Proper Course

Originally posted by Brass Originally posted by jeffers However we all know that once an overlap is established by L that W is not allowed to sail below their proper course unless they immediately gybe..... So the whole 'both boats below proper course' argument is a little bit of a red herring as W should have come up to their proper course once the overlap is established. Sorry, we know nothing of the kind. Rule 17.2, which used to say that was deleted in the 2009 rewrite of the RRS.

I'll turn that round.

I'd like to see any case studies or evidence that it could possibly be right. I see absolutely nothing in the rules that mention differences in air as opposed to avoidance of collision.

To me the definition is crystal clear: proper course is the course one would sail if the other boat wasn't there. To change it to "the course one would sail if the other boat wasn't there but nevertheless the effect it has on the wind is still there" seems, well, lets say distinctly odd.

I wonder if the interpretation you and Sargesail have heard goes back to the same person?

Originally posted by JimC I'll turn that round. I'd like to see any case studies or evidence that it could possibly be right. I see absolutely nothing in the rules that mention differences in air as opposed to avoidance of collision. To me the definition is crystal clear: proper course is the course one would sail if the other boat wasn't there. To change it to "the course one would sail if the other boat wasn't there but nevertheless the effect it has on the wind is still there" seems, well, lets say distinctly odd. I wonder if the interpretation you and Sargesail have heard goes back to the same person?

Originally posted by sargesail Originally posted by JimC I'll turn that round. I'd like to see any case studies or evidence that it could possibly be right. I see absolutely nothing in the rules that mention differences in air as opposed to avoidance of collision. To me the definition is crystal clear: proper course is the course one would sail if the other boat wasn't there. To change it to "the course one would sail if the other boat wasn't there but nevertheless the effect it has on the wind is still there" seems, well, lets say distinctly odd. I wonder if the interpretation you and Sargesail have heard goes back to the same person? You were right before Jim - this needs an appeal - as written either of these interpretations could be correct.  An appeal would bring clarity.

Originally posted by jeffers Originally posted by flaming   My own recent example isn't perhaps the best, as they'd driven us down past DDW and blanketed our kite.  But the protest committee certainly didn't react when I said I was trying to come up to fill the kite.   If you were clear ahead then you are well within your rights to do that. If you were still overlapped then you should not unless you can prove a significant shift that is unrelated to being blanketed or getting your dirty wind. If you were allowing them to drive you further off the wind then you should have pushed them back up to your proper course (as the rules allow you to do as it is your proper course not their proper course that is important). If this was the case the the PC were right in not penalising you for that (IMO). This is as long as you gave them sufficient room to keep clear.