Jump to content

Rules at a downwind finish line


Recommended Posts

Here is one for the armchair umpires

Downwind finish, both boats enter the zone at the same time, same speed

Boat A - on starboard tack, on layline to the finish mark

Boat B - on port tack, on layline to the finish mark

Question:  Is boat A obligated to give boat B “mark room” ? Or is it a Port/Starboard situation?

 

 

27DC319C-90F6-48DD-AE6D-7271C3E4497A.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the first boat enters the zone, take a picture. The inside boat gets room to finish. Even if A entered the zone first, B would have been overlapped, and therefore B must be given room to finish (as previous poster said).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's both. 

Rule 10 (port/stbd) does apply, boat A has ROW. Boats are overlapped because they're on opposite tacks more than 90 degrees from the wind so rule 18 turns on when the first of them reaches the zone.

So B must keep clear of A but A must give B mark room. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TJSoCal said:

It's both. 

Rule 10 (port/stbd) does apply, boat A has ROW. Boats are overlapped because they're on opposite tacks more than 90 degrees from the wind so rule 18 turns on when the first of them reaches the zone.

So B must keep clear of A but A must give B mark room. 

^  this ^

The start line marks are excluded from Rule 18 (the "mark-room" rule), but only when starting. There is no exclusion for the finish line, so Rule 18 applies, and Boat A must give mark-room to B if they are overlapped when the leader of them arrives at the 3 boat-length zone.

Boat A is on starboard, and there is no exclusion of Rule 10 (port/starboard) in Rule 18..... just an aside, there used to be, so some of us old-timers may be a bit fuzzy on that point. But never mind, it certainly doesn't apply here.

Primarily, B must keep clear of A, and A must give room to B to pass between her and the finish mark.

2 hours ago, Y-rag said:

Question:  Is boat A obligated to give boat B “mark room” ? Or is it a Port/Starboard situation?

27DC319C-90F6-48DD-AE6D-7271C3E4497A.jpeg

 

This looks like it's going to be a problem if the diagram is accurate, it looks like B has no clearance between her course and the mark, no room to bear away to steer away from A, and still clear the mark. It looks like by the time she has cleared the mark enough to bear away (slightly past midships) A on starboard will be forced to alter course considerably, possibly even gybe. This seems pretty likely to cause some unhappiness.

FB- Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites

As drawn, A will need to bear away enough for B to pass on the correct side (including room for B's sails, pole and boom). If that requires a jibe, A must jibe. 

Once she's past the mark B still needs to keep clear of A (assuming A is still on stbd) and once room has been given A can sail any course. If A jibes she's now windward and has to keep clear of B, with no protection from rule 15 since B acquired ROW due to A's action.

So hopefully both boats are on their toes and understand their rights & obligations so we don't add rule 14 into the mix 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TJSoCal said:

As drawn, A will need to bear away enough for B to pass on the correct side (including room for B's pole and boom). If that requires a jibe, A must jibe. 

Once she's past the mark B still needs to keep clear of A (assuming A is still on stbd). So hopefully both boats are on their toes and understand their rights & obligations so we don't add rule 14 into the mix 

Yep, this is about the only situation that a Stbd boat must give room to a Port boat.

To my understanding the marks that designate the finish line are actually considered obstructions. They are not actually part of the finish line but only mark the finish and room must be given to pass them on the proper side. Much like using 2 ends of the breakwater at a harbor entrance. Room must be given

Link to post
Share on other sites

15, 16, 18, 19 & 20 all require a ROW boat to give room under certain circumstances. 

The trick that many people miss is understanding that ROW and entitlement to room are different things. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meat Wad said:

Yep, this is about the only situation that a Stbd boat must give room to a Port boat.

