Luffing

Rule 17 only puts a limitation on the right of the leeward boat to sail ABOVE her proper course, nothing prevents her sailing below this course. So a boat may sail low (possibly on a wave) establish an overlap and then luff up to, but not above her proper course.

If a boat changes course to get onto or stay on a wave then this would be considered a proper course. Planing or surfing conditions wouod have to exist at the time of the incident.

Gordon

Originally posted by rich96 Chasing laser then ducks to leeward and begins to luff lead Laser way above the leeward mark (so far the they both have to gybe back). Cgasing Laser gets ahead.

Explain to me how, in a Laser, this could be considered proper course on a leg that is described by the OP as a broad reach....

If I, as a protest cimmittee member, am not satisfied of the explanation of LW as to these actions I would almost certainly DSQ them.

I appreciate this is difficult to picture without the use of diagrams and a protest kit but taking the OP description of events I still maintain the LW did not sail their proper course.

Originally posted by jeffers Even so diving off low and then luffing back high above the mark would diffult to prove as proper course for any boat

If he dived so low that the overlap counted as established from leeward, not astern then L would be allowed to luff. Its all in the fine detail!

Originally posted by Scooby_simon Originally posted by jeffers Originally posted by laser4000 If you gain overlap from astern then under rule 17 you can't sail above your proper course. The windward boat is still obliged under rule 11 to keep clear of you. The relevant bit is: - "If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above her proper course while they remain on the same tack and overlapped within that distance, unless in doing so she promptly sails astern of the other boat." This is the relevant answer for the OP's question. They were both in Laser's so the other infor about different classes having different proper courses etc.. whilst interesting is irrelevant in this case. I would have protested the chasing Laser or if it was just a club race had a chat after the race (calling protest in the race in case their reaction was negative to the chat).   It IS still relevant as the leeward boat STILL dictates proper course; if you do not think the leeward boat can JUSTIFY their course as proper course, then protest / have a chat. Just because you think their course is not proper course, does not mean the PC will agree with YOU.

I think even the most hard line of PC's would have a hard time finding in favour of LW in this case as both boats were of the same class. Even so diving off low and then luffing back high above the mark would diffult to prove as proper course for any boat (remember proper course is in the absence of other boats).

I cannot think of a single instance when I have wanted to go way above a mark when there have not been any other boats round me.

Were I on a PC presiding over a case like this I would ask LW what his course would have been has the other boat not been present.

Edited by jeffers

Originally posted by laser4000 If you gain overlap from astern then under rule 17 you can't sail above your proper course. The windward boat is still obliged under rule 11 to keep clear of you. The relevant bit is: - "If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above her proper course while they remain on the same tack and overlapped within that distance, unless in doing so she promptly sails astern of the other boat."

This is the relevant answer for the OP's question. They were both in Laser's so the other infor about different classes having different proper courses etc.. whilst interesting is irrelevant in this case.

I would have protested the chasing Laser or if it was just a club race had a chat after the race (calling protest in the race in case their reaction was negative to the chat).

Edited by jeffers