New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Right of way with three or more boats
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Right of way with three or more boats
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6662 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Right of way with three or more boats
    Posted: 15 Jul 10 at 8:50am
Originally posted by NickA


here's a picture).  B

To my way of thinking in that picture C is toast: not keeping clear when there's room to go up. If B and C established an overlap from behind A's only obligation is to give them enough room not to hit the Commitee boat. If they have to luff nearly head to wind to do it well that's tough. B may well escape: it depends on how the overlap with C was established. If B gained an overlap when A and C had room then its different from vv I believe.


But yes, if A wants to close the door completely they have to do it early anough that B and C can tack before they reach the committee boat.

Edited by JimC
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jul 10 at 2:49am

Originally posted by NickA

As for my second example (not to scale - the boats came out too big!). 

Taking Brass's advice on treating the matter as two pairs of boats.    A (red) has already tacked and B (blue) has tacked in response in order to keep clear - fine

Read rule 20 again.  B's obligation is to tack (or hail 'You tack') in response to A's hail.  If A tacks before B responds, then A probably breaks rule 20.

Secondly, B's rule 20 obligation is to give A room to tack and avoid her, not to keep clear.

But so be it:  A and B have both tacked onto PORT and and are now approaching C on STBD.

Originally posted by NickA

  For the next pair, B isn't hailing C (green) to tack and whether or not he should depends, I guess on how much B is really up against an obstruction.

Once on PORT, B has no entitlement whatsoever to hail C for room.  Rule 20 only gives a boat an entitlement to hail a boat on the same tack.

At the second position in your diagram, A and B are purely in Case 11 territory:  two boats on Port approaching a boat on starboard.  B may elect to duck C, in which case she must give A room to do likewise, or B may give A a rule 20 hail for room to tack away from C, and A must respond.

If B uses rule 20 to tack away from C and A tacks, then, A will be entitled to give another rule 20 hail to B (because of the original obstruction), who must then respond, but by then, C will be out of the way and they can both get on with their race.

Originally posted by NickA

Problem is, it's a matter of judgement as to whether B can duck C or has room to tack back to starboard and duck A.   How is C to know?

Well it's a matter of choice for B, but it is not a problem for C, who is the right of way boat, subject only to the rule 16.1 limitation that if she changes course she must give A and B room to keep clear of her.

Originally posted by NickA

(In the event, C called "starboard" and refused to tack; B complained that there was a boat beneath him avoiding the shore, but went head to wind to avoid a collision and stopped, then bore off below C whilst A sailed over the top of him - no-one took a penalty and C got ahead and won).

That link probably answers the question .... but it doesn't seem to work for me.

See above.  C certainly had no obligation to tack.  It was up to A and B to keep clear of C.  Going head to wind and slowing is a perfectly seamanlike way for B to honour her keep clear obligation.

What you describe is pretty much exactly how the rules require the situation to play out.

As we have discussed, under Case 113, had C been closer in on B's hip, then it would have been different and C would have been obliged to respond, although she could have responded by hailing 'You tack', slowing down, and still been able to put B about again.

I suggest you consider the philosophy of rule 20 this way.

Rule 20 is a safety rule that requires a boat, in a tactically controlling position to windward of a close hauled boat approaching an obstruction that safety requires her to tack away from, to sacrifice (or at least diminish) her controlling position (lead) in a limited and controlled way, so that the leeward boat can safely avoid the obstructon.  Rule 20 allows the windward boat to minimise her detriment, and will penalise the leeward hailing boat if she abuses the rule.
Back to Top
NickA View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 05
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 784 		Post Options Post Options   Quote NickA Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 10 at 8:48pm
As for my second example (not to scale - the boats came out too big!). 

Taking Brass's advice on treating the matter as two pairs of boats.    A (red) has already tacked and B (blue) has tacked in response in order to keep clear - fine.  For the next pair, B isn't hailing C (green) to tack and whether or not he should depends, I guess on how much B is really up against an obstruction.   Problem is, it's a matter of judgement as to whether B can duck C or has room to tack back to starboard and duck A.   How is C to know? 

(In the event, C called "starboard" and refused to tack; B complained that there was a boat beneath him avoiding the shore, but went head to wind to avoid a collision and stopped, then bore off below C whilst A sailed over the top of him - no-one took a penalty and C got ahead and won).

That link probably answers the question .... but it doesn't seem to work for me.
Javelin 558
Contender 2574
Back to Top
NickA View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 05
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 784 		Post Options Post Options   Quote NickA Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 10 at 8:23pm
Think Brass may be right on this one (here's a picture). 



B (Blue) annd C (Green) didn't really have room above A (red) who can sail notoriously high and will luff to his highest point of sail as soon as the gun goes.  But all the same, there was room on the start line and A didn't leave room after the gun went off.  Seems that if A wanted to shut B & C out, he should have done it before the start. 

So is Brass correct that A is in the wrong?  When this happened to me, boat A sailed off and won the race whilst B & C did turns!!!!!!


Edited by NickA
Javelin 558
Contender 2574
Back to Top
asterix View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 01 Aug 09
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 621 		Post Options Post Options   Quote asterix Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 10 at 8:41am
Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by asterix

for your second question - see ISAF Case 113 in the 2010 Supplement to The Case Book for 2009 – 2012.

