New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Tacking at windward mark to starboard
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Tacking at windward mark to starboard
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 Topic: Tacking at windward mark to starboard
    Posted: 19 Jun 13 at 12:39am
Andymck is asking why there are two 'switch-off' provisions operating when a boat tacks in rule 18:
  1. rule 18.1( a ) and ( b ), which switch off the whole of rule 18;  and
  2. rule 18.2( c ) last sentance which switches off only rule 18.2( b ).

Let us consider the case where a tack switches off rule 18.2( b ) but does not switch off the whole of rule 18.  This might occur in team racing or match racing.

 
So the above demonstrates that, while they will often overlap one another, rule 18.1 and rule 18.2( c ) last sentance can have different work to do, at least sometimes.
 
 
Back to Top
andymck View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 15 Dec 06
Location: Stamford
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 397 		Post Options Post Options   Quote andymck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 13 at 1:37pm
Actually I was more concerned about the English definition of the word thereafter in 18.2b. With the provision of breaking that stated in 18.2c:

When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b),
she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins;
if she becomes overlapped inside the boat entitled to mark-room, she shall also give that boat room to sail her proper course while they remain overlapped.
However, if the boat entitled to mark-room passes head to wind or leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

This appears to contradict 95's wording, but as both boats tacked in that case,not the scenario.

We still also have not discussed the role of rule 17 here, but both 17 and 18c give protection the windward boat.

I am not trying to second guess the rule makers. All I am doing is asking why 18.1 overrules 18.2c which seems to have this situation covered? And only mentions the boat entitled to mark room tacking.




Edited by andymck - 18 Jun 13 at 1:54pm
Andy Mck
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: 18 Jun 13 at 10:58am
Or more likely it was to do with the situations that team mates were in.
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: 18 Jun 13 at 10:43am
Originally posted by Quagers

Brass has the rules spot on, what I dont understand is why B tacked back onto port. I would have stayed on starboard and forced A to tack away before tacking to round the mark, gives yourself much more space on the reach.
 
Possibly Andymck was driving B <g> and thought 18.3 would not go on, and he would get inside mark-room under 18.2( a ).
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: 18 Jun 13 at 10:39am
Originally posted by andymck

The reason we would need to is what turns off 18.2b/c
It suggests once the obligation to give mark room has occurred, on only the actions of the boat entitled to mark room turn it off.
Rule 18.1 tells us when rule 18 becomes applicable, not when it turns off.
 
I'm not much interested in what rules 'suggest'.  I prefer to deal in what they say.
 
Your assertion about rule 18.1 is wrong.
 
Rule 18.1, second sentance, followed by the subparagraphs quite expressly says:
 
'However it [rule 18] does not apply ...'
 
If anyone is still in any doubt, see Case 95

CASE 95

If two overlapped boats on the same tack are on a beat to windward and are subject to rule 18.2(b), rule 18 ceases to apply when either of them turns past head to wind.

Originally posted by andymck

I am surprised that you feel that when there is ambiguity, and disagreement that a question is not worth asking. This situation is not covered in the call book. We certainly need to know if we revert to 18.1 or if 18.2b/c is still in force. Certainly we were always encouraged to ask these questions, and there is now a call in the book from from a similar question which we raised back in the nineties which led to a disagreement between umpires.
In this case there  is no ambiguity.
 
In the rare cases that a rule is ambiguous, trying to second guess what the rules drafters 'intended' is rarely a good way to resolve it.  Careful analysis of what the rules actually say, and appropriate research in the Cases, Appeals, Calls and Q&A is usually much more reliable.
 
I can't see why the situation needs to be covered in the TR Call Book:  the rules application is, IMHO quite simple and straightforward, and the umpiring process should get to that result:  how do you think I did the analysis in the first place?
 
 
Back to Top
Quagers View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Quagers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 13 at 10:03am
Brass has the rules spot on, what I dont understand is why B tacked back onto port. I would have stayed on starboard and forced A to tack away before tacking to round the mark, gives yourself much more space on the reach.


< id="adlesse_unifier_magic_element_id" style="display:none;">


Edited by Quagers - 18 Jun 13 at 10:03am
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: 18 Jun 13 at 9:38am
I am surprised that B had room to duck below A and tack (and complete the tack and give A room to keep clear) all without leaving the zone, but if this was in Fireflies, then they do turn well! And the amount of room needed would be rather less than expected in a fleet race, I imagine.
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 13 at 9:15am
Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by andymck

assuming that b, when she becomes overlapped to leeward does not break rule 17, which becomes a mine field near the windward mark once lay lines have been crossed.
 
I think there would be a struggle to pull that manoeuvre off with in 2 boat lengths.

Agree:  it's going to be an action packed little zone.
 
Maybe with a honking downwind tide, so everything happens in super slo mo? 


But also achievable in most craft once you start slowing - high tariff stuff from B, but worth a go.
Back to Top
andymck View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 15 Dec 06
Location: Stamford
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 397 		Post Options Post Options   Quote andymck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 13 at 8:52am
The reason we would need to is what turns off 18.2b/c
It suggests once the obligation to give mark room has occurred, on only the actions of the boat entitled to mark room turn it off.
Rule 18.1 tells us when rule 18 becomes applicable, not when it turns off.

I am surprised that you feel that when there is ambiguity, and disagreement that a question is not worth asking. This situation is not covered in the call book. We certainly need to know if we revert to 18.1 or if 18.2b/c is still in force. Certainly we were always encouraged to ask these questions, and there is now a call in the book from from a similar question which we raised back in the nineties which led to a disagreement between umpires.
Andy Mck
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: 18 Jun 13 at 1:40am
Originally posted by andymck

assuming that b, when she becomes overlapped to leeward does not break rule 17, which becomes a mine field near the windward mark once lay lines have been crossed.
 
I think there would be a struggle to pull that manoeuvre off with in 2 boat lengths.
Agree:  it's going to be an action packed little zone.
 
Maybe with a honking downwind tide, so everything happens in super slo mo? 
Originally posted by andymck

Brass, what turns off 18.2b? 
18.2.c (2) suggests that only the actions of the boat entitled to mark room by tacking turn it off again, not the actions of the boat required to give it, that bit reads thereafter. So not sure we go from 18.2b back to 18.1a?
 
As I referenced in my post above Rule 18.1 ( a ) or ( b ) switch off rule 18 in its entirity.
 
When either of two boats, initially on the same tack passes head to wind, so that boats are on opposite tacks, either on a beat to windward (rule 18.1( a ), or where the proper course of one but not both is to tack (rule 18.1( b )), rule 18 does not apply.
 
Hence the maxim:  'At a windward mark on opposite tacks, take the mark away'.
 
Originally posted by andymck

18.3 would only seem to be intended when there was no prior obligation?
 
Neither I nor anybody else should be bothering about what we might think a rule was 'intended' to do.
 
The best we can do is just apply the rules as they are written.
 
Originally posted by andymck

I think we need to see a diagram, and may actually be worth a question to the powers that be.
I don't see what this demand for diagrams is.
 
The OP here gives ample detail to enable us to diagram the situation for ourselves.
 
If we are to be on protest committees we need to develop our skills of visualisation.
 
First thing I do when given a scenario like this is grab the pencil and paper and start diagramming.  Otherwise you can use toys, or, if technologically inclined TSS or BoatScenario.
 
Can't see any issues that would warrant a Call or Case here.
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