If boat B did that then they gave very liitle (or no) opportunity to boat A to  keep clear.

boat A could not foresee what was going to happen so will have assumed they did not have to give water. They were then put in a position where they "may" have to give water and will have not prepared for it. Thus boat B did not give time to A to keep clear.

Remember 2 boat lengths is only a few seconds in most boats.

whatabout this aspect ???/

if the pole is considered in its proper  position ( which I reckon is reasonable) the boat poking it out has effectively increased its overall length too , and consequently the two boat length distance (based on the longest boat ) will be cosiderably further further back than non poled out boats , if the action as desribed above caused an overlap at two "normal " boat lengths the ovelap was established too late ie the larger two poled out boat distance would have been passed !

2 boat lengths is defined by the first boat to get there - the outside boat in this case.

 good point, ah well , was  worth a try to confuse things !

I'll crawl back unda me rock agin.

still I reckon pole out before mark is in proper position ,me ole pole is out all the time ,

IMO you would have to be VERY carefull putting out the pole just to gain some advantage; If the pole is out, the kite should be going up too (or maybe at least the tack out).

If you put the pole out, then did not instantly hoist the kite or initiate the gybe, if I was running the protest, you yould be binned.

Just my Tuppence.

Couple of points:

1)  Two-boat length is based on hull lengths not overall length for just this reason.  Change would cause confusion.

2)  Sounds like there was no infringement.  But personally I reckon thta if you go back to the rules things are clearer.  If there is an overlap at 2 lengths then the outside boat must give room.  The question then is when and how that overlap is established.  When is reflected in the traditional advice about onus - the old advice that if you are inside and establising close to 2 lengths don't push in but protest.  If you are outside and claiming a late break then let them in and protest. 

3)  If your are inside and your overlap is pole only it is marginal - hard to prove.  It is also clsoe to being late by definition of the fact you are about to round - or abnormal (and therfore not valid).  So you should call for the water - but not push in if it is refused.

4)  However in this case there is no argument that there was an overlap at 2 lengths.  Therefore I would say that the inside boat had the right to room.  As to the acceptability of the pole position I would say that having raced 400s I would often go pole out early in that sort of situation, as long as the port tack lay line was fairly clear, the view being that bith helm and crew could hike through the bear away without compromising the speed of hoist.

Matt

See now I didnt think this was the case, regardless of the pole situation I believed that it included the rudder stock etc, soemthing along the lines of all equipment in the correct place for this wording to apply to hull length sounds a bit strange since its normaly quite hard to not have the hull in the correct place.

Also on the rules query I think that as long as they can prove that it was not done to gain an advantage and that they do that manover all the time then the pole is in its corret place for the manover as it goes out but I would say that it can only be used for an over lap if the then go straight into pulling up the kite (or what ever is next in their sequence of events) because I know that in cadets we used to put the pole on a long way before the mark jsut to make sure that it was there for when we went round but this meant that after the pole was put on it was left to wait for the rounding and in this case I dont believe that it shoudl be used for gaining an overlap as it doesnt need to be extended at that point. BUT if from when you extend to pole to your conclusion of the kite hoist you are doing somehting then that is the correct time to put the pole in that position because you cannot leave it later with out compromising the hoist. In that situation it should be able to be used as part of the 'boat length'

er hope that makes some sense to you all...  

I'm 99% sure it's "all equipment that is fixed in place"

Look at most rule books and the lines across transoms don't include the rudders.

So rudders are out of scope, as are moveable Spi poles.  BUT, fixed spi poles like on 12 and 18 foot Skiffs and most Cats actually DO count as "Boat"

Me being geeky and checking ISAFs rules on their site came up with this:

One boat is clear astern of another when her hull and equipment in normal position are behind a line abeam from the aftermost point of the other boat's hull and equipment in normal position.

It says "hull and equipment" which I would have taken to mean that a rudder was counted and it doesnt say anything about the equipment having to be fixed.

Knightmare, good point and top marks for checking (I did not). 

Suppose it's going to be an issue of the definition of normal position. And how to work that out.

Must make it a nightmare for protest Ctte's

I suppoose it helps that thopse boats with moveable poles are usually doing uphill downhill.... 

Oh my hours bored at work did do something useful.  at last!!

Yeah I think that the way that rules are interpreted by certain classes controls the use of the rules in that class and the protest comities generaly (everyone take note of that word) know the ways they are interpreted by the class they are acting for.

Each class will have its own ideas on when a hoist should be started etc, and as long as it is single class racing these problems dont usualy arise. but as here its when we start inter class racing that we run up against a problem, and all manouvers require that little extra thought as to whether it will be seen as 'legal' from the other boats point of view.

But I supose if in doubt give room and then take it to a protest after having been able to consider if it genuinely was a legitimate use of the differneces in the boats

Eugh far to technical a waffle for a weds afternoon ..... bring on friday....

Nowt to do with the definition of 2-boatlength zone though. This is in the "definitions" section of the rules and refers to "hull lengths". Poles and rudders therefore do not count. 

Just checked this (little more time now) and I agree with Stefan.

http://www.isaf.com/RRS2005/Definitions.pdf - http://www.isaf.com/RRS2005/Definitions.pdf

No.

2 length zone (note - it's not called 2 boat lengths, it's the 2 length zone) is defined as 2 hull lengths.

Overlap is defined as hull and equipment in normal position.

Makes sense with a bit of thought - if 2 length zone included hull and equipment, for bowsprit boats it would make it larger at the leeward mark than at the windward. People have enough trouble as it is agreeing on when they reach the zone. And for overlaps - well, generally it's to find out if they'll be someone in the way if you change course - so includes all the sticky-out bits at the front and back.

Pretty much what I think - I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer given a moment ago:

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=28699&st=0&p=592609&#entry592609 - http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=286 99&st=0&p=592609&#entry592609

Rule 18 is a part C rule, rule 11 is a part B rule. Part C overrides part B. So if there is no overlap, the windward boat does not have to keep clear within the 2BL circle.

From the OP

So 18.2.e not too relevant - there was no doubt that the overlap was established in time. What is in doubt is whether it was or wasn't a legitimate overlap - which comes down to whether the pole is in its normal position if it's deployed before the 2 length zone.

I don't think so. I believe "reasonable doubt" refers to the facts found, not to the way in which rules should be intepreted. In other words, if boat A said "no overlap" and boat B said "overlap" and there were no other witnesses, the committee might think "reasonable doubt" existed. That isn't the case here as both boats agree on what happened.