john a bailey
Super Anarchist
Also were they showing a black ball
Grounds for Redress? "Pin Boat" at a downwind start
- Thread starter ftbinc
- Start date
leonsuperfly
Anarchist
- 604
- 0
my understanding is that IRPCAS is a set of rules for vessels that are "underway". Which is why vessels moored or at anchor do not have obligations to maneuver
and rightly so!
There are other considerations for larger vessels and sound signals, lighting and shapes when at anchor or moored, but that's about all.
Edit : Just read the bit about the dragging ship not slipping her anchor to avoid running into a breakwall being at fault!
sheesh thats a tough call
Last edited by a moderator:
Presuming Ed
Super Anarchist
Well, with a downwind start, reaching in to the pin as leeward boat means that everybody above you has to keep clear (as windward boats), so you're guaranteed to be left hand boat, which gives you absolute freedom to gybe off straight away if you want the left (looking downwind). If you come in higher up with people beneath you, you're waiting for them to gybe before you can go.
Best place for a non racing boat to wait is OCS, to the left of the port gybe layline, pointing left so if anybody does gybeset at the pin and heads high, you can just scoot forward to keep out of the way.
Last edited by a moderator:
from case 67
here in case 67 W breaks the applicable IRPCAS rule, not a rule in part 2.
now I agree that there are counter arguments, in particular you can argue that because the IRPCAS is refernced in ther part 2 preamble, that effectively means that any breach or thos regulations is a breach of a part 2 rule.
Its an interesting issue, abd worth some debate.
the basis of my assumption (and yes its just an assumption) that a turns penalty is not applicable is this,
here in case 67 W breaks the applicable IRPCAS rule, not a rule in part 2.
now I agree that there are counter arguments, in particular you can argue that because the IRPCAS is refernced in ther part 2 preamble, that effectively means that any breach or thos regulations is a breach of a part 2 rule.
Its an interesting issue, abd worth some debate.
I don't think Case 67 gets the relevant rule quite right.
Putting aside the intentionality gross breach, and damage issues, in Case 67, the boat by not keeping clear of the boat to leeward breaks IRPCAS rule 12(a)(2), but relevantly for the purposes of a protest, by breaking the IRPCAS rule, she breaks the rule in Preamble to Part 2 second paragraph. I take it that the Preamble to Part 2 is a 'rule of Part 2' for purposes of rule 44.1 and, subject to the rule 44.1 conditions, a boat may take a rule 44 penalty for a breach.
In the circumstances of Case 67, there was serious damage, so rule 44 is out.
In the circumstances of the OP scenario, If it was good enough for Blue to stand by to give help, then, in all probability, there was injury or serious damage to Black, so a rule 44 penalty would probably be out, but not necessarily, if it turned out that damage was not serious and there was no injury.
Whether there has been an error by the RC isn't relevant.
Fundamental rule no 1 i.e. the most important rule in the rule book.
1 SAFETY
1.1 Helping Those in Danger
A boat or competitor shall give all possible help to any person or vessel in danger.
On the question of redress...
62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider
redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score in a
race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly
worse by
...
© giving help (except to herself or her crew) in compliance with
rule 1.1
Every trained PC will have it urged upon them to make fair reparation for anyone who stops to stand by or offer assistance to a boat in distress. This is usually accompanied by the suggestion that the panel should ur on the side of generosity.
Whether it turn out there was injury or not is irrelevant. The only question is whether it's through no fault of the boat in question. In other words when you clout another boat or a rib you don't get redress for checking whether you managed to injured anyone.
So the question is did blue hit the rib through no fault of her own? Pull the other one. She was in part at fault for the collision for any number of reason. Not least blue has a duty of care to ensure she maintains an adequate look out and make allowance for the fact that another vessel may not have seen her. Plowing on on the basis that the other vessle bloody well shouldn't of been there and bloody well should get out of the way? ... redress denied.
...
The introduction of the RRS contains this definition: ‘Boat’ means a sailboat and the crew on board.
The rib is not a boat in terms of the RRS and RRS14 does not apply.
PC decision overturned,
The SIs will need to be consulted on RRS31
Fundamental rule no 1 i.e. the most important rule in the rule book.
1 SAFETY
1.1 Helping Those in Danger
A boat or competitor shall give all possible help to any person or vessel in danger.
On the question of redress...
62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider
redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score in a
race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly
worse by
...
© giving help (except to herself or her crew) in compliance with
rule 1.1
Every trained PC will have it urged upon them to make fair reparation for anyone who stops to stand by or offer assistance to a boat in distress. This is usually accompanied by the suggestion that the panel should ur on the side of generosity.
Whether it turn out there was injury or not is irrelevant. The only question is whether it's through no fault of the boat in question. In other words when you clout another boat or a rib you don't get redress for checking whether you managed to injured anyone.
