Jump to content


rule 13, leeward boat tacking too close?

rules of thumb?

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#1 Ketchenup

Ketchenup

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Location:Oregon Central Coast
  • Interests:stone carving, koi keeping, culinary arts, homebrewing, beachcombing, and uh, oh yeah, sailing.

Posted 02 May 2013 - 09:33 PM

Sorry I'm not good at drawing, but let's just say a couple of boats had been overlapped on Port tack, but the leeward boat pulls ahead and throws a quick tack across the bow of the windward boat.  The tack is complete and sails drawing before the port tack boat gets within a half boatlength, which in the 5-8kts of wind is plenty of time for the port tack boat to duck astern, which they do.  No contact, but a protest, probably based on rule 13.  Could it still be a breach of 13 if the tacking boat didn't hit anybody, and the newly burdened vessel had room to avoid a collision based on the fact that they did so?  I know you probably want more info, but this is all I can offer.  Thanks for your input.



#2 Mastadon

Mastadon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 02 May 2013 - 09:38 PM

Thought that was called "racing".

#3 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,687 posts

Posted 02 May 2013 - 09:44 PM

it sounds from your description, that P did not begin to take avoiding action until the tack was complete.

 

so, if we stipulate that that is the case..., then yes, the  "performance" of P, in not hitting S, is pretty good evidence that S met her obligation under 13.

there may be other issues-  was P forced into an unseamanlike maneuver...? 1/2 boat length is close...

 

but as to your question - is performance ever evidence?, the answer is yes.



#4 Great Red Shark

Great Red Shark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Location:Honolulu

Posted 02 May 2013 - 09:52 PM

That is why some sailors in similar situations will tack,  call "Starboard" and then start counting out loud - to demonstrate that there IS infact enough time & opportunity to keep clear.



#5 Port Tack Start

Port Tack Start

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 117 posts

Posted 02 May 2013 - 09:53 PM

It all depends on the timing.

 

13 WHILE TACKING
After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course. During that time rules 10, 11 and 12 do not apply. If two boats are subject to this rule at the same time, the one on the other’s port side or the one astern shall keep clear.
 
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.

 

Keep Clear
A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat
(a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and,
( B) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact.
 
Room
The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.
 
A) If boat A is the tacking boat and boat B is the non-tacking boat...
If boat B had to maneuver to avoid A while A was past head to wind and not close-hauled, A fouled B. (Rule 13)
 
B) If boat A forced boat B to avoid contact in an unseamanlike way, A fouled B. (Rule 15)
 
C) Otherwise, no foul.
 
You description tends to show case C, but it's all about how the protest form was filled out and is argued, and who can find what witnesses.

 



#6 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 02 May 2013 - 10:06 PM

Sorry I'm not good at drawing, but let's just say a couple of boats had been overlapped on Port tack, but the leeward boat pulls ahead and throws a quick tack across the bow of the windward boat.  The tack is complete and sails drawing before the port tack boat gets within a half boatlength, which in the 5-8kts of wind is plenty of time for the port tack boat to duck astern, which they do.  No contact, but a protest, probably based on rule 13.  Could it still be a breach of 13 if the tacking boat didn't hit anybody, and the newly burdened vessel had room to avoid a collision based on the fact that they did so?  I know you probably want more info, but this is all I can offer.  Thanks for your input.

 

There are only possible grounds for a r13 protest if P started steering to avoid before the tacking boat reached her close hauled course.



#7 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

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

Posted 03 May 2013 - 12:13 AM

Why protest? Go 2 lengths, tack to stbd and hold the other boat there for the shift or past the layline. (the point being that you might want them to tack across your bow for tactical reasons)



#8 JumpingJax

JumpingJax

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Location:East Coast US, Caribbean
  • Interests:Offshore passages, new landfalls

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:26 AM

He tacked, you ducked: no clear indication in facts given that he forced you to duck before he achieved a close hauled course and no suggestion in facts given that your duck move was in any way unseaman-like.  No foul. 

 

Another thought: If that guy was fast enough to pull ahead from an overlap to a position where tacking across your bow was possible (however close), he's way too fast for you to be playing tactical games - like pinning him on starboard tack.  He's already shown that he's too fast for that.  The clear indication is that he was in a hurry to tack, likely for a reason: you're probably on the headed tack and/or nudging the layline and probably should be tacking too as soon as you can get a clean lane. 



#9 Vendredi

Vendredi

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Halifax NS
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:44 AM

I wouldn't call 1/2 a boat length close



#10 Reht

Reht

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,766 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:09 AM

I wouldn't call 1/2 a boat length close

Depends on the boat. A 20-foot floater? Yeah, half a boat-length is close. A 50' cruiser? Maybe you got a bit more room for manoeuvring. If the OP is correct in that they were going slow enough and the Port boat avoided and didn't start taking action until after the Starboard boat completed her tack, then there's no problem... Cutting it close is fine, but there's a margin for that. In light winds as described I'm happy to see someone pass within inches of me, in a blow and waves then a couple inches is not reasonable...



#11 Vendredi

Vendredi

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Halifax NS
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:27 AM

20 footer is way more maneuverable and slower than a 50.  1/2 a boat length is tons of room either way. I'll agree though in heavier weather a bit of room reasonable.



#12 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 03 May 2013 - 04:24 AM

tiger2.jpg

I think it depends a lot on what you have just tacked in front of.  1/2 boat length in front of Tiger here and your boat is cut in half.



#13 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,687 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 09:39 AM

I wouldn't call 1/2 a boat length close

 

 

i think you are misunderstanding the situation described by the OP

 

he didn't say P crossed half a boat length behind S - that wouldn't be close.

 

he said S completed her tack 1/2 boat length from S - that's very different.

 

if the boats were now on opposite tacks, such that the collision without a duck, would be bow to bow..., then P now has 1/2 boat length within which to accomplish a whole boat length of duck (or tack). 

 

depending on how fast they are moving (probably not really fast in 5-8kts) that might or might not be possible.

 

remember that P does not have to anticipate S completing her tack..., P should  not have to move the tiller an iota until the tack is completed, and should still be able to pass behind S without an unseamanlike maneuver..

 

OP didn't specify where P would have hit S after the tack was completed, so we really don't know if 1/2 length was enough or not...



#14 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,954 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 03 May 2013 - 12:30 PM

Sorry I'm not good at drawing, but let's just say a couple of boats had been overlapped on Port tack, but the leeward boat pulls ahead and throws a quick tack across the bow of the windward boat.  The tack is complete and sails drawing before the port tack boat gets within a half boatlength, which in the 5-8kts of wind is plenty of time for the port tack boat to duck astern, which they do.  No contact, but a protest, probably based on rule 13.  Could it still be a breach of 13 if the tacking boat didn't hit anybody, and the newly burdened vessel had room to avoid a collision based on the fact that they did so?  I know you probably want more info, but this is all I can offer.  Thanks for your input.

 

.

There are only possible grounds for a r13 protest if P started steering to avoid before the tacking boat reached her close hauled course.

 

Zackly... as us7070 also said, the rules in this incident hinge on whether or not the tacking boat had completed her tack while still clear. The continuing boat on Port has no obligation to anticipate that the other boat will gain right-of-way.

 

Remember that definitions are rules in themselves... tacking used to be in the definitions (in fact, ti used to include the words "full and bye") and I mention this because it may be moved there again, but right now Rule 13 clearly states what tacking is:

 

13 WHILE TACKING
After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats
until she is on a close-hauled course. During that time rules 10, 11
and 12 do not apply. If two boats are subject to this rule at the same
time, the one on the other’s port side or the one astern shall keep
clear.

 

So a boat can complete her tack with sails still flogging, what matters is her course. However if the sails were drawing then that's a strong indication that the boat had indeed completed her tack.

 

A walk-thru of the incident- boats A and B sailing on port tack, overlapped with A slightly to leeward and ahead. Boat A has Right-Of-Way. Boat A sails slightly faster and becomes CLEAR AHEAD of B, so Boat A still has Right-Of-Way. Now Boat A decides to tack. As she turns from close-hauled on port tack up to head-to-wind, she is still the Right-of-Way boat and is not "tacking" yet. The moment she passes head-to-wind -then- she is tacking and no longer has Right-of-way. Boat B keeps Right-Of-Way until A completes her turn down to a close-hauled course, and if A does not fulfill the definition of Keeping Clear then she has broken the rules. Basically B should be able to continue sailing with no need to take avoiding action until after A completes her tack; but remember that the amount of room needed may vary depending on the boats and conditions. In 8kt winds and flat water, rather little room is needed; but a sea breeze and some chop would increase the room needed.

 

The fact that B did manage to duck clear of A is no indication that they didn't need to start their duck before A completed her tack, only that they complied with Rule 14 Avoiding Contact. So A could still have fouled B, we don't know.

 

FB- Doug



#15 SailRacer

SailRacer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,059 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 12:47 PM

Full and bye,  1000-1, 1000-2, etc..

 

Sail safe!



#16 Vendredi

Vendredi

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Halifax NS
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:57 PM

I wouldn't call 1/2 a boat length close

 

 

i think you are misunderstanding the situation described by the OP

 

he didn't say P crossed half a boat length behind S - that wouldn't be close.

 

he said S completed her tack 1/2 boat length from S - that's very different.

 

if the boats were now on opposite tacks, such that the collision without a duck, would be bow to bow..., then P now has 1/2 boat length within which to accomplish a whole boat length of duck (or tack). 

 

depending on how fast they are moving (probably not really fast in 5-8kts) that might or might not be possible.

 

remember that P does not have to anticipate S completing her tack..., P should  not have to move the tiller an iota until the tack is completed, and should still be able to pass behind S without an unseamanlike maneuver..

 

OP didn't specify where P would have hit S after the tack was completed, so we really don't know if 1/2 length was enough or not...

No, I took it that when S completed the tack there was a bit more than 1/2 a boat length which would mean a t-bone just aft of midships if they did nothing.  They may have right of way while the tack is underway but they also have to avoid a collision so they would, in fact, be anticipating the completion of the tack and should be ready to duck and fortunately they were and did.  It's a little close but that is what makes it fun.  Not something I would want to do in front of an inexperienced sailor but sounds like it was a good move and with winds that light the risks were low.

 

Overhanging bow passing over a reverse transom, on the other hand, is close. :)



#17 Ketchenup

Ketchenup

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Location:Oregon Central Coast
  • Interests:stone carving, koi keeping, culinary arts, homebrewing, beachcombing, and uh, oh yeah, sailing.

Posted 03 May 2013 - 05:45 PM

Boats were both ~25', light, nimble type older boats, impact probably would have been ~mid-ships area if no action was taken.   Protest hearing is next week, will let you know what comes out.  It sounds like it could go either way from what I read here- may have been some early avoidance, depends on what witnesses say.  S's command to tack was probably well heard by P.  Too bad nobodies backstay goPro was working that day... guess there's a fine line between OK and not OK, was thinking collision avoidance was evidence enough of OK. 

Thanks for your replys.



#18 some dude

some dude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,999 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 06:52 PM

Sounds like R15 more than R13

Boats were both ~25', light, nimble type older boats, impact probably would have been ~mid-ships area if no action was taken.   Protest hearing is next week, will let you know what comes out.  It sounds like it could go either way from what I read here- may have been some early avoidance, depends on what witnesses say.  S's command to tack was probably well heard by P.  Too bad nobodies backstay goPro was working that day... guess there's a fine line between OK and not OK, was thinking collision avoidance was evidence enough of OK. 

Thanks for your replys.



#19 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 03 May 2013 - 08:00 PM

Boats were both ~25', light, nimble type older boats, impact probably would have been ~mid-ships area if no action was taken.   Protest hearing is next week, will let you know what comes out.  It sounds like it could go either way from what I read here- may have been some early avoidance, depends on what witnesses say.  S's command to tack was probably well heard by P.  Too bad nobodies backstay goPro was working that day... guess there's a fine line between OK and not OK, was thinking collision avoidance was evidence enough of OK. 

Thanks for your replys.

 

The Key here will be the timing of when the tacking boats got to a close hauled course, and when the ducking boat actually changed course. It also matters how much the ducking boat missed by, and the existing conditions.

 

Since there was no contact the ducking boat has to show that she had a reasonable apprehension of collision so that she felt she HAD to duck before the tacking boat reached her close hauled course.

If she missed by a mile...... then even if she steered while she had right of way its still questionable whether she had good reason to steer so early.



#20 Oxygen Mask

Oxygen Mask

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,672 posts
  • Location:Oregon USA

Posted 03 May 2013 - 10:46 PM

That is why some sailors in similar situations will tack,  call "Starboard" and then start counting out loud - to demonstrate that there IS infact enough time & opportunity to keep clear.

Years ago we had a guy who would yell Starboard as they began their tack.

I once threatened him with protest, as did others. He just didn't get that you can't/should not yell starboard when you aren't on starboard.  His thought was he giving extra warning, he meant well. We finally got him to stop, but it wasn't easy.



#21 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,954 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:48 PM

That is why some sailors in similar situations will tack,  call "Starboard" and then start counting out loud - to demonstrate that there IS infact enough time & opportunity to keep clear.

 

Years ago we had a guy who would yell Starboard as they began their tack.

I once threatened him with protest, as did others. He just didn't get that you can't/should not yell starboard when you aren't on starboard.  His thought was he giving extra warning, he meant well. We finally got him to stop, but it wasn't easy.

 

 

We're racing against a bunch now (well this spring series) that have gotten in the habit of yelling "Leeward! Up! Up!" when they are a boatlength or more astern. I've been working on appropriate responses, because "Shut the F*** up" seems a bit ungentlemanly. One possibility I've been debating is just to make the classic hand-puppet-talking gesture at them, but my wife says this would be immature as well as ungentlemanly.

 

FB- Doug



#22 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 04 May 2013 - 01:46 PM

 

That is why some sailors in similar situations will tack,  call "Starboard" and then start counting out loud - to demonstrate that there IS infact enough time & opportunity to keep clear.

 

Years ago we had a guy who would yell Starboard as they began their tack.

I once threatened him with protest, as did others. He just didn't get that you can't/should not yell starboard when you aren't on starboard.  His thought was he giving extra warning, he meant well. We finally got him to stop, but it wasn't easy.

 

 

We're racing against a bunch now (well this spring series) that have gotten in the habit of yelling "Leeward! Up! Up!" when they are a boatlength or more astern. I've been working on appropriate responses, because "Shut the F*** up" seems a bit ungentlemanly. One possibility I've been debating is just to make the classic hand-puppet-talking gesture at them, but my wife says this would be immature as well as ungentlemanly.

 

FB- Doug

I would suggest you yell back "Rule 17 says you must sail your proper course.  You cannot push me up "

 

Allen



#23 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 04 May 2013 - 01:48 PM

 immature as well as ungentlemanly.

 

FB- Doug

There's a time and place for both... go for it.



#24 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 05:11 PM

The tack is complete and sails drawing before the port tack boat gets within a half boatlength

 I've emphasized this part of the text because I think the top poster (and some others) are confused as to what it means to have "completed the tack"

 

Completing the tack has nothing to do with whether or not the sails are "drawing"...  all that is required is for the course of the hull to have reached the course she would sail in those conditions to make her best course to weather (which does vary from boat to boat).

 

normally this occurs well before the sails are well in unless you have a rock star crew.   Which means that the tack was complete WELL BEFORE 1/2 BL separation.  in 5-8 knots - unless you are sailing some heavyweight behmoth (and the testimony is to the contrary) - that's way more than enough room to duck.  Doesn't matter if the duck is aggressive or radical.

 

This happens regularly in the bottom of the course in large OD fleets as boats eke forward to clear their air.   To me it doesn't even sound close to "going either way" with the evidence before us.  This is a pretty clear "no foul".

 

 

Remember also, that just because P STARTED to alter course before the tack was complete still does not mean that there was a foul.  It would only be a foul if P HAD TO alter course before the tack was complete to avoid a collision.  OTOH if P did this to avoid having to do an aggressive speed killing duck, and instead did it to improve the quality of their duck, then S is just fine.

 

So for P to win this won given the above description, they have to convince the jury that

  • S's NEW COURSE was not reached before a crash was imminent

  • Any alteration of course by P prior to S reaching that course was due to the imminent crash and not any tactical sailing effort

And given that these are nimble boats and S completed her tack well before there were 15' separating them, P has a tough row with both of those.



#25 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

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

Posted 04 May 2013 - 06:40 PM

The tack is complete and sails drawing before the port tack boat gets within a half boatlength

 I've emphasized this part of the text because I think the top poster (and some others) are confused as to what it means to have "completed the tack"

 

Completing the tack has nothing to do with whether or not the sails are "drawing"...  all that is required is for the course of the hull to have reached the course she would sail in those conditions to make her best course to weather (which does vary from boat to boat).

 

normally this occurs well before the sails are well in unless you have a rock star crew.   Which means that the tack was complete WELL BEFORE 1/2 BL separation.  in 5-8 knots - unless you are sailing some heavyweight behmoth (and the testimony is to the contrary) - that's way more than enough room to duck.  Doesn't matter if the duck is aggressive or radical.

 

This happens regularly in the bottom of the course in large OD fleets as boats eke forward to clear their air.   To me it doesn't even sound close to "going either way" with the evidence before us.  This is a pretty clear "no foul".

 

 

Remember also, that just because P STARTED to alter course before the tack was complete still does not mean that there was a foul.  It would only be a foul if P HAD TO alter course before the tack was complete to avoid a collision.  OTOH if P did this to avoid having to do an aggressive speed killing duck, and instead did it to improve the quality of their duck, then S is just fine.

 

So for P to win this won given the above description, they have to convince the jury that


  • S's NEW COURSE was not reached before a crash was imminent

     

     

  • Any alteration of course by P prior to S reaching that course was due to the imminent crash and not any tactical sailing effort

     

     

 

And given that these are nimble boats and S completed her tack well before there were 15' separating them, P has a tough row with both of those.

All very true.

 

When I used to compete around the US in OD I noticed that different areas had variations of how some rules, relating mostly to time & proximity, were interpreted & applied and they would not break with those traditions.



#26 JustDroppingBy

JustDroppingBy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,575 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 06:50 PM

 

That is why some sailors in similar situations will tack,  call "Starboard" and then start counting out loud - to demonstrate that there IS infact enough time & opportunity to keep clear.

 

Years ago we had a guy who would yell Starboard as they began their tack.

I once threatened him with protest, as did others. He just didn't get that you can't/should not yell starboard when you aren't on starboard.  His thought was he giving extra warning, he meant well. We finally got him to stop, but it wasn't easy.

 

 

We're racing against a bunch now (well this spring series) that have gotten in the habit of yelling "Leeward! Up! Up!" when they are a boatlength or more astern. I've been working on appropriate responses, because "Shut the F*** up" seems a bit ungentlemanly. One possibility I've been debating is just to make the classic hand-puppet-talking gesture at them, but my wife says this would be immature as well as ungentlemanly.

 

FB- Doug

Invite them nicely to come on up if there's no overlap.  That's the best way to teach them how to gauge when there will be one.  And then, of course, when they've hooked themselves, you can choose to luff them or not, your call.



#27 Oxygen Mask

Oxygen Mask

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,672 posts
  • Location:Oregon USA

Posted 04 May 2013 - 09:05 PM

We're racing against a bunch now (well this spring series) that have gotten in the habit of yelling "Leeward! Up! Up!" when they are a boatlength or more astern. I've been working on appropriate responses, because "Shut the F*** up" seems a bit ungentlemanly. One possibility I've been debating is just to make the classic hand-puppet-talking gesture at them, but my wife says this would be immature as well as ungentlemanly.

 

FB- Doug

Invite them nicely to come on up if there's no overlap.  That's the best way to teach them how to gauge when there will be one.  And then, of course, when they've hooked themselves, you can choose to luff them or not, your call.

Best example I ever saw - we were running down the start line maybe 30 seconds to go, light air, most of the boats were way below the line pointing at it, going very slow.  A well known rather vocal skipper kept yelling "come up! leeward boat! come up! I'm gonna protest! You better come up!"  Sounded like he was gonna explode.

 

Our skipper stood up, turned to face the guy full on, spread his arms wide, and said (very loud and clear)  "Then HIT me!" 

I looked to leeward to see he was a full boatlength and a half below us, nearly head to wind, nearly stalled. He couldn't have hit us if his life depended on it.

 

Just cuz someone yells doesn't mean you have to respond.

Except for "room to tack"  ;)



#28 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,954 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 05 May 2013 - 03:02 AM

 

We're racing against a bunch now (well this spring series) that have gotten in the habit of yelling "Leeward! Up! Up!" when they are a boatlength or more astern. I've been working on appropriate responses, because "Shut the F*** up" seems a bit ungentlemanly. One possibility I've been debating is just to make the classic hand-puppet-talking gesture at them, but my wife says this would be immature as well as ungentlemanly.

 

FB- Doug

 

 

Invite them nicely to come on up if there's no overlap.  That's the best way to teach them how to gauge when there will be one.  And then, of course, when they've hooked themselves, you can choose to luff them or not, your call.

 

 

Best example I ever saw - we were running down the start line maybe 30 seconds to go, light air, most of the boats were way below the line pointing at it, going very slow.  A well known rather vocal skipper kept yelling "come up! leeward boat! come up! I'm gonna protest! You better come up!"  Sounded like he was gonna explode.

 

Our skipper stood up, turned to face the guy full on, spread his arms wide, and said (very loud and clear)  "Then HIT me!" 

I looked to leeward to see he was a full boatlength and a half below us, nearly head to wind, nearly stalled. He couldn't have hit us if his life depended on it.

 

Just cuz someone yells doesn't mean you have to respond.

Except for "room to tack"  ;)

 

 

True, no obligatory hails, no response necessary. It's not that these guys don't know the rules, it's a combination of seeking any possible advantage including just plain distracting the other skipper, and being SO-O-O-O eager to screw up another boat that they screw themselves up 4 times out of 5, like the above skipper trying to close the door when he's not even on the porch

:(

 

Generally I just keep sailing.

 

FB- Doug



#29 ALL AT SEA

ALL AT SEA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Location:43 south
  • Interests:water, wind, gravity, keeping the wench happy.

Posted 05 May 2013 - 10:33 AM

Please correct me if I am wrong (and sorry for going off topic), 2 starboard tack boats sailing toward shore. Leeward boat can’t call ‘room to tack if it already has room to tack and comfortably clear the stern of windward boat? Please correct me if I am wrong (and sorry for going off topic), 2 starboard tack boats sailing toward shore. Leeward boat can’t call ‘room to tack if it already has room to tack and comfortably clear the stern of windward boat? 



