Luffing (or not)
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=12683
Printed Date: 19 Mar 24 at 12:20pm Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Luffing (or not)
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Subject: Luffing (or not)
Date Posted: 04 Mar 17 at 9:09am
This is purely of academic interest as we all know that luffing is rarely worth the time lost unless it's a two boat race (as, effectively, the FF incident in the other thread was).
Quite a few years ago when I was racing Raceboards fairly seriously (regional and a couple of national series events a year) when the 'new rules' came in. I was told at a National event, in an informal discussion, by a 'rules expert' (he was on the RC and would have chaired the PC had a protest resulted from the incident) that the new rules effectively banned luffing.
The incident :-
It's marginal planing conditions and board A is sailing in on a broad reach, spots/hears a gust coming from astern and also hears a following board (B) approaching, planing on said gust. A pumps onto the plane to pick up the same gust, heading up for pressure and shouting "windward board keep clear". Unsighted as he is to leeward of B he continues to plane on a higher than 'proper course' until, after his third hail 2-3 secs minimum) the two make contact.
Ignoring the fact that it probably wasn't prudent to luff (but it was to head up for pressure) who should have been penalised?
Before the 'new rules' it was pretty simple, you try to pass me to windward, I luff hard, you also luff to keep clear, then shout "mast abeam" and I stop luffing and sail for the mark. The only discussion can be if I think you shouted "mast abeam" too soon. Everybody knew that to try to sail over another boat close and to windward invited defensive action and sailed accordingly (i.e. not so close as to be unable to avoid the luff).
|
Replies:
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 04 Mar 17 at 9:26am
It really hasn't changed much. The main thing that's changed is that its now prohibited to case course so fast and close that its physically impossible for the windward boat to keep clear. In the event that there's no contact its very unlikely that ROW would be penalised.
The main effect of the removal of the mast abeam rule is that windward boats should give more room. The idea of mast abeam, I think was that in the mast abeam position windward could not luff any further without the stern making contact as in the FF incident. With the rules as they are now if the boats get to that position windward has already broken a rule and will be penalised, so all leeward should do is hail protest.
So the result is now that everybody should know that if you sail close and to windward and get luffed into a "can't turn any more without contact" position then you have broken the rule and need to take a penalty even though there's no contact and there's no mast abeam rule to get you out of gaol.
And that means if you get luffed you need to get the hell out of there as quickly as you possibly can, because if you don't its very easy to end up in a place where you have no choice but to take a penalty.
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 04 Mar 17 at 10:07am
I assume onus of proof on rule 14 lies with the keep clear boat?
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 04 Mar 17 at 10:11am
There is no onus of proof. The PC has to make its best judgement as to what happened.
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 04 Mar 17 at 10:53am
My original point was (and I'm looking at it from 50 years sailing boats and boards mostly at club and regional level) it's harder to make a clear decision on the water and you are more likely to have to resort to a protest committee to sort it out. That's fine at bigger meetings but protests are rare at many clubs and almost unheard of amongst Raceboards at club level.
I guess, as I become more familiar with the current RRS........ Thanks JC
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 04 Mar 17 at 11:41am
Originally posted by JimC
So the result is now that everybody should know that if you sail close and to windward and get luffed into a "can't turn any more without contact" position then you have broken the rule and need to take a penalty even though there's no contact and there's no mast abeam rule to get you out of gaol. |
Not real thrilled with that analysis.
If L continuously luffs then bears away, without contact, then W is keeping clear, then L is giving W room to keep clear and no rules is broken.
L has to straighten up and hold a steady course, and then 'need to take action (change course) to avoid [contact with] W' before L wins the rule 11 protest.
If L hits W while L is turning, then, provided W is 'doing all she can', then L loses, and has not given W room to keep clear.
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons
My original point was (and I'm looking at it from 50 years sailing boats and boards mostly at club and regional level) it's harder to make a clear decision on the water and you are more likely to have to resort to a protest committee to sort it out. That's fine at bigger meetings but protests are rare at many clubs and almost unheard of amongst Raceboards at club level.
I guess, as I become more familiar with the current RRS........ Thanks JC |
Key point of the rule changes (increasing prohibitions on contact, combined with introduction of alternative penalties) between about 1985 and 1995 was that the 'hard luff' and the 'luff trap' were outlawed.
You can defend your wind, but you can't slam up and hit the windward boat and demand that they go home.
Effectively this means that if you want to defend your wind, you need to do it before the overlap, so as to deter W from ever going there.
