Edition
-(1)-202408140552.gif)
Boats for sale
| Laser 28 - Excellent example of this great design Hamble le rice |
 |
| Rossiter Pintail Mortagne sur Gironde, near Bordeaux |
 |
List classes of boat for sale |
case 7 |
Post Reply 
|
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Delicious Digg Facebook Furl Google MySpace Newsvine reddit StumbleUpon Translate Twitter Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks Topic Search  Topic Options
|
asterix 
Really should get out more 
Joined: 01 Aug 09 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 621 |
 Post Options
 Quote Reply
 Topic: case 7Posted: 13 Jul 10 at 9:15am |
|
Perhaps I am being thick but can someone explain why rule 18 is (apparently) not relevant and not even discussed in ISAF Case 07 http://game.finckh.net/reg_gbr/cases/case07.htm |
|
 |
|
|
jlecou
Newbie 
Joined: 01 Dec 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 30 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Jul 10 at 9:59am |
|
Surely rule 18 only applies when one boat is in the zone - which presumably back then (1963?) was 2 boat lengths. The collision ocurred at 20m out which I imagine was more than 2 boat lengths?
|
|
|
RS400 880 : Laser 203302 : King George SC
|
|
|
|
|
JimC
Really should get out more
Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Jul 10 at 10:19am |
The cases are rewritten (or removed as appropriate) when the rules change, which is why you should never rely on an out of date case book. |
|
|
|
|
asterix
Really should get out more
Joined: 01 Aug 09 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 621 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Jul 10 at 11:15am |
|
eek - I thought it had been updated. I will check. thanks |
|
|
|
|
JimC
Really should get out more
Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Jul 10 at 11:22am |
|
|
|
|
|
asterix
Really should get out more
Joined: 01 Aug 09 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 621 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Jul 10 at 11:56am |
|
actually the I think the case is up to date - it appears in the 2010 case book and hasn't been amended as far as I can see. It simply fails to specify where the boats are in relation to the zone (and how big the boats are). A 20 m distance to the mark would be in the zone for boats of 7m and the result (I presume) would be that W was owed mark room and L failed to give it
|
|
|
|
|
JimC
Really should get out more
Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Jul 10 at 12:04pm |
|
As far as the case is concerned I think you can assume the boats aren't in the zone and mark room doesn't apply. After all they don't list all the other rules that don't apply either!
|
|
|
|
|
gordon
Really should get out more
Joined: 07 Sep 04 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1037 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Jul 10 at 5:25pm |
|
If the facts do not mention the zone you can assume that it is not relevant to the case. It was not found as a fact that either boat was in the zone.
By the way - the zone is defined by hull lengths, not boat lengths. Bow sprits, bumkins and other antennae do not count! Gordon |
|
|
Gordon
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy