Rossiter Pintail Mortagne sur Gironde, near Bordeaux |
![]() |
Laser 140101 Tynemouth |
![]() |
Laser 28 - Excellent example of this great design Hamble le rice |
![]() |
List classes of boat for sale |
Starboard Rounding Windward Mark Incident |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 34567> |
Author | |||
sargesail ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 14 Jan 06 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1459 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 27 May 13 at 11:04am |
||
Brass - I don't disagree with the practicalities which you state above in terms of the protest committee, and some umpires.....
But you are I think overemphasising some aspects here "inches to spare" for example. You need not be inches from the mark and yet still struggle to achieve the required mark room (I have in my mind here some 26foot keelboats with an 18 foot waterline, so lot's of fish tail problem - exactly what would happen if you let the mainsheet go and heaved the tiller to wondward as you suggest). If S piles in to windward/inside in that situation then P (who has fulfilled her obligations under 10, 13 and 15) should have some protection.
|
|||
![]() |
|||
JimC ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
Why should P have any protection? In the zone rule 18 is the predominant rule, and rule 18 is clear that P never had any rights of any description.
Seems to me that as rule 18 is evolving over 4 year cycles on the whole its getting more and more hostile to complex manouvers within the zone. Although I just glanced at the 93 rules for comparison*, and back then they were explicit that if you tacked in the zone you had to give room to a boat that had to luff past your stern and thus gained an inside overlap, (42.3(a)ii) so there's been no major game change over the years in this particular aspect. *I'm very bad at throwing away old books! Edited by JimC - 27 May 13 at 11:47am |
|||
![]() |
|||
Brass ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1151 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
Thanks for the good example. I can quite easily visualise a 26 ft 'turnstile', that having made her tack will close the gap to the mark no matter which way she turns. Agree that in that case, she could be absolutely 'unable to give mark-room'.
I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the language of protection being applied within rule 18, but that's exactly what rule 18.2( e ) provides
I think rule 18.3 has been pretty stable since the 1995 rewrite, but its predecessor certainly moved around quite a bit in the 93, 89, 85, and 81 rules. Thanks for pointing out the 93 rule, the language of which matches up with the current MR amendment to rule 18.3, which I had always found a bit baffling. I'm quite happy to have it 'hostile to complex manouvers within the zone'. In my experience that's when competitors lose track of rights and entitlements and start piling into one another. 1993-97 rules is the one book I don't have, otherwise, mine go continuously back to the big American/European fusion in 1961, plus the American rules of 1953 and the RYA rules of 1947.
Edited by Brass - 27 May 13 at 3:04pm |
|||
![]() |
|||
gordon ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 07 Sep 04 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1037 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
However, for your "turnstile": the room required under rule 15 would almost certainly be far greater
|
|||
Gordon
|
|||
![]() |
|||
sargesail ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 14 Jan 06 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1459 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
Don't disagree with that either Gordon. Although it is my assumption that by tacking clear ahead and to leeward P has fulfilled her obligation under 10, 13 and 15.
But I want to draw out the distinction between an 18.3 situation where the tacking boat "shall give mark room if the other boat becomes overlapped inside her" and where therefore she has to anticipate the requirement, and this situation, where she does not have to anticipate that the other boat will choose to go inside. This seems to me a logical application of the principle behind 19.2 (c). Remembering too that S does have choices. She can keep clear by slowing or going to leeward too. I remember the revision when it first came in, and had an early Protest hearing from a boat which had understood the rule to be: you can't tack in the zone. Thankfully they admitted that they had overstood and were reaching in - from there we establishd that there had been no luff above close-hauled. Jim C - I jave a few old rule books - my favourite is early 50s.
|
|||
![]() |
|||
gordon ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 07 Sep 04 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1037 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
I do not think you can assume that just because a tack is completed clear ahead and to leeward that P has fulfilled her rule 15 obligation. How far ahead? How far to leeward? If S is obliged to make an unseamanlike manoeuvre in order to keep clear then P has not initially given room to keep clear. Room to keep clear includes room not to touch the mark.
There is a debate amongst match race umpires. Many believe that if there is no contact then rule 15 cannot have been broken. I would argue that this is not the case and that rule 15 can be broken without there being contact. |
|||
Gordon
|
|||
![]() |
|||
JimC ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
Sargesail, it doesn't seem desirable to me that a boat that chooses to undertake the very high risk activity of tacking in the zone in front of a ROW boat should have any confidence that they have any rights.
