New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Try this one...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Try this one...
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
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: 6661 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Try this one...
    Posted: 06 Jun 13 at 4:44pm
Port is approaching starboard on a beat, and has altered course to pass behind starboard. Normal rule 10/16.2 situation. When very close to starboard port observes that starboard's mainsheet has fallen out of the (self draining) boat and is trailing behind starboard for a couple of boat lengths. Starboard is unaware of this.
At this stage port can not crash tack without capsizing and will not succeed in bearing away beyond the length of the mainsheet.

1) What should port do?

2) If port touches the mainsheet, either with or without avoiding action, should either or both boats take a penalty, and if so which?

3) If port does not attempt to evade the mainsheet and it catches on some part of ports boat, causing both boats to have to stop and maybe capsize to sort things out then should either or both boats take a penalty, and if so which?

[fortunately situation 3 didn't occur]

Edited by JimC - 06 Jun 13 at 4:47pm
Back to Top
Lukepiewalker View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1341 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Lukepiewalker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 13 at 5:21pm
That's a good question...
Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard"
Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch"
Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air"
Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile"
Back to Top
Lukepiewalker View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1341 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Lukepiewalker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 13 at 5:24pm
Case 91?
Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard"
Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch"
Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air"
Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile"
Back to Top
Lukepiewalker View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1341 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Lukepiewalker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 13 at 5:26pm
Case 77?
Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard"
Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch"
Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air"
Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile"
Back to Top
Lukepiewalker View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1341 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Lukepiewalker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 13 at 5:30pm
From Case 77 It looks like Starboard failed to avoid contact, but would be exonerated because no damage occured, and Port would be exonerated because they could not reasonably be expected to avoid contact with the equipment out of it's normal position.
Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard"
Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch"
Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air"
Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile"
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: 06 Jun 13 at 6:31pm
Unless Port wants to protest starboard for preventing him from keeping clear, he should either shout at starboard to pull his sheet in, or sail on and see what happens.

Suppose starboard had deliberately trailed his sheet in order to put port at a disadvantage?


If you are very quick at knots, tie a bucket to it?
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: 06 Jun 13 at 9:34pm
If deliberate, it would be the same as pulling a bowsprit out to hit a boat crossing narrowly in front - very against the rules. If accidental, I still can't see how Port can be expected to avoid?
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
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: 06 Jun 13 at 10:29pm
You are expected to avoid equipment out of its normal position if it has been that way for a while. Eg. Boat snaps a spin halyard and the kite drapes over another boat, thats ok. But if someone goes trawling with their kite and it has been that way for a while you should avoid it.

I guess in this case you would claim you couldn't have seen it until it was too late. This is all assuming it is accidental, if deliberate toss starboard under R2. < id="adlesse_unifier_magic_element_id" style="display:none;">
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: 07 Jun 13 at 12:08am
Originally posted by Quagers

You are expected to avoid equipment out of its normal position if it has been that way for a while. Eg. Boat snaps a spin halyard and the kite drapes over another boat, thats ok. But if someone goes trawling with their kite and it has been that way for a while you should avoid it.
 
Based on Case 91.  Nicely put.
 
Originally posted by Lukepiewalker

From Case 77 It looks like Starboard failed to avoid contact, but would be exonerated because no damage occured, and Port would be exonerated because they could not reasonably be expected to avoid contact with the equipment out of it's normal position.
 
Agree that Case 77 says that the right of way boat, whose gear accidentally and unexpectedly moved out of normal position broke rule 14 by causing contact that she could have avoided, but is exonerated because there is no injury or damage.
 
Based on the scenario in Case 77 I'm not real comfortable with the conclusion that A 'caused' contact, nor that the 'cause' of the contact is relevant to whether rule 14 is broken or not.  If I was hearing a protest like this I would be thinking very carefully about whether it was reasonably possible for the right of way boat to have prevented or not allowed her gear to get out of normal position.
 
In this case, Port is not exonerated:  becasue it was not reasonably possible to avoid contact she never broke rule 14 in the first place.
 
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: 07 Jun 13 at 12:22am
Originally posted by RS400atC

Unless Port wants to protest starboard for preventing him from keeping clear, he should either shout at starboard to pull his sheet in, or sail on and see what happens.

Suppose starboard had deliberately trailed his sheet in order to put port at a disadvantage?
 
Originally posted by Rupert

If deliberate, it would be the same as pulling a bowsprit out to hit a boat crossing narrowly in front - very against the rules. If accidental, I still can't see how Port can be expected to avoid?
 
Originally posted by Quagers

This is all assuming it is accidental, if deliberate toss starboard under R2. 
 
I really can't understand this enthusiasm to go grubbing for rule 2, in a case where the OP clearly said it was unintentional
 
Originally posted by JimC

starboard's mainsheet has fallen out of the (self draining) boat and is trailing behind starboard for a couple of boat lengths. Starboard is unaware of this.
 
Case 73 is the case about deliberately making contact, and the test it sets is quite high:  there must be 'no other intention' than to cause a breach of the rules.
 
You should also be aware of the RYA Appeal that is the companion to Case 73
 
RYA 1999/5
When a give-way boat is already breaking a rule of Section A of Part 2 by not keeping clear, deliberate
contact does not necessarily break rule 2.
 
 
 


Edited by Brass - 07 Jun 13 at 12:22am
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

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