*Continuing* Obstruction
Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: General
Forum Name: Racing Rules
Forum Discription: Discuss the rules and your interpretations here
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11287
Printed Date: 16 Apr 24 at 6:29pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: *Continuing* Obstruction
Posted By: SteveB00
Subject: *Continuing* Obstruction
Date Posted: 06 Jan 14 at 9:31pm
|
The definition of 'Obstruction' includes "A vessel under way, including a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction", but there's no definition of 'Continuing' in the rules. What distinguishes a continuing obstruction from one that isn't, and, in particular, what is the above condition trying to say?
Thanks in advance, Steve = : ^ )
|
Replies:
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 06 Jan 14 at 10:05pm
AIUI anything that isn't subject to a definition in the rules should be used in accordance with an ordinary dictionary.
Typically a continuing obstruction is something like a shoreline or other static object that, well, continues for some distance... In the casebook the only example is a shoreline.
|
Posted By: SteveB00
Date Posted: 06 Jan 14 at 10:32pm
|
Thanks. I'm still left wondering why 'Definitions' goes to the trouble of pointing out that "A vessel under way, including a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction." What would be the difference if it was? Why do we need to distinguish a continuing obstruction from one that isn't?
Steve = : ^ )
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 06 Jan 14 at 10:35pm
Can't answer the last bit, but I have certainly been in a position where moored ships and oil rigs have been continuing obstructions. The rules are different, but offhand I can't remember how. Something to do with how you got into the situation in the 1st place.
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 06 Jan 14 at 10:43pm
I reckon its always a good idea to go to the Case book with these things.
For example case 23, where three boats are alongside each other. If the ROW boat was classified as a continuing obstruction to the other two then port and starboard would be turned off between them (RRS10).
Then there's 117, which deals with a solid line of boats on a start line. If they could be classed as a continuing obstruction to boats behind then again port and starboard would get turned off, and the start line extraordinarily confusing for the second row...
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Jan 14 at 11:17pm
|
Here's where the electronic versions of the rules are handy.
I've just posted a set of links to rules, case books etc here.
http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/get_last_post.asp?TID=11288
Running a text search through the RRS comes up with the following rules referring to a 'continuing obstruction'
18.1 When Rule 18 (mark-room) Applies Rule 18 ... does not apply (d) if the mark is a continuing obstruction, in which case rule 19 applies.
19.1 When Rule 19 (room at an obstruction) Applies ... at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not.
19.2 Giving Room at an Obstruction ... (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.
And yes, a 100m jetty is a continuing obstruction, but a 1000m supertanker, if under way, is not.
|
Posted By: SteveB00
Date Posted: 06 Jan 14 at 11:31pm
|
Thanks. I have an electronic version of the rules, had searched as suggested and had found the above paragraphs. What I'm missing is what distinguishes a continuing obstruction from one that isn't, and why we make the distinction.
I assume one of the the naval mooring buoys in Sydney harbour would be an obstruction, and with an aircraft carrier hanging off it, the whole thing would be a continuing obstruction. Does this mean we treat it differently in one case versus the other?
Thanks again, Steve = : ^ ) |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 12:38am
Originally posted by SteveB00
Thanks. I have an electronic version of the rules, had searched as suggested and had found the above paragraphs. What I'm missing is what distinguishes a continuing obstruction from one that isn't, and why we make the distinction.
I assume one of the the naval mooring buoys in Sydney harbour would be an obstruction, and with an aircraft carrier hanging off it, the whole thing would be a continuing obstruction. Does this mean we treat it differently in one case versus the other? |
What distinguishes a continuing obstruction from one that isn't, is the meaning of the words used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use (RRS Introduction, Terminology).
Agree a naval mooring buoy won't be a continuing obstruction, and, depending on the size of boat racing, might or might not be an obstruction.
Agree, the Big E, moored to a naval mooring buoy (or at anchor) will be a continuing obstruction.
Prolly the best way to start is to think about what definitely will be a continuing obstruction: a shoreline, a sandbank, probably NOT an isolated danger, a rock or shoal.
Prolly a ship moored or at anchor, Maybe NOT a 30ft motorboat anchored or moored,
The distinction made is between an object that continues in space, and an object, such as another boat racing with right of way, which is not continuously large, but may, because of its movement, continue to be an obstruction for some considerable time. See Case 23.
Probably the main reason for the distinction is the switching off of all mark-room entitlements at a mark that is a continuing obstruction: Where a mark is a bit of Australia (or some other major continent, or sceptered isle), then all bets about who may or may not be entitled to mark-room, and any exoneration for not keeping clear or giving room, are off, and the outside boat must give the inside overlapped boat room in accordance with rule 19.2( b ), except in the very limited circumstances of rule 19.2( c ).
|
Posted By: SteveB00
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 12:56am
|
All understood.
Thanks again, Steve = : ^ )
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 8:41am
So a 1000 foot supertanker steaming at rightangles to you would be a moving obstruction, but one going parallel to your course could well end up as a continuous one? It all depends upon how the boats interact with it?
When sailing parallel to the shore and a boat sticks its nose in, it used to be that the boat on the inside didn't even have to have room left and a protest put in after - after all, it could always stop or go backwards to stop itself running ashore. Is that still the case?
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 8:50am
|
No, the moving vessel is never a continuing obstruction. However if you are close enough to a moving supertanker for RRS to come into play I submit that the fine detail of the rules is the least of your problems.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 9:47am
"The distinction made is between an
object that continues in space, and an object, such as another boat
racing with right of way, which is not continuously large, but may,
because of its movement, continue to be an obstruction for some
considerable time."
I mis read this the first time round - Thanks Jim, it is as I originally thought.
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 9:49am
And yes, having been near container ships with apparantly on one on board, I'd have to agree about RRS being low on the priority list.
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 11:23am
So does a 1km long exclusion zone in front of a tanker rank as a continuing obstruction?
Would your obligation not to impede some vessels under IRPCS create a continuing obstruction?
If the shore is a continuing obstruction, how big does the Island have to be?
A solitary rock, which you might reasonably pass either side of is presumably not 'continuing'.
But if you have opted to pass one side of a shallow patch that is say 100m long, that could be 'continuiing'?
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 12:17pm
Originally posted by RS400atC
So does a 1km long exclusion zone in front of a tanker rank as a continuing obstruction?
I would be happy to treat an exclusion zone as an obstruction.
We really must not use the RRS as an incentive for racers to break the law.
1km long: looks continuous, and therefore continuing to me.
Would your obligation not to impede some vessels under IRPCS create a continuing obstruction?
Well, a vessel is probably an obstruction, whether or not it is under way and whether or not it has right of way: just apply the definition.
The only time a vessel (of sufficient relative size) is not an obstruction is when it is a boat racing that you are not required to keep clear of or avoid.
Room includes room to comply with the rules of Part 2. Preamble to Part 2 obliges boats bound by the RRS, with respect to boats that are not, to comply with IRPCAS and the Preamble is a rule.
So the answer is don't cut it fine with commercial traffic and don't force another boat to do so.
If the shore is a continuing obstruction, how big does the Island have to be?
I wasn't aware that the size of the Island was optionally variable. Have the members of the Island Sailing Club been consulted?
A solitary rock, which you might reasonably pass either side of is presumably not 'continuing'.
If you are really in any doubt consult your dictionary.
But if you have opted to pass one side of a shallow patch that is say 100m long, that could be 'continuiing'?
Once again, if you are in doubt consult your dictionary (but don't spell it like that <g>).
|
|
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 1:10pm
I really fail to understand that a very long vessel underway is not sometimes a continuing obstruction.
It seems to me that such a vessel can obstruct a continuous area or create a continuous boundary, that is possibly much longer than bits of land that clearly do get treated as continuous under RRS.
Imagine two lasers running down the edge of a deepwater channel with a ship in the channel.
I would expect the other laser to treat the ship and the area in front of it much the same as if it was a wall.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 1:52pm
The Laser closer to the ship would have rights to avoid a moving obstruction, rather than a continuing one. In such situations I don't think it makes any difference, really - you'd still need to allow the boat room not to ram the whacking great ship, whatever kind of ostruction it is.
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 2:48pm
Originally posted by RS400atC
I really fail to understand that a very long vessel underway is not sometimes a continuing obstruction. |
Last sentence of the definition of obstruction. "A vessel under way,including a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction."
& from the terminology: "‘vessel’ means any boat or ship."
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 9:55pm
Originally posted by RS400atC
I really fail to understand that a very long vessel underway is not sometimes a continuing obstruction. |
Maybe the reason for this is that it is not desirable, when near a large moving ship, to be relieving the outside boat of the obligation to give room at the last minute dependent on whether there is 'enough room' for the inside boat to pass between the outside boat and the ship under rule 19.2( c ).
|
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 07 Jan 14 at 10:17pm
Originally posted by Brass
Originally posted by RS400atC
I really fail to understand that a very long vessel underway is not sometimes a continuing obstruction. |
Maybe the reason for this is that it is not desirable, when near a large moving ship, to be relieving the outside boat of the obligation to give room at the last minute dependent on whether there is 'enough room' for the inside boat to pass between the outside boat and the ship under rule 19.2( c ). |
Yes, I'd just re-read the rules and came to the conclusion that is the only effect of it.
Maybe 'continuing obstruction' should be in itallics, as it is effectively a defined term.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 08 Jan 14 at 9:48am
One reason for not considering a vessel under way as a continuing obstruction was to prevent the scenario in which a vessel was moving a much the same speed and in the same direction as a boat racing remained an obstruction forsome considerable time. This vessel (which could be a boat racing) was being considered as a continuing obstruction and the rule pertaining to continuing obstructions was being applied. This was considered by ISAF Racing Rules as not a desirable situation.
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 08 Jan 14 at 12:47pm
Originally posted by gordon
One reason for not considering a vessel under way as a continuing obstruction was to prevent the scenario in which a vessel was moving a much the same speed and in the same direction as a boat racing remained an obstruction forsome considerable time. This vessel (which could be a boat racing) was being considered as a continuing obstruction and the rule pertaining to continuing obstructions was being applied. This was considered by ISAF Racing Rules as not a desirable situation.
|
I can't immediately see why allowing an overtaking boat to force its way in, in that situation is desireable either, when it's a big boat not racing.
I suspect the ISAF rules gurus are more concerned with Olympic standard regattas than playing chicken with dredgers in a PY race.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 08 Jan 14 at 3:12pm
You would suspect that your allegations are ill-founded. Many ISAF rules nerds are fascinated by the arcane details of racing in many weird and wondeful places.
In this case the idea was to prevent a boat forcing it's way in as they could do if the vessel was considered a continuing obstruction.
-------------
Gordon
|
|