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 04 Mar 17 at 1:09pm
Yes, that's pretty much how I used to interpret it, in line with Eric Twiname's suggestion that a luff should be brief, hard and while still clear ahead so as to discourage another boat from passing to windward and taking your wind.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 04 Mar 17 at 2:06pm
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons
This is purely of academic interest as we all know that luffing is rarely worth the time lost unless it's a two boat race (as, effectively, the FF incident in the other thread was).
Quite a few years ago when I was racing Raceboards fairly seriously (regional and a couple of national series events a year) when the 'new rules' came in. I was told at a National event, in an informal discussion, by a 'rules expert' (he was on the RC and would have chaired the PC had a protest resulted from the incident) that the new rules effectively banned luffing.
The incident :-
It's marginal planing conditions and board A is sailing in on a broad reach, spots/hears a gust coming from astern and also hears a following board (B) approaching, planing on said gust. A pumps onto the plane to pick up the same gust, heading up for pressure and shouting "windward board keep clear". Unsighted as he is to leeward of B he continues to plane on a higher than 'proper course' until, after his third hail 2-3 secs minimum) the two make contact.
Any reason why the board coming from behind ( B ) can't let the boom forward, depower, sink off the plane and keep clear that way in the 2-3 or more seconds available?
Ignoring the fact that it probably wasn't prudent to luff (but it was to head up for pressure) who should have been penalised?
Before the 'new rules' it was pretty simple, you try to pass me to windward, I luff hard, you also luff to keep clear, then shout "mast abeam" and I stop luffing and sail for the mark. The only discussion can be if I think you shouted "mast abeam" too soon. Everybody knew that to try to sail over another boat close and to windward invited defensive action and sailed accordingly (i.e. not so close as to be unable to avoid the luff). |
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 04 Mar 17 at 3:47pm
None that I could see. In that instance I was A and didn't think I was in the wrong (gust, pump, head up both to defend and to get more pressure, Raceboards being apparent wind craft once planing). After the race I timed how long it took to hail three times and it must have been at least 6 seconds. Many windsurfers have a sketchy knowledge of the rules at best and don't like what they see as 'sharp dinghy practices' (I hasten to add this doesn't apply to the top guys but this was a national and I was around the front of the mid fleet (IIRC I finished in the mid 30's out of 200+).
The 'expert' said to the other guy that his protest would be thrown out because he did not hail "protest" at the time but told me had he done so he would have found in his favour (which, had it been me on the PC, I would not have done). As I said, I am returning to racing (other than some very informal stuff) after a good few years so I'm keen to get back up to speed on the RRS.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Mar 17 at 2:01am
Originally posted by Brass
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons
TThe incident :-
It's marginal planing conditions and board A is sailing in on a broad reach, spots/hears a gust coming from astern and also hears a following board (B) approaching, planing on said gust. A pumps onto the plane to pick up the same gust, heading up for pressure and shouting "windward board keep clear". Unsighted as he is to leeward of B he continues to plane on a higher than 'proper course' until, after his third hail 2-3 secs minimum) the two make contact.
Any reason why the board coming from behind ( B ) can't let the boom forward, depower, sink off the plane and keep clear that way in the 2-3 or more seconds available? |
|
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons
None that I could see.
In that instance I was A and didn't think I was in the wrong (gust, pump, head up both to defend and to get more pressure, Raceboards being apparent wind craft once planing).
After the race I timed how long it took to hail three times and it must have been at least 6 seconds.
You're being rolled to windward. Rule 17 Proper course does not apply.
As clear ahead, then leeward boat you are right of way boat (rules 12, then 11). When you change course, you are required by rule 16.1 to give the astern/windward boat room to keep clear of you. Room is the space she needs in the existing conditions acting promptly and in a seamanlike way.
Keeping clear does not just mean hardening up more, if he's clear astern: he can slow down or go to leeward of you: it's not like he's a keelboat with a massive genoa who can't bear away quickly.
Many windsurfers have a sketchy knowledge of the rules at best and don't like what they see as 'sharp dinghy practices'
Makes a pretty silly game if you can't defend yourself, within the rules, from a boat that is lucky enough to carry a gust from astern of you.
(I hasten to add this doesn't apply to the top guys but this was a national and I was around the front of the mid fleet (IIRC I finished in the mid 30's out of 200+).
The 'expert'
- said to the other guy that his protest would be thrown out because he did not hail "protest" at the time but
- told me had he done so he would have found in his favour (which, had it been me on the PC, I would not have done).
I can't see why. Given that B had options of going higher, slowing, or going lower, in 5 or 6 seconds, AND there was no contact, it seems that he had enough room.
