Rule 18 question at a finish mark

[Steam Flyer]

... ... ...

/monthly_06_2012/post-1322-087869100%201339541620_thumb.png

"Room to sail TO the mark"

NOT "room to sail DIRECTLY to the mark".

NOT "room to sail in a STRAIGHT LINE to the mark".

NOT "room to sail THE SHORTEST DISTANCE to the mark"

NOT " room to BE CONTINUALLY SAILING to the mark"

OTOH by your theory, the R-O-W outside boat could sail in any direction as long as she eventually arrived at the mark with room for the inside boat.

"room to sail to the mark" does not mean being forced in the opposite direction either. So where is the limit? The rules don't say explicitly, but if it can't be 180 away from the mark can it be 90 away from the mark? 45 away?

I suggest that the simplest, clearest, way of reading this is to say that an outside right-of-way boat must allow an inside boat to sail more or less straight to the mark.

FB- Doug

 

[johnnysaint]

The new definition Mark-Room answers a question that competitors have been

asking for many years. It makes it clear at what time an outside leeward boat with

luffing rights may no longer luff an inside windward boat towards the ‘wrong’

side of a mark. Consider two overlapped boats running on port tack to a leeward

mark to be left to port. After one of the two boats is in the zone, the leeward boat

is obligated by new rule 18.2(b ) to give the windward boat ‘room … to sail to the

mark’ (see the first part of the definition Mark-Room). Inside the zone, if the

outside boat were to luff the windward boat to a course taking her to the wrong

side of the mark, the outside boat would not be giving the windward boat space to

sail to the mark. Therefore, that luff would break new rule 18.2, even if the

outside boat later bears off and lets the inside boat sail to the mark. If such an

outside boat luffs the inside boat towards the wrong side of the mark before either

of them is in the zone, then, provided she complies with rule 16.1 (and, if it

applies, rule 17), the outside leeward boat breaks no rule. Under the old rules,

there was no clearly defined moment at which such a leeward boat could no

longer luff the windward boat towards the wrong side.

So that is a rule in the RRS now is it?

or an interpretation?

FFS !

GIVE IT UP!

You are just being an argumentative **** now. Put it this way, it's more an authoritative interpretation than yours .

What's wrong with..."Shit, sorry guys. I hadn't seen that before. As you were!"? It's way more endearing.

Dw

Why do you have to be so agressive?

Maybe just reel back the "FFS's" and feet stamping, and try to listen sometimes.

Accept that I don't see the rules as convoluted as you do. And that somebodies interpretation is not the same as mine.

 

[johnnysaint]

... ... ...

/monthly_06_2012/post-1322-087869100%201339541620_thumb.png

"Room to sail TO the mark"

NOT "room to sail DIRECTLY to the mark".

NOT "room to sail in a STRAIGHT LINE to the mark".

NOT "room to sail THE SHORTEST DISTANCE to the mark"

NOT " room to BE CONTINUALLY SAILING to the mark"

OTOH by your theory, the R-O-W outside boat could sail in any direction as long as she eventually arrived at the mark with room for the inside boat.

"room to sail to the mark" does not mean being forced in the opposite direction either. So where is the limit? The rules don't say explicitly, but if it can't be 180 away from the mark can it be 90 away from the mark? 45 away?

I suggest that the simplest, clearest, way of reading this is to say that an outside right-of-way boat must allow an inside boat to sail more or less straight to the mark.

FB- Doug

That would be clear, but the RRS DO NOT SAY "room to sail in a STRAIGHT LINE to the mark".

 

[Dog Watch]

The new definition Mark-Room answers a question that competitors have been

asking for many years. It makes it clear at what time an outside leeward boat with

luffing rights may no longer luff an inside windward boat towards the ‘wrong’

side of a mark. Consider two overlapped boats running on port tack to a leeward

mark to be left to port. After one of the two boats is in the zone, the leeward boat

is obligated by new rule 18.2(b ) to give the windward boat ‘room … to sail to the

mark’ (see the first part of the definition Mark-Room). Inside the zone, if the

outside boat were to luff the windward boat to a course taking her to the wrong

side of the mark, the outside boat would not be giving the windward boat space to

sail to the mark. Therefore, that luff would break new rule 18.2, even if the

outside boat later bears off and lets the inside boat sail to the mark. If such an

outside boat luffs the inside boat towards the wrong side of the mark before either

of them is in the zone, then, provided she complies with rule 16.1 (and, if it

applies, rule 17), the outside leeward boat breaks no rule. Under the old rules,

there was no clearly defined moment at which such a leeward boat could no

longer luff the windward boat towards the wrong side.

