New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Laser Start?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Laser Start?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Jon711 View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 04 May 07
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 465
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jon711 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Laser Start?
    Posted: 15 May 11 at 9:12am
I agree with Jeffers, but there is a need for more info. Just checked through the appeals book, and can find no match, unless there is something we are not being told...

Jon
Blaze 711
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: 15 May 11 at 11:41am
There are 2  probable scenarios:

It is extremely improbable that  A was exactly head to wind . Head to wind is a very precise point, not a course  that a boat can remain on for more than a very short time. The rules only mention passing head to wind (a transition) and a boat is only considered to have passed head to wind when it is clear that she has done so (using the principle of "last point of certainty). Unless there is very definite evidence it is safer to assume that A was somewhere between a closehauled course on starboard and the point where she had clearly passed beyond head to wind.

The scenarios depend on how A got to this point of sailing
 
Scenario 1:

If A had luffed from a starboard close hauled course without passing head to wind she is still on starboard.
B approaches from astern. B is keep clear boat (rule 12)
B establishes an overlap to leeward and acquires right of way (rule 11). Rule 15 applies and B must give A room to keep clear. Room is the space needs in the existing conditions to manoeuvre in aseamanlike manner -which for a Laser stopped or sailing very slowly means room to bear away (more to full and by rather than close-hauled). If A does this promptly when B establishes the overlap (not before) than B must give A room to do so. If there is contact whilst A is acting promptly to keep clear then B has broken rule 15.

2 If A has clearly passed beyond head to wind and either returned to starboard tack (without reaching close hauled) or  passed head to wind having been on port tack, but has yet to reach a starboard close-hauled course, then rule 13 applies and A is a keep clear boat.

B does not acquire right of way when she establishes an overlap as she was already ROW boat (see rule 15). A must keep clear. However, if B changes course then rule 16.1 applies and B must give room to A to keep clear.

Hope this is clear

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


Joined: 27 Aug 10
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 512
Post Options Post Options   Quote blueboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 11 at 3:31pm
Gordon, would welcome an opinion on a related situation.

Prestart, keelboats L and W are overlapped, both on starboard, luffing and almost stationary. W is clear of L by around a foot and every time W goes up, L closes the gap again to maximise her own gap to leeward. At the gun, L bore away sharply, rotating around her keel and causing her stern to swing to windward and make contact with W. No damage resulted.

I was W. It appeared to me I was making all possible effort to keep clear, particularly since every time I went up, L also went up and that L broke 16.1 (changed course to bear away and did not give me room to keep clear). L considered I broke rule 11. There was no protest.

Thoughts?


Edited by blueboy - 15 May 11 at 3:47pm
Back to Top
RS400atC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Dec 08
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3011
Post Options Post Options   Quote RS400atC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 11 at 8:14pm
Blueboy,
Contact without protest, both DSQ.

I would say the windward boat's case sounds good.


OP
Whoever first used the word 'overtaking' gets DSQ'd and has to get a round in, unless of course the incident was after sunset.
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: 15 May 11 at 8:26pm
RC400atC
"Contact without protest, both DSQ."

Under which rule of the 2009-2012 rules would a protest committee impose such a penalty

Could you be thinking of rule 33.2 of a previous version of the rules that have not been applicable for at least 10 years!

Gordon
Gordon
Back to Top
RS400atC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Dec 08
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3011
Post Options Post Options   Quote RS400atC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 11 at 8:52pm
Basic Principle:
... a body off rules that they are expected to obey and enforce...

A rule was broken, if you are in the right you should protest, if you are in the wrong or unsure you should accept a penalty.








OK I admit my knowledge of R14 was out of date, that's why I read this forum, I've learned something, thanks!
(10 years is not very long in terms of rules knowledge around Portsmouth, when did 'overtaking' leave the rule book?, I heard it from a sailing sec last month I do believe!)
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: 15 May 11 at 10:12pm
The rules were changed in 1997.

However, even in the old rules, valid at least since the 60s and probably since the 40s (some research needed) there was no mention of overtaking. The notion of overtaking boat comes from the Collision Regulations.
 
