Trapezing and Windward Boat

Originally posted by 423zero You are talking a sizeable space to allow for L boat to be able to capsize without touching W, seems to be a gamble by W on a crowded start line, perhaps RO should call any  boats that are to close ?

You are talking a sizeable space to allow for L boat to be able to capsize without touching W, seems to be a gamble by W on a crowded start line, perhaps RO should call any  boats that are to close ?

Originally posted by Brass Originally posted by sargesail You’re not a trapeze crew are you? It’s actually really hard to look into that space behind you! No I'm not. That's no doubt what the guys behind the big assy in Case 107 said. It didn't wash. Head to head on keelboats who are not looking behind their genoas is very different from trapeze skiffs where the speed differential between the boat close to the line, compared with the one approaching late might be 1:3….and that is 3 knots to 9 knots in planing conditions. Originally posted by sargesail So I was talking about 16.1 in the post above at 1842. I don't know why: nobody has ever said that L changed course. You said Originally posted by sargesail Surely no one would argue that in this situation 16.1 applies… I agree with that. Originally posted by sargesail Does L break rule 14 if she brings the boat upright into the mast of a windward boat above her hull? If there isn’t some leeway for L why does the word ‘reasonable’ feature in the rule? Yes. It was reasonably possible for L to not bring her boat upright, therefore it was reasonably possible for her to avoid contact. The test is not was the action [of bring the boat upright] reasonable. The test is was it reasonably possible not to bring the boat upright. Coming back to rule 16. Educate me about pulling the trigger. Does pulling the trigger necessarily involve changing course? Is that what's bubbling along about this rule 16 stuff? Can it reasonably be argued that pulling the trigger: * usually involves changing heading from slightly below CH to CH? OR * by accelerating and the action of the centreboard as the boat comes upright, involves the boat's track moving ahead and to windward (thus changing course)?

No I don’t think that can be reasonably argued as a general rule. Albeit it seems to underpin some posters’ views in this thread it is not the case that a trigger pull necessarily involves a change of course. It would be wrong for a PC to assume that it did.

On the last question of the CB levering the boat’s track to windward, I would say that on very many occasions that I have watched Opis trigger pulling, where W asserted that L had changed course, in 90% of cases it was not magic movement to windward by L but a less good trigger pull by W resulting in W continuing to slide to leeward.

Which to W felt like magic by L!

Crabbing….now that is another matter…..

This is something that pops up a lot sailing the 800. Boats sailing in from behind tight to you, but not enough space for them to step out on the trapeze or for the windward boats leeward tiller to drop to leeward at they try to head up.

Also remind me of a story from the 29er fleet.  Not long after the start the leeward boat dropped their main sheet and capsized to windward. The tip of their mast tore through the windward boats sail. They finished the race, but had to go in for the next one to switch sails. The windward boat then applied for redress.. and not only was not reinstated to the second race, but was disqualified from the first race for not keeping clear (leeward boat didn't change course). 

Originally posted by sargesail You’re not a trapeze crew are you? It’s actually really hard to look into that space behind you!

No I'm not.

That's no doubt what the guys behind the big assy in Case 107 said. It didn't wash.

Originally posted by sargesail So I was talking about 16.1 in the post above at 1842.

I don't know why: nobody has ever said that L changed course.

You said

Originally posted by sargesail Surely no one would argue that in this situation 16.1 applies…

I agree with that.

Originally posted by sargesail Does L break rule 14 if she brings the boat upright into the mast of a windward boat above her hull? If there isn’t some leeway for L why does the word ‘reasonable’ feature in the rule?

Yes.

It was reasonably possible for L to not bring her boat upright, therefore it was reasonably possible for her to avoid contact.

The test is not was the action [of bring the boat upright] reasonable.

The test is was it reasonably possible not to bring the boat upright.



Coming back to rule 16.

Educate me about pulling the trigger.

Does pulling the trigger necessarily involve changing course?

Is that what's bubbling along about this rule 16 stuff?

Can it reasonably be argued that pulling the trigger:

* usually involves changing heading from slightly below CH to CH? OR
* by accelerating and the action of the centreboard as the boat comes upright, involves the boat's track moving ahead and to windward (thus changing course)?