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2010SupplementCaseB-[8260].pdf

For goodness sake, guys, use the up to date Case Book that ISAF provides:

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/CaseBook20092012with2 010changes-[8229].pdf

the two descriptions of case 113 are identical - arn't they?
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 10 at 12:20am
Originally posted by asterix

for your second question - see ISAF Case 113 in the 2010 Supplement to The Case Book for 2009 – 2012.

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2010SupplementCaseB-[8260].pdf

For goodness sake, guys, use the up to date Case Book that ISAF provides:

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/CaseBook20092012with2 010changes-[8229].pdf
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 10 at 12:17am

Originally posted by NickA

2.  Room to tack

A, B and C are on starboard beating towards the shore with A closest to the bank.  Boat A calls for water and tacks to port,  B has to tack to port to avoid being hit by A.  C stands-on, calling "starboard" to B on the basis that B can either sit head to wind until C has passed or B can duck C.

Is boat C in his rights to stay on starboard?  At what point can boat C fairly expect A & B to tack back onto Starboard, heading back towards the bank?

If A hails and tacks simultaneously, she has not given B time to respond and
A breaks rule 20.1(a).

If C is so close to A and B that C will have to respond before A is able to tack, then C is a 'hailed boat' and must respond in accordance with rule 20 (Case 113).

If, on the other hand, C is a little more separated from A and B, so that it is NOT necessary for C to respond before A is able to tack, then C is NOT a 'hailed boat' and owes no obligation under rule 20.

Under rule  20, B is required to tack or give A room to tack and avoid her:  in neither case is she required to keep clear of A, thus, A, tacking, is NOT an obstruction to B, and B has no entitlement to hail C under rule 20, unless safety requires B herself to make a substantial course change to avoid the shore.

Generally, a boat having responded to a rule 20 hail by hailing 'You tack', and giving room to tack, may then stand on and force the hailing boat to tack again (Case 101).



Edited by Brass
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6662 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 10 at 12:08am
Well lets go through the first one... I'm no expert at this but...

Part A, Rule 11 applies, windward/leeward so B must keep clear of A and C keep clear of B. I don't see why Matt thinks A can't luff, assuming B and C both established overlaps from leeward.

Rule 14 no collisions applies to all, but if there was no damage or injury A cannot be penalised being ROW boat.

Rule 15 doesn't apply to A: A was always ROW boat. It might apply to B, we don't know.

Rule 16.1 applies A on B, B on C

Rule 17 doesn't apply to A, might apply to B, we don't know.

None of Section C applies because its a start.

So A is entitled to luff B (and C), subject to room

C did not touch the committee boat: did they respond to B adequately? The CB witnesses will be very important for this one...
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 10 at 11:57pm

Originally posted by NickA

1.  Start line

Boat A is on the start line as the gun goes and boats B & C slot into the gap between boat A and the committee boat.  As the gun goes, Boat A luffs sharply forcing B to luff to avoid a collision.  Boat B calls to boat C who can't luff because he's trapped between B and the comittee boat.  All three boats knock hulls.

Boat A is in the right and sails off - but what about B & C?  Should they both do turns?  Who's to blame for the collision?

You can generally get through complicated situations by applying the rules 'pairwise' between boats.

Where B cannot respond because of the presence of C and C cannot respond becaues of the RC Boat, then A, changing course, has not given B room to keep clear and breaks rule 16.1.  A, having nothing to leeward to prevent her from bearing away to avoid contact also breaks rule 14, but might be protected from penalty if there is no injury or damage under rule 14(b).

B does not keep clear of A.  B breaks rule 11.  B, changing course has not given C room to keep clear and breaks rule 16.1.  B is compelled to break rules 11 and 16.1 because of A breaking rule 16.1.  B should be exonerated under rule 64.1(c).  Because she is compelled by A, it is not reasonably possible for B to avoid contact with A or C and B does not break rule 14.

C does not keep clear of B.  C breaks rule 11.  C is compelled ot break rule 11 because of B breaking rule 16.1.  C should be exonerated under rule 64.1(c).  Because she is compelled by B, it is not reasonably possible for C to avoid contact with B and C does not break rule 14.

The scenario has B and C becoming overlapped on A from CASTN to windward of A.  Rule 17 and proper course do not apply.

 
Back to Top
Garry View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 536 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Garry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 10 at 9:14pm
I tend to agree with Matt although it depends on when and
how the overlaps were established. However, the words
luffs sharply would also imply that B wasn't given time
to respond as they would have to wait for C to respond
and A needs to allow for that when altering course.
Since there was contact I'm not sure A would be
successful in a protest since there would appear to be no
reason why A couldn't have avoided contact rule 14 I
think, since it's A's course change that caused the
contact.

My guess is A left it too late to close the door on B and
C and would have been better hiking hard to heel to
windward and giving B dirty air or if handicap racing and
B was a lot faster bearing away to open a gap so they
could tack away for clear air.

On the limited facts presented I'd be very tempted to
disqualify A

Edited by Garry
Garry

Lark 2252, Contender 298

www.cuckoos.eclipse.co.uk
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy