New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Proper Course
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Proper Course
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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: 6662 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Proper Course
    Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 10:06am
A club or class can always use the RYA rules advisory service.
http://www.rya.org.uk/racing/racingrules/Pages/advisoryservice.aspx

It would probably be best to have something put together that covers the situation in detail. However I'd be embarrassed to have that question emanating from my club!
Back to Top
jeffers View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3048 		Post Options Post Options   Quote jeffers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 11:18am
Originally posted by flaming

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.

I certainly don't want to get into re-hearing the protest on a forum.  But it was very cut and dried with a GPS track to back it up.

I only brought it up because when I was asked if I had moved towards them I replied that if I had it had only been to try and fill my kite (which had collapsed) and at no point did anyone suggest that this would have been breaking 17 had I gone above my proper course with the other boat's wind shadow removed.  

As it was I was still well below that, as they'd driven down on us and tried to bully us into sailing low.  I was only below my proper course to avoid hitting them whilst we had a full and frank exchange of views on the subject!  

If you strip out a lot of the chaff it is a simple windward/leeward situation. The Windward boat is the keep clear boat. We all accept that as leeward establish the overlap from astern that leewards actions are restricted to not going above their proper course if/when they luff whilst the 2 boats are overlapped.

If windward bore away in to you all you need to do is call protest. You are not required to take avoiding action until it is clear they are going to break a rule. If they try this kind of bullying tactic regularly then perhaps they really need a rule 2 protest against them?


Edited by jeffers - 04 Dec 13 at 11:20am
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74
Back to Top
flaming View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 04 Oct 11
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 41 		Post Options Post Options   Quote flaming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 11:31am
Originally posted by jeffers

Originally posted by flaming

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.

I certainly don't want to get into re-hearing the protest on a forum.  But it was very cut and dried with a GPS track to back it up.

I only brought it up because when I was asked if I had moved towards them I replied that if I had it had only been to try and fill my kite (which had collapsed) and at no point did anyone suggest that this would have been breaking 17 had I gone above my proper course with the other boat's wind shadow removed.  

As it was I was still well below that, as they'd driven down on us and tried to bully us into sailing low.  I was only below my proper course to avoid hitting them whilst we had a full and frank exchange of views on the subject!  

If you strip out a lot of the chaff it is a simple windward/leeward situation. The Windward boat is the keep clear boat. We all accept the leewards actions are restricted to not going above their proper course if/when they luff.

If windward bore away in to you all you need to do is call protest. You are not required to take avoiding action until it is clear they are going to break a rule. If they try this kind of bullying tactic regularly then perhaps they really need a rule 2 protest against them?

Like I said I really don't want to re-hear the protest on here.  But that was the entire basis of my protest, and there was contact - their boom nearly swept some of our crew out the boat.

Not a persistent offender, new boat to the fleet and I took the situation to be a fairly new sailor who'd got the wrong end of the stick regarding 11 and 17.   Protest ended with them getting a lecture on the relationship between 11 and 17 from the committee, so I'm very happy that I understand the rules as they applied.

I ONLY brought it up with regard to the effect of a wind shadow on the proper course of the leeward boat, and I'm now wishing I hadn't.
Back to Top
jeffers View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3048 		Post Options Post Options   Quote jeffers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 11:39am
Originally posted by flaming

 
I ONLY brought it up with regard to the effect of a wind shadow on the proper course of the leeward boat, and I'm now wishing I hadn't.

That is immaterial as proper course is in the absence of other boats. The counter argument would be that the change of course would not have been required had the other boat not been there.
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74
Back to Top
flaming View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 04 Oct 11
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 41 		Post Options Post Options   Quote flaming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 11:52am
Originally posted by jeffers

Originally posted by flaming

 
I ONLY brought it up with regard to the effect of a wind shadow on the proper course of the leeward boat, and I'm now wishing I hadn't.

That is immaterial as proper course is in the absence of other boats. The counter argument would be that the change of course would not have been required had the other boat not been there.

This is the debate though - I would argue that it's perfectly possible to read the definition of proper course to include the wind shadow effects.

Imagine a boat with an autopilot set such that it always steers the best course by its polars.  You would agree that in open water this boat is always steering its proper course.  But if this boat overtakes another boat to leeward the clever autopilot, which knows nothing of the existence of the other boat, will heat up when the blanketing effect hits.  

I would argue that it's still sailing it's proper course as it's still just trying to sail to polars with respect to the wind hitting the boat, it hasn't altered course for a tactical reason.
Back to Top
jeffers View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3048 		Post Options Post Options   Quote jeffers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 12:38pm
Proper course when racing is clearly defined in the rules, as there was another boat here and there was a wind shadow effect steering to mitigate that effect was not the boat sailing their proper course (IMO):

Proper Course A course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in 
the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term. A boat 
has no proper course before her starting signal. 

Rule 17 states:

17 ON THE SAME TACK; PROPER COURSE 
 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 rule does not apply if the overlap 
begins while the windward boat is required by rule 13 to keep clear. 

It is pretty clear cut. Obviously if you were both sailing below your proper course then you can legitimately luff the windward boat up to your proper course. If they do not keep clear as required then you can protest them.



