New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Rules at Windward Mark - Video
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Rules at Windward Mark - Video
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Andymac View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Apr 07
Location: Derbyshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 852 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Andymac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Rules at Windward Mark - Video
    Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 10:01pm
Originally posted by Presuming Ed

Originally posted by Andymac

The tactician on Rainmaker had a less obscured view than we do of the boats to leeward and could probably sight the 'starboard' boat in his peripheral vision, long before the 8 seconds mark.  The 'starboard' boat didn't actually complete the tack onto starboard to become ROW boat until the 12 second mark on the forward facing camera. You are not expected to anticipate what another boat will do.

PL was able to sail on for 10 seconds or so after S completed her tack before she bore away for the duck. PL didn't have to manoeuvre promptly after S completed her tack and acquired RoW - she waited a bit before the duck. 

S gave PL plenty of "space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way." 

S didn't break 15. 

 I quite agree with what you say. I was not suggesting that S, in assuming right of way had not given PL opportunity to keep clear.
The point I was trying to make, was that Rainmakers dialogue up until the point when S had completed its tack (@ 12 seconds) was correct (however it was delivered). Rainmaker, in principle, did not have to anticipate S becoming an obstruction to PL up until that point. Any contention is confined to what happened after that.
Back to Top
Jon711 View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 04 May 07
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 465 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Jon711 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 11:59pm
This all getting most amusing, with all the different opinions (I will keep mine to myself - about time some may say!!)
It does make you realise, how difficult it is for a protest committee, to arrive at a decision, that is correct.

If you loose a protest, they are all W***ers who know nothing, If you win they are related to Einstien!!.

It is even harder, as I have experienced, when people in the hearing start lying!!! If this one had come to protest, however, would have love to been on the Protest Committee!! (And would probably be a W***er to some and a hero to others!). The video evidence seems pretty conclusive to me, but I would need to check that the two cameras times were synchronised (Now who thought about that? If they were to only rely on video evidence, it would be essential to check that the camera times were synchronised!! If not, the video eveidence only becomes circumstantial! IMO, and what is to stop them synchronising them once they had got out of the situation). A third party is needed to give an unbiased opinion of the events...

Jon
Blaze 711
Back to Top
Andymac View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Apr 07
Location: Derbyshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 852 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Andymac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jul 11 at 6:28am
Originally posted by Jon711

The video evidence seems pretty conclusive to me, but I would need to check that the two cameras times were synchronised (Now who thought about that? If they were to only rely on video evidence, it would be essential to check that the camera times were synchronised!!Jon
Yes, that is what I have already pointed out.
There is a 4 second 'delay' between the 2 videos which need to be taken into account. In doing so, Rainmakers assertions, certainly up until 16 seconds, on the audible mast (rear facing) cam are in order.
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: 07 Jul 11 at 6:42am
Originally posted by Andymac

Originally posted by Jon711

The video evidence seems pretty conclusive to me, but I would need to check that the two cameras times were synchronised (Now who thought about that? If they were to only rely on video evidence, it would be essential to check that the camera times were synchronised!!Jon
Yes, that is what I have already pointed out.
There is a 4 second 'delay' between the 2 videos which need to be taken into account. In doing so, Rainmakers assertions, certainly up until 16 seconds, on the audible mast (rear facing) cam are in order.
Need to bear in mind that the difference is in the U-Tube clip running times.  Anybody who was fair dinkum about using multiple cameras would make sure that they had their camera times in sync (not that viewers shouldn't be checking).
 
BTW, I don't think the video is conclusive at all:  proves nothing about whether PL did or did not hail for room to tack.
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: 07 Jul 11 at 6:49am
Originally posted by asterix

yes, but isn't it time people stopped calling for water - it's been years and about three rule books since there was a call for 'water'
 
if people call for 'water' when they mean 'room to tack' or 'mark room' should it be given ;-) ?
 
No, that would be a really bad idea.
 
There are no 'magic words' for the initial rule 20 hail.

Q&A 2009-028  see answer D

Everyone of the English Speaking Peoples (i.e. except 'Mercans) knows what 'water' means.  It doesn't help the game to go inventing new and ever more prescriptive rules (although, I wouldn't be surprised to see a hand-signal requirement coming into rule 20 as for the Match Racing rules, rule C.2.7:  I understand that they are having difficulties with the Extreme and AmCup cats:  would need some special exemption for dinghys of course).

Context is everything Grasshopper:

I think that if a close hauled leeward boat is in a position where 'safety requires her to make a substantial course change to avoid the obstruction' then a nearby windward boat, is wise to give a rule 20 response to anything that sounds vaguely like a hail for 'water' or 'room', or 'have to tack'.

Windward's response is to tack as soon as possible (NOT '_immediately_', or to hail 'You Tack' (magic words this time) immediately (rule 20.1(b).

OTOH, if the leeward boat is not yet at a position where 'safety requires her to make a substantial course change to avoid the obstruction', I think that anything short of 'Room to tack, c'mon you gotta gimme ROOM TO TACK' should be treated as not being a hail for room in breach of rule 20.3.  We should certainly be encouraging 'preliminary' or 'informational' hails like 'I am going to need room to tack soon'.
Back to Top
Rupert View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 11 Aug 04
Location: Whitefriars sc
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8956 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Rupert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jul 11 at 9:05am
Would in informal hail be expected to reduce the time the boat being hailed is expected to take to tack away? For instance, would he be expected to inform the next boat out that he was going to need to take for a boat needing water? Common sense says it would be wise, but would it change anything at protest, if the hailing boat was protesting about how long it took the other boat to tack off? Or would it be ignored as irrelevant, as only the hail is needed in the rules?
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
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: 07 Jul 11 at 10:55pm
Originally posted by Rupert

Would in informal hail be expected to reduce the time the boat being hailed is expected to take to tack away? For instance, would he be expected to inform the next boat out that he was going to need to take for a boat needing water? Common sense says it would be wise, but would it change anything at protest, if the hailing boat was protesting about how long it took the other boat to tack off? Or would it be ignored as irrelevant, as only the hail is needed in the rules?
I would expect it to reduce the time taken to respond, once the rule 20 hail is made, by a couple of seconds.  Note, the hailed boat is not required to do anything at all in response to the 'preliminary conversation:  she has every right to leave everyone on the rail, sheets and runners cleated (if that's how she rolls);  she has no obligation to hail another boat, and she would have no right to have any response from any other boat at that time.
 
More importantly, the preliminary conversation reduces the chance of foul ups on the windward boat.  Thus it doesn't significantly reduce the time expected to be taken, but it reduces the chance that the time taken will be longer than expected. 
 
It is absolutely the responsibilty of the hailing boat to make sure she hails in time to allow the hailed boat enough time to respond, including time while it is not possible for the hailed boat to tack because of a boat or boats further to windward.
 
Case 113 addresses the 3 boat (W, M, L) scenario where W is able to hear L's rule 20 hail and it is clear that M  must tack in order to give room to L, and M does not have room to tack and avoid W unless W either tacks or takes some other action.
 
Firstly, W, if she hears L's hail, is a ‘hailed boat’ in the context of rule 20.1 and she shall respond accordingly (by tacking ASAP or replying "You Tack").  Presumably if she hails 'You Tack' W must give room to tack and avoid her to both M and L, even though M neither hailed nor was entitled to do so.
 
Secondly, if W is not responding to L's hail, if M cannot respond to L's hail by hailing 'You Tack', (and therefore must respond to L's hail by tacking ASAP), and if M cannot tack because of the presence of W, she must immediately hail W for room to tack. If she fails to do this, and as a result is unable to tack as soon as possible, she breaks rule 20.1(b).  Presumably W is then expected to respond in accordance with rule 20.2(b).
 
Case 113 thus creates two entirely new obligations, neither of which is stated in the rules:
  1. an obligation on a Middle boat that hears a rule 20 hail to hail a Windward boat that is preventing her from tacking and is not responding to that hail;  and
  2. an obligation on a Windward boat that hears a hail from a Middle boat that does not comply with the requirements of rule 20.1 (at least not necessarily close hauled) and may be in breach of rule 20.3 (safety does NOT require her to make a substantial course change to avoid an obstruction), to respond to that hail in accordance with rule 20.2(b).
 


Edited by Brass - 08 Jul 11 at 2:14am
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: 08 Jul 11 at 8:33am
Brass  - thanks for the very comprehensive replies!
 
my last post was a bit tounge in cheek - hence the ;-) at the end
 
I am in favour of polite and courteous informal hails/discussions on the approach to a situation that can be anticipated, but have found that not all crews seem to take any notice of them.  What is the broader experience?


Edited by asterix - 11 Jul 11 at 3:19pm
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: 08 Jul 11 at 10:28am
Originally posted by asterix

have found that not all crews seem to take any notice of them. 

Doesn't really matter does it? It may be that the other boat runs a quiet ship with no unnecessary talking to other boats. Yes, its at the opposite extreme to pointless shouting, but not, I suggest, an equal error. Some people find it helps their focus to not talk on the track. As long as you've told them what you will be doing you don't really need an answer... Its the actual hail that counts.
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: 08 Jul 11 at 10:35am
no I agree, it dosent matter, and sometimes (often) the less shouting the better
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>

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