Windward Mark to Starboard

Originally posted by ohFFsake Windward mark to be left to starboard. Course to next mark is a run. A is approaching the windward mark on Starboard tack at the same time as B approaches on port. Opposite tacks at the windward mark:  take the mark away simple port and starboard (rule 18.1( a ) or ( b )). A cannot tack for the mark without impeding B, so instead elects to remain on starboard, forcing B to tack away. As soon as B passes head to wind, Rule 18 begins to apply, but as both boats are on port heading away from the mark, there is no issue about mark-room. Rule 13 begins to apply:  B must keep clear of A while tacking. A tacks to round the mark. Rule 18 ceases to apply (boats now on opposite tacks) (rule 18.1 ( a ) or ( b )). Rule 13 last sentence applies, both boats tacking, the boat on the right is in the right, B must keep clear of A.  Should not be an issue because both boats are tacking away from one another. B immediately tacks back again If B had reached her close hauled course on starboard before beginning to tack again, she would momentarily have had right of way over A while A was not yet on a close hauled course (rule 13), but once B again passed through head to wind (coming from starboard onto port tack), rule 13 last sentence again applies and B must keep clear of A. If B never reached her close hauled course on starboard before again coming up and passing head to wind onto port, B is the give way boat throughout the whole tack-tack-back manoeuvre (rule 13 last sentence). and makes contact with A whilst A is still completing her tack. Both boats tacking, A is on the right, B must keep clear (rule 13, last sentence). Each boat must avoid contact if reasonably possible (rule 14) probably was possible for B to avoid contact; probably was not reasonably possible for A to avoid contact. Rule 18.3 applies:  A is inside, overlapped, entitled to mark-room, and rule 18.2 does not thereafter apply. After her tack is complete A continues to bear away onto a run and As she does so, B bears away very tightly inside A, initially gaining an overlap to leeward whilst both boats are on port tack. When B becomes overlapped to leeward inside A, she becomes right of way boat (rule 11);  and she does NOT become entitled to mark-room because rule 18.3 switched off rule 18.2( a ). [A then] gybes onto starboard which is her proper course to sail directly to the next mark. A becomes right of way boat (rule 10), and neither was entitled to mark-room. As she does so, B bears away very tightly inside A, initially gaining an overlap to leeward whilst both boats are on port tack. After A gybes onto starboard B has to alter course quickly to avoid contact and hails A requesting she do turns, as she had no right to gybe in B's water. B has some problems here: she has give up her basis for a valid protest because she has not hailed the word 'protest' using 1960s language like 'gybing in my water' indicates pretty clearly that she doesn't understand the rules, bearing in mind that there is no rule analogous to rule 13 while tacking applicable to gybing. A  may have broken a rule if while bearing away into her gybe she did not keep clear of B The incident B has hailed about seems pretty distinct to the previous rule 13/contact incident, which seemingly A did not hail 'protest' for:  A can only drag that up if she can establish a causal link between the incidents, that is, had the tack-back and contact been so messy that it pushed both boats around the mark an into the next bearing away/gybing situation. Questions: 1. My view is that the initial contact was a simple case of simultaneous tacking so B was in the wrong. Agree  But does rule 18 affect this in any way? No 2. As B tacked within the zone whilst A was overlapped inside her, I believe she is then obliged to grant A mark room (rule 18). Yes, rule 18.3( b ), but it's triggered in two steps:  firstly rule 18.3 applies because A is fetching the mark:  she doesn't need to be overlapped to switch rule 18.3 on (and rule 18.2 off):  A's entitlement to mark-room, once rule 18.3 is on,  is triggered on by becoming overlapped inside, and ceases if she ceases to be overlapped. Does this extend to allowing A room to gybe if that is her proper course to the next mark? Unlike the entitlement under rule 18.2( b ) which endures while ever the entitled boat is in the zone, mark-room entitlements under rule 18.3 (and 18.2( a ), only applies while the boat is overlapped inside. Had A rolled into her gybe while B was overlapped outside her, B would have been required to give A room for her stern to kick out and her boom to come across. But once B fell clear astern of A so as to spin inside her, she was no longer required to give A mark-room. In other words, at what point does rule 18 switch back off? Rule 18 does not 'switch off'.  Only rule 18.2 is switched off by rule 18.3, and the circumstances for mark-room entitlement under rule 18.3 are no longer met:  if A again became overlapped inside B (and was still rounding the mark) her entitlement would switch back on again. 3. If the answer to B is no, then my understanding is that A's gybe from port to starboard gives her right of way subject to initially allowing B room and opportunity to keep clear. As discussed above, A was entitled to mark-room, but only while she was overlapped inside:  from the time B fell back clear astern to dive into the hole, neither boat was entitled to mark-room, even though rule 18.3 continued to apply. For A it's a simple gybing when ahead problem: initially she's right of way, clear ahead (rule 12); as she bears away and B bears away inside her, she will become overlapped outside to windward and will be the give way boat (rule 11) as she continues to bear away into her gybe, she must initially keep clear of B while on the same tack, then when on her new tack (making her right of way, starboard) she must initially give B room to keep clear (rule 15) Normally A manages this by soaking down so she is dead ahead or nearly, of B before gybing. If she's overlapped and close when she gybes, she's taking risks. And it's 'room' that A initially has to give, not 'opportunity' <g>. In this instance, does the simple fact that B was able to avoid A demonstrate that A complied with this requirement? In this instance, the simple fact is that B did avoid A:  that she was able to raises more complicated issues. If B was able to avoid A without taking any action before A gybed, then, before she gybed, A kept clear and broke no rule.  Conversely, if B needed to take action (had reasonable apprehension that if she did not there would be contact (Case 50)) to avoid A before A gybed, then A was not keeping clear.

Interesting stuff, thank you.

One slightly silly related question. If telling someone they can't tack/gybe in my water is very 1960s, what should I say to prevent someone from doing it, in language that will both be understood by the other boat and hold up in a protest?

Originally posted by ohFFsake Given that the proper course is actually on the opposite gybe, surely she is (at least) obliged to sail no higher than a dead run. So given that A is turning more slowly, she should be able to bear off onto a dead run without infringing.

Trouble is a dead run is not going to be a proper course for the vast majority of boats. Almost everything has a better VMG a greater or lesser number of degrees off, so I think you're in very shakey ground saying someone needs to be on a dead run. The other thing that worries me about your phrasing for that is that you seem to be getting close to suggesting that L as a ROW boat is required to sail a proper course, which I'm uncomfortable with.

I can't see anything in rules or casebook directly on this, but my feeling is, if two boats were to meet like this in the middle of a running leg I would think it reasonable that L could take W past the normal point when L would gybe for the mark without being accused of sailing above her proper course, it would be reasonable for L to continue on a max VMG course. If that is indeed the case then I would think the same applies in your situation if RRS18 doesn't apply. But I could easily be wrong.

Originally posted by ohFFsake Thanks so much for the excellent breakdown, as ever. Untangling a seemingly complex manoeuvre into a discrete series of steps makes everything far easier to understand. Yes, it's a useful technique anyone can use. Each tack, each gybe and each time boats become or cease to be overlapped, and whenever a boat reaches the zone creates a 'transition'. Some 'transitions' are 'right of way' or 'room' transitions, and some are merely 'rule' transitions, where right or way or room entitlements don't change but the applicable rule does. Applying it to your scenario was much helped by your clear sequential description. To clarify a few points arising: 1. Neither boat hailed protest so end of story in terms of taking it any further. My reason for posting was just to clarify the rights and wrongs to further our own future knowledge. That's fine, but if B is talking about doing turns she should understand that she's wasting her time if she doesn't comply with the simple protest requirement. 2. A was a keelboat, B was a slower dinghy, but with a tighter turning circle. 3. In the absence of any other boats, A's course to the next mark would have been an immediate gybe-set. (Symmetric kite was already rigged for a starboard tack hoist) It is doubtful whether B did gain an overlap below A when both both boats were still on port tack. If she did it was only briefly as A was travelling faster. Usually a good sign that A will be OK, but remember, as A bears away into her gybe her transom-line rotates, and her turn may well create an overlap before she gybes her sail. But giving B the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they did obtain an overlap, then to my mind either: (a) if both boats are still in the process of rounding the mark, B may be able to claim room as A tacked within the zone (same rule that granted A room moments earlier). When B tacked from port to starboard, even if it was in the zone, rule 18 came on (both boats on same tack), but it was 18.2, not 18.3, because S was not fetching the mark. When A tacked from starboard to port in the zone, rule 18 ceased to apply altogether because boats came to be on opposite tacks. Only when B tacked back onto port in the zone, while A was fetching the mark did rule 18.3 begin to apply, and if rule 18.3 applies only the fetching boat can ever get an entitlement to mark-room. OK:  if all this was happening a bit further away from the mark and B passed head to wind coming from starboard onto port outside the zone, then it's not 18.3, but 18.2( a ) which will apply and that will give mark-room to whichever boat is overlapped inside at any time. However, as the proper course to the next mark requires a gybe, B is obliged to do so at the earliest opportunity. Only if she is overlapped inside and has right of way (rule 18.4).  Once S gybes P no longer has right of way. or (b) If both boats are deemed to have completed the mark rounding and are now sailing in open water, then if B gains an overlap to leeward she must not sail above her proper course to the next mark. Given that the proper course is actually on the opposite gybe, surely she is (at least) obliged to sail no higher than a dead run. So given that A is turning more slowly, she should be able to bear off onto a dead run without infringing. Good catch, yes rule 17 requires B to sail no higher than her proper course. But for that to work, A has to persuade the protest committee (as well as validly protesting <g>) that B's proper course was to gybe, while B can very well argue that her proper course was to stand on into a favorable gust or tide/current patch. And rule 17 and the right of way rules act independently:  A can't be exonerated for failing to keep clear because B broke rule 17:  A's only remedy is to keep clear and protest.