Edited by jeffers - 04 Dec 13 at 12:42pm
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74
Back to Top
flaming View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 04 Oct 11
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 41 		Post Options Post Options   Quote flaming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 1:04pm
Originally posted by jeffers

Proper course when racing is clearly defined in the rules, as there was another boat here and there was a wind shadow effect steering to mitigate that effect was not the boat sailing their proper course (IMO):

Proper Course A course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in 
the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term. A boat 
has no proper course before her starting signal. 

Rule 17 states:

17 ON THE SAME TACK; PROPER COURSE 
 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 rule does not apply if the overlap 
begins while the windward boat is required by rule 13 to keep clear. 

It is pretty clear cut. Obviously if you were both sailing below your proper course then you can legitimately luff the windward boat up to your proper course. If they do not keep clear as required then you can protest them.


Agree with all that.

Except that when VMG sailing downwind my proper (best VMG) course changes when the wind drops, which it will do in a wind shadow.  To me, that's not the other boat affecting my course, but a change in pressure.
I've certainly always expected boats to come up when the sail into my lee and their kite collapses, this used to be very common back in the days before the 109s go their own start.  
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 1:08pm
It's only clear cut if you take the boat to include it's wind shadow - that's a big step.  I think Flaming's autopilot example is a very good one.

Brass has come in with a strong view from a point of strength given his Rules background.  I'd like to see something concrete.

Jim C thinks it would be embarassing to ask - given the debate here and the lack of a Case law to support interpretation I don't see why....
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: 04 Dec 13 at 1:09pm

Originally posted by JimC

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. 

Originally posted by jeffers

I agree with Jim...your proper course is 'in the absence of other boats'. Clearly the other boat affected your course therefore you did not sail your proper course.

I can't see any scope whatsoever to disagree with JimC and Jeffers:  'in the absence of other boats' means 'in the absence of other boats'.

You don't need and Appeal or a Case to tell you that.  The language is clear and unambiguous.

Originally posted by flaming

The way I've had it explained before is that it's not the other boat that affected you - you didn't alter course because of it's hull, or it's rig.  You altered course because the air getting to your sails was different, and the rules don't deal with differences in air, just the avoidance of collision. 

The rules aren't restricted in that way at all.

As the Americans say 'don't put things into the rules that aren't there'

If you want to have a useful discussion about the rules, please try to use the language of the rules, not some paraphrase of your own.  There's nothing in rule 17 about 'the other boat affecting you' or 'altering course'.

Originally posted by flaming

 The way I see it is that it is often difficult to say, especially in light winds, what is the effect of a wind change, and what the effect of a wind shadow from the other boat.  To expect a crew to differentiate between them and react only to the former is asking a lot in my opinion. .

The rules aren't necessarily written to be easy to umpire.  That's what we have Calls for.

I agree it may be difficult for crews to differentiate on the water, but it is not unreasonable to expect crews to be aware of where the wind shadow of the windward boat is or will be, and there may be a risk - reward decision to be made in responding to a drop in apparent wind in the wind shadow area.

If the windward boat doesn't hot up, then that would be a pretty good indication that the prevailing breeze had not dropped.

Bear in mind that, as I emphasised before, if this comes to a protest much will depend on the evidence of the two boats, but protest committees will often give the benefit of the doubt to the leeward boat, if she comes up with a plausible explanation of why her course was her proper course.

Originally posted by flaming

   It is surely always a boat's proper course to come up and try to fill their kite when it collapses due to a lack of wind.

Sorry, absolutely NOT.  A boat's proper course is what the Definition says it is

A course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term.

Originally posted by flaming

Imagine a boat with an autopilot set such that it always steers the best course by its polars.  You would agree that in open water this boat is always steering its proper course.  But if this boat overtakes another boat to leeward the clever autopilot, which knows nothing of the existence of the other boat, will heat up when the blanketing effect hits.  

I would argue that it's still sailing it's proper course as it's still just trying to sail to polars with respect to the wind hitting the boat, it hasn't altered course for a tactical reason.

Then you would deserve to lose your argument.  There's not the slightest suggestion of 'tactical reasons' in rule 17.
Back to Top
flaming View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 04 Oct 11
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 41 		Post Options Post Options   Quote flaming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 13 at 1:26pm
Originally posted by Brass


Originally posted by flaming

Imagine a boat with an autopilot set such that it always steers the best course by its polars.  You would agree that in open water this boat is always steering its proper course.  But if this boat overtakes another boat to leeward the clever autopilot, which knows nothing of the existence of the other boat, will heat up when the blanketing effect hits.  

I would argue that it's still sailing it's proper course as it's still just trying to sail to polars with respect to the wind hitting the boat, it hasn't altered course for a tactical reason.

Then you would deserve to lose your argument.  There's not the slightest suggestion of 'tactical reasons' in rule 17.


Tactical reasons as in "reasons you might want to break 17 if it did not exist".    

But my boat with its autopilot is still sailing the course it would take to get to finish fastest in the absence of other boats.

It only isn't if you take the wind shadow to be part of the other boat.  Which is a new definition on me.  I don't see anything in the rules that defines a boat to include her wind shadow.

Quite happy to be corrected (however condescendingly) but I don't see anything definitive in the rules to support your position at the moment.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>

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