New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Starboard Rounding Windward Mark Incident
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Starboard Rounding Windward Mark Incident

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
Author
Marcus View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 13 May 13
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
Post Options Post Options   Quote Marcus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Starboard Rounding Windward Mark Incident
    Posted: 15 May 13 at 1:11pm
Club racing last Thursday evening we were involved in an interesting incident at the first windward mark that was to be rounded to starboard. We were approaching the mark on starboard tack while another boat was approaching on port tack. This boat could not lay the mark on port tack so tacked onto starboard less than a boat length clear ahead and slightly to leeward of us within the 3 boat length zone. Being the windward boat we started to keep clear by luffing but in doing so gained an overlap albeit within the zone. The question is do we then have mark room? We actually ended up hitting the mark on our starboard side and then took a 720 penalty because my initial thought was that we were in the wrong, we should maybe have tacked to keep clear which is what we might have done had the mark not been there. However, thinking about it afterwards I'm not sure whether we needed to take the penalty if rule 18 switched on again after we'd acquired the overlap. Tacking to keep clear seems unfair because that would have taken us the wrong side of the mark and it was the action of the other boat in misjudging the port layline and having to tack onto starboard that brought about the incident. 
Back to Top
alstorer View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 07
Location: Cambridge
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2899
Post Options Post Options   Quote alstorer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 13 at 1:17pm
I know something you certainly did wrong- the standard penalty for touching a mark is a "one turn" penalty (previoulsly a 360°), so by doing Two Turns you over-penalised yourself.
-_
Al
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: 15 May 13 at 2:03pm
I'm not sure unfair or not really comes into it: the rules are there to control tactical options, not to provide fairness.

But lets look at my understanding...

Lets call your boat A and the other boat B

Initially boats were on opposite tacks, A is on starboard. Boats are not defined as overlapped because they are on opposite tacks and less than 90 degrees to the true wind.
A has right of way.

B tacks within the zone. She must keep clear until she is on a close hauled course. Did she? If you had to luff before B reached close hauled then B broke rule 13.

Absent Section C B has gained ROW, but has acquired it because of her own actions so initially must give A room to keep clear.

However Rule 18 should come into play.

None of the exceptions in 18.1 seems applicable.

Boats were not overlapped when the first entered the zone (definition).
Neither Boat was clear ahead when they reached the zone because they were on opposite tacks (definition).
So I'm a bit confused about how you can be neither overlapped nor clear astern/ahead, but therefore I don't think 18.2 applies.

18.3 doesn't apply because A was not fetching the mark.

18.4 doesn't apply of course.

So I can find nothing in Rule 18 that actually applies to the situation, but I could easily be wrong. If I'm right neither boat is entitled to mark room, so if in keeping clear of B A touches the mark then that's bad luck: unless being forced to touch the mark somehow counts as not being given room to keep clear. That seems *very* unlikely to me.

I suspect the best option for A is to dump the main and slow down behind B, who now cannot tack without fouling A. Easier said than done though.
Back to Top
moomin View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 19 Jan 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Post Options Post Options   Quote moomin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 13 at 2:40pm

I'd read that boat A was entitled to room as follows:

The only exception to rule 18.2 (a) is if the outside boat was clear ahead on reaching the zone 18.2 (b), at no point was boat B clear ahead. Given they were on opposite tacks on entering the zone, they were not clear ahead as the definition does not apply to boats on opposite tacks. The fact they were neither clear astern or overlapped is not important they do not fall under the defintion of clear ahead which is the only exception to 18.2 (a)
Moomin
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: 15 May 13 at 3:39pm
Originally posted by JimC

I'm not sure unfair or not really comes into it: the rules are there to control tactical options, not to provide fairness.

But lets look at my understanding...

Lets call your boat A and the other boat B

Initially boats were on opposite tacks, A is on starboard. Boats are not defined as overlapped because they are on opposite tacks and less than 90 degrees to the true wind.
A has right of way.

B tacks within the zone. She must keep clear until she is on a close hauled course. Did she? If you had to luff before B reached close hauled then B broke rule 13.

Absent Section C B has gained ROW, but has acquired it because of her own actions so initially must give A room to keep clear.

However Rule 18 should come into play.