So that is a rule in the RRS now is it?

or an interpretation?

FFS !

GIVE IT UP!

You are just being an argumentative **** now. Put it this way, it's more an authoritative interpretation than yours .

What's wrong with..."Shit, sorry guys. I hadn't seen that before. As you were!"? It's way more endearing.

Dw

Why do you have to be so agressive?

Maybe just reel back the "FFS's" and feet stamping, and try to listen sometimes.

Accept that I don't see the rules as convoluted as you do. And that somebodies interpretation is not the same as mine.

Ok. Apologies! Aggressive due to frustration. That's a failure on my part.

So without FFSs and WTFs, lets continue.

I accept always that there may be more than one interpretation to the same words. I also accept that a rule book requires some interpretation by its users. It can't define everything without being so voluminous that it becomes unusable .

Without any assistance, we are left to or own devices.

In the other hand, when we have some guidance we should assess the quality of what we have. It its not set in stone, and until there is an official statement we are always entitled to question the status quo.

When the rule makers actually write a clarification of their intended function, I regard that as good enough quality to go with. I may still disagree with the words they have used and have ideas how it could be better put, but unless there is a clear conflict, I can accept that.

You suggested a perfectly good alternative interpretation of the word 'to'. Dick Rose suggests the other. Neither conflicts. Neither is convoluted.

So I think it is sensible to use the intended one. There is no need to question it. It complies with all other documents available (Case 75), and the rules. It's good enough.

If they had stated your interpretation, then that would be what I go by.

Only by understanding the natural limitations of a set of rules (and the natural need for interpretation) can they be used effectively.

In law there are rules on how and when to interpret statute law. The rules of statutory interpretation guide lawyers and judges. We don't have those, but their principals are quite good ones to live by when considering the RRS. It is well worth doing a wiki search on that. Particularly the 'Purposive Approach '.

Dw

 

[ojfd]

If I understand it correctly, Submission 256-11 to the Racing Rules Committee has been approved at the ISAF Council meeting in November 2011. It is, of course, a bit too early to talk about the new RRS, but perhaps we should take a look at that submission to see what Rules makers ment / mean by definition Mark Room.

http://www.sailing.org/36856.php

/monthly_06_2012/post-55189-040496600%201339554936_thumb.jpg

 

[Dog Watch]

If I understand it correctly, Submission 256-11 to the Racing Rules Committee has been approved at the ISAF Council meeting in November 2011. It is, of course, a bit too early to talk about the new RRS, but perhaps we should take a look at that submission to see what Rules makers ment / mean by definition Mark Room.

http://www.sailing.org/36856.php

/monthly_06_2012/post-55189-040496600%201339554936_thumb.jpg

Interestingly, I don't think that submission clarifies what JS and I are discussing!

What is meant by the word 'to'? In the direction of...or in transition from a point of departure which ends at a destination via an undefined path???

 

[Road Runner]

The rules were discussed but what about the tactics.

Leeward boat: I would have kept a little higher sailing a proper cource. Put yourself in a possition that you can head down and just make the mark but they can't without jibing but do it outside of any issue of room. The other option is again sail a little higher proper cource and plan on the gybe into the finish. They can't jibe into you, so you can hold them just enough so that you are leading out of the jibes.

Windward boat: You have to know (if the boat speeds are close and you are 1/4 the way to the finish) that this is not going to end well. You are either hoping you can drive over him or try and get him to come up with you so that maybe your crew work is better then his. If you make the call late and loose this battle then it is your fault. Make a decision early to try and get yourself out of that situation.

Note. I have seen people use an Iphone to fight the issue of proper course which was interesting. So if you are the leeward boat and you determine your proper course with no visible wind changes don't keep changing your propper course if the guy to windward has a camera on you. So mentally if you want to screw with the guy below and in front a little just pull a camera out. It might just stop him from screwing around with proper course and give you an edge.

We don't want to win in a protest room. But if you can minipulate somone within the rules and get to their head that why not. Plus it's fun when it works and when it doesn't you know you tried.

 

[ojfd]

If I understand it correctly, Submission 256-11 to the Racing Rules Committee has been approved at the ISAF Council meeting in November 2011. It is, of course, a bit too early to talk about the new RRS, but perhaps we should take a look at that submission to see what Rules makers ment / mean by definition Mark Room.

http://www.sailing.org/36856.php

/monthly_06_2012/post-55189-040496600%201339554936_thumb.jpg

Interestingly, I don't think that submission clarifies what JS and I are discussing!

What is meant by the word 'to'? In the direction of...or in transition from a point of departure which ends at a destination via an undefined path???

Obviously, when you're at home and just decided to go "to" some pub, the path "to" the pub is unknown and might be discussed.

When you're only 3 boatlenghts (!) away from the mark, the most logical, seamanlike path "to the mark" will be the straight line, as there insn't much time or space for any maneuvres.

 

[beachball]

The rules were discussed but what about the tactics.

[sNIP]

Windward boat: You have to know (if the boat speeds are close and you are 1/4 the way to the finish) that this is not going to end well. You are either hoping you can drive over him or try and get him to come up with you so that maybe your crew work is better then his. If you make the call late and loose this battle then it is your fault. Make a decision early to try and get yourself out of that situation.

Note. I have seen people use an Iphone to fight the issue of proper course which was interesting. So if you are the leeward boat and you determine your proper course with no visible wind changes don't keep changing your propper course if the guy to windward has a camera on you. So mentally if you want to screw with the guy below and in front a little just pull a camera out. It might just stop him from screwing around with proper course and give you an edge.

Not really. This had been explained several times before (most recently in the VOR Lisbon In-Port Race thread). Even if R17 applies (i.e., leeward is limited to not sailing above her proper course) and there is no change in wind direction or speed where the boats are, leeward has a lot of freedom to choose (and alter!) her course. For instance, her proper course might very well be to get further to the right side of the run because she believes that there is/will be more wind. She is perfectly within her rights to sail high to go there - you see plenty of high performance boats almost beam reaching on runs in order to get to (imaginary or real) puffs.

A course change alone by leeward is not sufficient to conclude that she sailed above her proper course, it has to be established that she would not have done so without the other boat present.

We don't want to win in a protest room. But if you can minipulate somone within the rules and get to their head that why not. Plus it's fun when it works and when it doesn't you know you tried.

You are entitled to that opinion, of course. However, I doubt that many people share this attitude or approve of it...

 

[johnnysaint]

Consider this as an ammendment to 18.2 b. (in bold)...

18.2 (b...) If boats are overlapped when the first of them reaches the zone, the outside boat at that moment shall thereafter give the inside boat mark-room, and if the leeward boat, shall not sail above her proper course. If a boat is clear ahead when she reaches the zone, the boat clear astern at that moment shall thereafter give her mark-room.

That is very clear what the outside boat can or can't do. Think about it and please find fault with it.

Currently there is NOTHING in the RRS that prevents an outside boat sailing above her proper course and luffing an inside boat.

 

[Dog Watch]

Consider this as an ammendment to 18.2 b. (in bold)...

18.2 (b...) If boats are overlapped when the first of them reaches the zone, the outside boat at that moment shall thereafter give the inside boat mark-room, and if the leeward boat, shall not sail above her proper course. If a boat is clear ahead when she reaches the zone, the boat clear astern at that moment shall thereafter give her mark-room.

That is very clear what the outside boat can or can't do. Think about it and please find fault with it.

Currently there is NOTHING in the RRS that prevents an outside boat sailing above her proper course and luffing an inside boat.

JS, I see where you are coming from. I'll have to give it more thought.

At first glance, I don't see how it solves the problem they tried to fix, which was to define the time when mark room must be given.

Imagine the leeward boat sailing high because that's her proper course. When does she have to bear away?

Whether they got the wording right or not, that's what they were trying to fix. They intended to define the edge of the zone as the instance mark room should be given.

I think, the straight line from the edge of the zone to the mark is sensible and clear. Maybe they just need to specify it a little more clearly somehow.

What do you think?

Dw

 

[johnnysaint]

Consider this as an ammendment to 18.2 b. (in bold)...

18.2 (b...) If boats are overlapped when the first of them reaches the zone, the outside boat at that moment shall thereafter give the inside boat mark-room, and if the leeward boat, shall not sail above her proper course. If a boat is clear ahead when she reaches the zone, the boat clear astern at that moment shall thereafter give her mark-room.

That is very clear what the outside boat can or can't do. Think about it and please find fault with it.

Currently there is NOTHING in the RRS that prevents an outside boat sailing above her proper course and luffing an inside boat.

JS, I see where you are coming from. I'll have to give it more thought.

At first glance, I don't see how it solves the problem they tried to fix, which was to define the time when mark room must be given.

Imagine the leeward boat sailing high because that's her proper course. When does she have to bear away?

Whether they got the wording right or not, that's what they were trying to fix.

I think, the straight line from the edge of the zone to the mark is sensible and clear. Maybe they just need to specify it a little more clearly somehow.

What do you think?

Dw

Imagine the leeward boat sailing high because that's her proper course. When does she have to bear away?

Already covered in the rules...

When there is still room for the inside boat to pass/round the mark in accordance with the definition of room.

 

[Dog Watch]

Consider this as an ammendment to 18.2 b. (in bold)...

18.2 (b...) If boats are overlapped when the first of them reaches the zone, the outside boat at that moment shall thereafter give the inside boat mark-room, and if the leeward boat, shall not sail above her proper course. If a boat is clear ahead when she reaches the zone, the boat clear astern at that moment shall thereafter give her mark-room.

That is very clear what the outside boat can or can't do. Think about it and please find fault with it.

Currently there is NOTHING in the RRS that prevents an outside boat sailing above her proper course and luffing an inside boat.

JS, I see where you are coming from. I'll have to give it more thought.

At first glance, I don't see how it solves the problem they tried to fix, which was to define the time when mark room must be given.

Imagine the leeward boat sailing high because that's her proper course. When does she have to bear away?

Whether they got the wording right or not, that's what they were trying to fix.

I think, the straight line from the edge of the zone to the mark is sensible and clear. Maybe they just need to specify it a little more clearly somehow.

What do you think?

Dw

Imagine the leeward boat sailing high because that's her proper course. When does she have to bear away?

Already covered in the rules...

When there is still room for the inside boat to pass/round the mark in accordance with the definition of room.

Ok. But that was always the problem for boats and protest committees to argue over. Over time they must've decided that this was too vague at such a critical time in the race.

Given that they have that specific point (the zone) ay their disposal, they have decided that it would be better for everyone to use that as the defining moment.

Fair enough I say. Why not make a more specific point to start giving room? Why not use the edge of the zone? Why not make mark room be 'a straight line from edge to the mark'?

Dw

 

[johnnysaint]

Consider this as an ammendment to 18.2 b. (in bold)...

18.2 (b...) If boats are overlapped when the first of them reaches the zone, the outside boat at that moment shall thereafter give the inside boat mark-room, and if the leeward boat, shall not sail above her proper course. If a boat is clear ahead when she reaches the zone, the boat clear astern at that moment shall thereafter give her mark-room.

That is very clear what the outside boat can or can't do. Think about it and please find fault with it.

Currently there is NOTHING in the RRS that prevents an outside boat sailing above her proper course and luffing an inside boat.

JS, I see where you are coming from. I'll have to give it more thought.

At first glance, I don't see how it solves the problem they tried to fix, which was to define the time when mark room must be given.

Imagine the leeward boat sailing high because that's her proper course. When does she have to bear away?

Whether they got the wording right or not, that's what they were trying to fix.

I think, the straight line from the edge of the zone to the mark is sensible and clear. Maybe they just need to specify it a little more clearly somehow.

What do you think?

Dw

Imagine the leeward boat sailing high because that's her proper course. When does she have to bear away?

Already covered in the rules...

When there is still room for the inside boat to pass/round the mark in accordance with the definition of room.

Ok. But that was always the problem for boats and protest committees to argue over. Over time they must've decided that this was too vague at such a critical time in the race.

Given that they have that specific point (the zone) ay their disposal, they have decided that it would be better for everyone to use that as the defining moment.

Fair enough I say. Why not make a more specific point to start giving room? Why not use the edge of the zone? Why not make mark room be 'a straight line from edge to the mark'?

Dw

Difficult to define on the water. Also has the effect of defining an "obstruction." Then 19 might come into it?

Increasing the size of the zone has allowed more room for boats to luff, where there was less room for that previously.

"Why not make a more specific point to start giving room?" That's what the "ammendment" does.

 

[Dog Watch]

Consider this as an ammendment to 18.2 b. (in bold)...

18.2 (b...) If boats are overlapped when the first of them reaches the zone, the outside boat at that moment shall thereafter give the inside boat mark-room, and if the leeward boat, shall not sail above her proper course. If a boat is clear ahead when she reaches the zone, the boat clear astern at that moment shall thereafter give her mark-room.

That is very clear what the outside boat can or can't do. Think about it and please find fault with it.

Currently there is NOTHING in the RRS that prevents an outside boat sailing above her proper course and luffing an inside boat.

JS, I see where you are coming from. I'll have to give it more thought.

At first glance, I don't see how it solves the problem they tried to fix, which was to define the time when mark room must be given.

Imagine the leeward boat sailing high because that's her proper course. When does she have to bear away?

Whether they got the wording right or not, that's what they were trying to fix.

I think, the straight line from the edge of the zone to the mark is sensible and clear. Maybe they just need to specify it a little more clearly somehow.

What do you think?

Dw

Imagine the leeward boat sailing high because that's her proper course. When does she have to bear away?

Already covered in the rules...

When there is still room for the inside boat to pass/round the mark in accordance with the definition of room.

