New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Inside and outside at an obstruction.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Inside and outside at an obstruction.
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
gordon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 07 Sep 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1037 		Post Options Post Options   Quote gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Inside and outside at an obstruction.
    Posted: 16 Jan 14 at 9:04am
A hail from  W would clearly establish the point at which she is claiming that she is at the obstruction -  from that point on the obligation of Y is to give room - and protest if she believes that W could have gone in closer and kept clear as is made clear by the RYA case.

If after being informed by W that she is at the obstruction, being constrained by her draft, L continues to luff she is putting herself at risk of an allegation of "unfair sailing", a breach of rule 2.

I repeat - L's knowledge of W's draft is not entirely irrelevant.
Gordon
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: 16 Jan 14 at 12:53am
Originally posted by SteveB00

Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by Brass

both boats sailed on for another two or more boat lengths after position 2 without incident

 
And I guess then the answer is that Y breaks 19.2b as soon as there is a reasonable belief that B is running out of water.

Isn't this only the case if B is overlapped "inside" Y? At positions 3 and 4 in the diagram, this isn't the case, at least not by any dictionary definition of "inside" (and there is no definition in RRS).

If B runs out of of water, be it on her own head at this point.

@2 B is clearly enough inside Y:  the question is whether she is 'at' the obstruction, tested, in accordance with RYA Appeal 2011/1, by B's reasonable belief that she could not sail any closer to the obstruction.

Given that she sails another two boat lengths towards the obstruction, there isn't evidence of her reasonable belief that she was at the obstruction @2.

OTOH, if she had hit the mud @2, that would be evidence that Y had not given her the room to which she was entitled at that point.

@3, as I previously discussed, Y is something like exactly 90 degrees to the shoreline, but it's going to be extremely difficulty to be certain that she is sailing exactly 90 degrees to the shore:  we can't be certain, so the last point of certainty is the point just before @3, when she is overlapped outside B.

@4, Y is clearly, now, inside B so no longer can be required to give B room under rule 19.2.

Last Point of Certainty is a very common and useful concept.  Rule 18.2( d ) is a particular example.

Here's a description of how Last Point of Certainty works from the MR Call Book

1. 'Last Point of Certainty' (GEN 1 Q1)

There are many occasions when umpires are required to judge the exact moment
when the state of a boat, or her relationship with another boat, changes.
Examples are: passing head to wind, establishing an overlap, approaching the
line to start, etc.

In such cases the umpires will assume that the state of a boat or the relationship
with another has not changed until they are certain that it has changed. For
example, a boat is not judged ‘beyond head to wind’ until the umpires are
certain that she is so.




Edited by Brass - 16 Jan 14 at 1:58am
Back to Top
SteveB00 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 30 Nov 13
Location: Sydney, Oz
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 24 		Post Options Post Options   Quote SteveB00 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 14 at 12:03am
Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by Brass

both boats sailed on for another two or more boat lengths after position 2 without incident

 
And I guess then the answer is that Y breaks 19.2b as soon as there is a reasonable belief that B is running out of water.

Isn't this only the case if B is overlapped "inside" Y? At positions 3 and 4 in the diagram, this isn't the case, at least not by any dictionary definition of "inside" (and there is no definition in RRS).

If B runs out of of water, be it on her own head at this point.

Steve  = : ^ )
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6661 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 14 at 11:55pm
Originally posted by Brass

both boats sailed on for another two or more boat lengths after position 2 without incident


Sailing, as I do, a boat that readily exceeds one boat length per second, two boat lengths doesn't sound very comfortable to me.

That RYA case seems smack on. I really must get in the habit of reading the RYA one (which has all the ISAF cases in anyway) rather than the ISAF one.

And I guess then the answer is that Y breaks 19.2b as soon as there is a reasonable belief that B is running out of water.
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: 15 Jan 14 at 11:25pm
Originally posted by gordon

Brass said - "If W can demonstrate that there was not enough room for her to pass between L and the obstruction (for example, if she grounds, while taking no more space than necessary to keep clear of L) L has broken rule 19.2( b ).  Whether L knew or ought to have known that W's deeper draft  effectively brought the obstruction 'closer' is irrelevant."