For ordinary club sailors like me I think it's probably best considered like taking water you aren't entitled to if a gap opens up - if you get away with it fine, but if you don't you just have to put your hand up and take your penalty. After all there can be few situations where one *must* tack in the zone,in most cases its going to be a tactical decision, so its not unreasonable. Match and team races OTOH are places I will not go... Its a hopelessly pointless - indeed dangerous - exercise to try and double think what one thinks the rules ought to be trying to say, but while I agree in the rules there's a general tendency that a boat holding a steady course does not have to anticipate what another boat will do, this isn't the situation here. It would not seem out of line with the general thread of things that a boat that elects to tack in the zone should be required to anticipate that a boat approaching the mark on a steady course to round the mark will continue to sail that course and round the mark, especially as the rules clearly state that in the situation where a boat was not clear ahead when she entered the zone then she may at any time have to give water. To me, as a definite rules amateur, I think that's the important point: the rules say you must give mark room if you were not clear ahead, rather than you need only give mark room if the other boat is overlapped*. So before they tack P already knows that they must give mark room to any boat that gains an overlap, no matter when, and surely they must judge their tack accordingly and its not unreasonable to expect them to anticipate the results of their manouver. Conversely S knows that if they gain an overlap at any stage of the proceedings they are entitled to mark room, and shouldn't be require to anticipate the possibility that P may get themselves in a situation where they are unable to give it. Your interpretation of rule 10/13/15/18 seems to me to make for an awful lot of switching off and on of ROW in fractions of a second, and its very hard for this rules amateur to believe that's desirable or even the correct interpretation. Looking back on old rules I must say that I think the rules people are doing a good job, and I'm glad I don't have to sail the boats I do now with the rules as they were when I was 17... I see, especially on US forums, people bewailing how the rules have been made worse, but I don't find that at all. Apropos of that, I'm sure I saw recently, although I foolishly didn't make a mental note of who and where, a quote from one of the mid 20thC greats, maybe Uffa, to the effect that the merger with the US rules had made everthing too complicated and aggressive and things had been better when they sailed under the old British rules, which I think more nearly approached colregs. *a crucial thing I've learned from this thread Edited by JimC - 27 May 13 at 7:52pm |
|||
![]() |
|||
sargesail ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 14 Jan 06 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1459 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
Gordon, Thanks for acknowledging that there is debate around the rule 15 issue in your second para. I have been involved in such discussions with umpires, and found the split interesting.... In the first instance I am trying to resolve this rule situation....I am not looking at the OP's situation specifically, but using the assumption that P fulfills her Rule 15 interpretation as part of my hypothesis. So the answer to how far to leeward and how far ahead is far enough. That said I do want to understand "why room to keep clear includes room not to touch the mark"? I take it that you do not accept my assertion that this is akin to Rule 19 - if the room isn't there then it can't be taken? If S sticks his nose in to a non-gap then surely tough luck.....? But I go back to my starting point - P is mad to tack there......I'm just trying to get to the heart of the rules....can't see it in the Appeals Cases or the TR Call book but I may be missing something. Matt
|
|||
![]() |
|||
gordon ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 07 Sep 04 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1037 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
When P reaches a close hauled course she acquires ROW. She must initially give S room to keep clear. Room, under the nex definition includes space to comply with her obligations under rule 31 i.e. not touch the mark.
As to the debate amongst umpires I believe that the "I gave room beacause the other boat didn't hit me" is somewhat of a cop-out, making life much easier for umpires. The most difficult moment to judge is when a boat establishes an overlap from clear astern inches/centimetres to leeward of the other boat. If the now keep clear boat cannot chnage course to keep clear without immediately making contact then I believe that she has not been given room. |
|||
Gordon
|
|||
![]() |
|||
sargesail ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 14 Jan 06 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1459 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
Jim, You demonstrate clear signs of being no rules amateur. I go back to the opinion I started with - that P has far better tactical options than to tack. And that she'd struggle to make a case for protection under 18.2 (e) in front of a PC. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think you are in much more danger of interpreting what the rules ought to be saying than I am. So let's do your thoughts of the two boats think again. I am P approaching....I know that at a windward mark unless one of us is fetching the mark then I can consider Rules 10 and 13 as if the mark is not there. I misjudge my approach and end up tacking in the zone ahead of S. I am an enlightened sailor having read this thread (but I'm in a minority) and I know that when S gets overlapped inside me I must give him room. But if 18 doesn't apply until he gets overlapped why should I tack early? (other than to be safe - there is no rules driver is what I mean). I am S - I see P tack. There is no room between him and the mark. I know I can get an overlap and be entititled to room but there is a risk that he will force me in to the mark...
|
|||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 34567> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |