When you get waived to cross, and then a douche protests?

Joakim

Super Anarchist
1,441
86
Finland
Yes to one of the questions, and partly yes to the other.  They are extremely rare.

The protest where the protest against the port boat was dismissed was handled very well by both boats, where the starboard boat made it clear they sailed a course to pass astern in good time and refused to concede they had sharply altered course at the last minute to allow port to cross.

The rule 2 situation never made it to the protest room.  Fact Found (approximate recollection) Starboard had hailed "cross"  and initially bore away encouraging port to cross and then luffed forcing the port to crash tack to try and avoid collision.  Starboard had to luff above chc to avoid Port before port completed the tack. Starboard protested under rule 13 and 15.

Arbitrator (IJ) recommended that if this went to protest:   Port would be found to have broken rule 13 but would be exonerated under rule 21 . Starboard would be disqualified or worse for breach of rule 2 and 16. Starboard withdrew the protest.

(History does not record the arbitrator addressing the issue of whether P also broke 10....its academic because S wisely dropped a protest which would have gone very pear shaped for them if they had gone into the room)
That's a quite different story and starboard was restricted by rule 16. In normal case with hails starboard would keep its course and then duck, if necessary. That leaves the case open for the starboard or a third party to protest. I can see that port could easily get DSQ on rule 10, but starboard did not break any rule. In most cases port can't do anything at the point she notices that starboard is not willing to duck and thus has to start the cross confident that starboard will duck and doesn't protest.

Starboard making a protest will not gain more friends and the next time port will leebow without asking, but still I find it hard to see this as a rule 2 case.

 

Mozzy Sails

Super Anarchist
1,150
931
United Kingdom
Illustration #3

PC:  A has broken no rule. C has broken rule 10
I don't agree here. 

Port is obliged to keep clear of starboard so starboard can sail her course.

If she choses to sail a course below port and port doesn't have to take action to keep clear, then port hasn't broken any rules. It doesn't matter if there would have been a collision had starboard sailed some other course.

For C to be found to have broken a rule A has to state that she was forced to change course because port wasn't keeping clear. Normally that's a no brainier in a protest, because in a port starboard protest it is A protesting C. 

 
I don't agree here. 

Port is obliged to keep clear of starboard so starboard can sail her course.....with no need (on the part of starboard) to take avoiding action

If she choses to sail a course below port and port doesn't have to take action to keep clear, then port hasn't broken any rules. It doesn't matter if there would have been a collision had starboard sailed some other course.

For C to be found to have broken a rule A has to state that she was forced to change course because port wasn't keeping clear. Normally that's a no brainier in a protest, because in a port starboard protest it is A protesting C. 
A: We bore away to duck C. I would not say it was sharp. If we had not borne away there would have been a collision.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mozzy Sails

Super Anarchist
1,150
931
United Kingdom
But I'm pretty happy that bare-faced collusion between two competitors to disadvantage another is a clear violation of established principles without recourse to a Case.
Have you read my example in post #47? You quoted it.

That is an example where i think two boats can collude to disadvantage another and its clearly not against the principles as both boats clearly gain. 

I think collusion is a read herring. Collusion is only referenced in the case to implicate a third party in terms of rule 41. 

The rule 2 aspect of the protest is centralised around whether A would benefit her own result by clearly hindering the progress of B. 

 
The rule 2 aspect of the protest is centralised around whether A would benefit her own result by clearly hindering the progress of B. 
PC gave A the opportunity to explain if there was any benefit to A:

PC: Was there any other reason for you to duck the port boat?

A:  Nope....
The PC thus find that the ONLY reason that A allowed C to cross was to help C beat B.

It is not a 78 case (as I point out....but someone else had raised the team racing issue).  However if A helps C beat B without any benefit to A then A is breaking rule 2 .....and rightly so.

In the Hobie case that a post contributed early in the thread, a PC had decided this had happened. I hope my illustration showed how hard it is to lose that protest. Brass thought it ranked as stupid. I didnt go that far, merely suggested that either they cannot have presented their case very well...or that they hit the beer too early....or that the collusion must have been so obvious that the PC had no option.  I prefer to choose the beer explanation.