#30 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:06 PM

Leeward boat can call all it wants since you are approaching an obstruction.   Windward boat has two choices:
1) Tack "immediately" 

OR  - and I believe this is the only "Mandatory hail"

2) hail back "YOU TACK". 

 

And if L tacks and does it in a seamanlike manner and can then avoid you in a seamanlike manner, you are fine.  The gotcha of course is "seamanlike".
 



#31 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:17 PM

Leeward boat can call all it wants since you are approaching an obstruction.   Windward boat has two choices:
1) Tack "immediately" 

OR  - and I believe this is the only "Mandatory hail"

2) hail back "YOU TACK". 

 

And if L tacks and does it in a seamanlike manner and can then avoid you in a seamanlike manner, you are fine.  The gotcha of course is "seamanlike".
 

C'mon BB, if you are going to emphasise a word in a rules discussion, emphasise the word(s) in the rules.  You' ve got the 'immediately' in the wrong place:

 

rule 20.2( requires the hailed boat to respond

 

EITHER, by tacking as soon as possible

 

OR by immediately hailing 'You tack'  and giving room.

 

If there's something to prevent the hailed boat tacking, like a boat outside her to windward, 'as soon as possible' might take some time, but in that case, what she must do immediately is 'pass on' the hail in accordance with rule 20.3.

 

See Case 113, Question 2 (emphasis added)

CASE 113

Rule 20, Room to Tack at an Obstruction

An explanation of the application of rule 20 when three boats sailing close-hauled on the same tack are approaching an obstruction and the leeward-most boat hails for room to tack, but cannot tack unless both boats to windward of her tack.

Assumed Facts

L, M and W are sailing close-hauled on starboard tack. They are approaching an obstruction they cannot safely avoid without making a substantial course change. The obstruction is not a mark. When the boats are in the positions shown in the diagram, L hails ‘Room to tack’ loudly enough to be heard by both M and W. When L hails, it is clear that M and W must both tack in order to give room to L, and M does not have room to tack and avoid W.

 

Question 1

Does rule 20.2© require W to respond to L’s hail?

Answer 1

Yes. When a boat that is not adjacent to the hailing boat has heard the hail, and will have to respond before the hailing boat is able to tack, she is a

‘hailed boat’ in the context of rule 20.2 and she shall respond accordingly.

 

Question 2

Is M required to hail W for room to tack immediately after L’s hail?

Answer 2

Yes, if W is not already responding to L’s hail. Because replying ‘You tack’ is not an option for M in this case, M is required by rule 20.2© to respond to L's hail by tacking as soon as possible. Therefore, if M cannot tack because of the presence of W, she must immediately hail W for room to tack, and rule 20.3 permits her to do so even if, in the absence of L, M would not yet need to hail for room to tack. If she fails to hail for room, and as a result is unable to tack as soon as possible, she breaks rule 20.2©.



#32 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:42 PM

Please correct me if I am wrong (and sorry for going off topic), 2 starboard tack boats sailing toward shore. Leeward boat can’t call ‘room to tack if it already has room to tack and comfortably clear the stern of windward boat? Please correct me if I am wrong (and sorry for going off topic), 2 starboard tack boats sailing toward shore. Leeward boat can’t call ‘room to tack if it already has room to tack and comfortably clear the stern of windward boat? 

 

sorry but yes you are wrong here. Leeward can hail, for W the correct response is usually to just hail back 'you tack'? at which point L MUST tack as soon as possible.



#33 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 05 May 2013 - 03:31 PM

20.2 Responding 
    a. After a boat hails, she shall give the hailed boat time to respond. 
    b. The hailed boat shall respond even if the hail breaks rule 20.1. 
    c. The hailed boat shall respond either by tacking as soon as possible, or by immediately replying ‘You tack' and then giving the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her. 
    d. When the hailed boat responds, the hailing boat shall tack as soon as possible. 
    e. From the time a boat hails until she has tacked and avoided the hailed boat, rule 18.2 does not apply between them.



#34 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 05 May 2013 - 04:38 PM

My bad Brass -- that's what I get for trying to do it from memory... I know better



#35 ALL AT SEA

ALL AT SEA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Location:43 south
  • Interests:water, wind, gravity, keeping the wench happy.

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:16 PM

Thank you gentlemen, cleared up any confusion i had. Back to the topic at hand!



#36 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 05 May 2013 - 10:03 PM

When the boat tacks onto starboard 

 

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear

 

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.

 

Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat 
    (a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action

 

initially (adverb)  at first; (ordinary meaning).

 

Therefore, the boat that tacked has to give the port tack boat room to sail her course with no need to take avoiding action at first.

 

Initially does not mean instantaneously.  It means at first.  My take is that if the first thing the port tack boat had to do was to take avoiding action then this is a violation of the rules.

 

Allen



#37 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 05 May 2013 - 10:27 PM

When the boat tacks onto starboard 

 

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear

 

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.

 

Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat 
    (a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action

 

initially (adverb)  at first; (ordinary meaning).

 

Therefore, the boat that tacked has to give the port tack boat room to sail her course with no need to take avoiding action at first.

 

Initially does not mean instantaneously.  It means at first.  My take is that if the first thing the port tack boat had to do was to take avoiding action then this is a violation of the rules.

 

Allen

I think you are misreading something.

 

as soon as S acquired Right of way P must KEEP CLEAR of S, therefore P must start to avoid as soon as S actually had right of way.

 

S INITIALLY must give P room to keep clear, this does not allow P to continue to sail her course, because by that time P must be allowing S to sail S's course.

 

there is nothing in R15 which says that S must initially keep clear of P.



#38 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 05 May 2013 - 10:36 PM

When the boat tacks onto starboard 

 

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear

 

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.

 

Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat 
    (a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action

 

initially (adverb)  at first; (ordinary meaning).

 

Therefore, the boat that tacked has to give the port tack boat room to sail her course with no need to take avoiding action at first.

 

Initially does not mean instantaneously.  It means at first.  My take is that if the first thing the port tack boat had to do was to take avoiding action then this is a violation of the rules.

 

Allen

I think you are misreading something.

 

as soon as S acquired Right of way P must KEEP CLEAR of S, therefore P must start to avoid as soon as S actually had right of way.

 

S INITIALLY must give P room to keep clear, this does not allow P to continue to sail her course, because by that time P must be allowing S to sail S's course.

 

there is nothing in R15 which says that S must initially keep clear of P.

There is no issue with S keeping clear of P either in the rules or in the situation presented.  As I understood it, it would be P t-bonning S.  No way for S to hit P.

 

As S just acquired right of way, S must give P room to initially keep clear.

 

The wording that makes it clear to me is that if the first thing P needs to do is alter course, there was a violation.  That is from reading the rules and definitions and re-arranging things a little but not by changing the meaning.  Just simple logic.  If altering course is not the first thing P needs to do, then there is not a violation.  The way I would call it is that with another boat 1/2 boat length ahead, altering course better be the first thing you do.  If not, you are going to hit them.  Violation. QED.

 

Here is the logic.  If the rules require that at first I don't need to do something then if I need to do that thing at first, then the rule was violated.

 

Allen



#39 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:17 AM

 

When the boat tacks onto starboard 

 

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear

 

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.

 

Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat 
    (a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action

 

initially (adverb)  at first; (ordinary meaning).

 

Therefore, the boat that tacked has to give the port tack boat room to sail her course with no need to take avoiding action at first.

 

Initially does not mean instantaneously.  It means at first.  My take is that if the first thing the port tack boat had to do was to take avoiding action then this is a violation of the rules.

 

Allen

I think you are misreading something.

 

as soon as S acquired Right of way P must KEEP CLEAR of S, therefore P must start to avoid as soon as S actually had right of way.

 

S INITIALLY must give P room to keep clear, this does not allow P to continue to sail her course, because by that time P must be allowing S to sail S's course.

 

there is nothing in R15 which says that S must initially keep clear of P.

There is no issue with S keeping clear of P either in the rules or in the situation presented.  As I understood it, it would be P t-bonning S.  No way for S to hit P.

 

As S just acquired right of way, S must give P room to initially keep clear.

 

The wording that makes it clear to me is that if the first thing P needs to do is alter course, there was a violation.  That is from reading the rules and definitions and re-arranging things a little but not by changing the meaning.  Just simple logic.  If altering course is not the first thing P needs to do, then there is not a violation.  The way I would call it is that with another boat 1/2 boat length ahead, altering course better be the first thing you do.  If not, you are going to hit them.  Violation. QED.

 

Here is the logic.  If the rules require that at first I don't need to do something then if I need to do that thing at first, then the rule was violated.

 

Allen

 

The rules require that AS SOON AS S is right of way P keeps clear.

Therefore as soon as S has right of way P has to start to keep clear (under the rules)

There is no rule (and certainly not R15) that in any way allows P to hold her course once S acquires Right of way if in doing so she fails to keep clear.

 

If P has to steer to initially keep clear, so be it, that is what she must do... anything seamanlike is on... steering to avoid a boat you would otherwise t bone is definitely seamanlike.



#40 Ketchenup

Ketchenup

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Location:Oregon Central Coast
  • Interests:stone carving, koi keeping, culinary arts, homebrewing, beachcombing, and uh, oh yeah, sailing.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:19 AM

Just wondering how long initially lasts.  If there was a 4-5 second lag between the completed tack and the newly burdened vessel's first movement to change course, is that still initially?



#41 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:35 AM

Just wondering how long initially lasts.  If there was a 4-5 second lag between the completed tack and the newly burdened vessel's first movement to change course, is that still initially?

If you are saying that after S was on a close hauled course then P did nothing for 4 to 5 seconds after that then I would say they did not initially  alter course and since they didn't hit, they did not need to initially alter course.  That sounds like a lot of time.  But that implies 8-10 seconds per boat length which is very slow.  It all depends if you can prove the timing I would assume.  If S can get P to agree that they did nothing for 4-5 seconds, I would think then S could reasonably argue that they did not need to initially alter course.  Let us know how it turns out.

 

My only advice after listening to a 4 hour rules seminar is to take the rules literally with the exact meaning of what is written.  If a word is not defined, like immediately, use the ordinary meaning which I would take as the OED.  Good luck.



#42 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:38 AM

Hard to understand what you guys are arguing about here.

 

When the boat tacks onto starboard 
 
15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear
 
Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.
 
Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat 
    (a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action
 
initially (adverb)  at first; (ordinary meaning).
 
Therefore, the boat that tacked has to give the port tack boat room to sail her course with no need to take avoiding action at first.
 
Initially does not mean instantaneously.  It means at first.  My take is that if the first thing the port tack boat had to do was to take avoiding action then this is a violation of the rules.
 
Not clear what you mean by 'first thing'.  Does this work for you:
 

  • If P needs to take take avoiding action before S reaches her close hauled course (I suppose, that is 'first thing after S passes head to wind') then S breaks rule 13.
  • If P need not take any avoiding action until after S reaches her close hauled course ('first thing after S reaches her close hauled course'), then S does not break rule 13

It's hypothetically possible for S, once having broken rule 13, to reach her close hauled course then also to break rule 15, and any smart protesting boat would protest under both rules 13 and 15, but let's leave that aside for the present discussion.
 
[/quote]

I think you are misreading something.
 
as soon as S acquired Right of way P must KEEP CLEAR of S, therefore P must start to avoid  take action to keep clear as soon as S actually had right of way.
 