To my understanding the marks that designate the finish line are actually considered obstructions. They are not actually part of the finish line but only mark the finish and room must be given to pass them on the proper side. Much like using 2 ends of the breakwater at a harbor entrance. Room must be given

There are actually several situations, and would be interesting in a different thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BOI Guy said:

There is something wrong with your question. Everybody agrees on the applicable ruling and this is not normal.

We can argue about mark = obstruction if you want...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meat Wad said:

To my understanding the marks that designate the finish line are actually considered obstructions. They are not actually part of the finish line but only mark the finish and room must be given to pass them on the proper side. Much like using 2 ends of the breakwater at a harbor entrance. Room must be given

 

37 minutes ago, TJSoCal said:

We can argue about mark = obstruction if you want...

OK.

A mark can be an obstruction but it is not relevant in this case. 

Boat A has ROW but boat B is entitled to Mark Room no more needs to be considered... but shall we talk about obstructions...

it is unlikely in this case that the mark would be considered an obstruction but even if it were it would not entitle a boat to room on that basis:

19 ROOM TO PASS AN OBSTRUCTION
19.1 When Rule 19 Applies
Rule 19 applies between two boats at an obstruction except
(a) when the obstruction is a mark the boats are required to leave
on the same side

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're correct - a mark is not an obstruction simply by being a mark, but is an obstruction if it meets the definition of an obstruction. So a pin buoy with a fiberglass whip, probably not. Tetrahedron - maybe, depending on the size of the boats. Committee boat - almost certainly yes.

2 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

Much like using 2 ends of the breakwater at a harbor entrance. Room must be given

So, let's say that one or both jetty ends are marks. Boats are to pass between the jetty ends and down a channel. Suppose two boats are approaching, same tack. Yellow is initially clear astern but establishes a windward overlap inside Blue about 1 boat length from the jetty end. Is Yellow entitled to room?

(Note - assume the boats are reaching, and will be able to sail the channel on or slightly below a close-hauled course)

 

sit2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BOI Guy said:

There is something wrong with your question. Everybody agrees on the applicable ruling and this is not normal.

You're right. Can we give him a coupon for another free question?

FB- Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF, one of the more controversial developments in the rules and everybody here is agreeing.

On the etchell worlds thread that looked clear as to me and everyone disagreed with each other!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TJSoCal said:

I think you're correct - a mark is not an obstruction simply by being a mark, but is an obstruction if it meets the definition of an obstruction. So a pin buoy with a fiberglass whip, probably not. Tetrahedron - maybe, depending on the size of the boats. Committee boat - almost certainly yes.

So, let's say that one or both jetty ends are marks. Boats are to pass between the jetty ends and down a channel. Suppose two boats are approaching, same tack. Yellow is initially clear astern but establishes a windward overlap inside Blue about 1 boat length from the jetty end. Is Yellow entitled to room?

(Note - assume the boats are reaching, and will be able to sail the channel on or slightly below a close-hauled course)

 

sit2.jpg

Yes.

 

The jetty is a continuing obstruction 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lydia said:

WTF, one of the more controversial developments in the rules and everybody here is agreeing.

On the etchell worlds thread that looked clear as to me and everyone disagreed with each other!

don't worry, Random will come along soon to make some sort of disagreement.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BOI Guy said:

No room entitled 

Boat does not establish overlap in time for mark room and is not entitled to obstruction room either, see19.2c

Disagree, 19.2(c) refers to "while boats are passing....." and is not relevant to the situation in Post #13.  19.2 (b) states "when boats are overlapped...." and does not give any conditions for when and how the boats became overlapped. Yellow is entitled to room at the obstruction.

19.2 in full:

19.2 Giving Room at an Obstruction

(a) A right-of-way boat may choose to pass an obstruction on either side.

(b) When boats are overlapped, the outside boat shall give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began. 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again demonstrates the stupidity of the RRS.

So one end of the line is a small floating mark while the other is a 70 foot power boat and we get a different outcome?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lydia said:

Again demonstrates the stupidity of the RRS.

So one end of the line is a small floating mark while the other is a 70 foot power boat and we get a different outcome?

Not really. Rule 18 applies (and 19 does not) at finish marks whether they're obstructions or not, as long as they're not continuing obstructions. 

And neither 18 nor 19 apply at starting marks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tunnel Rat said:

Disagree, 19.2(c) refers to "while boats are passing....." and is not relevant to the situation in Post #13.  19.2 (b) states "when boats are overlapped...." and does not give any conditions for when and how the boats became overlapped. Yellow is entitled to room at the obstruction.

19.2 in full:

19.2 Giving Room at an Obstruction

(a) A right-of-way boat may choose to pass an obstruction on either side.

(b) When boats are overlapped, the outside boat shall give the inside boat room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began. 

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

No Room

Yellow definitely not entitled to mark room under Rule 18, Overlap to late. = No Room

19.1 When Rule 19 Applies
Rule 19 applies between two boats at an obstruction except
(a) when the obstruction is a mark the boats are required to leave on the
same side, or
(b) when rule 18 applies between the boats and the obstruction is another
boat overlapped with each of them.
However, at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does
not.

If the mark is not a continuing obstruction then Rule 19 does not apply - Rule 18 = no room, If it is a continuing obstruction Rule 19 applies and so does 19.2c = No Room

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BOI Guy said:

No Room

Yellow definitely not entitled to mark room under Rule 18, Overlap to late. = No Room

19.1 When Rule 19 Applies
Rule 19 applies between two boats at an obstruction except
(a) when the obstruction is a mark the boats are required to leave on the
same side, or
(b) when rule 18 applies between the boats and the obstruction is another
boat overlapped with each of them.
However, at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does
not.

If the mark is not a continuing obstruction then Rule 19 does not apply - Rule 18 = no room, If it is a continuing obstruction Rule 19 applies and so does 19.2c = No Room

 

 

Read post # 13 more carefully:

 "So, let's say that one or both jetty ends are marks. Boats are to pass between the jetty ends and down a channel. "

We are not talking about marks, we are talking about jetties which are obstructions.  If Post #13 was referring to floating marks I would agree yellow is not entitled to room, if we are referring to jetties, then yes yellow is entitled to room.

19.2(c) only applies "While  boats are passing a continuing obstruction...."  In the diagram in Post #13 the boats are approaching a continuing obstruction, therefore 19.2(c) does not apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TJSoCal said:

So, let's say that one or both jetty ends are marks. Boats are to pass between the jetty ends and down a channel. Suppose two boats are approaching, same tack. Yellow is initially clear astern but establishes a windward overlap inside Blue about 1 boat length from the jetty end. Is Yellow entitled to room?

 

sit2.jpg

I'd like to disagree with those that say Yellow is entitled to room. For me, it depends on whether the mark is just the end of the jetty (as stated above) or whether it is the entire jetty.

Assuming the former, at position 3, the mark is both a mark and an obstruction. However 19.1(a) says that 19 does not apply when the obstruction is a mark. So 18 applies.

Now while the last bit of 19.1 says that rule 19 always applies at a continuing obstruction (and 18 does not), the jetty is not yet a continuing obstruction to the boats - they are simply approaching an obstruction. You need to look at when 18 does not apply to see how 19 gets invoked at a continuing obstruction. 18.1(d) says 18 does not apply "if the mark is a continuing obstruction, in which case rule 19 applies". So if the jetty is the mark then the mark is a continuing obstruction and 19 does apply. But if only the end of the jetty is the mark, 18 applies. It all depends on what the SIs say.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tunnel Rat said:

Read post # 13 more carefully:

 "So, let's say that one or both jetty ends are marks. Boats are to pass between the jetty ends and down a channel. "

We are not talking about marks, we are talking about jetties which are obstructions.  If Post #13 was referring to floating marks I would agree yellow is not entitled to room, if we are referring to jetties, then yes yellow is entitled to room.

19.2(c) only applies "While  boats are passing a continuing obstruction...."  In the diagram in Post #13 the boats are approaching a continuing obstruction, therefore 19.2(c) does not apply.

We are talking about marks "Boats are to pass between the jetty ends and down a channel" that makes them a mark hence no room under any rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BOI Guy said:

We are talking about marks "Boats are to pass between the jetty ends and down a channel" that makes them a mark hence no room under any rule.

Do you really think that a jetty is not an obstruction?

I'm out of this discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the jetty ends are designated marks ( which would be strange)  then the yellow boat has not a right to room as the overlap was not established 3 boat lengths out.

The jetty ends would not become marks just by being there, they become part of the continuing obstruction of  the bank we often change rivers,  pass jetties,  and dyke entrancies, in racing , they are all part of the bank. 

if the jetty are not designated marks then entitled to room would depend on clearance of the bow of the yellow boat from the stern of the blue boat.  The yellow boat still has to allow blue room to manouver, so if the yellow boats newly overlapping bow is inches from the stern of the blue boat, the blue boat cannot tack away without collision . So there is not room for yellow between blue and bank, so yellow is not entitled  to call for water to tack and has put itself in an impossible position 

 If the yellow boat has has left sufficient room  for the blue boat to tack away,  then it is entitled to call for water to tack. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, danstanford said:

Back to the original question, does mark room in this case simply mean room or room on current port tack? 

Just mark room. So for example S can force P to gybe as long as S leaves room for P to gybe round the mark.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Brass said:

Yes.

 

The jetty is a continuing obstruction 

I agree that the jetty is a continuing obstruction.

I think this is an interesting corner case for the rules where its easy to pick nits....

For example are the jetty ends part of the jetties or are they separate entities? Is there any way to make the jetty ends "mark's" without them being part of the continuing obstruction, I don't know. If they can't be separated the the R19 catch-all for continuing obstruction means that R18 will not apply. On the other hand if they can be separated then R18 applies at the jetty ends, and R19 applies while passing the jetties.

NOTE I believe this is an instance of a situation that the rules does not handle well, this happens, there is a balance in the rules between handling every situation perfectly and keeping the rules reasonable simple. We should accept that in some cases it misses.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Athwart said:

I'd like to disagree with those that say Yellow is entitled to room. For me, it depends on whether the mark is just the end of the jetty (as stated above) or whether it is the entire jetty.

Assuming the former, at position 3, the mark is both a mark and an obstruction. However 19.1(a) says that 19 does not apply when the obstruction is a mark. So 18 applies.

Now while the last bit of 19.1 says that rule 19 always applies at a continuing obstruction (and 18 does not), the jetty is not yet a continuing obstruction to the boats - they are simply approaching an obstruction.

 

The problem is, that the jetty is a continuing obstruction whether you are passing it or approaching it.  I think you are correct that R19.2(c) doesn't apply yet because the boats are approaching a continuing obstruction, but the statement in 19.1

Quote

However, at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not

does still apply.  The boats are approaching a continuing obstruction, therefore R18 does not apply and R19 does.

I think this is very much a corner case, I have never encountered this or anything similar while racing. If this had to be part of a race my personal preference would be to set two marks at the entrance to the channels and make them the marks, or possibly to explicitly state in the SI's that the jetty ends are NOT part of the continuing obstruction. Or even make the other end of the jetty the mark, so that its clear to boats what rules should apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2019 at 1:30 PM, TJSoCal said:

I think you're correct - a mark is not an obstruction simply by being a mark, but is an obstruction if it meets the definition of an obstruction. So a pin buoy with a fiberglass whip, probably not. Tetrahedron - maybe, depending on the size of the boats. Committee boat - almost certainly yes.

So, let's say that one or both jetty ends are marks. Boats are to pass between the jetty ends and down a channel. Suppose two boats are approaching, same tack. Yellow is initially clear astern but establishes a windward overlap inside Blue about 1 boat length from the jetty end. Is Yellow entitled to room?