 

Mozzy Sails

Super Anarchist
1,150
931
United Kingdom
Port is obliged to keep clear of starboard so starboard can sail her course.....with no need (on the part of starboard) to take avoiding action
The red you inserted. The key is 'her course'.  Her course is the course she chooses to take. It's not to be confused with proper course which is the course she would take in the absence of other boats. If starboard chooses a course which means port no longer has to take avoiding action to keep clear, then she starboard is entitled to do that, regardless of whether there would have been a collision had she persisted with her original course. The definition does not say 'proper course'. 

The rule 10 protest hinges on the starboard boat declaring that her course would have collided with port and she had to take avoiding action. The very admission that she chose (for some tactical reason) to duck behind port means that port was keeping clear of starboard's course. 

Normally it is starboard protesting port and obviously they will say their chosen course was not to duck, and the duck was avoiding action.  

 

Raked Aft\\

Super Anarchist
1,859
77
The North Coast
I'm not aware of any Cases or National Appeals on this issue.

I don't agree that when a starboard tack boat  changes course to allow a port tack boat to cross ahead the port tack boat necessarily breaks rule 10.

Rule 10 requires a port tack boat to keep clear of a starboard tack boat.

A port tack boat will keep clear of a starboard tack boat when the starboard tack boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action (Definitions:  Keep Clear).

If a starboard tack boat, initially on a collision course, decides to sail a course astern of the port tack boat, and changes course to do so, then her course has changed, because of her own decision, not because she needed to take avoiding action.  The port tack boat has kept clear and no rule has been broken.
exactly!

  Thanks Brass for putting it so succinctly...

 

Mozzy Sails

Super Anarchist
1,150
931
United Kingdom
PC gave A the opportunity to explain if there was any benefit to A:

The PC thus find that the ONLY reason that A allowed C to cross was to help C beat B.

It is not a 78 case (as I point out....but someone else had raised the team racing issue).  However if A helps C beat B without any benefit to A then A is breaking rule 2 .....and rightly so.

In the Hobie case that a post contributed early in the thread, a PC had decided this had happened. I hope my illustration showed how hard it is to lose that protest. Brass thought it ranked as stupid. I didnt go that far, merely suggested that either they cannot have presented their case very well...or that they hit the beer too early....or that the collusion must have been so obvious that the PC had no option.  I prefer to choose the beer explanation.
CLEARLY HINDERING THE PROGRESS OF B!!!! My whole point is that case 78 talks about a situation where A clearly hinders B. You say this should extend to a situation where A chooses not to hinder C with not direct link to B at all. I don't read that in case 78 anywhere. 

In the Hobie case I think the protest committee got it wrong. And I think it must have been very poorly represented (or the protest committee bias) as the poster says they were ducking the boat to get to some wind, which would be valid reason as to why the action would benefit their result. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brass

Super Anarchist
2,752
169
But I'm pretty happy that bare-faced collusion between two competitors to disadvantage another is a clear violation of established principles without recourse to a Case.
Have you read my example in post #47? You quoted it.


For example, C and A are 1st and 2nd in an event respectively. There is one last race to go where an extra discard will come in to play. They both have a good 'second discard'. A cannot beat C (unless C gets a DNE). However, boat C can win the event with a victory in the last race (as they they have been counting DSQ which they will discard after the final race and extra discard come in)
Your example seems to be missing a Boat B.

If you'd like to unscramble it, I'll have another think about it.

That is an example where i think two boats can collude to disadvantage another and its clearly not against the principles as both boats clearly gain. 

I think collusion is a read herring. Collusion is only referenced in the case to implicate a third party in terms of rule 41. 

The rule 2 aspect of the protest is centralised around whether A would benefit her own result by clearly hindering the progress of B. 
I suggest you read the current version of Case ;78 in full, not just the headnote.  In particular the extract of it I provided.  If you think that I've taken the words out of context, please explain why.

Case 78 deals specifically with collusion:

Facts for Question 1
...A uses tactics that clearly interfere with and hinder boat B’s progress in the race. ...
Question 1
In which of the following circumstances would A’s tactics be considered unsportsmanlike and a breach of rule 2 or of rule 69.1(a)?
...
(d) The protest committee finds that A and a third boat, boat C, had agreed that they would both adopt tactics that benefited C and that there was a reasonable chance that A’s tactics would benefit C’s final ranking in the event.
...
Answer 1
...
In circumstance (d), both A and C would break rule 2, and possibly rule 69.1(a). In addition, by receiving help prohibited by rule 41 from A, C would also break rule 41.
 

