Jump to content

TJSoCal

Members
  • Content Count

    961
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TJSoCal

  1. I would lean towards:

    At position 4, Green was ROW leeward and entitled to mark-room by 18.3(b)

    Red had room to keep clear and give mark-room by maneuvering promptly and in a seamanlike manner between 4 and 5. She did not. Green did not break 16.1. (once Green's inside overlap was established it shouldn't have been a surprise that she would luff up to make the mark).

    Red broke rule 11 and rule 18.3

    Green and Red broke 14. If there is no injury or damage Green (ROW and sailing within the mark-room she's entitled to) is exonerated by 43.1(c)

    • Like 1
  2. 3 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

    This is the effective question: can Starboard sail faster...  if they head off soon enough and thus make Port sail lower to preclude the later legal closing of the cross? 

    I would say yes, as long as port doesn't immediately have to change course to keep clear. But I think if I were on starboard I'd be leery of bearing away once port looked like she was committed to ducking - it seems like asking for trouble.

  3. 16.1 still prohibits starboard from "hunting up" in a close cross if it prevents port from keeping clear. But it only applies if port is so committed to the cross that she can no longer keep clear by tacking or ducking. So really only in the last few boat-lengths of a crossing situation.

    As long as port still has room to keep clear by tacking or ducking starboard is free to come up and close the door on a cross.

  4. 1 hour ago, JohnMB said:

    I'm not sure how you could argue that yellow was not giving blue mark room.

    The actual collision at point 3 is a consequence of what happened at point 2, because the boats got so close together that neither could turn without hitting the other.

    Well, in this instance Blue's entitlement to mark-room includes room for Blue to tack when she can fetch the mark. So the question is whether, when Blue bore away, Yellow was also obligated to bear away so that Blue still had room to tack.

    Note that the facts presented do not include a change in wind direction but only a change in pressure.

    I think the question boils down to whether Blue had to bear away to continue to sail to the mark, or if it was a choice by Blue to try to maintain speed in a lull when she could have maintained her course (albeit slower). If the characteristics of the boats are different it may not be a given that just because Yellow didn't have to bear off to maintain way, Blue didn't either. But if it was a choice by Blue then I think Yellow gave mark-room and Blue sailed outside it.

    I think I'd need to hear convincing testimony from Blue that she had to bear off even though Yellow didn't have to. Otherwise Blue's flicked on 11 & 14.

    • Like 1
  5. 4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

    Sorry, my ancient brain refused to kick in the correct info... you're right, 'tacking' is now contained with Rule 13 "While Tacking"

    While you might say a boat is on starboard from the moment she passes HTW, Rule 10 does not apply until she is on a close-hauled course. Neither do Rules 11 or 12 for that matter.

    FB- Doug

    That's true - rule 13 specifically turns off 10, 11 and 12 until the tacking boat is on a close-hauled course (but sails not necessarily trimmed close-hauled)

  6. 3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

    See the definition of 'tacking'

    From close-hauled to HTW, a boat is luffing. From HTW to close-hauled on the new tack, a boat is tacking. When a boat has turned as far as a course that would be close-hauled for her, she is now 'on a tack' whether her sails are trimmed or not.

    FB- Doug

    Yes, but "tacking" (as in rule 13) is different from "on a tack". By the definition of "Tack, Starboard or Port", a boat is on the new tack as soon as she passes HTW and her windward side changes, even though she's still in the process of tacking and subject to rule 13.

    Even if a boat is luffing she's still on a tack, either starboard or port according to her windward side. I think there's a case (or might be a match racing call) that says that if a boat's windward side can't be determined (for example, she's holding HTW) then last point of certainty applies and she's on the tack that she was last on, until she's definitely past HTW and on the new tack.

  7. 1 hour ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

     

    if you come up short on the starboard layline (missing the mark)  how can you ask for mark room? and once you tack in the zone, 18 is off..

    Scenario is a starboard rounding so both boats are going for the port tack layline.

    18(b) and (c) are turned off by 18.2(d) when W passes HTW, but 18 is turned off entirely by 18.1 when the boats are on opposite tacks on a beat to windward (and W is on port tack as soon as she passes HTW).

    But it turns back on again when both boats are back on the same tack, with a new entitlement to mark-room for the boat that's either inside overlapped or clear ahead.

  8. 6 minutes ago, coyotepup said:

    Flick W for breaking rule 11.  Exonerate L under 43.1(a).  "When as a consequence of breaking a rule a boat has compelled another boat to break a rule, the other boat is exonerated for her breach."  L broke rule 18 by not giving W room to tack to fetch the mark in the zone, but L was compelled to do so because W broke rule 11, so L is exonerated.  W is not exonerated under 43.1b, because she did not break rule 11 "as a consequence" of an incident with L; she broke rule 11 on her own.

    I'm not sure I'd say that L was "compelled" to break a rule. She could, for example, have eased sheets, slowed down and given W room to tack. But I think she is exonerated for the contact by 43.1(c) since she was ROW boat. 

  9. I'm not sure about the "when mark room has been given" aspect, that's very confusing to me. If you're too literal about it it would seem like 18 is constantly turning on and off depending on whether the outside boat is giving room or not. I think it's more intended to convey that once the boat entitled to mark-room has rounded her entitlement to mark-room ends.

    In this situation I think W is entitled to room to tack, but as you note as soon as she passes HTW in the zone rule 18 turns off (boats are on opposite tacks on a beat to windward). It turns back on when L tacks and they're both on port, so this begins a new entitlement for W (assuming she's clear ahead or still overlapped inside after L's tack).

    The sticky point to me is W's bearing away before the tack. She bears away and either contacts L or puts herself in a position where L can't change course in either direction without immediate contact so W has failed to keep clear. And I think that although W was entitled to mark-room, by sailing below close-hauled while on a beat to windward she was not sailing within that room.

    So I'd agree, W broke rule 11 & 14 and is not exonerated by 43.1(b). I don't think L broke rule 18, and is exonerated from breaking rule 14.

    • Like 1
  10. 4 minutes ago, JohnMB said:

    Casarelli was the reason they made helmets mandatory.

    I think Casartelli's death in the 1995 Tour may have revived the issue but believe it was Andrey Kivilev in Paris-Nice in 2003 that tipped the scales. UCI made helmets mandatory in 2003.

  11. 2 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

    Collegiate sailing tends to have a bit of "interesting" rules applications, at least back in the day.... 

    We raced MAISA vs Cornell I think it was, and they had some type of aluminum hulls, which apparently dented like Grumman Canoes. So they had a local rule that the boat was extended by 1 foot in all directions, so "contact" was any part of two boats within 2' and actual hull to hull contact was DSQ for both.

    That made the he said/(s)he said presentations, truly legendary as the arguments of "how close" became opinion vs objective fact. I vaguely recall that my skipper reached over and tapped the windward boat's leeward side to make the point of proximity. 

    Need one of these social distancing sticks...

     

    giphy.gif.4353ad8456dd4cd967f45fba14b4e2d4.gif

    • Like 1
  12. I think they grandfathered NASBLA courses for the first couple of years but now require a new course. I can kind of see why since there's content specific to California regulations.

    There are several free options listed here. I did the one from DBW, you just have to read a PDF and they send you a 60 question multiple choice open book exam. Pretty easy and reasonably informative even if you're an experienced boater. Then the card is $10 and as far as I can tell it's lifetime.

    California has to grab cash for something, this isn't the worst thing they could do.

  13. 2 minutes ago, no shoes said:

    I agree, the rental exemption is totally crazy. For sure, industry lobbying. 

    But, I'm into operating legally, in every country, state, whatever, that I operate in. You got rules? Fine. What are they? Gotta pay? Pass some sort of bullshit test?  Big shock. 

    If you have the means, to own a sailboat, that has a crew, that you take to sea, for sailboat racing I feel like you have the obligation to meet the legal requirements however lame they may be.  

    Well that's the other sort of weird exemption: "A person operating a vessel in an organized regatta or vessel race, or water ski race." But I'm guessing they could still nab you on your way in or out.

  14. California's is phased in by age, starting with under 20 in 2018 and going up until everyone in 2025. They do have exemptions for certain licenses and certifications.

    The one aspect that irks me is they exempt rentals. Seems like that's a group that most ought to have to demonstrate some safety knowledge before they go out on the water. But I'm guessing that industry lobbying go that thrown in.