(Note - assume the boats are reaching, and will be able to sail the channel on or slightly below a close-hauled course)

 

sit2.jpg

Any skipper/owner that sticks his boat between a rocky out cropping and another boat at the 1 boat length mark is an idiot and deserves to hit his keel on a rock.

I've been in this situation in our Wednesday evening summer races and My Keel is more important than any damn race. Besides it would kill the buzz.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

Any skipper/owner that sticks his boat between a rocky out cropping and another boat at the 1 boat length mark is an idiot and deserves to hit his keel on a rock.

I've been in this situation in our Wednesday evening summer races and My Keel is more important than any damn race. Besides it would kill the buzz.

Our club just had a "rules evening" led by a National Judge, he presented something similar with a boat trying to barge for room at a start line committee boat, I know different rules apply then but several time during the evening he commented to the effect that quite often a protest will be heard and the protested boat will be found to have broken rule 2.

In this case Blue is likely to protest yellow based on 19.2c. The committee may find yellow did or did not break that rule but find they did break rule 2. 

The main point of the rules are to make racing safer, if you do stupid things likely to endanger others or yourself  a protest committee is not going to look on you favorably and they are entitled to find you broke rule 2 once they have heard a protest, even if it did not claim rule 2 was broken.

A case of Blue asking for redress can quickly turn into a disqualification for yellow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t see anything in the rss that is actually about keeping boats apart

they  give a boat right which it then will seek to enforce for tactical advantagthey need to be got rid of.

just look at the debate here and on the etchell thread 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, lydia said:

I can’t see anything in the rss that is actually about keeping boats apart

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lydia said:

I can’t see anything in the rss that is actually about keeping boats apart

 

Ummm... the 14th commandment... though shalt not make contact with another boat, even if you are right of way?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JohnMB said:

The problem is, that the jetty is a continuing obstruction whether you are passing it or approaching it.  I think you are correct that R19.2(c) doesn't apply yet because the boats are approaching a continuing obstruction, but the statement in 19.1

does still apply.  The boats are approaching a continuing obstruction, therefore R18 does not apply and R19 does.

I think this is very much a corner case, I have never encountered this or anything similar while racing. If this had to be part of a race my personal preference would be to set two marks at the entrance to the channels and make them the marks, or possibly to explicitly state in the SI's that the jetty ends are NOT part of the continuing obstruction. Or even make the other end of the jetty the mark, so that its clear to boats what rules should apply.

I think it would be better if the jettys were not mentioned at all,  they are obviously going to sail into a river or Harbour,  further ahead will be the next mark,  the boats are going to have to go that way anyway. Just leave the jetty as part of the continuing obstruction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChiGuy said:

Ummm... the 14th commandment... though shalt not make contact with another boat, even if you are right of way?

Since when does anyone apply that.

I have the right because the RRS says I do so I will go in there!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChiGuy said:

Ummm... the 14th commandment... though shalt not make contact with another boat, even if you are right of way?

No it does not.

Read it again.

Says if there is contact you can be exonerated.

different thing.

How about a rule that says that if there is a contact both boats are disqualified, no hearing and no redress 

Wonder how much my insurance would drop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

Any skipper/owner that sticks his boat between a rocky out cropping and another boat at the 1 boat length mark is an idiot and deserves to hit his keel on a rock.

I've been in this situation in our Wednesday evening summer races and My Keel is more important than any damn race. Besides it would kill the buzz.

I’m 100% with Meat Wad on this one. If I’m yellow, I’m not going there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, lydia said:

No it does not.

Read it again.

Says if there is contact you can be exonerated.

different thing.

How about a rule that says that if there is a contact both boats are disqualified, no hearing and no redress 

Wonder how much my insurance would drop.

Insurance prices drop.

Now that's funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, lydia said:

No it does not.

Read it again.

Says if there is contact you can be exonerated.

different thing.

How about a rule that says that if there is a contact both boats are disqualified, no hearing and no redress 

Wonder how much my insurance would drop.

There would be practically no boats left to finish a race on our waters,  up to 150 racing dinghies and yachts  10ft to 40ft on a Mile and a half of river at most 200ft wide. With added tourist motorboats. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2019 at 11:51 AM, BOI Guy said:

Our club just had a "rules evening" led by a National Judge, he presented something similar with a boat trying to barge for room at a start line committee boat, I know different rules apply

There is no similarity between the two jetties scenario and rule 19 being discussed and boats approaching a starting boat to start, when neither rule 18 nor rule 19 apply at all (preamble to Section C

On 7/6/2019 at 11:51 AM, BOI Guy said:

Our club just had a "rules evening" led by a National Judge, ...  several time during the evening he commented to the effect that quite often a protest will be heard and the protested boat will be found to have broken rule 2.

I find that a little strange.  I've been judging for quite a while, and I've never disqualified under rule 2 and I can't remember even seeing a protesting boat attempt to make out a serious case about breach of rule 2 (as opposed to a bare assertion, unsupported by any evidence or argument).  Take a look at the protest reports from major regattas.  Rule 2 DNE are actually quite rare.

On 7/6/2019 at 11:51 AM, BOI Guy said:

In this case Blue is likely to protest yellow based on 19.2c. The committee may find yellow did or did not break that rule but find they did break rule 2. 

OK, help us along here.

Here's rule 2

2 FAIR SAILING
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated. The penalty shall be either disqualification or disqualification that is not excludable.

Exactly what 'principle of sportsmanship and/or fair play' do you think that B might have failed to comply with?

Please outline the evidence that you think proves that this 'principle' is 'recognised'.

Please outline the evidence that you would expect to emerge in a hearing of a protest that would lead to a conclusion that B broke rule 2.

Supposing that a protest committee did find that there was not room and Y did not keep clear of B as required by rule 19.2c, or simply rule 11, why would the protest committee go any further than a simple disqualification for breaking a right of way rule?

What's special about this scenario that makes it different from any other fail to keep clear situation?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2019 at 11:51 AM, BOI Guy said:

The main point of the rules are to make racing safer, if you do stupid things likely to endanger others or yourself  a protest committee is not going to look on you favorably and they are entitled to find you broke rule 2 once they have heard a protest, even if it did not claim rule 2 was broken.

It's not the business of a protest committee to 'look favourably' or 'look unfavourably' on a party:  it's the protest committee's job to conclude whether a a boat is validly protested and whether any boat has broken a rule

On 7/6/2019 at 11:51 AM, BOI Guy said:

A case of Blue asking for redress can quickly turn into a disqualification for yellow.

Absolutely not.

Rule 60.3

A protest committee may
(a) protest a boat, but not as a result of information arising from a request for redress ... 

A request for redress can NOT morph into a protest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Brass said:

I find that a little strange.  I've been judging for quite a while, and I've never disqualified under rule 2 and I can't remember even seeing a protesting boat attempt to make out a serious case about breach of rule 2 (as opposed to a bare assertion, unsupported by any evidence or argument).  Take a look at the protest reports from major regattas.  Rule 2 DNE are actually quite rare.

The one instance where I've seen it is when a boat knowingly broke a rule (in this case touching a starting mark), had no reason to expect to be exonerated and failed to take a penalty turn. If I recall correctly it turned from a DSQ to a DNE because the sailor offered conflicting answers to the same question (so basically was lying to the jury at one point or the other). The rule 2 violation was inserted by the jury, not alleged by the protestor (which in this case was RC).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TJSoCal said:

The one instance where I've seen it is when a boat knowingly broke a rule (in this case touching a starting mark), had no reason to expect to be exonerated and failed to take a penalty turn. If I recall correctly it turned from a DSQ to a DNE because the sailor offered conflicting answers to the same question (so basically was lying to the jury at one point or the other). The rule 2 violation was inserted by the jury, not alleged by the protestor (which in this case was RC).

Was the starting mark the RC Vessel?

Do you know what was the evidence that the boat knowingly broke a rule?

Once the boat has been penalised for breaking rule 31, I don't see how this affects the fairness of the competion.

Was this prior to the issue of Case 138

Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 69, Misconduct
Generally, an action by a competitor that directly affects the fairness of the competition or failing to take an appropriate penalty when the competitor is aware of breaking a rule, should be considered under rule 2. Any action, including a serious breach of rule 2 or any other rule, that the committee considers may be an act of misconduct should be considered under rule 69.
 
I reckon hitting and damaging a RC Vessel, without apology and compensation goes to rule 69 and lying to a protest committee is definitely rule 69, not rule 2.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The boat touched a pin vessel which was an anchored 15 foot RIB. The competitor grabbed and pushed off so no question they knew they hit the boat (but no damage). There was MUCH observed hitting of the pin boat the previous day (but no protests from RC)  so competitors had been warned in the morning briefing about it and RC was advised they should protest any infractions. 

As I recall further the protestee at first claimed that another boat had forced them into the mark, but could not identify the other boat and I don't remember if they claimed to have protested or not. Witness testimony from the PRO, RC crew in the pin boat and on-the-water rule 42 judges failed to corroborate the existence of the other boat. PC considered rule 69 but didn't act on it.

Also don't remember if case 138 was cited but it does seem relevant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TJSoCal said:

PC considered rule 69 but didn't act on it. 

There has to be a hearing.

  1. (2)  a person against whom an allegation has been made under this rule shall be entitled to have an advisor and a representative with him who may act on his behalf.

  2. Advisor can be a Lawyer.  The reason few go the 69 route is that it is a wormhole out of RRS into the Legal System of the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

There has to be a hearing.

  1. (2)  a person against whom an allegation has been made under this rule shall be entitled to have an advisor and a representative with him who may act on his behalf.

  2. Advisor can be a Lawyer.  The reason few go the 69 route is that it is a wormhole out of RRS into the Legal System of the country.

There most certainly does NOT have to be a hearing.

Rule 69.2 Action by a Protest Committee
... 
(b) When a protest committee, from its own observation or from information received from any source, including evidence taken during a hearing, believes a person may have broken rule 69.1(a), it shall decide whether or not to call a hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, but there are still connections to the legal system.

  1. (g)  The standard of proof to be applied is the test of the comfortable satisfaction of the protest committee, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct. However, if the standard of proof in this rule conflicts with the laws of a country, the national authority may, with the approval of World Sailing, change it with a prescription to this rule.

  2. Meaning that the 'laws of the country' have to be taken into account.  This is not the case with all other rules in RRS.  That's my point.  Legal advice may be required to determine this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although our navigation regulations are for the most part the same as Colregs, which are for the most part are the same as RRS. (as far port starboard and interboat incidents are concerned ). Any incident which may cause damage or injury could be taken to court even if both parties did not want to do so, If the authority deemed it dangerous.

 Dangerous Behaviour is not permitted...

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Q said:

Although our navigation regulations are for the most part the same as Colregs, which are for the most part are the same as RRS. (as far port starboard and interboat incidents are concerned ). Any incident which may cause damage or injury could be taken to court even if both parties did not want to do so, If the authority deemed it dangerous.

 Dangerous Behaviour is not permitted...

Look, the RRS are there to get a results sheet posted.  There are rules in it to deal with dangerous behaviour and have the results of that boat adjusted accordingly, perhaps a DSQ.

Legal matters are for the courts, get it?  They have nothing to do with the race results unless you put your toe on the sticky paper of Rule 69.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...