ScowLover

Anarchist
772
52
Wisconsin
It gets much more interesting if a third party boat protests the boat that was waved across.

 This protest has happened.
If you look at the definition of keep clear, it includes that the right of way boat can sail "her course". This is specifically not listed as proper course. "Her course" is the course the right of way boat wants to sail, meaning the waive across, then the duck by starboard, allowed starboard to sail "her course" and no foul has occurred. The rules team is very smart in picking each word carefully. 

 
Guys......you can debate this until the cows come home. It has been debated numerous times.

The definition in full is:

If the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action"

You can take the view of Scow that avoiding action is allowed as long as the ROW boat "chooses" to take the avoiding action.

You can take the view of Matt Knowles (rules committee) that the rules should be read as written and that if the course includes an avoiding action then Port has not kept clear.

My input is simply....why take the risk?   I distinguish two similar situations in my illustration #2 and #3 to show how you to give testimony to protect yourself from the second stricter interpretation of the rules.

See above:-

Illustration #2

PC : A,  Can you confirm that you altered course to allow C on port to cross you on starboard.

A :  No, I was sailing a course to pass astern of C.

PC:  Were you sailing your proper course?

A : No, I was sailing below my proper course in order to pass astern of C

PC : Why were you sailing below your proper course?

A:  I wished to continue sailing on starboard because we were sailing towards more pressure of the left.
Illustration #3

PC : A,  Can you confirm that you altered course to allow C on port to cross you on starboard.

A :  Yes I altered course to pass astern of C.

PC : Why did you alter course to pass astern of C?

A:  I wished to continue sailing on starboard because we were sailing towards more pressure of the left, and we did not want to be lee bowed by C

PC:  Did you make any sharp adjustment of course as you approached C?   If you had not altered course what would have happened?

A: We bore away to duck C. ... If we had not borne away there would have been a collision.
In Illustration #2, the protest by the third party will likely be dismissed.

In Illustration # 3 you will have to rely on Scow, Mozzy and Brass being on your protest committee. Just in case, you are unlucky and they are not available, you might want to consider the safer approach of illustration#2.  Preparation and presentation as they say is everything.

 

Mozzy Sails

Super Anarchist
1,150
931
United Kingdom
Ha, Brass you're completely correct. Here it is with a boat B!

I think Boat A and C can collude, as long as it improves both their positions in the series. For example, C and A are 1st and 2nd in an event respectively with a final race to go. The final race will also bring in an additional discard. Both A and C have a good discard so can afford a bad result in the final race. However, A cannot beat C with one race left to go. However, boat B can win the event with a victory in the last race and finish above both of them as they have been counting a DNF. I see nothing in case 78 which would prohibit A and C from jointly team racing B in the final race as it benefits both. Or A and C letting each other pass to extend a lead on B if they find themselves in that position in the final race. 

I think what Case 78 is saying is it's the act of hindering another boat with no gain for yourself in race, event, series or selection, which is unsporting. This is regardless of collusion. Collusion with a third boat, means that the third boat may also be breaking rule 41 (and Rule 2).

Collusion alone does not mean a boat or boats are breaking rule 2 as long as both are set to gain in a sporting manner from their actions.  It seamed to me, that you were saying collusion of two boats is against the basic principles, so I wanted to know what you thought of my example above. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mozzy Sails

Super Anarchist
1,150
931
United Kingdom
MK consider this....

Example 1:

Starboard boat goes around a windward mark. Port boat is coming in on port layline. As starboard goes around the mark they are briefly on a collision heading. However, starboard continues to bears away, going in front of port, so does not have to make a change of course to keep clear. 

A: We bore away to cross C... If we had not borne away there would have been a collision.

By your definition port will have broke rule 10, as starboard's change of course avoided a collision. 

Example 2:

Or, starboard going upwind is on a collision course with a starboard (but windward) boat coming downwind. Leeward boat chooses to tack because they don't want to be stuck on a port layline trying to cross starboard boats coming downwind. Had they not tacked the windward boat would have had to have kept clear.