The point about whether L knew about W's deeper draft or not is not totally irrelevant... because in this instance the draft defines the limits of the obstruction. Furthermore, the obstruction is now underwater, therefore invisible. If W's draft is exceptional compared to other similar boats L can argue that she gave the space needed but that W by not informing her of an exceptional danger was not acting in a seamanlike way. Just as it is seamanlike to keep a good lookout, in this situation it would be samalike for W to inform L that she needs a greater depth of water in which to sail.
I don't agree that your argument establishes that L's knowledge of W's draft, or the relationship between W's draft and the depth of water is relevant to breach of rule 19.2.

The vast majority of rules, and certainly Part 2 rules, rely only on physical facts:  for example was there room or was there not.  There is no mental element of either knowledge or intention.

Whether there was an 'exceptional' danger is likewise not relevant.

No rule says a boat shall sail in a seamanlike way.

No rule says that a boat loses an entitlement she has if she does not sail in a seamanlike way, although, clearly, in some circumstances, manouevering in an unseamanlike way will make it impossible for a boat to prove that there was insufficient room if she had manoeuvered in a seamanlike way.

Cases 21 (last paragraph) and 103 (headnote) tell us that 'seamanlike way' refers to the 'handling of [a boat's] helm, sheets and sails' and 'boat handling'.

While W hailing to alert L of the need to give her room might be the seamanlike thing to do, hailing is of a wholly different species of action to 'manoeuvering in a seamanlike way' as the term is used in the rules.

I think RYA Appeal 2011/1 is relevant.  It describes a case where the outside boat did not think she needed to give room, and where no hails were given.

RYA 2011/1
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 19, Room to Pass an Obstruction
An inside boat that reasonably believes that she is at an obstruction and acts accordingly is entitled to room from an outside boat. The inside boat is not required to endanger herself in order to claim her entitlement to room. If the outside boat disputes the inside boat's entitlement to room, she must nevertheless give room, and then, if she wishes, protest.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
During the Round the Island Race 2010, both boats were reaching on port tack and were in the process of rounding the southernmost tip of the Isle of Wight, which was to windward. Profile was ahead and to windward. Tilt approached from clear astern and was sailing on a higher course than Profile. When the boats became overlapped, there were more than 2 boat lengths between them. Profile believed that there was insufficient depth of water to windward to allow her to sail any higher. Profile held her course and Tilt continued sailing a higher course. As the boats converged, there was contact causing damage. Profile protested Tilt.

The protest committee decided that Profile was not 'at an obstruction' and was therefore not entitled to room under rule 19.2(b). It disqualified Profile under rule 11.

The protest committee also stated there was nothing Tilt could have been expected to do to avoid contact and therefore she did not break rule 14 as a result. 

Profile appealed.
DECISION
The appeal is upheld. Profile is to be reinstated to her finishing position and Tilt is to be disqualified.

When there is a dispute over an entitlement to room due to differing views on whether a boat is at an obstruction or not, the proper course of action is for the outside boat to give room and then to protest. The inside boat is not required to endanger herself in order to claim her entitlement to room. The principles applicable are similar to those in ISAF Case 50.

At a protest hearing, it is for the right-of-way boat to establish that contact would have occurred if she had held her course and therefore that she needed to take avoiding action. It is then for the inside boat to present sufficient evidence to establish that she was at an obstruction and that she was entitled to room. If, after considering all the evidence, a protest committee finds that the inside boat had a reasonable belief that she was at an obstruction and required room, it should dismiss the protest. If the protest committee is satisfied that the inside boat’s belief was not reasonable in all the circumstances, it should uphold the protest and disqualify her.

The RYA accepts that Profile genuinely believed she could not sail any higher and that, given the depth of water, the size of boats and the wind strength at the time of the incident, that belief was a reasonable one to have.

Profile was accordingly entitled to room under rule 19.2(b) and was compelled to break rule 11 by Tilt’s failure to give room. Profile is therefore exonerated from her breach of rule 11 under rule 64.1(a) and Tilt is to be disqualified for breaking rule 19.2(b). Profile did not avoid contact with Tilt, but under rule 14(a) was not required to act to do so until it was clear that Tilt was not giving room, at which point there was no safe possibility for Profile to avoid the contact. Tilt, however, could have avoided contact and is, therefore, also disqualified under rule 14 because the contact
resulted in damage.
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: 15 Jan 14 at 9:49pm
Originally posted by RS400atC

Originally posted by Brass

.....
Rule 19.2( b ) says the outside boat (L) shall give the inside boat (W) room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began.

.....

At position 2 in the yellow/blue diagram, is Y breaking this rule?
At what point is she required  to steer for the mark, allowing space for blue?

That depends on the facts.

Rule 19 only applies 'at' the obstruction.

I think boats are 'at' the obstruction when W, the larger, becomes reasonably concerned about water under her keel. 

As I said, if W can demonstrate that there was not enough room for her to pass between L and the obstruction (for example, if she grounds, while taking no more space than necessary to keep clear of L) L has broken rule 19.2( b ).

Given that in the diagram both boats sailed on for another two or more boat lengths after position 2 without incident, I don't think they were 'at' the obstruction at position 2.

To give room at the obstruction, it is not necessary for L to 'steer for the mark', as long as she gives room.  'Steer for the mark' smacks of 'proper course' which is not relevant here.




Edited by Brass - 15 Jan 14 at 9:50pm
Back to Top
gordon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 07 Sep 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1037 		Post Options Post Options   Quote gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 14 at 5:58pm
Brass said - "If W can demonstrate that there was not enough room for her to pass between L and the obstruction (for example, if she grounds, while taking no more space than necessary to keep clear of L) L has broken rule 19.2( b ).  Whether L knew or ought to have known that W's deeper draft  effectively brought the obstruction 'closer' is irrelevant."

The point about whether L knew about W's deeper draft or not is not totally irrelevant... because in this instance the draft defines the limits of the obstruction. Furtermore, the obstruction is now underwater, therefore invisible. If W's draft is exceptional compared to other similar boats L an argue that she gave the space needed but that W by not informing her of an exceptional danger was not acting in a seamanlike way. Just as it is seamanlike to keep a good lookout, in this situation it would be samalike for W to inform L that she needs a greater depth of water in which to sail.
Gordon
Back to Top
RS400atC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Dec 08
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3011 		Post Options Post Options   Quote RS400atC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 14 at 1:42pm
Originally posted by Brass

.....
Rule 19.2( b ) says the outside boat (L) shall give the inside boat (W) room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began.

.....

At position 2 in the yellow/blue diagram, is Y breaking this rule?
At what point is she required  to steer for the mark, allowing space for blue?
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: 14 Jan 14 at 10:39pm
Originally posted by RS400atC

Practically, it seems to me, this is really the end game of a w/l situation, not a stand alone obstruction thing.
Neither boat will know the exact topography of the contour line which dictates how far W can be luffed.
There may be shallow bits not parallel to the shore.
If W can reasonably believe he is closer to that contour than L, he can call for water?
In 40ft boats, he must make his call in sufficient time for L to respond.
Once he has called, L is bound by it and would have to prove that W called when he knew he had a good many boatlengths before risking his keel.

So I guess for L to come out of this well, he needs to take W beyond 90 degrees to the shoreline several boatlengths from that contour.

W can call for water, or call for a pint, or call for a whisky and soda, but it won't affect her rights and obligations under the rules.

Rule 19.2( b ) says the outside boat (L) shall give the inside boat (W) room between her and the obstruction, unless she has been unable to do so from the time the overlap began.

This simply depends on facts.

If W can demonstrate that there was not enough room for her to pass between L and the obstruction (for example, if she grounds, while taking no more space than necessary to keep clear of L) L has broken rule 19.2( b ).  Whether L knew or ought to have known that W's deeper draft  effectively brought the obstruction 'closer' is irrelevant.

Yes it would be nice and it would be sensible if W hailed L that she needed the room, but it is not a requirement of the rules.

Note, we are not talking about rule 20 hails here, because that would be a hail for room to tack and avoid, when what W would be hailing for would be for room to stand on or bear away.
Back to Top
RS400atC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Dec 08
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3011 		Post Options Post Options   Quote RS400atC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 14 at 12:27pm
Practically, it seems to me, this is really the end game of a w/l situation, not a stand alone obstruction thing.
Neither boat will know the exact topography of the contour line which dictates how far W can be luffed.
There may be shallow bits not parallel to the shore.
If W can reasonably believe he is closer to that contour than L, he can call for water?
In 40ft boats, he must make his call in sufficient time for L to respond.
Once he has called, L is bound by it and would have to prove that W called when he knew he had a good many boatlengths before risking his keel.

So I guess for L to come out of this well, he needs to take W beyond 90 degrees to the shoreline several boatlengths from that contour.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

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