sailing backwards by the ahead boat that causes the astern boat to acquire right of way.

Absolutely agree that we also need to consider rule 16 here: once boats start jinking around, rule 16 is always on.

#56 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:18 PM


Each time the Shields changes from clear ahead to windward, she changes from the right of way to give way boat. And vice versa with the filming boat.

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

So on each change between RoW and GW, the new RoW boat has to give the new GW boat room to keep clear. Room and Keep Clear are defined terms.

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.
Keep Clear One boat keeps clear of another if the other can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and, when the boats are overlapped on the same tack, if the leeward boat can change course in both directions without immediately making contact with the windward boat.

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


Haven't we all been a bit careless about the last part of rule 15 unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat’s actions?

When, having completed her tack clear ahead, Shields first bears away, so that Film becomes overlapped to leeward, Film acquired right of way because of Shields' actions and rule 15 did not apply.

Later when Shields changes course to windward, showing her transom to Film, and becoming clear ahead, she acquires right of way through her own actions and is subject to the rule 15 obligation to give Film room to keep clear; there is half an ocean to windward of Film at this time, so she has ample room to keep clear.

I have a little difficulty with the situation where a faster boat becomes overlapped close to leeward of a slower boat with neither boat changeing course: what 'action' by either boat has caused her to 'acquire' right of way? Given that it is clearly necessary to protect the newly give way boat, I am inclined to think that rule 15 should apply in this situation (but I wouldn't mind a case to tell me so). Of course, rule 15 will not apply if there some action, such as starting sheets and sailing slow or sailing backwards by the ahead boat that causes the astern boat to acquire right of way.

Absolutely agree that we also need to consider rule 16 here: once boats start jinking around, rule 16 is always on.


I'm pretty sure there is a case or call which states that even a change of speed by a boat is not considered an 'action' under R15.
an action can be changing tack, or changing course, but being overtaken would not count, even if the boat clear ahead sheeted out and slowed.

I'll see if I can find the reference.

ok found it
its a match race call... so not definitive in fleet racing, but it does carry some weight.
MR CALL B18

While the change in speed is a consequence of an action by Yellow, an increase
or decrease in speed is not in itself an 'action' within the meaning of the second
part of rule 15.



#57 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:23 PM

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.

#58 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:24 PM

So whomever sails with F (filmer) since they posted the video... you need to go to the skipper and tell them to

1) appologize to the Shields folks

2) withdraw from the race.

Do the honorable thing.

#59 ocs

ocs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:41 PM

as stated earlier there is no proper course before the start! So clear ahead does not apply! If all this happen prior to starting gun the shields is in the wrong. The film boat may not have done enough to avoid a collision -hard to tell. But the shields tacked in a really dumb spot, early on time and and with boats to leeward on starting boat layline. The shields had the option to go above the starting boat but chose to run down the line interfering on boats approaching to leeward.
Before the gun Film can luff to head to wind after gaining an overlap to leeward. After starting gun once a proper course is estabilished, different story.
If gun had not gone, rule 11 still applies-windward boat keep clear.
rule 15 does not apply as film gained right of way through shields action
rule 17 does not apply as no proper course estabilished
rule 14 may apply to film boat but only if serious damage was involved.

Look up ISAF case 13 pretty easy, Before her starting signal, a leeward boat does not break a rule by sailing a course higher than the windward boat’s course.

#60 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:56 PM

as stated earlier there is no proper course before the start! So clear ahead does not apply!


what the fuck are you talking aboit
sure there is no proper course before the start, but this has no effect whatever on the definition of clear ahead or the application of R12.

R12 applies and while the shield is clear ahead the clear astern boat has to keep clear.

#61 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,690 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:02 PM

OCS, Please look at the diagram and facts found in ISAF Case 13. It has nothing to do with this situation.
I hope I don't see you in a tight start line situation.

#62 ocs

ocs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:05 PM


as stated earlier there is no proper course before the start! So clear ahead does not apply!


what the fuck are you talking aboit
sure there is no proper course before the start, but this has no effect whatever on the definition of clear ahead or the application of R12.

R12 applies and while the shield is clear ahead the clear astern boat has to keep clear.

sure but once overlapped S shall keep clear which she did not, she created the overlap by turning down the line in order to avoid breaking the start. S had options to break the start or go above the committee boat but chose to run down line

#63 ocs

ocs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:10 PM

OCS, Please look at the diagram and facts found in ISAF Case 13. It has nothing to do with this situation.
I hope I don't see you in a tight start line situation.

Not the initial part but the second stage is very applicable, look at S change of course at 1.03 turning into a leeward boat and creating an overlap.

#64 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:15 PM



as stated earlier there is no proper course before the start! So clear ahead does not apply!


what the fuck are you talking aboit
sure there is no proper course before the start, but this has no effect whatever on the definition of clear ahead or the application of R12.

R12 applies and while the shield is clear ahead the clear astern boat has to keep clear.

sure but once overlapped S shall keep clear which she did not, she created the overlap by turning down the line in order to avoid breaking the start. S had options to break the start or go above the committee boat but chose to run down line


I think everyone who has tried to answer the question has acknowledged that the issue here is about whether R11 applied and S was obliged to keep clear, or R12 applies and F was obliged to keep clear, and whether or not R16 or R15 applied

No-one has suggested that F was under any obligation to sail her proper course at any time

hence the very real question as to why you keep bring up proper course, or write utter nonsense like

as stated earlier there is no proper course before the start! So clear ahead does not apply!

why would proper course matter in this discussion at all, and who (other than you) has made any suggestion that proper course has any beading on this?

#65 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,622 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:24 PM


I have a little difficulty with In the situation where a faster boat becomes overlapped close to leeward of a slower boat with neither boat changeing course: what there is no specific 'action' by either boat that has caused her to 'acquire' right of way thus the newly right of way boat has not acquired right of way through the other boat's actions and rule 15 applies. Given that it is clearly necessary to protect the newly give way boat, I am inclined to think that rule 15 should apply in this situation (but I wouldn't mind a case to tell me so). This is the archtypical application of rule 15 to give the formerly right of way boat, where she loses right of way instantaneously, the chance to keep clear.Of course, rule 15 will not apply if there some action, such as starting sheets and sailing slow or sailing backwards by the ahead boat that causes the astern boat to acquire right of way.


I'm pretty sure there is a case or call which states that even a change of speed by a boat is not considered an 'action' under R15.
an action can be changing tack, or changing course, but being overtaken would not count, even if the boat clear ahead sheeted out and slowed.

I'll see if I can find the reference.

ok found it
its a match race call... so not definitive in fleet racing, but it does carry some weight.
MR CALL B18

While the change in speed is a consequence of an action by Yellow, an increase
or decrease in speed is not in itself an 'action' within the meaning of the second
part of rule 15.

Thanks for trying to help me out, but the issue I raised was just way off beam Dunno what I was thinking.

I've corrected the erroneous bit above in red.

I don't think the MR Call you cites stands up. It's fine for MR Calls to specify consistent interpretations of situations to make MR more 'umpireable', thus, the call enables umpires to avoid having to decide whether the right of way boat did deliberately slow down, the Call contains no rationale to explain why what is plainly an 'action' that clearly 'caused' the change in right of way should somehow be deemed to be not an 'action'. Nowhere else in the rules or Cases is there any discussion about what is or is not an 'action' (nor do I think that is necessary).

For me, I'll use the Call in MR, but for an ordinary protest hearing, if the boat clear ahead, by deliberately reducing speed 'causes' the boat clear astern to become overlapped to leeward, then I will be satisfied. But I might be very cautious about whether there was a [deliberate] action, and whether and to what extent it 'caused' the transition.

#66 ocs

ocs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:27 PM

Proper course only from the point of view that F has limitations as to their course under rule 17 if a proper course applies, whereas her options are a lot broader pre-starting gun. I agree it is fairly basic in its interpretation one way or the other but my point of view is S tacked in a really silly spot and secondly caused the collision by turning down the line and infringing rule 11

#67 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:28 PM



I have a little difficulty with In the situation where a faster boat becomes overlapped close to leeward of a slower boat with neither boat changeing course: what there is no specific 'action' by either boat that has caused her to 'acquire' right of way thus the newly right of way boat has not acquired right of way through the other boat's actions and rule 15 applies. Given that it is clearly necessary to protect the newly give way boat, I am inclined to think that rule 15 should apply in this situation (but I wouldn't mind a case to tell me so). This is the archtypical application of rule 15 to give the formerly right of way boat, where she loses right of way instantaneously, the chance to keep clear.Of course, rule 15 will not apply if there some action, such as starting sheets and sailing slow or sailing backwards by the ahead boat that causes the astern boat to acquire right of way.


I'm pretty sure there is a case or call which states that even a change of speed by a boat is not considered an 'action' under R15.
an action can be changing tack, or changing course, but being overtaken would not count, even if the boat clear ahead sheeted out and slowed.

I'll see if I can find the reference.

ok found it
its a match race call... so not definitive in fleet racing, but it does carry some weight.
MR CALL B18

While the change in speed is a consequence of an action by Yellow, an increase
or decrease in speed is not in itself an 'action' within the meaning of the second
part of rule 15.