None of the exceptions in 18.1 seems applicable.

Boats were not overlapped when the first entered the zone (definition).
Neither Boat was clear ahead when they reached the zone because they were on opposite tacks (definition). .
Spot on so far:  rule 18 applies
Originally posted by JimC

So I'm a bit confused about how you can be neither overlapped nor clear astern/ahead,.
Originally posted by Marcus

[Boat B] could not lay the mark on port tack so tacked onto starboard less than a boat length clear ahead and slightly to leeward of us within the 3 boat length zone. Being the windward boat we started to keep clear by luffing but in doing so gained an overlap albeit within the zone.
B, on completing her tack was initially clear ahead, right of way boat (rule 12).
A then became overlapped to windward and required to keep clear (rule 11), but A was overlapped inside B therefore Rule 18.2( a ) applied:  A was entitled to mark-room.
Originally posted by JimC

but therefore I don't think 18.2 applies..
No rule 18.2 ( a ) applies.
Originally posted by JimC

18.3 doesn't apply because A was not fetching the mark.

18.4 doesn't apply of course.
Yup.  So there's nothing to switch off rule 18.2.
 
Moral for B:  Don't tack in the zone.
 
Back to Top
Rupert View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 11 Aug 04
Location: Whitefriars sc
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8956
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rupert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 13 at 4:32pm
In what way was A not fetching the mark? B couldn't lay it on port, but I can't see where A can't lay it on starboard? Surely if a luff to avoid B involved hitting the mark, then all she had to do was tack to round it? Or is that where the trouble comes in, in that it is a tack to round to starboard, rather than a bear away to round to port, therefore she can't be "fetching" the mark, as a tack is required?

The 2nd half of 18b says "or prevent the other boat from passing the mark on the required side", which forcing A into the mark, does, with or with  out a tack.
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
Back to Top
alstorer View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 07
Location: Cambridge
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2899
Post Options Post Options   Quote alstorer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 13 at 4:33pm

There's an interesting bit in the definitions- normally, boats upwind (less than 90° from the wind) cannot by definition be overlapped. However, it says

unless rule 18 applies

but rule 18 starts by saying that it doesn't apply between boats on the opposite tack.
Could it be possible that boat A automatically has overlap on B until B tacks (inside the zone) but that it is not something that can be taken into consideration until that tack occurs?
-_
Al
Back to Top
Quagers View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279
Post Options Post Options   Quote Quagers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 13 at 5:02pm
Whether boats on opposite tacks/gybes are overlapped it irrelevant except for determining room at a leeward mark.< id="adlesse_unifier_magic_element_id" style="display:none;">

In this situation R18 doesnt turn on until both boats are on the same tack and one of them is within the zone. From what I've read of this situation, when these conditions are met the first boat is clear ahead. Therefore you didn't have mark room.
Back to Top
Quagers View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279
Post Options Post Options   Quote Quagers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 13 at 5:11pm

From your description this is what I'm imagining, the important point is if the overlap exists when blue reaches head to wind or not.

< id="adlesse_unifier_magic_element_id" style="display:none;">

In your description you seem to confuse important rules definitions, under the rules a pair of boats are either overlapped OR clear ahead and clear astern. 

You say they were to leeward but I take it that by that you mean they were just below your line because you later say you become overlapped.


Edited by Quagers - 15 May 13 at 5:15pm
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: 15 May 13 at 5:22pm
OK Brass, I think I've got it: because B was *not* clear ahead when they reached the zone then 18.2a applies: the fact that the overlap wasn't established until they were in the zone doesn't matter: its a kind of double negative situation. Its not that A gains rights when an overlap is established, its a situation where for A not to have rights as inside boat they must have lost those rights by being clear behind. I think its logic that makes more sense in the protest room and on paper than on the water...

Maybe one should say that rights are dependant not on being overlapped at the zone, but on NOT being NOT overlapped.

Rupert, the definition says that if you have to tack to get round the mark you aren't fetching it. Makes sense really!

Quagers, unless I am much mistaken this situation of boats on opposite tacks on a beat is indeed one where the boats are neither overlapped nor clear astern and clear ahead!

Edited by JimC - 15 May 13 at 5:28pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>

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