    • Like 2
  15. 5 hours ago, Benytoe said:

    Boaters here in California are required to have and carry this when boating, I am going to ignore it because I don't want to deal with any more government bullshit plus I have done all of the boating and other water courses including international ocean safety. Who has gotten one?

    It's a lot more government bullshit if you get caught without one. Don't know if USCG will be checking but if you get stopped by the local harbor patrol for any reason I imagine that will be on their checklist.

    $100-$500 fine and the court will order you to take a boating safety course and provide them with proof of completion within 7 months.

    This year it's required for anyone under 40, and by 2025 everyone will have to have it. Better I think to spend $10 and a little extra time, and it never hurts to brush up on boating safety.

    • Like 1
  16. I'm in the process right now even though I've got a few years before it's required for me. It's pretty easy - there are a couple of free online self-study courses that fulfill the education requirement (I'm doing the one from California DBW and it's basically read a PDF pamphlet and do a paper exam which, as far as I can tell, is untimed and open book).

  17. 5 hours ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

    I've personally seen 3 RRS 69 hearings commence not long after the "hearing is closed" statement is made - in all three cases the protest panel and parties retired back to the bar and a physical fight broke out! In one of the instances it was a panel member who threw the first punch after being called 'a muppet' by the Protestee.

    Is that how they do appeals in your part of the world?

     

    ;-)

  18. 13 hours ago, ScowLover said:

    As a matter of procedure, I read the facts, conclusions, and decision, then state that this hearing is closed. I follow that up with, "Do you have any questions?" If it is clear someone isn't understanding, I encourage the talk, assuming emotions aren't heated and we don't have a line of hearings behind that one. If we can't do it then, I certainly offer to discuss once the "deck is clear" or people have calmed down.

    Yeah, I think the important part is "this hearing is closed." Frequently in the explanation phase the competitor who lost will want to continue to argue their case, why the facts or conclusions were wrong, you didn't properly consider this or that, etc., etc.

    When I see that happen I'll usually tell them that the hearing has been closed, the decision is what it is and they have the right to file an appeal if they think it's wrong but the PC is not going to reverse itself now.

  19. 51 minutes ago, Jackdaw said:

    You missed my point in post #11.

    The largest % of protests (AFAICT) are lost BEFORE the hearing starts, because of black&white procedural rules that allow a protest to be heard are not followed. Before any facts are heard, (as you know) these are checked. Miss one, and the protest is lost. Then it's beer time. There is zero value in playing out a scenario that can't be ruled on. If you play in an area where that is not true then OK, but you must not hear many protests.

     

    The black & white procedural rules for a valid protest aren't difficult:

    1. Make your hail (if required)
    2. Fly your flag (if required)
    3. File in writing before the protest time limit
    4. Identify the incident in the written protest. Note that identifying the incident is all that's required to file. You don't have to identify the protestee (although that's required before the hearing) or the correct rule. And a greasy pizza box is an acceptable form.

    That's it. It's not that high a bar, and the protest committee doesn't really have the latitude to ignore it if the competitor hasn't cleared it.

    That said, I think there is a difference between an ad hoc PC assembled at the last minute because everyone was hoping there would be no protests and a committee of qualified judges. The former probably do often want to find an excuse to kill a protest so they can get to the bar. The latter are generally eager to hear a case, but bound by the validity requirements. They might even tend to allow a "leaner", but recognize that would be subject to appeal.

  20. Well, 100% of protests are lost by someone. Frequently loss is due to one party or another (or both) not understanding the rules (and not the complicated ones, usually the simple ones). So protestees usually lose because they broke a rule, or protestors lose because they alleged a breach that wasn't (or sometimes on validity - but that's not the PC's fault).

    I believe that most juries do their level best (which, granted, is sometimes not very good if it's an ad hoc PC with little experience or training) to determine if a rule was broken or not. But recognize this often isn't an easy call when you get credible but conflicting accounts of what happened from the parties, and jury conclusions sometimes have to rest on a very narrow balance of probabilities.

    Good North U article here, oriented at sailors rather than judges, about how to do a protest.

    As a judge, although I enjoy hanging around a nice yacht club and the energy of regatta day, it's much more fun and rewarding if there's some business to do.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...