Thanks for trying to help me out, but the issue I raised was just way off beam Dunno what I was thinking.

I've corrected the erroneous bit above in red.

I don't think the MR Call you cites stands up. It's fine for MR Calls to specify consistent interpretations of situations to make MR more 'umpireable', thus, the call enables umpires to avoid having to decide whether the right of way boat did deliberately slow down, the Call contains no rationale to explain why what is plainly an 'action' that clearly 'caused' the change in right of way should somehow be deemed to be not an 'action'. Nowhere else in the rules or Cases is there any discussion about what is or is not an 'action' (nor do I think that is necessary).

For me, I'll use the Call in MR, but for an ordinary protest hearing, if the boat clear ahead, by deliberately reducing speed 'causes' the boat clear astern to become overlapped to leeward, then I will be satisfied. But I might be very cautious about whether there was a [deliberate] action, and whether and to what extent it 'caused' the transition.


I think that's a good way to play it, and to me was the only reasonable basis of the call.
It would be often be challenging in fleet racing to be 'sure' that a boat slowing down 'caused' the overlap, but if sure then it would be very reasonable to say that R15 does not apply because of the action of the boat who slowed down.

for example if a boat was clear ahead, slowed down, and then accelerated again, but while accelerating was overtaken to leeward, would the original 'slowdown' be considered an action which caused the change of right of way.... I don't know, and I have no idea how far back you would have to consider.

if a boat is luffing near the start line does her earlier action of slowing down, count as an action which caused a subsequent overlap?

#68 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,573 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:00 PM

What I see:

at :38 S completes tack, clear ahead (and to windward).
Attached File  38.jpg   85.75K   3 downloads

at :41 S bears off
Attached File  41.jpg   80.11K   2 downloads

at :46 S is in maxminum 'bear away'.
Attached File  46.jpg   77.73K   1 downloads

From :46 to :50 S turns up, until at about :53 they are clear head, still sailing slightly deeper than F.
:50 Attached File  50.jpg   77.83K   3 downloads
:53Attached File  53.jpg   78.82K   5 downloads

The film boat is going faster and runs right up S's transom and hits them at about 1:01. My guess from the angles is that the initial soft impact was right on the (windward side of the) transom.
Attached File  101.jpg   85.22K   8 downloads

At 1:04 F is pushing S's transom around and S into a 180.
Attached File  104.jpg   86.61K   7 downloads

For me, everything up to :50 is 'history'. From :50 on, S is clear ahead and F just runs into them breaking rule 12. S did not break rule 15 or 16, as F had time and room to turn to windward or to slow down from :50 - 1:00.

By the way, you can hear a sound singnal at about :25, which is probably the 1 minute warning.

Also F is using plastic coated life lines - not legal under the OSR's

#69 ocs

ocs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:16 PM

It appears from the sound that the collision occurs at 1.08 and as far as you can ascertain there appears to be no contact before then. the preamble (pardon the rules pun) up until 0.50 carries the usual verbage at any start, I would assume the protest findings were based on the 0.55 onwards.

#70 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,573 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:25 PM

It appears from the sound that the collision occurs at 1.08 and as far as you can ascertain there appears to be no contact before then. the preamble (pardon the rules pun) up until 0.50 carries the usual verbage at any start, I would assume the protest findings were based on the 0.55 onwards.


No the sound you hear at 1:08 is the second impact when the two topsides come together, with S already 180. S has been push around to that position.

The initial impact happens at about 1:01, just after the one guy stands up and when the shouting stops on F and they are just watching the accident happen. The initial impact is 'quiet' because the relative speed (overtaking speed) is low, and its not a big fat surface impact - as the second one at 1:08 is.

This kind of 'push around' with an initial stern impact and then a second impact when the front boat is 180 is pretty common. Take a look at the 'famous' Chippewa video.

#71 ocs

ocs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:31 PM


It appears from the sound that the collision occurs at 1.08 and as far as you can ascertain there appears to be no contact before then. the preamble (pardon the rules pun) up until 0.50 carries the usual verbage at any start, I would assume the protest findings were based on the 0.55 onwards.


No the sound you hear at 1:08 is the second impact when the two topsides come together, with S already 180. S has been push around to that position.

The initial impact happens at about 1:01, just after the one guy stands up and when the shouting stops on F and they are just watching the accident happen. The initial impact is 'quiet' because the relative speed (overtaking speed) is low, and its not a big fat surface impact - as the second one at 1:08 is.

sorry can't see that, IMHO If F had hit on windward side the boat would have spun other way and secondly there is a significant time lapse between S turning and the loud impact which is far too loud and shakes S so I would conclude it was not an ongoing shove.

#72 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,573 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:54 PM

If F had hit on windward side the boat would have spun other way and secondly there is a significant time lapse between S turning and the loud impact which is far too loud and shakes S so I would conclude it was not an ongoing shove.


No windward side of boat, windward side of the transom.
Also, remember that S was sailing slightly broader than F. Thus any hit/push anywhere on the transom would spin S's bow to leeward.
The boat would spin exactly as shown in the video. Transom would be driven to windward and bow spin to leeward.
This is a common and well understood dynamic.

I am not sure what 'far to loud' and 'shakes S' have to do with anything here. Usually in a transom run over the major damage is NOT in the initial impact, but the secondary effects as the lead boat is spun and hits the following boat side to side. Again, look at the video I linked in my prior message. The dismasting did NOT happen in the initial transom run over, but in the aftermath. The initial transom run over is usually 'quieter' that the secondary because the relative speeds are less and the bow can ride up and soften the blow. Again all this is common and well understood.

#73 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,690 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:57 PM

Wow OCS, you sure can see things very differently. I think Estar's "shove on the windward quarter" scenario works as illustrated in that vid clip.
It could also happen on the leeward quarter if the Shields was turning down even faster to try and avoid Screamer's bow (since they clearly couldn't come up in the remaining seconds).

#74 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,573 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:58 PM

listening more closely to the video, there is a noise at 1:05 that might be the initial impact. At 1:06 S is clearly being pushed around - her turning rate is obviously faster/sharper than the tiller would create.

#75 redmond

redmond

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:00 AM

I find the discussion interesting since it seems to be so easy to assign blame and pick the guilty party. The Shields had no obligations until an overlap was established. They probably did get hit less than a second after that overlap took place and had no opportunity to respond. Looks like the helmsman of the film boat had an easy decision to make. He could not come down because of a third boat and decided he did not want to get stuck to windward of the Shields. Wonder whether he would have rammed the Shields if she would have been a two or three times bigger boat.

#76 ocs

ocs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:01 AM

Oh well we will never know? All I can see is a very loud impact at 1.08 and everything else debatable, showed it to a few yachties coming through and they see it as I do. But we all see what we want to I suppose.

#77 The Gardener

The Gardener

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:44 56' N 93 17' W

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:35 AM

The shields was tossed in the room.


I think the room was incorrect.

#78 Port Tack Start

Port Tack Start

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 117 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:40 AM

Take a look at the 'famous' Chippewa video.


Poor old Swift! Always good to see Navy Sailing on SA...

#79 Aloha 27

Aloha 27

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 957 posts
  • Location:Canada's Ocean Playground

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:22 AM

What I see:

at :38 S completes tack, clear ahead (and to windward).
Attached File  38.jpg   85.75K   3 downloads

at :41 S bears off
Attached File  41.jpg   80.11K   2 downloads

at :46 S is in maxminum 'bear away'.
Attached File  46.jpg   77.73K   1 downloads

From :46 to :50 S turns up, until at about :53 they are clear head, still sailing slightly deeper than F.
:50 Attached File  50.jpg   77.83K   3 downloads
:53Attached File  53.jpg   78.82K   5 downloads

The film boat is going faster and runs right up S's transom and hits them at about 1:01. My guess from the angles is that the initial soft impact was right on the (windward side of the) transom.
Attached File  101.jpg   85.22K   8 downloads

At 1:04 F is pushing S's transom around and S into a 180.
Attached File  104.jpg   86.61K   7 downloads

For me, everything up to :50 is 'history'. From :50 on, S is clear ahead and F just runs into them breaking rule 12. S did not break rule 15 or 16, as F had time and room to turn to windward or to slow down from :50 - 1:00.

By the way, you can hear a sound signal at about :25, which is probably the 1 minute warning.

Also F is using plastic coated life lines - not legal under the OSR's


Nailed it I think.
Still not sure what F was doing as I believe they were going to be WAY early to the line.

#80 Turkey Slapper

Turkey Slapper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,868 posts
  • Location:Queensland

Posted 11 December 2012 - 03:14 AM

Blow em all, fucking big boats barging at a start!

Take up a learn to start course!

#81 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

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

Posted 11 December 2012 - 03:18 AM

Jackdaw,

I'll ask one more time and then shut up. Could someone, anyone, go have a look at the transom and rails of the Shields. That should establish where she was hit.

As I said above, I'm with Estar, the Shields got hit in the transom and spun. The Shields broke the overlap when she turned back upwind, at about 0:45. It was more than 15 seconds before the contact was made and during that time not only did Film not have an overlap but they also did nothing to avoid hitting the Shields. Indeed, as shown in the film there were occasionally two people attempting to steer the boat and another yelling things. No one was even easing the sheet.

