New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Extreme 40 crash decision
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Extreme 40 crash decision
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 9>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
rb_stretch View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 23 Aug 10
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 742 		Post Options Post Options   Quote rb_stretch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Extreme 40 crash decision
    Posted: 13 Aug 11 at 12:55pm
Originally posted by JimC


I really don't know how you get there. Of course it was an avoidable collision: *THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TACKED*. You don't tack if by doing so you create a collision situation.



I agree that they shouldn't have tacked in scenario 1, but that doesn't absolve R from taking avoiding action if A did tack. That is the racing rules.

Given the latest news I think that sends the right message which is above all else avoid a collision and use the rules to get your redress.
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: 13 Aug 11 at 1:26pm
They shouldn't have tacked in any scenario I can see... Still seems weird to me... Consider the situation on EG.

"OK guys, we've got them pinned. Keep her going until we're right past the layline and we'll tack ahead of them and take the race..."

"******* **** they're tacking"

"What? No? ****, *****, can't crash tack at this ********* speed she'll capsize on the roundup, ****, ease the ******* main, duck, down"

[FX bang]

Edited by JimC - 13 Aug 11 at 1:30pm
Back to Top
asterix View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 01 Aug 09
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 621 		Post Options Post Options   Quote asterix Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Aug 11 at 2:53pm
To me the video makes it look questionable as to whether Artemis actually tacked slightly too soon.  Even if they hadn't been hit by Roth, Art might have struggled to make the mark anyway.  If Art had waited fractionally before tacking then they might have been able to keep further from head to wind and kept a bit more speed on through the tack (as it was they were almost going backwards at one point).   
Back to Top
Scooby_simon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 02 Apr 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2415 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Scooby_simon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Aug 11 at 3:03pm
Originally posted by JimC

They shouldn't have tacked in any scenario I can see... Still seems weird to me... Consider the situation on EG.

"OK guys, we've got them pinned. Keep her going until we're right past the layline and we'll tack ahead of them and take the race..."

"******* **** they're tacking"

"What? No? ****, *****, can't crash tack at this ********* speed she'll capsize on the roundup, ****, ease the ******* main, duck, down"

[FX bang]
 
Jim; do boats capsize when they HEADUP ?  Do Cats capsize when they headup?
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
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: 21 Sep 11 at 10:16pm
In the somewhat curt words of a Jury's findings:

Facts found: On a beat, with both boats on port, A was clear ahead of R. A luffed and passed beyond head to wind. Before A reached a close-hauled course, R, now on a collision course, started to bear away. There was contact, causing considerable damage to both boats, between A's port quarter and R's port bow.

Conclusion: A, whilst tacking, did not keep clear of R. A broke rule 13.
R, right of way boat, took action to avoid contact when it became obvious that A was not keeping clear but was unable to avoid contact. Rule 14(a) applies. A rule 44 penalty is not appropriate as A's breach of rule 13 caused serious damage (44.1(b)

Decision:  A is disqualified

Gordon
Gordon
Back to Top
Scooby_simon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 02 Apr 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2415 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Scooby_simon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Sep 11 at 10:44pm

Gordon; so does this set a precedent that we HAVE TO ASSUME that crew(s) will not sail the boat properly and thus allow room for people who do not know how to sail the boat (or boats) properly.

I still hold the opinion that IF they had blown the main and not eased the Jib they WOULD have made the bear-off easily... (or they could have tacked)

 
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
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: 22 Sep 11 at 2:03am
Originally posted by Scooby_simon

Gordon; so does this set a precedent that we HAVE TO ASSUME that crew(s) will not sail the boat properly and thus allow room for people who do not know how to sail the boat (or boats) properly.

I still hold the opinion that IF they had blown the main and not eased the Jib they WOULD have made the bear-off easily... (or they could have tacked) 

 
Reading (or writing) between the lines of the protest decision:
When R started to bear away after A passed head to wind, R had a reasonable apprehension of collision, which under Case 50 means that A had, at that instant failed to keep clear and broken rule 13.
 