So the question is did blue hit the rib through no fault of her own? Pull the other one. She was in part at fault for the collision for any number of reason. Not least blue has a duty of care to ensure she maintains an adequate look out and make allowance for the fact that another vessel may not have seen her. Plowing on on the basis that the other vessle bloody well shouldn't of been there and bloody well should get out of the way? ... redress denied.
...
The introduction of the RRS contains this definition: ‘Boat’ means a sailboat and the crew on board.
The rib is not a boat in terms of the RRS and RRS14 does not apply.
PC decision overturned,
The SIs will need to be consulted on RRS31
Last edited by a moderator:
TJSoCal
Super Anarchist
OK, I thought (maybe incorrectly) that when the OP said Black was "on the starting side" of the line he meant on the course side, indicating an upwind start (albeit with the RC boat on the wrong end of the line). If it was a downwind start and he was on the pre-start side, then I agree with you that was a crappy place for him to be, and an even crappier place to be anchored.
TJSoCal
Super Anarchist
I don't see violation of 5 (proper lookout--no indication that Blue didn't see Black), and 6 (safe speed) is tenuous at best. I think 13 (overtaking) requires both vessels to be underway.
DA-WOODY
Super Anarchist
- Thread starter
- #52
John Ball
Member
I would ask several questions. . .
What caused the collision? - The sail boat broached into the power boat.
Did the RC do anything wrong? - The power boat was not displaying any indication of being an RC vessel. It was out of position.
Was there any mention of a pin boat in the SI or skippers meeting? We do not know.
Was the Pin boat a member of the RC? Yes, (see Terminology in the Introduction of the RRS)
Did the sail boat break R 14? No, R 14 is in Part 2 and applies to boats racing.
DId the sail boat break IRPCAS? Maybe, but hitting an RC boat is not considered a breach of IRPCAS and is subject to a racing penalty.
DId the sailboat act responsibly by stopping to check if the powerboat needed assistance? Yes.
Was the sailboat denied the opportunity to take a penalty for hitting an RC vessel? Yes, as the powerboat did not show that it was an RC vessel.
So should the sailboat be DSQ under R 14? No.
Should the sailboat take a penalty for hitting an RC vessel? Not if the vessel was not indicated as part of the RC.
Should the sailboat receive redress? Yes. Their position in the race was affected by several errors of the RC.
John
What caused the collision? - The sail boat broached into the power boat.
Did the RC do anything wrong? - The power boat was not displaying any indication of being an RC vessel. It was out of position.
Was there any mention of a pin boat in the SI or skippers meeting? We do not know.
Was the Pin boat a member of the RC? Yes, (see Terminology in the Introduction of the RRS)
Did the sail boat break R 14? No, R 14 is in Part 2 and applies to boats racing.
DId the sail boat break IRPCAS? Maybe, but hitting an RC boat is not considered a breach of IRPCAS and is subject to a racing penalty.
DId the sailboat act responsibly by stopping to check if the powerboat needed assistance? Yes.
Was the sailboat denied the opportunity to take a penalty for hitting an RC vessel? Yes, as the powerboat did not show that it was an RC vessel.
So should the sailboat be DSQ under R 14? No.
Should the sailboat take a penalty for hitting an RC vessel? Not if the vessel was not indicated as part of the RC.
Should the sailboat receive redress? Yes. Their position in the race was affected by several errors of the RC.
John
Last edited by a moderator:
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
Hmmm. Considering that a vessel at anchor is UNABLE TO MANEUVER to avoid a collision, do you think IRPCAS will overlook this situation entirely? Are you trying to suggest that it's OK to hit a vessel at anchor??
From Brass' link (which is not IRPCAS itself but a 2003 book on cases of ship collision), the very first reference says quite plainly "A vessel underway is bound to keep clear of another at anchor, even if the other is anchored in a fairway..."
The same principle is embodied in the RRS where it says a boat must avoid one which is anchored, or capsized; but of course an RC rib is not going to be capsized and isn't a racer anyway. Another witness said there was no way to tell if it was anchored or not, so it's entirely reasonable that a sailboat would expect a powerboat to keep out of their way. However when the sailboat rounds-up then that makes it difficult for the motorboat and being "out of control" due to poor skill is not an excuse for colliding with another boat under ANY rule system.
FB- Doug
John Ball
Member
Changed my mind on this statement. No, the sailboat should not receive redress as she contributed to the collision.
John
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
Changed my mind on this statement. No, the sailboat should not receive redress as she contributed to the collision.
John
I'm thinking Blue (the sailboat which hit the motorboat) should be awarded a DSQ but not so sure the correct procedure was followed by the RC.
FB- Doug
DA-WOODY
Super Anarchist
hitting something Not moving has No excuse
not realizing it was or was not at anchor makes no difference
not realizing it was or was not at anchor makes no difference