S INITIALLY must give P room to keep clear, this does not allow P to continue to sail her course, because by that time P must be allowing S to sail S's course.
 
there is nothing in R15 which says that S must initially keep clear of P.
 
[/quote]
There is no issue with S keeping clear of P either in the rules or in the situation presented.  As I understood it, it would be P t-bonning S.  No way for S to hit P.
 
As S just acquired right of way, S must give P room to initially keep clear.
 
The wording that makes it clear to me is that if the first thing P needs to do is alter course, there was a violation. That is from reading the rules and definitions and re-arranging things a little but not by changing the meaning.  Just simple logic.  If altering course is not the first thing P needs to do, then there is not a violation.

This 'first thing' language is obscuring your argument.

If (and only if) P needs to change course (or take other avoiding action) before S reaches her close hauled course, S breaks rule 13.

If P does not 'need' to change course (or take other avoiding action) until after S reaches her close hauled course S does not break rule 13, but

If P, manouevering promptly and in a seamanlike manner, starting no later than the moment S reaches her close hauled course, is unable to keep clear, then S breaks rule 15.


The way I would call it is that with another boat 1/2 boat length ahead, altering course better be the first thing you do.  If not, you are going to hit them.  Violation. QED.

Maybe, but not necessarily:

  • If likely contact (without any avoiding action) was bow to bow, then, supposing that S had not yet reached her close hauled course, she may well be able to keep clear by going head to wind and/or tacking back onto port.
  • Very likely true if the likely contact was P T Bones S bow to midships,
  • If likely contact (without avoiding action) was bow to aft quarter, possibly S may accelerate and pass ahead without contact: P might defer taking action for a few seconds until it was clear that she needed to take action to keep clear.
  • Here is the logic.  If the rules require that at first I don't need to do something then if I need to do that thing at first, then the rule was violated.

    Mate, you are absolutely tying yourself up in knots here.

    The rules can't 'require ... that you don't need to do something'.

    Rules can only:

    require that you do something or

    require that you not do something.

     

 



#43 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:43 AM

Just wondering how long initially lasts.  If there was a 4-5 second lag between the completed tack and the newly burdened vessel's first movement to change course, is that still initially?

If you are saying that after S was on a close hauled course then P did nothing for 4 to 5 seconds after that then I would say they did not initially  alter course and since they didn't hit, they did not need to initially alter course.  That sounds like a lot of time.  But that implies 8-10 seconds per boat length which is very slow.  It all depends if you can prove the timing I would assume.  If S can get P to agree that they did nothing for 4-5 seconds, I would think then S could reasonably argue that they did not need to initially alter course.  Let us know how it turns out.

 

My only advice after listening to a 4 hour rules seminar is to take the rules literally with the exact meaning of what is written.  If a word is not defined, like immediately, use the ordinary meaning which I would take as the OED.  Good luck.

 

initially is the time period when S is required to give P room to keep clear.

p while she does everything she can (in a seamanlike way) to keep clear either manages to keep clear or fails to.

 

so as a time period what it means is, as long as P is doing everything she can to keep clear (.....in a .... etc) you are still in the 'initially' period.

 

there is no 'grace period' while P does nothing, expect maybe some reaction time.



#44 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:44 AM

Just wondering how long initially lasts.  If there was a 4-5 second lag between the completed tack and the newly burdened vessel's first movement to change course, is that still initially?

If you are saying that after S was on a close hauled course then P did nothing for 4 to 5 seconds after that then I would say they did not initially  alter course and since they didn't hit, they did not need to initially alter course.  That sounds like a lot of time.  But that implies 8-10 seconds per boat length which is very slow.  It all depends if you can prove the timing I would assume.  If S can get P to agree that they did nothing for 4-5 seconds, I would think then S could reasonably argue that they did not need to initially alter course.  Let us know how it turns out.

 

My only advice after listening to a 4 hour rules seminar is to take the rules literally with the exact meaning of what is written.  If a word is not defined, like immediately, use the ordinary meaning which I would take as the OED.  Good luck.

 

Where does this P doesn't have to initially alter course come from? What part of R15 do you think says that?



#45 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:49 AM

Just wondering how long initially lasts.  If there was a 4-5 second lag between the completed tack and the newly burdened vessel's first movement to change course, is that still initially?

If you are saying that after S was on a close hauled course then P did nothing for 4 to 5 seconds after that then I would say they did not initially  alter course and since they didn't hit, they did not need to initially alter course.  That sounds like a lot of time.  But that implies 8-10 seconds per boat length which is very slow.  It all depends if you can prove the timing I would assume.  If S can get P to agree that they did nothing for 4-5 seconds, I would think then S could reasonably argue that they did not need to initially alter course.  Let us know how it turns out.

 

My only advice after listening to a 4 hour rules seminar is to take the rules literally with the exact meaning of what is written.  If a word is not defined, like immediately, use the ordinary meaning which I would take as the OED.  Good luck.

 

 

Just wondering how long initially lasts.  If there was a 4-5 second lag between the completed tack and the newly burdened vessel's first movement to change course, is that still initially?

If you are saying that after S was on a close hauled course then P did nothing for 4 to 5 seconds after that then I would say they did not initially  alter course and since they didn't hit, they did not need to initially alter course.  That sounds like a lot of time.  But that implies 8-10 seconds per boat length which is very slow.  It all depends if you can prove the timing I would assume.  If S can get P to agree that they did nothing for 4-5 seconds, I would think then S could reasonably argue that they did not need to initially alter course.  Let us know how it turns out.

 

My only advice after listening to a 4 hour rules seminar is to take the rules literally with the exact meaning of what is written.  If a word is not defined, like immediately, use the ordinary meaning which I would take as the OED.  Good luck.

 

initially is the time period when S is required to give P room to keep clear.

p while she does everything she can (in a seamanlike way) to keep clear either manages to keep clear or fails to.

 

so as a time period what it means is, as long as P is doing everything she can to keep clear (.....in a .... etc) you are still in the 'initially' period.

 

there is no 'grace period' while P does nothing, expect maybe some reaction time.

 

 

This is the 'promptly' bit of the definition of room.

 

If P 'does nothing' for 4 or 5 seconds after S becomes right of way boat, and there is contact, she is going to find it next to impossible to argue that S did not give her the space she needed acting promptly.



#46 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:50 AM

 

 

When the boat tacks onto starboard 

 

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear

 

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.

 

Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat 
    (a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action

 

initially (adverb)  at first; (ordinary meaning).

 

Therefore, the boat that tacked has to give the port tack boat room to sail her course with no need to take avoiding action at first.

 

Initially does not mean instantaneously.  It means at first.  My take is that if the first thing the port tack boat had to do was to take avoiding action then this is a violation of the rules.

 

Allen

I think you are misreading something.

 

as soon as S acquired Right of way P must KEEP CLEAR of S, therefore P must start to avoid as soon as S actually had right of way.

 

S INITIALLY must give P room to keep clear, this does not allow P to continue to sail her course, because by that time P must be allowing S to sail S's course.

 

there is nothing in R15 which says that S must initially keep clear of P.

There is no issue with S keeping clear of P either in the rules or in the situation presented.  As I understood it, it would be P t-bonning S.  No way for S to hit P.

 

As S just acquired right of way, S must give P room to initially keep clear.

 

The wording that makes it clear to me is that if the first thing P needs to do is alter course, there was a violation.  That is from reading the rules and definitions and re-arranging things a little but not by changing the meaning.  Just simple logic.  If altering course is not the first thing P needs to do, then there is not a violation.  The way I would call it is that with another boat 1/2 boat length ahead, altering course better be the first thing you do.  If not, you are going to hit them.  Violation. QED.

 

Here is the logic.  If the rules require that at first I don't need to do something then if I need to do that thing at first, then the rule was violated.

 

Allen

 

The rules require that AS SOON AS S is right of way P keeps clear.

Therefore as soon as S has right of way P has to start to keep clear (under the rules)

There is no rule (and certainly not R15) that in any way allows P to hold her course once S acquires Right of way if in doing so she fails to keep clear.

 

If P has to steer to initially keep clear, so be it, that is what she must do... anything seamanlike is on... steering to avoid a boat you would otherwise t bone is definitely seamanlike.

What rule is that?  

I am talking about a rule that puts a burden on S, not on P. 

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear

 

Rule 13 is also a burden on S, not on P and besides nobody said S was not keeping clear.  The issue is was S giving room for P to keep clear.  So what rule are you referring to?



#47 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 06 May 2013 - 12:55 AM

What rule is that?  

I am talking about a rule that puts a burden on S, not on P. 

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear

 

Rule 13 is also a burden on S, not on P and besides nobody said S was not keeping clear.  The issue is was S giving room for P to keep clear.  So what rule are you referring to?

 

Room to keep clear does not in any way allow P to 'initially' hold her course.

 

Keep clear is what she has to do.... which is allow S to sail her course. Room to do so does not include room for her to hold her course, its room to KEEP CLEAR, so she had better be taking action to keep clear if she wants to claim that S did not initially give her room to do so.



#48 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:01 AM

What rule is that?  

I am talking about a rule that puts a burden on S, not on P. 

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear

 

Rule 13 is also a burden on S, not on P and besides nobody said S was not keeping clear.  The issue is was S giving room for P to keep clear.  So what rule are you referring to?

 

Room to keep clear does not in any way allow P to 'initially' hold her course.

 

Keep clear is what she has to do.... which is allow S to sail her course. Room to do so does not include room for her to hold her course, its room to KEEP CLEAR, so she had better be taking action to keep clear if she wants to claim that S did not initially give her room to do so.

OK, got it.  Room is the key here.  If keeping clear requires a crash tack avoiding action then violation.  If P can keep clear in a seamanlike manner then no violation. 



#49 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:19 AM


 


Just wondering how long initially lasts.  If there was a 4-5 second lag between the completed tack and the newly burdened vessel's first movement to change course, is that still initially?

If you are saying that after S was on a close hauled course then P did nothing for 4 to 5 seconds after that then I would say they did not initially  alter course and since they didn't hit, they did not need to initially alter course.  That sounds like a lot of time.  But that implies 8-10 seconds per boat length which is very slow.  It all depends if you can prove the timing I would assume.  If S can get P to agree that they did nothing for 4-5 seconds, I would think then S could reasonably argue that they did not need to initially alter course.  Let us know how it turns out.

 

My only advice after listening to a 4 hour rules seminar is to take the rules literally with the exact meaning of what is written.  If a word is not defined, like immediately, use the ordinary meaning which I would take as the OED.  Good luck.

 

Where does this P doesn't have to initially alter course come from? What part of R15 do you think says that?

Be fair JohnMB, you were the one who 'initially' <g> started talking about 'P initially having to change course'.

 

This is all becoming very tangled.  Can we try this.

 

There is contact between P and S

 

P has a good starting point to argue that:

  1. she needed to take avoiding action before S reached a close hauled course, and S broke rule 13,

  2. S, having reached her close hauled course and acquired right of way, did not give P room to keep clear and broke rule 15;  and

  3. anything she can make of rule 14

Good defences for S will be:

  1. P did not 'need' to take avoiding action before S reached her close hauled course;

  2. P did not take action to keep clear promptly when S reached her close hauled course;

  3. P did not do all she could in a seamanlike manner to keep clear.

There is no contact between P and S

 

This makes no difference to any case P may have that she needed to take avoiding action before S reached a close hauled course, and S broke rule 13/

 

P will, however have considerable difficulty in arguing, in the absence of contact, that she did not have room to keep clear, because, demonstrably, she did keep clear.

 

Rule 14 will not apply at all.

 

S's defences will be:

  1. P did not 'need' to take avoiding action before S reached her close hauled course (as above);

  2. there was nothing unseamanlike in the action that P took to keep clear.

'Initally' in rule 15 and 'promptly' in the definition of room

 

'Initially give the other boat room' in rule 15 should be construed (applying the definition of room) as

 

'Initally give the other boat the space [she] needs ... while manoeuvering promptly in a seamanlike manner.'

 

The start of that period is 'promptly' after the obligation of rule 15 begins, namely, the moment the tacking boat reaches her close hauled course and becomes the right of way boat.

 

Initially, extends from that time, until  the give way boat, if she had manouevered promptly and in a seamanlike manner, would have completed the action necessary to keep clear.

 

Depending on circumstances, possibly including other boats or obstructions, 'initially' may extend for quite a bit of time, 30 seconds or more.



#50 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:26 AM

 

What rule is that?  

I am talking about a rule that puts a burden on S, not on P. 

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear

 

Rule 13 is also a burden on S, not on P and besides nobody said S was not keeping clear.  The issue is was S giving room for P to keep clear.  So what rule are you referring to?

 

Room to keep clear does not in any way allow P to 'initially' hold her course.

 

Keep clear is what she has to do.... which is allow S to sail her course. Room to do so does not include room for her to hold her course, its room to KEEP CLEAR, so she had better be taking action to keep clear if she wants to claim that S did not initially give her room to do so.

OK, got it.  Room is the key here.  If keeping clear requires a crash tack avoiding action then violation.  If P can keep clear in a seamanlike manner then no violation. 

Well done.

 

But what in the world is a 'crash tack' (other than a tack when you crash into something <g>)?

 

How fast can you tack when you really want to?  5 seconds?  8 seconds?  Then that's how fast a 'seamanlilke' tack is.

 

Sure, 'in the existing conditions', and not 'extraordinary or abnormal' (Case 21) and 'competent but not expert crew' (Case 103), and yes, you get time to unload your sheet hand and runner hand off the fully hiked position on the rail, but you better not dilly dally.



#51 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,954 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:42 AM

When the boat tacks onto starboard 

 

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear

 

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.

 

Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat 
    (a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action

 

initially (adverb)  at first; (ordinary meaning).

 

Therefore, the boat that tacked has to give the port tack boat room to sail her course with no need to take avoiding action at first.

 

Initially does not mean instantaneously.  It means at first.  My take is that if the first thing the port tack boat had to do was to take avoiding action then this is a violation of the rules.

 

Allen

 

Huh?

 

The rules require that S give room for P to keep clear, initially. How do you translate that to mean mean P does not need to keep clear, initially?

 

P does not need to anticipate S gaining right-of-way before S completes the tack; while S is tacking P has right-of-way

S has right-of-way as soon as her tack is complete, so P needs to start keeping clear.

S has an obligation to make sure her tack is complete where P has room to keep clear.

 

There is nothing which says P can keep on sailing along, whistling a happy tune with her head in the clouds.

 

FB- Doug



#52 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:54 AM

 

 

What rule is that?  

I am talking about a rule that puts a burden on S, not on P. 

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear

 

Rule 13 is also a burden on S, not on P and besides nobody said S was not keeping clear.  The issue is was S giving room for P to keep clear.  So what rule are you referring to?

 

Room to keep clear does not in any way allow P to 'initially' hold her course.

 

Keep clear is what she has to do.... which is allow S to sail her course. Room to do so does not include room for her to hold her course, its room to KEEP CLEAR, so she had better be taking action to keep clear if she wants to claim that S did not initially give her room to do so.

OK, got it.  Room is the key here.  If keeping clear requires a crash tack avoiding action then violation.  If P can keep clear in a seamanlike manner then no violation. 

Well done.

 

But what in the world is a 'crash tack' (other than a tack when you crash into something <g>)?

 

How fast can you tack when you really want to?  5 seconds?  8 seconds?  Then that's how fast a 'seamanlilke' tack is.

 

Sure, 'in the existing conditions', and not 'extraordinary or abnormal' (Case 21) and 'competent but not expert crew' (Case 103), and yes, you get time to unload your sheet hand and runner hand off the fully hiked position on the rail, but you better not dilly dally.

Tiller hard over is not a seamanlike move.  It is a panic avoidance move.  My understanding is that this is pretty much understood.  A seamanlike tack keeps the boat speed up while changing course.  Fastest avoidance move is not seamanlike.

 

@steam flyer -- got it.  see my other post.



#53 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 04:15 AM

 

OK, got it.  Room is the key here.  If keeping clear requires a crash tack avoiding action then violation.  If P can keep clear in a seamanlike manner then no violation.

Well done.
 
But what in the world is a 'crash tack' (other than a tack when you crash into something <g>)?
 
How fast can you tack when you really want to?  5 seconds?  8 seconds?  Then that's how fast a 'seamanlilke' tack is.
 
Sure, 'in the existing conditions', and not 'extraordinary or abnormal' (Case 21) and 'competent but not expert crew' (Case 103), and yes, you get time to unload your sheet hand and runner hand off the fully hiked position on the rail, but you better not dilly dally.

Tiller hard over is not a seamanlike move.  It is a panic avoidance move.  My understanding is that this is pretty much understood.  A seamanlike tack keeps the boat speed up while changing course.  Fastest avoidance move is not seamanlike.
I disagree. 'Fastest' does not equal 'seamanlike'. Much less does 'not fastest' equal 'unseamanlike'.

I've referenced the cases that develop the criteria for seamanlike/unseamanlike, and maintaining speed certainly isn't in there.

US Sailing Appeal 20, the seminal discussion of 'seamanlike' and 'tactical' might help here.

I don't have a problem with a 'tack that has to be quicker than a normal quick tack', but I need to see evidence about how, when and why a tack was an abnormal or extraordinary manoeuvre.

What I'm really asking is, if we are having a discussion about the rules, can we try to use the language of the rules accurately, and not resort to vague slang and other jargon.

#54 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 04:51 AM

 

 

OK, got it.  Room is the key here.  If keeping clear requires a crash tack avoiding action then violation.  If P can keep clear in a seamanlike manner then no violation.

Well done.
 
But what in the world is a 'crash tack' (other than a tack when you crash into something <g>)?
 
How fast can you tack when you really want to?  5 seconds?  8 seconds?  Then that's how fast a 'seamanlilke' tack is.
 
Sure, 'in the existing conditions', and not 'extraordinary or abnormal' (Case 21) and 'competent but not expert crew' (Case 103), and yes, you get time to unload your sheet hand and runner hand off the fully hiked position on the rail, but you better not dilly dally.

 

Tiller hard over is not a seamanlike move.  It is a panic avoidance move.  My understanding is that this is pretty much understood.  A seamanlike tack keeps the boat speed up while changing course.  Fastest avoidance move is not seamanlike.
I disagree. 'Fastest' does not equal 'seamanlike'. Much less does 'not fastest' equal 'unseamanlike'.

I've referenced the cases that develop the criteria for seamanlike/unseamanlike, and maintaining speed certainly isn't in there.

US Sailing Appeal 20, the seminal discussion of 'seamanlike' and 'tactical' might help here.

I don't have a problem with a 'tack that has to be quicker than a normal quick tack', but I need to see evidence about how, when and why a tack was an abnormal or extraordinary manoeuvre.

What I'm really asking is, if we are having a discussion about the rules, can we try to use the language of the rules accurately, and not resort to vague slang and other jargon.

I can't tell if we agree or disagree but I am sure that I am not being clear in what I am saying.  I have read case 20 and am very familiar with that concept.  What I am talking about is my understanding that a panic avoidance hard tiller over to avoid a collision is not seamanlike.  It is certainly not tactical but I was not arguing for that.  I did not mean to imply that, as case 20 talks about, the boat has to sail in a way so as to finish as quickly as possible and to the degree I used words that expressed that thought I apologize.  But let's just say that there is just time for a skipper to throw the tiller full over and stop his boat to avoid a collision.  I would say that is not seamanlike.  To me the difference between seamanlike and tactical is subtle and perhaps separates the winning skippers from the beginners.  A collision avoidance maneuver is clearly different than either.  That said, seamanlike is not a defined term and Case 20, while it differentiates seamanlike from tactical does not differentiate it from panic move. Panic move is not a defined term either so use it in its ordinary meaning.



#55 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 06 May 2013 - 04:55 AM

Tiller hard over is not a seamanlike move.  It is a panic avoidance move.  My understanding is that this is pretty much understood.  A seamanlike tack keeps the boat speed up while changing course.  Fastest avoidance move is not seamanlike.

 

 

There was a case kicking around about crash tacks... which said in effect that it was not seamanlke to crash tack a boat with running rigging that might mean the mast would fall over.

I don't think the case is there anymore, But when it did exist the 'unseamanlike' tack was basically a tack without sorting out the running rigging to make sure the mast stayed up, rather that just a tacking as hard as you could.

 

I would also argue that for a soling with crew over the side, it would be unseamanlike to tack before the crew came up.

 

in either case however they key is that the keep clear boat would have to take action to keep clear promptly... setting the runners, or bringing the crew in for example.



#56 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:18 AM

Tiller hard over is not a seamanlike move.  It is a panic avoidance move.  My understanding is that this is pretty much understood.  A seamanlike tack keeps the boat speed up while changing course.  Fastest avoidance move is not seamanlike.

 

 

There was a case kicking around about crash tacks... which said in effect that it was not seamanlke to crash tack a boat with running rigging that might mean the mast would fall over.

I don't think the case is there anymore, But when it did exist the 'unseamanlike' tack was basically a tack without sorting out the running rigging to make sure the mast stayed up, rather that just a tacking as hard as you could.

 

I would also argue that for a soling with crew over the side, it would be unseamanlike to tack before the crew came up.

 

in either case however they key is that the keep clear boat would have to take action to keep clear promptly... setting the runners, or bringing the crew in for example.

Clearly the examples you give are not seamanlike.  A tactical rounding going around the race course as fast as possible is not seamanlike and a crash tack that brings the rig down is not seamanlike.  There is a lot of room between these that apparently remains undefined.

 

What I have learned so far is that Room requires  "manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way".  I guess this means that the protest we are talking about will come down to did P have to maneuver in an non seamanlike way to avoid hitting S or did they have to start their maneuver before S was on course.  If P says they did, it will be up to S to prove they didn't -- a difficult task if you ask me.



#57 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:38 AM


What I have learned so far is that Room requires  "manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way".  I guess this means that the protest we are talking about will come down to did P have to maneuver in an non seamanlike way to avoid hitting S or did they have to start their maneuver before S was on course.  If P says they did, it will be up to S to prove they didn't -- a difficult task if you ask me.

 

Depends a lot on what evidence is presented, what witnesses there where, and to some extent  how well each party knows the rules.

I suspect there there is a decent chance that both parties will agree on what happened when, and one party will be surprised that they are in the wrong :).



#58 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:44 AM

 

What I have learned so far is that Room requires  "manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way".  I guess this means that the protest we are talking about will come down to did P have to maneuver in an non seamanlike way to avoid hitting S or did they have to start their maneuver before S was on course.  If P says they did, it will be up to S to prove they didn't -- a difficult task if you ask me.

 

Depends a lot on what evidence is presented, what witnesses there where, and to some extent  how well each party knows the rules.

I suspect there there is a decent chance that both parties will agree on what happened when, and one party will be surprised that they are in the wrong :).

On that we agree 100%.



#59 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 02:54 PM

Tiller hard over is not a seamanlike move.  It is a panic avoidance move.  My understanding is that this is pretty much understood.  A seamanlike tack keeps the boat speed up while changing course.  Fastest avoidance move is not seamanlike.

 

 

There was a case kicking around about crash tacks... which said in effect that it was not seamanlke to crash tack a boat with running rigging that might mean the mast would fall over.

I don't think the case is there anymore, But when it did exist the 'unseamanlike' tack was basically a tack without sorting out the running rigging to make sure the mast stayed up, rather that just a tacking as hard as you could.

 

I would also argue that for a soling with crew over the side, it would be unseamanlike to tack before the crew came up.

 

in either case however they key is that the keep clear boat would have to take action to keep clear promptly... setting the runners, or bringing the crew in for example.

I can't find any case referring to 'crash tack'.  Case 99 refers to 'crash gybe' but in the context of 'reasonably possible' under rule 14, not in the contest of 'seamanlike'.

 

I still deprecate the terms 'crash tack' and 'crash gybe'.  I really don't know what either of those terms really means.  I'm quite happy to rely on the concept of seamanlike as discussed in Cases 21 and 103, without confusing the issue with vague and emotive jargon. 

 

I've said my piece about 'crash tack' and posed the question 'what is the difference between a very quick tack when you want to do one and a "crash tack"'?

 

I would likewise ask 'If its OK to gybe the main from port onto starboard without gybing the spinnaker pole when it suits a boat to double-gybe to break a rule 17 overlap, or to get onto starboard tack and gain right of way' why would it be unseamanlike to do the same thing to keep clear of a right of way boat?  Subject to 'the existing conditions', of course.

 

Note that in my previous post, I expressly mentioned getting crew from full hike into station to tack or gybe, including runner hands.



#60 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:04 PM

 

 

 

OK, got it.  Room is the key here.  If keeping clear requires a crash tack avoiding action then violation.  If P can keep clear in a seamanlike manner then no violation.

Well done.
 
But what in the world is a 'crash tack' (other than a tack when you crash into something <g>)?
 
How fast can you tack when you really want to?  5 seconds?  8 seconds?  Then that's how fast a 'seamanlilke' tack is.
 
Sure, 'in the existing conditions', and not 'extraordinary or abnormal' (Case 21) and 'competent but not expert crew' (Case 103), and yes, you get time to unload your sheet hand and runner hand off the fully hiked position on the rail, but you better not dilly dally.

 

Tiller hard over is not a seamanlike move.  It is a panic avoidance move.  My understanding is that this is pretty much understood.  A seamanlike tack keeps the boat speed up while changing course.  Fastest avoidance move is not seamanlike.
I disagree. 'Fastest' does not equal 'seamanlike'. Much less does 'not fastest' equal 'unseamanlike'.

I've referenced the cases that develop the criteria for seamanlike/unseamanlike, and maintaining speed certainly isn't in there.

US Sailing Appeal 20, the seminal discussion of 'seamanlike' and 'tactical' might help here.

I don't have a problem with a 'tack that has to be quicker than a normal quick tack', but I need to see evidence about how, when and why a tack was an abnormal or extraordinary manoeuvre.

What I'm really asking is, if we are having a discussion about the rules, can we try to use the language of the rules accurately, and not resort to vague slang and other jargon.

I can't tell if we agree or disagree but I am sure that I am not being clear in what I am saying.  I have read case 20 and am very familiar with that concept.  What I am talking about is my understanding that a panic avoidance hard tiller over to avoid a collision is not seamanlike.  It is certainly not tactical but I was not arguing for that.  I did not mean to imply that, as case 20 talks about, the boat has to sail in a way so as to finish as quickly as possible and to the degree I used words that expressed that thought I apologize.  But let's just say that there is just time for a skipper to throw the tiller full over and stop his boat to avoid a collision.  I would say that is not seamanlike.  To me the difference between seamanlike and tactical is subtle and perhaps separates the winning skippers from the beginners.  A collision avoidance maneuver is clearly different than either.  That said, seamanlike is not a defined term and Case 20, while it differentiates seamanlike from tactical does not differentiate it from panic move. Panic move is not a defined term either so use it in its ordinary meaning.

The rules generally look at what boats do:

  • not how they do it (amount of rudder applied);  and
  • not the mental state of crew (panic or otherwise) (Case 50 being an obvious exception).

Here's some analysis of how a failure to give room protest might run in two cases, one where ther is contact and secondly, where there is no contact.

 

First, we need to understand that it will be very unusual for a prottest to depend on whether a boat sailed in a seamanlike or unseamanlike manner.  there is no rule that requires a boat to sail in a seamanlike manner.

 

The term 'seamanlike' appears in the definition of room, which defines the space that would be required by a hypothetical boat, with the same characteristics as a boat involved in a protest, in the existing conditions, with a 'competent but not expert crew' (Case 103).  Rarely, the fact that a boat was compelled to sail in an unseamanlike manner will be evidence that there was no room to do otherwise.

 

There is contact between P and S

 

P will say that:

  1. starting at the moment S acquired right of way, she (P) began acting promptly and
  2. she did all she could without being unseamanlike and was still unable to keep clear

therefore she was not given room to keep clear.

S will say:

  1. P did not take begin taking action to keep clear promptly when S acquired right of way;
  2. P did not do all she could in a seamanlike manner to keep clear.

In this case, it's unlikely that either side will contend that P ever did sail in an unseamanlike manner.

 

There is no contact between P and S

 

P, in the absence of contact, will usually have considerable difficulty in arguing that she did not have room to keep clear, because, demonstrably, she did keep clear.

 

P will need to demonstrate that

  1. (as above) starting at the moment S acquired right of way, she (P) began acting promptly and
  2. it was only by taking action that was 'extraordinary or abnormal' and therefore unseamanlike (Case 21) was she able to keep clear.

 

S's defences will be:

  1. P did not 'need' to take avoiding action before S reached her close hauled course (as above);
  2. there was nothing unseamanlike in the action that P took to keep clear.


#61 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:43 PM

I can't find any case referring to 'crash tack'.  Case 99 refers to 'crash gybe' but in the context of 'reasonably possible' under rule 14, not in the contest of 'seamanlike'.

 

I still deprecate the terms 'crash tack' and 'crash gybe'.  I really don't know what either of those terms really means.  I'm quite happy to rely on the concept of seamanlike as discussed in Cases 21 and 103, without confusing the issue with vague and emotive jargon. 

 

I've said my piece about 'crash tack' and posed the question 'what is the difference between a very quick tack when you want to do one and a "crash tack"'?

 

I would likewise ask 'If its OK to gybe the main from port onto starboard without gybing the spinnaker pole when it suits a boat to double-gybe to break a rule 17 overlap, or to get onto starboard tack and gain right of way' why would it be unseamanlike to do the same thing to keep clear of a right of way boat?  Subject to 'the existing conditions, of course.

 

Note that in my previous post, I expressly mentioned getting crew from full hike into station to tack or gybe, including runner hands.

Seamanlike: characteristic of or befitting a competent seaman

Seaman: sailormariner

 

Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat 

    (a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and, (bold added)

 

 

Avoiding: Synonym: dodge.

 

Dodge: Avoid (someone or something) by a sudden quick movement.

 

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.

 

In this case I think the definition of Keep Clear is as important as Room.  S has to allow P to sail around her in a seamanlike manner without requiring her to take avoiding action.  Avoiding action per the ordinary definitions above would be a sudden or quick movement to avoid a collision.

 

 

I am trying to use the language of the rules and the ordinary definitions of words that are in the rules but not defined in them.  S must give P Room to Keep Clear per Rule 15.  If P can clear S by sailing in a seamanlike way without taking avoiding action then no violation otherwise there is.   A sudden quick movement to avoid a collision is avoiding action.  We don't need to define seamanlike.  P only has to show they had to take a sudden quick action to avoid a collision to win.  I do not think this hinges on the definition of seamanlike as much as on "avoiding action".



#62 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,954 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 06 May 2013 - 04:34 PM

... ...

 

In this case I think the definition of Keep Clear is as important as Room.  S has to allow P to sail around her in a seamanlike manner without requiring her to take avoiding action.  Avoiding action per the ordinary definitions above would be a sudden or quick movement to avoid a collision.

 

 

I am trying to use the language of the rules and the ordinary definitions of words that are in the rules but not defined in them.  S must give P Room to Keep Clear per Rule 15.  If P can clear S by sailing in a seamanlike way without taking avoiding action then no violation otherwise there is.   A sudden quick movement to avoid a collision is avoiding action.  We don't need to define seamanlike.  P only has to show they had to take a sudden quick action to avoid a collision to win.  I do not think this hinges on the definition of seamanlike as much as on "avoiding action".

 

The difficulty here is that "seamnlike" is not defined and has different connotations to different people. As discussion above, most would agree that a "sudden" tack in which the helmsman was forced to throw the helm over with no time for the crew to prepare would be unseamanlike. However that doesn't mean that in ALL avoiding maneuvers, the give-way helmsman must be granted lots of time to think it over & debate with the crew. For example, many boats will only bear away slowly or not at all if the mainsheet is pegged in; yet ducking another boat must be done almost instantaneously and taking more than 2 seconds to dump the main is very unseamanlike.

 

It is assumed in racing that all boats & skippers are paying attention. It is assumed that all skippers and crews are competent to handle their boats. It is assumed that skippers and crew can & will be prepared to take prompt... ie almost instantaneous... action as required when sailing in close proximity to other boats.

 

In this case, Port -did- avoid colliding with Starboard, so the question remains -when- did she begin taking avoiding action (before or after S completed her tack); if Port were to say "We did not have to take avoiding action before the tack was complete, -but- the action we had to take was unseamanlike" then the Protest Committee has choice as to how low to set the standard of seamanship.

 

FB- Doug



#63 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:09 PM

@Doug.  The point I was arguing, that I have come to as a result of reading the rules carefully because of this thread, is that seamanlike is not the issue.  Seamanlike is anything a qualified sailor can do as far as I can tell.  Helm hard over is seamanlike because any qualified sailor better be able to do that if needed.  The issue is Keep Clear and the requirement that P not be required to initially take avoiding action (sudden quick movement to avoid damage -- to paraphrase the dictionary).   Anyway, that is what I was trying to say.



#64 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:04 PM


Avoiding: Synonym: dodge.

 

Dodge: Avoid (someone or something) by a sudden quick movement.

 

 

Really.....

 

why not just take the dictionary definition of avoid instead of winding the definition through a related synonym.

 

how about Merriam Webster

"to keep away from"

 

the word 'dodge' does include the idea of a quick sudden movement that is what distinguishes it word the word avoid.

avoid itself has no sense of hurried, or quick.... in boat terms it just means do not hit the other boat.

 

e.g. I avoided the tanker by bearing away a mile away to steer past her stern.

 

as opposed to I dodged the tanker.



#65 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:23 PM

Really.....

 

why not just take the dictionary definition of avoid instead of winding the definition through a related synonym.

 

how about Merriam Webster

"to keep away from"

 

the word 'dodge' does include the idea of a quick sudden movement that is what distinguishes it word the word avoid.

avoid itself has no sense of hurried, or quick.... in boat terms it just means do not hit the other boat.

