Tacking in zone

Yes - when shooting the mark only. The tack below was clean and both boats sailed for a few moments on starboard before P luffed to shoot the mark.

Not altogether sure about the fine detail of this one.

S, as windward boat, failed to keep clear of P as Leeward boat. RRS11.

If S had to luff above close hauled to keep clear then P broke 18.3. If S didn't luff above close hauled but should have done then I'm not sure that P broke 18.3.

I don't think any of the exoneration rules apply to S because S was not entitled to room of any kind and wasn't ROW boat. Could be wrong about that.

So I think S is penalised for RRS11, and if S actually did luff above close hauled then P is penalised under RRS 18.3. So quite possibly both DSQ.

I'm a bit unhappy about saying that if S didn't luff but should have done then P didn't break a rule, but the trend these days is that you should always keep clear and protest rather than make contact, and that's a pretty good principle.


Edited by JimC - 11 Apr 16 at 11:08am

Originally posted by sundowner6959 Here's another query about tacking in the zone. . . .  Two boats on opposite tacks approach the windward mark which they are rounding to port. Boat P, on port, tacks below boat S which is approaching on starboard. Boat P's tack is clean and boat S does not have to take any avoiding action. Boat P who cannot lay the mark without luffing shoots the mark and rounds cleanly but Boat S's boom touched Boat P's rigging when this manoeuvre is carried out.  Should boat S have given more room for P to round the mark or did boat P infringe the rules by tacking below S and then shooting the mark. This all happened within two boat lengths of the mark.

Gosh Brass, you're interpreting 'prevent' very differently from me. I was thinking that it meant forcing the other boat the wrong side of the mark.

Given situation 3 then, where do you see penalties?

The way I read it B is not ROW or entitled to mark room under RRS14. Depending on the speed of boats Jeffers may very well be right and B is entitled to room under RRS15, in which case she's exonerated for RRS11.
B is not entitled to room under a section C rule so can't be exonerated under RRS21.

I'm inclined to say that Jeffers is right about room, that Y didn't give B room under RRS15/16, and so penalise Y and exonerate B.

However if B had luffed up to avoid Y there would be no complication at all, and Y would clearly be penalised, so there's a moral there!

The race was on an inland loch with the wind flicking through 30 degrees so whether B was fetching or on the layline is difficult to determine but I would assume he was above the layline.