Has the windward boat broken rule 11?

As long as the RoW boat maintain that it was their intention to take that course, then the keep clear boat has fulfilled their obligation. 

 
Ha, Brass you're completely correct. Here it is with a boat B!

I think Boat A and C can collude, as long as it improves both their positions in the series. For example, C and A are 1st and 2nd in an event respectively with a final race to go. The final race will also bring in an additional discard. Both A and C have a good discard so can afford a bad result in the final race. However, A cannot beat C with one race left to go. However, boat B can win the event with a victory in the last race and finish above both of them as they have been counting a DNF. I see nothing in case 78 which would prohibit A and C from jointly team racing B in the final race as it benefits both. Or A and C letting each other pass to extend a lead on B if they find themselves in that position in the final race. 

I think what Case 78 is saying is it's the act of hindering another boat with no gain for yourself in race, event, series or selection, which is unsporting. This is regardless of collusion. Collusion with a third boat, means that the third boat may also be breaking rule 41 (and Rule 2).

Collusion alone does not mean a boat or boats are breaking rule 2 as long as both are set to gain in a sporting manner from their actions.  It seamed to me, that you were saying collusion of two boats is against the basic principles, so I wanted to know what you thought of my example above. 
Hi Mozzy.

C can attempt to improve his score vs B by impeding B to force B to score a poor result.

But when it is clear that B is sufficiently far back in the pack that C is winning the regatta, C can no longer help A by pushing B sufficiently far back so that A gets second (from your description, there is a large points difference between A and C)

They can independently decide to hinder B but as soon as they collude with an agreement between A and C, that if A helps C push back B so that C can get 1st ...then C will  help A push back B so that A gets 2nd.......then that would be a fragrant breach of rule 2.

So if C says to A....."if you help hold back B during the race then I will help you get 2nd"....that is collusion....and a breach of rule 2.  There is no gain for C helping A get 2nd.

If A says to C "I will help you push back B so that you can win the regatta....but you dont need to help me"  then that is collusion and a breach of rule 2 because there is no gain to A.

 
MK consider this....

Example 1:

Starboard boat goes around a windward mark. Port boat is coming in on port layline. As starboard goes around the mark they are briefly on a collision heading. However, starboard continues to bears away, going in front of port, so does not have to make a change of course to keep clear.

By your definition port will have broke rule 10, as starboard's change of course avoided a collision. 

Hopefully, the definitions are not mine. They are in the RRS.  In your example, there are 3 possible sets of facts found. Two would lead to any protest vs P being dismissed. 1 would lead to P being found in breach of rule 10

Example 2:

Or, starboard going upwind is on a collision course with a starboard (but windward) boat coming downwind. Leeward boat chooses to tack because they don't want to be stuck on a port layline trying to cross starboard boats coming downwind. Had they not tacked the windward boat would have had to have kept clear.

Has the windward boat broken rule 11?

Again it would depend on facts found.  However it sounds like L tacked while W was keeping clear. No rule broken.  Its not a contentious rule issue

As long as the RoW boat maintain that it was their intention to take that course, then the keep clear boat has fulfilled their obligation. PCs are meant to stay away from "intention" in a rule 10 hearing as much as possible and focus on facts.
More later.  Your first example sometimes causes angst in the protest room and Im happy to expand on some of the key issues a PC should delve into.....but I gotta rush to prep my boat for going to canada and the North American Champs.   Good discussion. We will pick it up later.

 

teamt

New member
25
4
As I mentioned above it gets interesting if a third boat protests.

<snip>

So you would only have to provide a reasonably coherent explanation that your sole intention was to get to a wind line faster and the rule 2 protest against you would have been thrown out......either the PC was inexperienced or .....possibly....perhaps ....you hit the free beer before the protest meeting? :)  
So long ago that I don't remember the specifics... other than losing the protest because I really didn't know the rules well.  That changed and I don't remember losing one after that, at least one that I didn't deserve to lose. I also eventually figured out there are people who "race the rules" and there are people that "race by the rules".  We all know that boat that is screaming rules at the fleet as everyone leaves them behind 100 feet from the starting line.

Go fast, get in clear air, know how to read the shifts and current, use rules for defense... and be more happy with your boxes of trophies.

 
Top