 

e.g. I avoided the tanker by bearing away a mile away to steer past her stern.

 

as opposed to I dodged the tanker.

because the word in question is not avoid, it is avoiding.



#66 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:30 PM

Really.....

 

why not just take the dictionary definition of avoid instead of winding the definition through a related synonym.

 

how about Merriam Webster

"to keep away from"

 

the word 'dodge' does include the idea of a quick sudden movement that is what distinguishes it word the word avoid.

avoid itself has no sense of hurried, or quick.... in boat terms it just means do not hit the other boat.

 

e.g. I avoided the tanker by bearing away a mile away to steer past her stern.

 

as opposed to I dodged the tanker.

because the word in question is not avoid, it is avoiding.

Avoid is a verb, in dictionaries it is typical to classify words based on the infinitive.

Avoiding is the present participle of the verb to avoid. which is used to indicate the present continuous form of the verb Avoid.

 

In the use you show it is being used as a gerundive.

However this does not in any way somehow add a sense of urgency to the word.

 

and back to square one anyway.... the phrase avoiding action describes what P must not make S do, it says nothing about what S may not make P do.



#67 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:40 PM

@Doug.  The point I was arguing, that I have come to as a result of reading the rules carefully because of this thread, is that seamanlike is not the issue.  Seamanlike is anything a qualified sailor can do as far as I can tell.  Helm hard over is seamanlike because any qualified sailor better be able to do that if needed.  The issue is Keep Clear and the requirement that P not be required to initially take avoiding action (sudden quick movement to avoid damage -- to paraphrase the dictionary).   Anyway, that is what I was trying to say.

 

 

There is NO SUCH REQUIREMENT.

the rules require that once S acquires RoW P does not make S take avoiding action. (by not keeping clear)

R15 says nothing to suggest that the Keep clear boat (P) need not take avoiding action. (initially or otherwise)



#68 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:50 PM

@JohnMB.  Did S initially allow P room to keep clear without taking avoiding action?  Typically if you tack 1/2 boat length in front of someone you are requiring them to take avoiding action right now.  Maybe you can't parse every word independently and just have to take the meaning of the sentence.  I initially took avoiding action, I  dodged them.



#69 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:52 PM

Seamanlike means that IMMEDIATELY the skipper says either "Tacking" and starts the tack at the rate that in the prevailing seastate and wind gives trimmers time to unload the jib and main and begin bringing it around  OR that the skipper immediately pulls the helm up and turns the boat as quickly as she will turn to leeward so as to take the transom of S.

The reason "seamanlike" is not defined is that it varies given wind and seastate.  What is "seamanlike" in 10 knots  is dangerous in 25knots and possible impossible in 4 knots.

 

But immediately calling "tacking" and turning at a rate that an average crew THAT IS PAYING ATTENTION can get in and release the sheets is all it takes.  Remember also that even though P is not required to anticipate S's new course,  Until S crosses Head to Wind, S is simply luffing.  and it is P/W's responsiblity to promptly maneuver so that they would keep clear if all S/L was doing was just luffing head to wind 

now once S/L goes past head to wind, P/W can now hold course until S completes her tack to the new course before beginning her "seamanlike tack" (this is a maneuver sometimes used in Match and team racing to hold S/L in irons for tactical reasons)

 

So its not purely a question that P/W can just hold her course from the moment that S/L starts to come up - because if she does so, the S/L can argue that during the luffing phase of the tack,  P/W was not "keeping clear" (assuming they are close enough). 

 

 

 

Now in this case we have 5-8 knots of breeze, so the boats are probably doing about 4 knots of boat speed.  Our roughly 4'sec.  They are 25' long and S/L completed her tack BEFORE 1/2 BL separation.    so lets put that at say 16'.  That's 4 seconds to luff head to wind and then turn far enough into your tack that you don't touch.   Possible but difficult.  But remember P is not guaranteed room to chose which maneuver she wants to do Tactically.    4 seconds is clearly enough time for P/W to pull up her helm hard.  Dump the main if needed, and bear off 90 degrees.

Now if these were say Olson 30s and it was blowing 15, you might have a case that it is tacking too close as dumping the main enough to have the helm be responsive enough is going to take 1-2 seconds and that only gives you about 1 second to execute the bearoff.  But that's not the case here



#70 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:55 PM

@JohnMB.  Did S initially allow P room to keep clear without taking avoiding action? 

Not what the rule says.  What the "initially" means is that if S has to make additional course changes "initially" to facilitate P keeping clear (such as pulling up the helm to spin S's stern to weather) then S doesn't necessarily have a claim.   But because P is required to respond "PROMPTLY" to a Right of Way vessel, then that "initially" does not give P any right to avoid immediate avoiding action.

 

It looked like you got that earlier - you seem to have fallen back from that



#71 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:56 PM

@Doug.  The point I was arguing, that I have come to as a result of reading the rules carefully because of this thread, is that seamanlike is not the issue.  Seamanlike is anything a qualified sailor can do as far as I can tell.  Helm hard over is seamanlike because any qualified sailor better be able to do that if needed.  The issue is Keep Clear and the requirement that P not be required to initially take avoiding action (sudden quick movement to avoid damage -- to paraphrase the dictionary).   Anyway, that is what I was trying to say.

 

 

There is NO SUCH REQUIREMENT.

the rules require that once S acquires RoW P does not make S take avoiding action. (by not keeping clear)

R15 says nothing to suggest that the Keep clear boat (P) need not take avoiding action. (initially or otherwise)

R15 says that S will initially give P room to keep clear.  The definition of keep clear says that P (the boat that is given room to keep clear) can do so without taking avoiding action.  R15 says S has to give P room to keep clear, not the other way around.  After initially is over, then P has to give S room to keep clear but not initially.



#72 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:08 PM

And "room" is defined

the space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to

comply with her obligations under the rules of Part2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.

Notice that P must IMMEDIATELY begin to comply with her obligations to keep clear of S
and that she must MANEUVER PROMPTLY to do so.

 

So the definition says nothing of the sort that you suggest.  Because P's immediate obligation is to "keep clear"...   and she must comply with this.

 

and to do so she had a lot of choices given the particular circumstances but whatever she chooses to do, she must do so PROMPTLY.  and while promptly is not defined explicitly - in the appeals it is ruled as that of a an average crew maneuvering in a seamanlike manner given the existing wind and sea state.

 

All the "initially" means is that if P does maneuver promptly and in a "seamanlike manner" - then if S has to make additional changes to course to allow P to keep clear then P has not fouled S.  

 

Note that "seamanlike" ALSO means chosing the CORRECT response.  For example, if your bow is 6' from the transom of S and you opt to go into a tack and in the process hit S... that is not "seamanlike".  "seamanlike" would be to bear off and duck.    Similarly if your bow is  6' ahead of S's bow starting a tack is probably the right call. 

 

But the bottom line is that P must respond PROMPTLY



#73 Steam Flyer

Steam Flyer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,954 posts
  • Location:Eastern NC

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:18 PM

@Doug.  The point I was arguing, that I have come to as a result of reading the rules carefully because of this thread, is that seamanlike is not the issue.  Seamanlike is anything a qualified sailor can do as far as I can tell.  Helm hard over is seamanlike because any qualified sailor better be able to do that if needed.  The issue is Keep Clear and the requirement that P not be required to initially take avoiding action (sudden quick movement to avoid damage -- to paraphrase the dictionary).   Anyway, that is what I was trying to say.

 

emphasis added.

 

This is where you're going astray. The rules say that the boat gaining right-of-way must initially give room to keep clear. No rule says that P does not have to take avoiding action as quickly as she possibly can.

 

There is a big difference between not being given room to keep clear, and being given room but not taking it and not keeping clear because you believe that quick reaction time is unseamanlike.

 

FB- Doug



#74 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:19 PM

OK, got it -- I think.  There has to be room initially upon S getting on course.  Then P has to respond promptly in a seamanlike manner.  Now they argue about what seamanlike means.  Probably means anything a good sailor could do without unnecessary risk to man or machine or something like that.  Thanks for all the discussion.



#75 JustDroppingBy

JustDroppingBy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,575 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:38 PM

@Doug.  The point I was arguing, that I have come to as a result of reading the rules carefully because of this thread, is that seamanlike is not the issue.  Seamanlike is anything a qualified sailor can do as far as I can tell.  Helm hard over is seamanlike because any qualified sailor better be able to do that if needed.  The issue is Keep Clear and the requirement that P not be required to initially take avoiding action (sudden quick movement to avoid damage -- to paraphrase the dictionary).   Anyway, that is what I was trying to say.

P may BE required to make a sudden quick movement to avoid damage - there is NOTHING in the rules that prohibits that.   If S and P are sailing along from opposite sides of the course, minding their own business (no tacks involved) and P hasn't kept an eye out and all the sudden realizes that they are on a collision course with S, then a last minute duck or crash tack are their choices, not to Tbone S because they didn't realize there was a boat there and needed enough time to check their makeup and touch up the lip gloss before getting out of the way of the ROW boat. 

 

If P and P are sailing along side by side and the weather P realizes that the leeward P is about to tack, then WP had better sort themselves out prior to causing a collision.   Tactically WP should be keeping enough gauge between the two so that LP has room to come up without contact but not enough room to tack until WP hits the layline for the mark and is required to go.   If WP doesn't manage to defend successfully and allows LP to complete a tack, then once LP becomes S and is on a close hauled course (their sails have nothing to do with it), P is now the give way boat and required to keep clear.   Boats are required to keep an adequate watch and there really is no defense for not doing so in the eyes of a jury.

 

When P was still WP, the defensible position for a protest would have been to crash tack when LP tacked and protest, their argument in the room would have been that LP tacked too close and before they became S, that P had to alter course to avoid a collision while S was between head to wind and complete on starboard...  then the onus would have been on S to prove that they had room to complete the tack without causing P to need to take such an extreme maneuver. 

 

Helm hard over is not going to be considered to be enough of a response if you have on the water umpires, the crew had better be moving weight, luffing sails, etc to demonstrate that they were doing everything possible to avoid fouling the ROW boat.  

 

Just because the rules say that a boat is not required to anticipate another boat becoming the ROW boat until they actually become the ROW boat does not mean that ignorance of the space around your boat and what other boats are doing (even if they are not in your fleet!!!!) is permissible, acceptable or encouraged.  People make mistakes all the time but going to the room and claiming ignorance is ignorant.



#76 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:01 PM

OK, got it -- I think.  There has to be room initially upon S getting on course.  Then P has to respond promptly in a seamanlike manner.  Now they argue about what seamanlike means.  Probably means anything a good sailor could do without unnecessary risk to man or machine or something like that.  Thanks for all the discussion.

Again, well done.
 
It is not necessary that initially, when S reaches her close hauled course there has to be room for P to keep clear:  if that was the case, there would be no incident.
 
The point is that S, having reached her close hauled course, and there not being room for P to keep clear, S must do something more to give P room to keep clear:  that would be by bearing away behind P, starting sheets and slowing, or by luffing back up to slow and give room.
 
I think key issues in the discussion have been:

  • the difference between 'keeping clear' and 'giving room';  and
  • a bit of a mix-up in applying the definitions of 'room' into rule 15/16 and the definition of 'keep clear' into the definition of 'room'.