While some European/British judges and umpires insist that there can be a breach of rule 15/16 without contact, I'm usually inclined to think that if there is no contact (and the give way boathasn't had to do something extraordinary and unsemanlike to keep clear, then she must have had room to keep clear. This is at least a good locgcal place to start.
As I said, I am returning to racing (other than some very informal stuff) after a good few years so I'm keen to get back up to speed on the RRS.
|
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 05 Mar 17 at 10:28am
There was contact but no injury or damage. I was very clear about what I did because I made a point of running through it again in my mind immediately afterwards as the 'new rules' were very new at the time and, also at the time, I was still racing fairly seriously and had had a good knowledge of the rules prior to the changes.
Thanks
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Mar 17 at 11:24am
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons
There was contact but no injury or damage. I was very clear about what I did because I made a point of running through it again in my mind immediately afterwards as the 'new rules' were very new at the time and, also at the time, I was still racing fairly seriously and had had a good knowledge of the rules prior to the changes
|
Puts a somewhat different light on it.
A is now facing some 'evidential difficulties' in asserting that, while changing course she gave B room to keep clear.
How far away was B when you began to change course?
Don't know.
How long between when you began to change course and B began to respond?
Don't know.
After you initially changed course, B hardened up to keep clear to windward. When you changed course further what more could B have done to keep clear?
Don't know.
How long after you initially changed course did you begin to hold a straight course?
?
How far away was B when you began to hold a straight course?
Don't know
How long were you on a straight course before contact occurred?
?
At what point was it clear to you that B was not keeping clear?
Don't know.
What action did you then take to avoid contact?
I hailed while facing away from a board behind my back.
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 05 Mar 17 at 12:06pm
Yup, considered all that, it's difficult for a windsurfer to see directly to windward while pumping onto the plane (accepted that cannot be an excuse). A made one change of course and hailed three times before contact. The time from the first hail to contact was at least 6 seconds suggesting that there must have been sufficient distance between the start of the luff and the point of contact for B to keep clear. In the absence of witnesses would the PC accept A's evidence of the time between the luff and contact? IIRC the PC can help the protestor to find the correct rule (as in this case the protestor's best guess was "he just sailed into me").
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Mar 17 at 12:43pm
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons
Yup, considered all that, it's difficult for a windsurfer to see directly to windward while pumping onto the plane (accepted that cannot be an excuse). A made one change of course and hailed three times before contact. The time from the first hail to contact was at least 6 seconds suggesting that there must have been sufficient distance between the start of the luff and the point of contact for B to keep clear. In the absence of witnesses would the PC accept A's evidence of the time between the luff and contact? IIRC the PC can help the protestor to find the correct rule (as in this case the protestor's best guess was "he just sailed into me"). |
There's no reason for a protest committee not to accept A's evidence about time it takes to hail three times. Generally speaking, protest committees should believe what parties and witnesses say in a hearing unless they have reason not to, but some protest committees wrongly automatically assume that each party is not to be trusted in evidence in their own favour.
A could always invite them to look at their watches while he makes the hails in the protest room.
Having established the time, the difficulty remains in establishing how far (in distance and/or time) B was when: - the hail was made;
- the first change in course was made;
- A ceased changing course.
The protest committee must necessarily think that B, who had a direct sight line to A gives better evidence than A, in the absence of eyes in the back of A's head.
You certainly don't need to correctly cite rule numbers (Case 22), or to specify the breach in 'correct rules-speak'. In this case, A is relying on rules 12 and 11 (clear ahead/astern then windward leeward). The transition, if there was one, is irrelevant because it's a rules only transition, not a right of way transition: A remains right of way throughout, even though the relevant rules instantaneously switches from rule 12 to rule 11 when B becomes overlapped to windward.
If B is silly enough to say in the protest hearing that A luffed across his bow and admits that he didn't take any action to keep clear, and just sailed into A, then A should be off the hook for rule 16.1: A's contention will be that there was plenty of space for a board acting promptly to have kept clear, but that B didn't act promptly.
But is B going to be that dumb?
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 05 Mar 17 at 1:05pm
Quite possibly in this case
As I read it if the PC found against A using 16.1 then, in the absence of turns 14b has no meaning?
Anyway as I said it was an academic question, said incident was many years ago but allowed me to give some form to the question. I think I understand rather better now that aspect of the current rules. Thanks again.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Mar 17 at 9:50pm
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons
Quite possibly in this case As I read it if the PC found against A using 16.1 then, in the absence of turns 14b has no meaning? |
Here's how the conclusions might look - B, overlapped on the same tack to windward did not keep clear of A. B broke rule 11.
- A a right of way boat changing course, did not give B room to keep clear. A broke rule 16.1.
- B was sailing within the room to which she was entitled and is exonerated for breaking rule 11 in accordance with rule 21.
- B was not given room to keep clear and there was contact, therefore it was not reasonably possible for B to avoid contact. B did not break rule 14.
- A could always have borne away and not hit B. A did not avoid contact with B when it was reasonably possible to do so. A broke rule 14.
- A was a right of way boat, and there was no injury or damage. A is exonerated for breaking rule 14 in accordance with rule 14( b ) [but has no exoneration for breaking rule 16.1].
Taking a turns or other penalty has no effect on any of the above conclusions.
All that taking a rule 44 penalty will get you is that, A, having taken an applicable penalty shall not be further penalised in accordance with rule 64.1( b ).
On the other hand, if there is damage or injury, A is not exonerated, and, for insurance or other purposes, you have a finding that A broke two rules, one of which was failing to avoid a collision when it was reasonably possible to do so.
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 05 Mar 17 at 10:32pm
If, as A, I had been involved in that protest I would have felt very hard done to (the assumption being that the PC accepted that 6 seconds elapsed between the first hail and contact). B having better visibility and 6 seconds to react should have taken action to keep clear or hailed to alert A that he was not keeping clear. The situation between two keel boats would be completely different, with more than one crewman there could be no argument about restricted visibility and I understand the need to discourage "playing bumper boats" but Yachts and Raceboards are rather different craft. The thing that concerns me is that most club sailors know the minimum of rules to get by and, where before the order of priority used to be Port/Starboard, Windward/Leeward and Clear Astern/Clear Ahead those have become subsidiary to "Room to Keep Clear". and it's all a bit like political correctness gone mad.......
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Mar 17 at 12:00am
Originally posted by Sam.Spoons
If, as A, I had been involved in that protest I would have felt very hard done to (the assumption being that the PC accepted that 6 seconds elapsed between the first hail and contact).
I think you're placing way too much emphasis on the hail. In this situation, the hail confers no rights and creates no obligations.
If A hails before she begins changing course, if B was keeping clear on A's old course, B has absolutely no obligation to do anything unless and until A changes course, making further action by B necessary for B to keep clear.
What a protest committee is interested in is how far away was B in terms of distance and time when A began to change course, then when A ceased changing course and began a steady course.
B, being the give way board, and in a position to see A, will, presumably be in a good position to give evidence about these distances.
A has really nothing to say about this, except that before hailing or changing course she heard another board coming. How far away can you 'hear another board coming'?
B having better visibility and 6 seconds to react should have taken action to keep clear
Yes she should. The issue is whether A gave her enough space to do that.
or hailed to alert A that he was not keeping clear.
Absolutely no obligation to do that, and what purpose would it serve? A has given evidence that she heard B coming and changed course towards B. FWIW A is 'causing' a risk of collision: A should be looking out to enable her to meet her obligations under rules 16.1 and 14.
Would windsurfers consider dropping the rig and stopping dead a 'seamanlike' action? Was this an option for B?
The situation between two keel boats would be completely different, with more than one crewman there could be no argument about restricted visibility
If Planet Windsurfer had managed to develop some special protocol for 'blind-spots', then it would be in the Windsurfing Appendix. It's not. No special rules or interpretations for Windsurfers in this situation.
and I understand the need to discourage "playing bumper boats" but Yachts and Raceboards are rather different craft.
Of course, but maybe you're trading risk of costly damage against risk of injury from bodily impact at speed, without the protection of fibreglass between crew and the incoming object.
The thing that concerns me is that most club sailors know the minimum of rules to get by
And I would argue that they get by very successfully. There are literally millions of 'when boats meet' interactions on the water, I would suggest that only a tiny proportion of these, maybe 1% result in any disagreement at all, and of these I suggest that only 5 to 10 percent result in any protest formalities.
I think rules knowledge finds its own level.
and, where before the order of priority used to be Port/Starboard, Windward/Leeward and Clear Astern/Clear Ahead
There never was any precedence among those right of way rules, nor is any needed: their conditions are mutually exclusive
If you are suggesting that they took precedence over other rules, they did, and they still do.
Rules 15 and 16 (room to keep clear) (and 18 mark-room, 19 room at obstructions, and 20 hailing for room) are all Limitations on the right of way rules.
those have become subsidiary to "Room to Keep Clear".
Absolutely not.
Sure the game changed when the 1995 rewrite of the rules made it a non-contact sport, but room absolutely does not trump right of way (until you get into mark-room).
and it's all a bit like political correctness gone mad....... |
|
Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 06 Mar 17 at 8:53am
Thank you for a thorough answer Brass I think you've explained everything very well. I'll put this one to bed now.
|
|