Ok. But that was always the problem for boats and protest committees to argue over. Over time they must've decided that this was too vague at such a critical time in the race.

Given that they have that specific point (the zone) ay their disposal, they have decided that it would be better for everyone to use that as the defining moment.

Fair enough I say. Why not make a more specific point to start giving room? Why not use the edge of the zone? Why not make mark room be 'a straight line from edge to the mark'?

Dw

Difficult to define on the water. Also has the effect of defining an "obstruction." Then 19 might come into it?

Increasing the size of the zone has allowed more room for boats to luff, where there was less room for that previously.

"Why not make a more specific point to start giving room?" That's what the "ammendment" does.

I don't think 19 comes into this. 19 applies at obstructions, except when it is a mark.

Increasing the size of the zone was not meant to give leeward boats more room to luff. It was designed to make mark rounding cleaner by giving mote space to the inside boat to adjust, in light of the new definition of mark room, which was meant to restrict the leeward boat!

 

[johnnysaint]

I don't think 19 comes into this. 19 applies at obstructions, except when it is a mark.

drawing a line to not cross turns that line into an obstruction.

you edited.... unfortunately the intent to restrict the leeward boat (if that was intended)was not done as there is nothing restricting the leeward boat.

Imagine how difficult this must be if English is not your first language.

 

[Presuming Ed]

If I understand it correctly, Submission 256-11 to the Racing Rules Committee has been approved at the ISAF Council meeting in November 2011. It is, of course, a bit too early to talk about the new RRS, but perhaps we should take a look at that submission to see what Rules makers ment / mean by definition Mark Room.
http://www.sailing.org/36856.php

Interestingly, I don't think that submission clarifies what JS and I are discussing!

What is meant by the word 'to'? In the direction of...or in transition from a point of departure which ends at a destination via an undefined path???

That's more about passing marks and rounding marks. E.g., Rapid response call .pdf"]2011.011 Approval of 256 means that a boat with mark room can no longer sail to the mark if her proper course doesn't take her round the mark.

Re what does "to" mean, every single umpire I know interprets it as straight to the mark, in agreement with Call Ump 24 in the .pdf"]match race call book. I fail to see why the rule should be interpreted differently for fleet racing.

Question 1

Blue and Yellow are approaching a mark to be left to starboard (Blue outside and leeward, Yellow inside and windward). Rule 17 does not apply to Blue. What is the latest time Blue may luff?

Answer 1

Rule 18 begins to apply when any part of the hull of either boat is in the zone. From this moment, if Blue luffs and thereafter has to bear away in order to give Yellow mark-room, then Blue breaks rule 18.2. Blue does not break rule 18.2 if she is able to luff while giving mark-room. Yellow is required to keep clear under rule 11. However, she will be exonerated under rule 18.5(a) if she breaks rule 11 because Blue fails to give her mark-room.

Question 2

If Blue has to bear away to give mark-room, when is she required to do so?

Answer 2

Blue is required to bear away promptly from the moment the first of the boats is in the zone.

 

[Dog Watch]

I don't think 19 comes into this. 19 applies at obstructions, except when it is a mark.

drawing a line to not cross turns that line into an obstruction.

you edited.... unfortunately the intent to restrict the leeward boat (if that was intended)was not done as there is nothing restricting the leeward boat.

Imagine how difficult this must be if English is not your first language.

I think the only one finding this difficult is you.

Maybe too much English can be a problem.

The phrase 'to the mark' is what restricts the leeward boat. Only it needs people to accept their intended (and reasonable) interpretation of that phrase. Then it works!

P.Ed, yes the rapid response is also clearly makes the intent into a reality (for match racing albeit) as we have been saying.

Am I missing something in my explanations?

Dw

 

[johnnysaint]

I think the only one finding this difficult is you.

Gloves off then!

Get it into your thick fucking head that NOWHERE is it written in the RRS that a outside boat cannot luff inside the zone.

An outside boat is REQUIRED to give room for an inside boat to pass/round the mark.

There is NOT a Case covering it. There are only interpretations and they are not binding.

You obviously cannot deal with anyone having a different view of things.

 

[Dog Watch]

I think the only one finding this difficult is you.

Gloves off then!

Get it into your thick fucking head that NOWHERE is it written in the RRS that a outside boat cannot luff inside the zone.

An outside boat is REQUIRED to give room for an inside boat to pass/round the mark.

There is NOT a Case covering it. There are only interpretations and they are not binding.

You obviously cannot deal with anyone having a different view of things.

Well that lasted long!

Would you be satisfied if they made Call Ump 24 into a case book case, since the case book IS binding?

Ok. Whatever, I'm done.