The old rule 33.2 meant that a third boat could protest both boats for a minor contact and get them both DSQ'd, leading to vexatious protests. Under the present rules it is rare to protest only for breaking rule 14, because the rule gives some protection to the ROW boat.

The keep clear boat will be DSQ'd for breaking another rule and rule 14 whereas the ROW boat will only be penalised under this rule if there was damage or injury.

It is quite frequent that, to a third party, a rule appears to have been broken without a protest being called.

Gordon

Gordon
Gordon
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: 16 May 11 at 1:54am
Originally posted by blueboy

Gordon, would welcome an opinion on a related situation.

Prestart, keelboats L and W are overlapped, both on starboard, luffing and almost stationary. W is clear of L by around a foot and every time W goes up, L closes the gap again to maximise her own gap to leeward. At the gun, L bore away sharply, rotating around her keel and causing her stern to swing to windward and make contact with W. No damage resulted.

I was W. It appeared to me I was making all possible effort to keep clear, particularly since every time I went up, L also went up and that L broke 16.1 (changed course to bear away and did not give me room to keep clear). L considered I broke rule 11. There was no protest.
 
Take a look at the definition of Keep Clear, last part:
 
Keep Clear One boat keeps clear of another if the other can sail her course
with no need to take avoiding action and, when the boats are overlapped on
the same tack, if the leeward boat can change course in both directions
without immediately making contact with the windward boat.
With only 1 foot of separation, it seems quite likely that when L bore away, she immediately made contact, thus, just before L bore away, you were not keeping clear.
 
L can argue that, up until she bore away, while she was luffing, she was allowing you sufficient room to keep clear (evidenced by the fact that there was no contact up to that point).  She can then argue that your failure to keep clear in breach of rule 11 the instant before she bore away (for which you deserve to be penalised) compelled her to contact you when she changed course away from the wind in breach of rule 16.1.
 
In a nutshell, you broke rule 11 first, before L broke rule 16.1, and L can argue that your breach caused her breach, and that she should be exonerated.
 
Normally the 'doing all W can' to keep clear notion applies to a hard, aggresive, continuous luff: can you really say you couldn't possibly have come up harder and made the gap bigger?
 
In the case of a gradual luff to build a cushion as you describe, L would be smart to say that her course consisted of a series of small luffs, puncutated by short periods of holding course while you responded, culminating with a period of holding course to allow you to get further away, before bearing away.  W will usually find it very hard to refute this story.
 
 
Back to Top
blueboy View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 27 Aug 10
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 512
Post Options Post Options   Quote blueboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 11 at 5:27am
Originally posted by RS400atC

Blueboy,
Contact without protest, both DSQ.


Nope, because there was no damage. 14(b).

can you really say you couldn't possibly have come up harder and made the gap bigger?


Yes, because in this class, when you change course the boat essentially rotates around the fin keel. His stern came up towards my stern as he bore away and the contact was at the stern quarter. If I luffed, my stern would turn towards his. For a period at least there would be less room, not more. Conceivably, I might have avoided contact by bearing away, not luffing more, but then there may have contact elsewhere e.g. between rigs.

In a nutshell, you broke rule 11 first, before L broke rule 16.1, and L can argue that your breach caused her breach, and that she should be exonerated.


I would however argue that he could have beared away with the space remaining, just not so sharply as he chose to do. Before he bore away, I was keeping clear. So to what extent did I need to anticipate his bearing away?

With only 1 foot of separation,


Not particularly my choice since any more was immediately filled by L. However I've sailed a variety of keelboat classes and a foot of separation on an aggressive startline is, like it or not, pretty normal.

I'd agree however that I don't know how this would have played out in a protest room. Neither, apparently, did he! We had a subsequent polite but tense exchange of views on the incident and I'm fairly sure if he was confident he'd win a protest he would have filed one.





Edited by blueboy - 16 May 11 at 6:03am
Back to Top
RS400atC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Dec 08
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3011
Post Options Post Options   Quote RS400atC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 11 at 8:41am
If a witness had protested both boats what would have been the outcome?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>

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