I completely disagree with OCS, tacking in front of other boats and leading them slowly back to the starting line is a perfectly legal and common strategy. The Shields has not done anything stupid other than perhaps misjudging the competency of his competitors. To be successful this strategy does require that others in the fleet not run over the boats leading back. Shields does not break a rule by tacking where she did (OCS, if you disagree please state the rule). One can see dozens of boats doing exactly this at any high-level keel boat regatta as they approach to start.

BV

#82 ocs

ocs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:29 AM

Round in circles we go. I agree BV, it all come down to the collision point. I was always working under the assumption that S bore away at 1.08 and that big bump was the first contact.
It is fraught with danger to tack in front of the fleet and lead them back near the starboard end layline. If you do this and let a boat gain an overlap from astern to leeward they can push you up to head to wind. You are right they cannot just run into the back of you but can luff you out once overlapped to leeward, just push you up, stop you dead and drive off fast on the gun leaving you floundering.
My personal hate is the guy that arrives at the line early and then reaches downthe line to avoid breaking, forcing right of way boats to leeward to take avoiding action. It is a regular occurence at club level.

#83 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:38 AM

OCS WTH are you talking about? Proper course has nothing to do with "clear ahead" .. the definition of "clear ahead" is that no overlap exists.

An overlap ONLY exists if any part of the overlapped boat is ahead of a plane drawn perpendicular to the boat at its aftmost projection (note that from the UMP book, if you have a swept back rudder, that overlap is from the furthest aft part of even the immersed rudder)

F never had an established overlap with S for more than a second.

the FIRST OVERLAP was broken by S altering course.

The SECOND OVERLAP was not established by S's actions but rather by F sailing faster and ESTABLISHING THE OVERLAP FROM CLEAR ASTERN

Learn your damn rules.

And yes S bore away, and then came back up. there was no overlap between S and F until 1-3 seconds before contact. That is quite clear from the video. It physically is not possible given how far ahead of F S tacked.

And there is absolutely NOTHING "fraught with danger to tack in front of the fleet"

So a boat gains overlap, THEY HAVE TO GIVCE YOU ROOM TO KEEP CLEAR... 3' lateral separation IS NOT SUCH ROOM. 3 seconds is not such room.


And that guy who is reaching down - protest him. He is CLEARLY OVERLAPPED to everyboda AHEAD OF HIS STERN...... But that is not the case here

Not even close.

#84 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,690 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:42 AM

Round in circles we go. I agree BV, it all come down to the collision point. I was always working under the assumption that S bore away at 1.08 and that big bump was the first contact.
It is fraught with danger to tack in front of the fleet and lead them back near the starboard end layline. If you do this and let a boat gain an overlap from astern to leeward they can push you up to head to wind. You are right they cannot just run into the back of you but can luff you out once overlapped to leeward, just push you up, stop you dead and drive off fast on the gun leaving you floundering.
My personal hate is the guy that arrives at the line early and then reaches downthe line to avoid breaking, forcing right of way boats to leeward to take avoiding action. It is a regular occurence at club level.

Which is all fine and dandy if the leeward boat plays by the rules by having an overlap (before screaming UP UP), and when they establish the overlap, they give the windward boat room to keep clear. That is not the case here.

#85 ocs

ocs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:05 AM

I think that OCS believes there was no contact until 1:08, and that S steered clear thru the 180 by themselves (without being pushed). If that had been the case then S created the overlap. And . . . S was no longer to windward (as she had spun around to leeward) but had also gybed and was on port . . . so would have broken 10.

But IMHO that is clearly not the case. S is clearly being pushed around.

It would be easy to conclusively determine this by seeing if the 1:08 topside contact was the only damage (in which case OCS is correct) or if there is an impact somewhere near the stern (in which case everyone else is correct).

But if you look at the video at 1:06 I think its obvious that she is turning faster (by being pushed) than she could have steered.
And there is a sharp noise at 1:05 that could be the transom impact.

thank you Estar for a sensible and moderated response, the point of contact is all important here, I upon viewing the video was under the impression the first contact was at 1.08 on the port quarter of S, if there is contact earlier to the transom it changes everything and I concur.

#86 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,573 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:11 AM

OCS believes that the first impact was at 1:08, and that S steered thru the 180 turn all by themselves without being pushed.

If so, S created the overlap.

But at the impact they were no longer windard boat. They had spun around to leeward of F.

And they were still on starboard at the 1:08 impact. Their main gybed only after the impact. (I have edited this from before, as I believe she was 'by the lee' at the impact, but the boom is the critical factor and it was still on starboard tack).

So, if it were true that there was no transom hit in the 1:01-1:05 time frame. Then F has broken 11 & 14 (had plenty of room to come up). I guess that in this scenario S would also have broken 14.

edit: or I guess one could argue that when S spun around to leeward they gained right of way but without giving F enough time to keep clear - the impact was pretty much immediately after they came to leeward. Thus S breaks 15, and F (probably) breaks 14 for not coming up as they saw S spin around in front of them (they are not required to by the ROW rules but are required to avoid the impact).

But I think its pretty clear in the video at starting at 1:05/1:06 that they are being pushed around - turning rather faster than they could steer around.

It would be easy to concretely determine that by looking at the boat. If the only impact is on the topsides from the 1:08 impact then this is correct, but if there is also a transom impact then S was pushed around.

#87 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,690 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:13 AM

Another thought occured too... even if the Shields had not been hit, but saw a bigger boat coming faster from astern, turning their bow to your lee quarter that close, but not yet overlapped, what would anyone's reaction be at that late stage? turn up to windward? Unlikely given the swing of the stern right into the path? Or bear away even more on a reach and try to scoot ahead enough, hoping the screamer behind would have enough sense to go up to avoid contact while they had an opportunity? hmmm food for thought and a plausible scenario for why the shields turned down a second or so before being rammed and spun around

#88 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:39 AM

OCS believes that the first impact was at 1:08, and that S steered thru the 180 turn all by themselves without being pushed.

If so, S created the overlap.

Ever sailed a Shields? its a full keel boat with a keel hung rudder. They simply are incapable of spinning like that without external assistance.. So the rest is knida nonsense.


So, if it were true that there was no transom hit in the 1:01-1:05 time frame. Then F has broken 11 & 14 (had plenty of room to come up).

It doesn't matter if there is a transom hit or if the hit is in the stern quarter. F simply does not provide enough ROOM for S to "keep clear" aftter F establishes the overlap. Basically F comes in too close to the stern of S. And Even if no contact had occurred F would have fouled S on RRS 15 by failing Initially to Give Room for S to keep clear.

The issur of "what the Shields would do" is irrelevant. As Clear Ahead boat, she can pretty much do what she wants as long as she does it giving F "room" and F had "room" for a very very long time and only eliminated that "room" through its own actions and thus S is under no onus WRT F under RRS 15.

The ONLY exception might be if F had sailed a course to leeward giving S ample Room and S altered course in a way that reduced that Room.- THEN and ONLY THEN would S have an Onus. There is ZERO evidence this occurred. The ONLY evidence we have is that F established an overlap NO MORE THAN 3' To leeward of S's Stern Quarter. That itself is a violation of RRS 15 and RRS 11.

And the ONLY WAY that S would be penalized in that circumstance is if the jammed their helm to leeward and did not do anything to avoid a subsequent collision. But there is zero evidence this occured.


Again, whomever sails with this skipper needs to go tell him that HE FOULED S and he needs to withdraw.

#89 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,573 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:42 AM

... what would anyone's reaction be at that late stage?..


I think I would have tried to turn to present my transom and smallest target possible to the overtaking boat.

Watching the folks in the Shields I think they believed that F was clearly going to have to go up and to windward of them, so they were giving F extra room to do so. While the guys on F were muddled one (backstay) wanted to go up, and another (sitting) thought they had ROW and wanted to go under, and the helm did not know what to do.

#90 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,573 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:53 AM

They simply are incapable of spinning like that without external assistance.. So the rest is knida nonsens

I agree with this, and I think most in the discussion do also.

It doesn't matter if there is a transom hit or if the hit is in the stern quarter. F simply does not provide enough ROOM for S to "keep clear" aftter F establishes the overlap. Basically F comes in too close to the stern of S. And Even if no contact had occurred F would have fouled S on RRS 15 by failing Initially to Give Room for S to keep clear.

OCS's scenario is that S (not F) created the overlap by herself by steering into a 180 turn. In that case The second half of 15 means F does not have to give room. In this scenario I think it is possible that in fact it is S that breaks 15 by gaining ROW (by coming to leeward) and not giving F room to keep clear - the impact basically happened immediately after S comes to leeward, still on stb, and gains rights . . . in this scenario . . . which I remember I agree with you is almost certainly not the correct scenario

The ONLY exception might be if F had sailed a course to leeward giving S ample Room and S altered course in a way that reduced that Room.- THEN and ONLY THEN would S have an Onus. And the ONLY WAY that S would be penalized in that circumstance is if the jammed their helm to leeward and did not do anything to avoid a subsequent collision. But there is zero evidence this occured.

Yes, thats exactly what OCS's scenario is. That is not what you and I see in the video, but it is what he sees and it explains his position. That's worth trying to understand . . . what did he see that was different from me.

There is ZERO evidence this occurred. The ONLY evidence we have is that F established an overlap NO MORE THAN 3' To leeward of S's Stern Quarter. That itself is a violation of RRS 15 and RRS 11.

Again, I agree That is the very most probable scenario from the video, and I think it is quite clear from 1:05 & 1:06 they are being pushed around. But the video is NOT absolutely/totally perfectly 100% clear proof to 5 9's of certainty that S did not put their helm down and choose to turn 180 degrees right in front of F. The only truly absolutely totally 100% clear evidence they did not do that would be to find a near the transom impact on S.



#91 BobJ

BobJ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 987 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:18 AM

My rule three: "Don't hit anything (anybody)."

I also have a rule that only the helmsman talks to other boats - the crew shall stay silent. Among other things this allows the helmsman to remain in control of the situation. Example: Maybe I want to duck that port-tacker. If my crew is yelling "starboard" it screws that up. If you want to yell starboard, skipper your own damn boat.

Avoid the room unless it's top-level OD racing.

#92 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,690 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:46 AM

Judging by the almost unanimous and sometimes enthusiastic replies, the PC decision to DSQ the Shields seems worthy of appeal.
As the ever-enthusiastic Baltic has said, the Screamer skipper should read this topic and do the honorable thing and RAF.

Jackdaw, any chance of posting the PC "literature" on this, or a link to it anywhere?

#93 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,219 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:28 PM

Judging by the almost unanimous and sometimes enthusiastic replies, the PC decision to DSQ the Shields seems worthy of appeal.
As the ever-enthusiastic Baltic has said, the Screamer skipper should read this topic and do the honorable thing and RAF.

Jackdaw, any chance of posting the PC "literature" on this, or a link to it anywhere?


I'm looking into it today.. stay tuned...

#94 jackdaw

jackdaw

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,219 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN USA
  • Interests:The usual stuff.

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:33 PM

OK. Talked to a member of the RC committee today. Interesting.


Both parties came to the room with a set of facts. Strangely the SAME set. The RC went back over them with both parties and both parties agreed those were the facts. With that in hand they started deliberations. There was no need to call witnesses or see evidence, as both parties were in accord.

Based on the facts presented, the PC tossed the Shields for not staying clear.

The Shields owner appealed to US sailing. I do not know the basis of the appeal. Nor do I have protest fact sheet or verdict.


This kind of reminds me of a Dire Straights lyric: 'two men say they're Jesus., one of them must be wrong' Both parties must have thought they were in the right, else one would have RAFed. How can you come to a protest and agree on the facts? I thought about ten ways this could happen when my head started hurting. Most of them involve someone not knowing the rules. A few involve interpretation for the relevant rules. Others involve factoring distance, time, and speed.

#95 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,622 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:58 PM

OK. Talked to a member of the RC committee today. Interesting.


Both parties came to the room with a set of facts. Strangely the SAME set. The RC went back over them with both parties and both parties agreed those were the facts. With that in hand they started deliberations. There was no need to call witnesses or see evidence, as both parties were in accord.

Based on the facts presented, the PC tossed the Shields for not staying clear.

The Shields owner appealed to US sailing. I do not know the basis of the appeal. Nor do I have protest fact sheet or verdict.


This kind of reminds me of a Dire Straights lyric: 'two men say they're Jesus., one of them must be wrong' Both parties must have thought they were in the right, else one would have RAFed. How can you come to a protest and agree on the facts? I thought about ten ways this could happen when my head started hurting. Most of them involve someone not knowing the rules. A few involve interpretation for the relevant rules. Others involve factoring distance, time, and speed.


I am guessing that the protest committee found that contact occurred between F's bow and the leeward side of S's quarter, thus showing that at the time of contact S was overlapped to windward of F.

From the video, the last point of certainty I can see is @49, when S was overlapped to windward of F.

From @51 to about @1:06, the transom and hull of S are completely obscured by Orange Shirt, and then by the sails of F. Anybody who thinks they can decide any facts from the video during this time is kidding themselves.

So the protest committee was probably not satisifed that S broke the overlap at all and that F, acting no earlier than when it became clear that S was not keeping clear, could not reasonably possibly avoid contact.

Alternatively, the protest committee might have found that S did show her transom and break the overlap, but did not then give F room to keep clear. I would have difficulty with this, because if S was clear ahead, there was nothing to stop F luffing her to avoid contact.

I think F is very very lucky she was not found to have broken rule 14: there was a considerable time while S, sailing deep below the layline, was overlapped, but there was ample room to windward for F to have luffed and kept clear.


#96 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,573 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:18 PM

From the video, the last point of certainty I can see is @49, when S was overlapped to windward of F.

From @51 to about @1:06, the transom and hull of S are completely obscured by Orange Shirt, and then by the sails of F. Anybody who thinks they can decide any facts from the video during this time is kidding themselves.
[/size]

Actually, just as orange shirt stands up you can see the shields transom clearly but only for a split second at :59. This is not the best possible screen grab but does show the transom.

Attached File  59.jpg   163.19K   33 downloads

The first impact happens shortly threafter . . . you can see it in the shields masthead which suddently starts to get driven around at 1:02 or 1:03.

#97 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,573 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:02 PM

^^

So lets assume the facts found are (these are the only set of facts I can imagine both boats would have agreed on):

:38 S tacks to windward of F
:41 S bears off and creates overlap with F
:60 S drives clear in front of F and eliminates overlap
1:03 F hits S on/near transom.

The rules question: Did S give F enough room to keep clear?

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

#98 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,119 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:35 PM

^^

So lets assume the facts found are (these are the only set of facts I can imagine both boats would have agreed on):

:38 S tacks to windward of F
:41 S bears off and creates overlap with F
:60 S drives clear in front of F and eliminates overlap
1:03 F hits S on/near transom.

The rules question: Did S give F enough room to keep clear?

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


I think when Shields bears away there is still plenty of 'clear ahead' before an overlapis established, but to some exent S's action bearing away relieves Filmer of obligation under 15 (establishing R-O-W allowing room to keep clear)... but F still has a boat clear ahead, another boa close to leeward, and makes no move to keep clear of either. Nor does she make any attempt to avoid a collision.

I just don't see any way F doesn't deserve a DSQ in this incident... in fact I think she deserves 2 or 3 but the way the rules are written, it's only one per race.
:wacko:

FB- Doug

#99 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,690 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:47 PM

I think he had time and opportunity. He was not really taking any positive action to avoid a collision when it was painfully obvious he was going for an untenable leeward hook on S, particularly as he was being luffed too. There were 3 seconds when S was clear ahead.

3 seconds is not a long time, but in reality, you can turn the helm hard over on F if you had to. He was standing almost mesmerized and seeming to wait for Mr Backstay's prompts. In a few seconds he squandered precious moments by turning a little to starboard, then turned down again (because he didn't want to be luffed up past the committee boat?), when Mr Backstay tried to stop him doing so. By then it was too late.

Unfortunately the PC didn't have the same ability to see as we have in real time, that in those few seconds, F squandered all their opportunity to avoid a collision.

#100 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,622 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:53 PM

From the video, the last point of certainty I can see is @49, when S was overlapped to windward of F.

From @51 to about @1:06, the transom and hull of S are completely obscured by Orange Shirt, and then by the sails of F. Anybody who thinks they can decide any facts from the video during this time is kidding themselves.
[/size]

Actually, just as orange shirt stands up you can see the shields transom clearly but only for a split second at :59. This is not the best possible screen grab but does show the transom.

Attached File  59.jpg   163.19K   33 downloads

The first impact happens shortly threafter . . . you can see it in the shields masthead which suddently starts to get driven around at 1:02 or 1:03.


OK, thanks. Sharp eyes.

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, it looks to me like S is overlapped to windward.

Then, by :60, S is once again obscured by the deck of F. I really can't see any evidence in the video that S broke the overlap.

^^

So lets assume the facts found are (these are the only set of facts I can imagine both boats would have agreed on):

:38 S tacks to windward of F
:41 S bears off and creates overlap with F
:60 S drives clear in front of F and eliminates overlap
1:03 F hits S on/near transom.

The rules question: Did S give F enough room to keep clear?

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

I sort of follow you logic about being the only set of facts that both boats were likely to agree on.

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.

If contact occurred 'On' S's transom, that proves that she was clear ahead, and therefore F broke rule 12. It's then debatable whether S initially failed to give F room to keep clear, compelling F to break rule 12, and entitling F to exoneration under rule 64.1( c ), and whether it was reasoanbly possible for F to avoid contact.

If contact occurred 'near' S's transom, that proves that the boats were overlapped and one or other of them broke rule 11. I suppose that if F had contacted the windward side of F, F would have spun up to windward, not to leeward as she did, so it would seem that contact would have been on the leeward side of S, S would have been overlapped to windward and have broken rule 11. In that case, presumably, the overlap would have been continuing, there would 'initially' have been room for S to keep clear, and F would not have been exposed to rule 15.

I would still love to have been a fly on the wall when the protest committee asked each witness 'What did you do to avoid contact?'.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users