Maybe this 'exploded' version of the operative bit of rules 15/16, with the relevant parts of the definitions inserted will help

 

 

 

... she shall give the other boat room to keep clear

 

becomes

 

she shall give the other boat [t]he space [...that] boat needs in the existing conditions, ... while
manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way
to [allow] ... the right-of-way boat [to] sail her course with no need to take
avoiding action

 

 

 

There is no rule that says in somany words that P must act  promptly, immediately or initially.  If P can keep clear after delaying her action, then she has kept clear and that is the end of the story.

 

The way this concept comes in is that, if P wants to argue that she was not given room to keep clear, S can reply by saying that there was space for a boat that was manoeuvering promptly but that P was not doing so.



#77 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:14 PM

 

The difficulty here is that "seamanlike" is not defined and has different connotations to different people.

... is seamanlike because any qualified sailor better be able to do that if needed.

There shouldn't be too much difficulty with the concept of seamanlike. It is discussed in Cases 21 (last paragraph: 'extraordinary or abnormal') and 103 (competent but not expert crew).

#78 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:05 PM

 

@Doug.  The point I was arguing, that I have come to as a result of reading the rules carefully because of this thread, is that seamanlike is not the issue.  Seamanlike is anything a qualified sailor can do as far as I can tell.  Helm hard over is seamanlike because any qualified sailor better be able to do that if needed.  The issue is Keep Clear and the requirement that P not be required to initially take avoiding action (sudden quick movement to avoid damage -- to paraphrase the dictionary).   Anyway, that is what I was trying to say.

 

 

There is NO SUCH REQUIREMENT.

the rules require that once S acquires RoW P does not make S take avoiding action. (by not keeping clear)

R15 says nothing to suggest that the Keep clear boat (P) need not take avoiding action. (initially or otherwise)

  The definition of keep clear says that P (the boat that is given room to keep clear) can do so without taking avoiding action.

No it does not,

P is the boat given room to keep clear

that means P is keeping clear

the definition of keep clear says that the boat keeping clear (P) allows the boat with right of way(S)not to take avoiding action.

it does not say that the boat being given room can do so without taking avoiding action.



#79 allen

allen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Location:SF Bay

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:21 PM

... she shall give the other boat room to keep clear

 

becomes

 

she shall give the other boat [t]he space [...that] boat needs in the existing conditions, ... while
manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way
to [allow] ... the right-of-way boat [to] sail her course with no need to take
avoiding action

You realize that what  you have written says S shall allow S to sail without the need to take avoiding action.   Funny thing is that suddenly seems reasonable... :-)



#80 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 06 May 2013 - 11:39 PM

 

... she shall give the other boat room to keep clear

 

becomes

 

she shall give the other boat [t]he space [...that] boat needs in the existing conditions, ... while
manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way
to [allow] ... the right-of-way boat [to] sail her course with no need to take
avoiding action
[other than the action necessary to give room]

 

You realize that what  you have written says S shall allow S to sail without the need to take avoiding action.   Funny thing is that suddenly seems reasonable... :-)

 
Yes I did <g>.

Try the 'patch up' inserted above



#81 JumpingJax

JumpingJax

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • Location:East Coast US, Caribbean
  • Interests:Offshore passages, new landfalls

Posted 07 May 2013 - 12:01 AM

Interesting discussion of crash tacks, slam tacks, seamanlike tacks, unseamanlike tacks, prompt tacks, immediate tacks, instant tacks and perhaps others.  (It's hard to keep track.)  Sorta ends up with angels dancing on pin heads, tho', since in the case at hand, P did not tack at all according to the OP.  P successfully and otherwise unremarkably (i.e., in a seamanlike manner) bore off and passed S's stern.  Tacking by P and any of the foregoing variants thereof is irrelevant to the discussion of the subject incident and the likely outcome of the protest. 

 

It's also helpful to keep in mind that there's a fairly big difference between "tacking half a boat length ahead" and there being half a boat length between the boats when, as the OP stated, S had completed his tack (i.e., to his close hauled course) and trimmed sails to be characterized as "sails drawing" (i.e., some time after getting to his close hauled course in very nearly all boats).  See OP for the facts given. 

 

Since the OP has brought us a real case and asked for guidance, there's little need for such strained hypotheticals and raising questions of who's an angel and who's a pin head and who's dancing. 

 

Unless the OP brings us additional facts, that's all we have to go on.  Sticking to the facts as given (unless put into dispute by the parties to the protest) is the proper course for the PC and for our debate of the issue in the protest. Making up your facts in the debate is misleading and unhelpful to the issues in the protest. 

 

This is an illustration of the cliche: you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. 



#82 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:20 AM

Jax - the initial post was dealt with fairly early on  The last series was based on Allen having a less than clear understanding of how the definitions and RRS 15 intract



#83 Ketchenup

Ketchenup

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Location:Oregon Central Coast
  • Interests:stone carving, koi keeping, culinary arts, homebrewing, beachcombing, and uh, oh yeah, sailing.

Posted 09 May 2013 - 08:31 AM

Thanks again for all the responses here- I'm still learning racing skills after being a cruiser most of my life.  I was the boat that tacked close, and actually thought I might get DSQ'd for it because of the inherent risk I put both boats in.  Common sense kinda deal.  But after reading the rules carefully and after your thoughtful replys, I started thinking maybe I had actually pulled off a slick, and possibly clean, racing move.  Sure enough, the PC agreed tonight that it was within the rules, and the protest was disallowed.  I have to admit, I normally wouldn't have tacked so close in front of anybody, legal move or not.  But here's the story.  I have been hosting rules workshops all winter at our YC.  Mainly so I could "learn by teaching"! :)   Free for all members, really all they were was an hour or two going through the UK Halsey rules quizzes.  If you don't know about those I recommend them highly.  Spendy, yes, $40 for access, but I gave the username and password to all (not many #'s) who attended my seminars, and I don't think UK Halsey cares that much.

This particular skipper was never there, has one of the hottest boats in the club, and I wondered if the rules were really understood by this person.  I decided to find out.  Just before the incident in question, we had been sailing along close hauled on port, I'm leeward, overlapped almost from the start, but I was sailing higher and a bit faster.  I decided to see what would happen if I came up a bit close , and was rewarded with a torrent of expletives and vague references to various rules, but bottom line, refused room.  Since we were approaching a mark, something was said about "need room, 'cuz we're 4 or 3 boatlengths or whatever from the mark".  Room at the mark was absolutely not an issue as the current was taking us all away from it.  I realized there was no knowlege of the rules there.  Something went "tilt" in my brain and I decided it was time for a lesson, so when she pinched up trying to mess with a boat to windward, I saw an opportunity, bore off for a second for some speed, took advantage of a small wind shift, and busted a tack across her bow.  Knew I could finish it in plenty of time.  I actually kinda hoped for a protest, and was rewarded.  My thought was, we all need to learn these damn rules, so if I'm wrong, what the hell.  We're actively encouraging (valid) protests this year in our club in an effort to reduce the number of collisions.  Last year was atrocious.  I knew the other skipper was a reasonably competent sailor and I had almost no fear of a collision.  Gotta be honest, stuff can always happen, but remember, it was a very light air evening.  Actually fear of collision was <.000001%.

Punchline was, we, the normally #3 boat, won the race handily, now without a protest, and  lucked out tonight again by a significant margin, so this beercan season is starting off great!

I'll be looking over my shoulder for awhile, tho...

Thanks again, invisible sailors, you helped me survive this week.



#84 Life Buoy 15

Life Buoy 15

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,225 posts
  • Location:The great southern land

Posted 09 May 2013 - 08:54 AM

Fuck you 2nd amendment phyco gun nuts, you can all go take a flying fu.....
Er sorry every one. I just saw all the cut and paste posts and naturaly i supposed....,
Carry on.

#85 Brass

Brass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts

Posted 09 May 2013 - 10:33 AM

Thanks again for all the responses here- I'm still learning racing skills after being a cruiser most of my life.  I was the boat that tacked close, and actually thought I might get DSQ'd for it because of the inherent risk I put both boats in.  Common sense kinda deal.  But after reading the rules carefully and after your thoughtful replys, I started thinking maybe I had actually pulled off a slick, and possibly clean, racing move.  Sure enough, the PC agreed tonight that it was within the rules, and the protest was disallowed.  I have to admit, I normally wouldn't have tacked so close in front of anybody, legal move or not.  But here's the story.  I have been hosting rules workshops all winter at our YC.  Mainly so I could "learn by teaching"! :)   Free for all members, really all they were was an hour or two going through the UK Halsey rules quizzes.  If you don't know about those I recommend them highly.  Spendy, yes, $40 for access, but I gave the username and password to all (not many #'s) who attended my seminars, and I don't think UK Halsey cares that much.

This particular skipper was never there, has one of the hottest boats in the club, and I wondered if the rules were really understood by this person.  I decided to find out.  Just before the incident in question, we had been sailing along close hauled on port, I'm leeward, overlapped almost from the start, but I was sailing higher and a bit faster.  I decided to see what would happen if I came up a bit close , and was rewarded with a torrent of expletives and vague references to various rules, but bottom line, refused room.  Since we were approaching a mark, something was said about "need room, 'cuz we're 4 or 3 boatlengths or whatever from the mark".  Room at the mark was absolutely not an issue as the current was taking us all away from it.  I realized there was no knowlege of the rules there.  Something went "tilt" in my brain and I decided it was time for a lesson, so when she pinched up trying to mess with a boat to windward, I saw an opportunity, bore off for a second for some speed, took advantage of a small wind shift, and busted a tack across her bow.  Knew I could finish it in plenty of time.  I actually kinda hoped for a protest, and was rewarded.  My thought was, we all need to learn these damn rules, so if I'm wrong, what the hell.  We're actively encouraging (valid) protests this year in our club in an effort to reduce the number of collisions.  Last year was atrocious.  I knew the other skipper was a reasonably competent sailor and I had almost no fear of a collision.  Gotta be honest, stuff can always happen, but remember, it was a very light air evening.  Actually fear of collision was <.000001%.

Punchline was, we, the normally #3 boat, won the race handily, now without a protest, and  lucked out tonight again by a significant margin, so this beercan season is starting off great!

I'll be looking over my shoulder for awhile, tho...

Thanks again, invisible sailors, you helped me survive this week.

  1. Keep your antenna up for the vibe:  it can cause bad feeling around the club if people get the idea that you're going out of your way to get protests.
  2. Get to understand the concept of win/don't win and win/lose protests.  Your rule 13/15/10 protest was a win/lose protest:  if you hadn't won it you would have lost it and got DSQ.  The rule 10 protest that Allen didn't make in the other Port tack thread would have been a win/don't win protest:  if he had protested and won the other boat would have been DSQ, but if he'd lost it, he would not have been penalised.  Think very carefully before you initiate a win/lose protest.  Any protest involving contact will be a win/lose protest.


#86 JohnMB

JohnMB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • Location:Evanston
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:51 PM

  1. Get to understand the concept of win/don't win and win/lose protests.  Your rule 13/15/10 protest was a win/lose protest:  if you hadn't won it you would have lost it and got DSQ.  The rule 10 protest that Allen didn't make in the other Port tack thread would have been a win/don't win protest:  if he had protested and won the other boat would have been DSQ, but if he'd lost it, he would not have been penalised.  Think very carefully before you initiate a win/lose protest.  Any protest involving contact will be a win/lose protest.

Win/lose protests in beercans are a perfect place to practice doing turns :)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users