Near collision whilst broaching

Another formulation:

If a boat is obliged to perform an unseamanlike manouevre by a another boat that should keep clear or give room then the relevant rule has been broken. If in the course of the unseamanlike manoeuvre a boat suffers damage or injury tihen the appropriate penalty for the infringing boat is to retire as soon as she becomes aware of the damage.

When is a gybe unseamalike - probably when it has to be performed immediately, without the normal (for the boat) preparation.

Originally posted by Ruscoe [snip One thing I would disagree with is how was the damage caused by boat A?  No physical contact,  sure a gybe was forced on boat B, how would a supposed 'Crash Gybe' knacker a kite?

Case 110

...Contact is not necessary for one boat to cause injury or physical damage to another.
...
Question 2
Must contact between the boats occur in order for redress to be granted
under rule 62.1(b)?

Answer 2
No. A boat that suffers injury to a member of her crew or physical damage while acting to avoid contact with a boat that has broken a rule of Part 2 may be entitled to redress if the injury or damage is found to have made her score significantly worse and was not her fault.


Damage to a kite can happen pretty easily in an involuntary gybe: pole and a foot or so of the kite tack digs in the water, loads up big time and the kite lets go around the tack reinforcing. The pole then
then bends L shaped around the leeward shrouds, for bonus points taking them out on the way. Likewise, boat bucketing around through the gybe, bow heroically manages to get the pole off, only to stick it right through the kite, or simply that your light kite that you have been nursing on the dead run just explodes or flogs itself to death when you round up into the broach.

Sure a genius helmsman might have kept it under control better, but as I said, I'd have no difficulty saying the other boat 'caused' the damage.

Edited by Lukepiewalker - 05 Aug 13 at 9:03pm

Brass, I agree.  I also hate the term Crash gybe, hence my post really.  A gybe to me is the complete maneuver otherwise it’s a major change of direction!  However is a gybe considered to be when the white sails cross the boat or when the spinnaker is reset on new leg?  Genuine question and one I should really know the answer to.  Also how do you define a seamanlike manner, could this protest be a result of someone’s inability to complete the gybe correctly (user error)  we have all been there even when not under pressure.

 

One thing I would disagree with is how was the damage caused by boat A?  No physical contact,  sure a gybe was forced on boat B, how would a supposed 'Crash Gybe' knacker a kite?  In the case of boat A's insurance I would be pretty miffed.  It would also be interesting to hear from insurance companies to understand their view points.

 

But agree with Mongrel...Brass, you really are a great source of rule interpretation.  Thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by Ruscoe But if boat B has the ability to complete its 'Crash gybe' then surely it had time and oportunity to complete the manovure?  The fact the kite was damaged may be for a number of reasons.  How can this be proved to be boats A's faultif there was no contact?

I've previously said I don't like the term 'crash gybe' because it's slangy and carries no precise meaning.

I think, however, in this case it means, clearly enough, a gybe 'all standing', with spinnaker pole out the wrong side of the boat, toe of the pole and tack of the spinnaker in the water and so on: couldn't, by any stretch, be called 'seamanlike'.

If there was no room to do anything other than that, to avoid a serious collision, then A did not give room to keep clear in a seamanlike manner.

Likewise, I would have no difficulty in concluding that damage to B's kite was caused by A breaking the rules.

Understand that this is all 'hypothetical' based on words on the internet, and in a real protest hearing, the protest committee would be looking very carefully at evidence about how close, how strong the wind was, where and how the spinnaker was damaged.