R bore away to a course that,  had A accelerated normally out of her tack, would have been sufficient for R to pass behind A.
 
A stalled and did not accelerate normally out of her tack.  It was only at this point that it became clear to R (or anybody else) that A would not keep clear of R's new course.  This was the point at which time starts to run for R to avoid contact under rule 14(a).
 
Starting from the point where it became clear that A was not accelerating normally out of her tack, it was then not reasonably possible for R to further change course or take any other action to avoid contact.
 
R did not break rule 14. 
It's not clear who Simon is referring to when he says "we HAVE TO ASSUME that crew(s) will not sail the boat properly and thus allow room".
 
The protest decision did not address 'room'.
 
With regard to A, when she reached a close hauled course, she would have had an obligation under rule 15 to give R room to keep clear, but by that time, A had already failed to keep clear of R thus breaking rule 13.  Once a boat has broken rule 13, there is little point in going into whether, in the same incident, but a few seconds later, having gained right of way, she also failed to give room to keep clear.
 
With regard to R, when she first bore away to avoid A, she had an obligation under rule 16 to give A space a she needed [to keep clear of R] in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.  Arguably A's failure to accelerate normally out of her tack was not manoeuvering promptly in a seamanlike way, thus R did not fail to give A room to which she was entitled, and R did not break rule 16.
 
Simon is entitled to his opinion but, given that he was not in a good position to observe the incident directly and did not hear the evidence given to the protest committee, there is no reason for the rest of us to prefer his opinion to the opinion of the protest committee.


Edited by Brass - 22 Sep 11 at 2:05am
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: 22 Sep 11 at 8:01am
Totally agree with Brass - I should point out that the "Jury's findings" were an attempt to write up the incident as a Jury would have done, rather than a quote from an actual hearing!

Incidentally - rule 14 states "shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible". The rule imposes an obligation to take action, not an obligation that the action should succeed!

On the other hand, rule 13 places an absolute obligation on the tacking boat to keep clear. If the tacking boat has not allowed enough room to keep clear if the tack is less than perfect that is her problem and no-one else's.

In this case, however, my reading of the incident is that rule 13 was broken almost immediately after A passed beyond head to wind. As soon as R reasonably felt it necessary to bear away, A had broken the rule. A's failure to accelerate out of the tack  did not break a rule, but rendered the collision inevitable.

Gordon
Gordon
Back to Top
Andymac View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Apr 07
Location: Derbyshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 852 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Andymac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 8:26am
Originally posted by gordon

Totally agree with Brass
 
+1
Back to Top
Scooby_simon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 02 Apr 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2415 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Scooby_simon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 8:30am
Originally posted by gordon


In this case, however, my reading of the incident is that rule 13 was broken almost immediately after A passed beyond head to wind. As soon as R reasonably felt it necessary to bear away, A had broken the rule. A's failure to accelerate out of the tack  did not break a rule, but rendered the collision inevitable.

Gordon
 
OK; Given R did not sail the boat as any CAT SAILOR would expect, ie they dumped the Jib (thus making the bear-off difficult) and did not dump the mainsail (thus making it even more difficult). 
 
Does the poor boat handling of R (Dump jib; don't dump main) not have bearing on this?  it's my reading / understanding that R needs to take REASONABLE action to avoid A what is now on STBD; my point is that I believe dumping the jib, and not dumping the main, is NOT REASONABE action when attemping to bear off in a catamaran.   
 
IF the main HAD been dumped and the jib NOT eased, I firmly believe that they WOULD have avoided this collission. 
 
It's a moot point; but I believe has implcations for any close call in cat racing. 
 
thus
 
If I am A, do I have to assume that R will not act in a reasonable manner when bearing off? (and thus assume they will carry on on current heading and thus allow "extra" room.
IF I am R, Can I assume that I do not have to act in a reasonable manner when avoiding a boat that has tacked onto stbd (but may have stalled), and that if I do (dump jib/don't dump main) that I will be exonerated?
 
 
Given this decision, do we now assume boats will NOT take reasonable actions?
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 9>

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