New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Rules at Windward Mark - Video
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Rules at Windward Mark - Video
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
ds797 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 28 Mar 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11 		Post Options Post Options   Quote ds797 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Rules at Windward Mark - Video
    Posted: 02 Jul 11 at 2:49pm
Hello can anyone help please?  Whilst browsing the net, I found these two videos of Rainmaker Finngulf 331 during the Scottish series.  The tactician is shouting to another boat "don't tack" and "there's no such thing as water at the windward mark".

Is this correct and can someone explain/clarify this situation please?

From Mast camera:

http://www.rainmakersailing.com/page80.html

From Cockpit camera:

http://www.rainmakersailing.com/page80a.html

Thanks for your help!
Back to Top
Andymac View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Apr 07
Location: Derbyshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 852 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Andymac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 11 at 4:49pm
It appears that both boats are overlapped on Port tack.
I am presuming that they are just reaching the Starboard layline.
In the absence of any other boat, I would agree with the rainmaker tacticians assertion...
However, as far as I can make out, the 3rd boat approaching on Starboard gives the leeward boat an entitlement to call for 'room to tack' (at an obstruction) at which Rainmaker would have to allow room (probably by tacking themselves and putting themselves under the layline).  Rainmaker pre-empted the leeward boats call for 'room to tack' and basically denied them a right. I would suggest that the leeward boat was 'bullied' out of turning the situation to their favour and burying Rainmaker under the layline.
Good call or bad call? depends how you look at it.
Back to Top
AlexM View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 10 Jan 06
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		Post Options Post Options   Quote AlexM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 11 at 5:02pm
Hmmm Im not sure about that....
I think that guy is wrong (PL was entitled to choose between tacking and bearing away (see rule 19.2(a)). )
 
Back to Top
Andymac View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Apr 07
Location: Derbyshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 852 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Andymac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 11 at 6:59pm
Yep, that is the way I see it as well.
 
I think there was a fair bit of 'gamesmanship' from Rainmakers tactician in stopping the leeward boat from tacking right up until the Starboard boat presented itself as an 'obstruction', then Port leeward could have hailed room to tack and Rainmaker would have been obliged to give it, otherwise there would have been an almighty *&%$*! I think the dialogue managed to bamboozle the other boat into taking option B (which at the end of the day probably didn't hurt it any more than tacking under the Starboard tack boat). meanwhile Rainmaker preserved its place on the layline. A win-win outcome for Rainmaker.
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: 02 Jul 11 at 8:13pm
Except that if Rainmaker is making hails to deliberately confuse another boat about what rules apply then I submit that they are in a sticky situation vis a vis Rule 2: fair sailing... If a protest came to a PC I was on then I would take a look at Case 47 and consider whether rule 2 applied to the situation, and if the PC considered it did Rainmaker would be scoring a DND...

Edited by JimC - 02 Jul 11 at 10:18pm
Back to Top
Stuart O View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 22 Jul 07
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 514 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Stuart O Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 11 at 9:54pm
It will all depend on the call from the leeward boat. 'water' to tack for a starboard call permitted, but if the leeward boat is NOT on a collision course then the call no water to tack is correct, however if the leeward boat decides to bear away then they must give enough water for the windward boat to do the same...fun eh?
Studying the video in this case IMHO Rainmaker is in the wrong
Back to Top
Andymac View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Apr 07
Location: Derbyshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 852 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Andymac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 11 at 8:46am
Originally posted by JimC

Except that if Rainmaker is making hails to deliberately confuse another boat about what rules apply then I submit that they are in a sticky situation vis a vis Rule 2: fair sailing... If a protest came to a PC I was on then I would take a look at Case 47 and consider whether rule 2 applied to the situation, and if the PC considered it did Rainmaker would be scoring a DND...
 
Quite.
However I would suggest that Rainmaker was correct up to a point, but ONLY up until the leeward boat was entitled to call for room to tack (which it didn't). Rainmaker was in a controlling position over the leeward boat and was asserting its position correctly. The dynamics only changed when the Starboard boat came on the scene.
At which point Rainmaker would have to concede room for leeward boat to tack is the contentious issue here. Since the leeward boat never made the call, then I think it would be difficult to pin anything on Rainmaker.
The leeward boat could have called 'room to tack' whilst keeping its escape route option open to duck the Starboard boat given that Rainmaker had given indication that it would not allow it to tack earlier, and could have put sufficient doubt in their mind, that Rainmaker would respond appropriately. In which case Rainmaker could get buried in a protest hearing.
 
EDIT: Having just checked the ISAF definition of an obstruction, it states within one hull length, so that is the point that leeward can call for room to tack. I don't think Rainmaker was calling NO at that point.


Edited by Andymac - 03 Jul 11 at 9:36am
Back to Top
laser4000 View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 02 Aug 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589 		Post Options Post Options   Quote laser4000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 11 at 1:00pm
Originally posted by Andymac

 
EDIT: Having just checked the ISAF definition of an obstruction, it states within one hull length, so that is the point that leeward can call for room to tack. I don't think Rainmaker was calling NO at that point.


No that's the definition of an obstruction - designed to distinguish between a 30 ft yacht and a 1ft piece of driftwood floating on the surface. It does NOT define the point in time in which the leeward boat can call for room to tack. They are overlapped at 3 BL and the leeward can hail when  they feel their safety may be affected. (Preamble to case 54 states - When a boat approaching an obstruction has hailed for room to tack, the protest committee should normally accept her judgment as to when safety required the hail)

Remember that under 20.1  PL needs to give PW (rainmaker) time to respond appropriately to the hail, which may be to tack - or hail 'you tack' (unlikely here) - got to allow a couple of seconds to get the lard to leeward to uncleat and go into a tack, and then PL would need to do the same. According to the RYA tables assuming a force 4, 30 foot boat (bit longer probably) then it will cover 1 BL in about 5 seconds - would a hail at 1 BL be sufficient to get all that done? I doubt it?




 
Back to Top
Andymac View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Apr 07
Location: Derbyshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 852 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Andymac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 11 at 5:02pm
I concede the point you make (I guess it could be done in my little Laser), which seems to turn it back around to PL dictating the moment it 'needs' to call 'room to tack' rather than Rainmaker dictating it.
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: 04 Jul 11 at 5:13am
Originally posted by Andymac

It appears that both boats are overlapped on Port tack.
I am presuming that they are just reaching the Starboard layline.
In the absence of any other boat, I would agree with the rainmaker tacticians assertion...
However, as far as I can make out, the 3rd boat approaching on Starboard gives the leeward boat an entitlement to call for 'room to tack' (at an obstruction) at which Rainmaker would have to allow room (probably by tacking themselves and putting themselves under the layline).  Rainmaker pre-empted the leeward boats call for 'room to tack' and basically denied them a right. I would suggest that the leeward boat was 'bullied' out of turning the situation to their favour and burying Rainmaker under the layline.
Good call or bad call? depends how you look at it.
 
Originally posted by Andymac

Yep, that is the way I see it as well. I think there was a fair bit of 'gamesmanship' from Rainmakers tactician in stopping the leeward boat from tacking right up until the Starboard boat presented itself as an 'obstruction', then Port leeward could have hailed room to tack and Rainmaker would have been obliged to give it, otherwise there would have been an almighty *&%$*! I think the dialogue managed to bamboozle the other boat into taking option B (which at the end of the day probably didn't hurt it any more than tacking under the Starboard tack boat). meanwhile Rainmaker preserved its place on the layline. A win-win outcome for Rainmaker.
 
Originally posted by Andymac

Originally posted by JimC

Except that if Rainmaker is making hails to deliberately confuse another boat about what rules apply then I submit that they are in a sticky situation vis a vis Rule 2: fair sailing... If a protest came to a PC I was on then I would take a look at Case 47 and consider whether rule 2 applied to the situation, and if the PC considered it did Rainmaker would be scoring a DND...
 Quite.
However I would suggest that Rainmaker was correct up to a point, but ONLY up until the leeward boat was entitled to call for room to tack (which it didn't). Rainmaker was in a controlling position over the leeward boat and was asserting its position correctly. The dynamics only changed when the Starboard boat came on the scene.
At which point Rainmaker would have to concede room for leeward boat to tack is the contentious issue here. Since the leeward boat never made the call, then I think it would be difficult to pin anything on Rainmaker.
The leeward boat could have called 'room to tack' whilst keeping its escape route option open to duck the Starboard boat given that Rainmaker had given indication that it would not allow it to tack earlier, and could have put sufficient doubt in their mind, that Rainmaker would respond appropriately. In which case Rainmaker could get buried in a protest hearing.
 
Snipped the bit about one boat length and obstruction:  rule 19 applies when a boat is 'at' or maybe about to be 'at' an obstruction (rule 19.1) and rule 20 applies when a boat is 'approaching' an obstruction (rule 20.1).  Are we all happy with that? 
 
I agree PW was in the right. I think she was in the right throughout.
 
Until she hails for room to tack under rule 20, if PL tacks under PW's nose, she will almost inevitably brak rule 13 then, if not rule 13, rule 15.  Whlle the loanguage grates on me too, that's near enough to being 'not allowed to tack'.  See Case 15 which says (CASTN boat rule 12 no different from windward overlapped boat rule 11) the give way boat 'is entitled to hold her course and thereby prevent the other from tacking'.
 
If a tack will result in PL breaking rule 13 or 15, you cannot say she has a right to tack.
 
PL's right, initially was to change course to windward as far as head to wind (rule 11), then, once S is close enough, then PL obtained an entitlement to hail for room to tack under rule 20.  Once PL hails under rule 20 she is most definitely 'not allowed to tack' until she has allowed PW time to respond (rule 20.1(a)).  Only then does PL acquire a 'right' to tack.
 
The 'point Rainmaker would have to concede room for leeward boat to tack' is never reached because PL never (as far as I could hear) made a hail for room to tack. 
 
Using rule 20 in a tactically aggresive way as you describe requires a pretty fair knowledge of the rules, to a degree that, if PL had been contemplating doing it, I wouldn't expect them to be distracted by a bit of shouting off their weather hip.  All PL needed to do to set PW right back on her heels was to hail 'room to tack for the obstruction'.  As far as I heard from the clips she never did this, and she eventually exercised her rule 19.2 choice and passed astern of S.
 
In my opinion, PW did nothing wrong.  PW's hail was not misleading:  for example she did not hail 'no room to tack', or 'don't call for water', she just called it as it was.  PW had every right in the world to hail aggressively to prevent PL from breaking a rule where it would have been considerably to PW's disadvantage.
 
Sailors 'advise' their competitors about the rules on the water, at greater or lesser volume and with greater or lesser correctness all the time.
 
Yes, falsely bluffing a competitor about the rules is unsporting and breaks rule 2, but being loud, aggressive and possibly mistaken does not.
 
Case 47 deals with misleading hails.  You can readily draw some principles from the first paragraph:
  1. the hail has to be plainly and misleadingly wrong, for example the port/starboard situation given in the case;
  2. the hailer must know that the hail is false, if the hailer misunderstands the rules that does not amount to deliberate bad sportsmanship;  and
  3. the hailed boat has to be vulnerable to being misled, for example inexperienced.

 

 
 


Edited by Brass - 04 Jul 11 at 5:35am
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