Quiz Question
Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: General
Forum Name: Racing Rules
Forum Discription: Discuss the rules and your interpretations here
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10208
Printed Date: 28 Jun 25 at 8:00am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Quiz Question
Posted By: ohFFsake
Subject: Quiz Question
Date Posted: 05 Dec 12 at 10:20pm
|
Just a bit of fun really, but also perhaps useful for coaching sailors into thinking for a second or two before they bawl "STARBOARD"... How many situations can we name when a boat on Starboard would be expected to keep clear of a boat on Port? I've come up with 11 so far. What does everyone think?
|
Replies:
Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 05 Dec 12 at 10:22pm
| (To clarify the question a bit, let's phrase it as situations where S could be penalised for not keeping clear of P) |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Dec 12 at 11:00pm
|
Isn't this a fairly trivial exercise in using the search key on the RRS?
Rule 12, Clear Astern
Rule 13, Tacking
Rule 19( c ) boat becoming inside overlapped at an obstruction where no room
Rule 21.1 OCS returning
Rule 21.2 taking a Penalty
Rule 21.3 sailing backwards
Rule 22: sometimes a boat that does not 'avoid' another does not 'keep clear'
Rule 23: sometimes a boat that 'interferes' does not 'keep clear'.
|
Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 05 Dec 12 at 11:08pm
| Rule 12 only applies to boats on the same tackDidn't count rule 13 in my list, on the basis that a boat tacking isn't yet on Starboard. Willing to be proved wrong, in which case my list is up to 12! |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Dec 12 at 11:51pm
OK, my mistake, so not as trivially simple as I said.
See Definitions: Tack, Starboard or Port and Leeward and Windward. A boat is never not on one tack or the other.
|
Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 12:24am
Except when she is head to wind?
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 12:47am
No.
See Definition: Leeward and Windward first and third sentences:
So a boat always has a leeward side and always has a windward side.
See Definition Tack, Starboard or Port
So a boat is always on one tack or another.
|
Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 1:22am
 Thanks. That definitely gives me another one then!
|
Posted By: radixon
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 8:24am
|
when a boat is about to hit land....
------------- |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 8:44am
|
When you are a kid sailing an Oppie?
------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 9:04am
|
Of course, you haven't specified "under RRS only", so we have to include IRPCAS. So; overtaking fishing under sail a vessel not under command; a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver; constrained by draught
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 9:49am
I don't think there is any obligation to 'keep clear' in IRPCAS
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 3:24pm
Should have seen that one coming... The smart answer... and the kid in the Oppie
 |
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 7:21pm
Acquiring right of way Capsized boat When she needs to gybe around a mark When not sailing a proper course and the other boat is on another leg. When the Port tacker is the pathfinder in a gate start! While gybing in a match race. |
Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 7:33pm
|
Yep, got most of the ones on my list, except that no-one's mentioned the one I thought was the most obvious and is therefore top of my list! 1. When P is eligible for mark room at a downwind mark (18.2 & 18.4) 2. When P is eligible for room at an obstruction (19.2) 3. When S has just acquired right of way and P is unable to avoid her (15) 4. When S is altering course in a way which would prevent P from being able to keep clear (16.1) 5. When S is ROW but would cause damage to P not keeping clear (14) 6. When S is not racing and P is (23.1) 7. When S has the wind free and it is dark (col regs apply at night?) 8. When P is capsized, anchored, aground or rescuing (22) 9. When S is in the process of taking a penalty (21.2) 10. When S is in the process of returning to re-start after being OCS (21.1) 11. When S is sailing backwards (21.3) 12. When P is on another leg, and S is not sailing her proper course (23.2) Any more? |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 8:29pm
|
1. When P is eligible for mark room at a downwind mark (18.2
& 18.4) S is required to give mark-room: giving mark-room is not the same as keeping
clear. 2. When P is eligible for room at an obstruction (19.2) S is required to give room: giving room is not the same as keeping clear 3. When S has just acquired right of way and P is unable to
avoid her (15) S is required to give room: giving room is not the same as keeping clear. 4. When S is altering course in a way which would prevent P
from being able to keep clear (16.1) S is required to give room: giving room is not the same as keeping clear. 5. When S is ROW but would cause damage to P not keeping clear
(14) S is required to avoid contact. Avoiding contact is not the same as keeping
clear. 6. When S is not racing and P is (23.1) S is required to 'not interfere': not interfering is not the same as keeping
clear 7. When S has the wind free and it is dark (col regs apply at
night?) COLREGS haven't given a starboard boat sailing downwind
rights over a port tacker close hauled for about 50 years. 8. When P is capsized, anchored, aground or rescuing (22) S is required to avoid:
avoiding is not the same as keeping clear 9. When S is in the process of taking a penalty (21.2) Yup. 10. When S is in the process of returning to re-start after
being OCS (21.1) Yup 11. When S is sailing backwards (21.3) Yup 12. When P is on another leg, and S is not sailing her proper
course (23.2) S is required to 'not
interfere': not interfering is not the
same as keeping clear |
Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 9:14pm
|
As ever, the Devil is in the detail! Perhaps my question would be better worded along the lines of: "In what situations would a port tack boat not be required to keep clear of one on Starboard?"
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 9:33pm
|
If your question had been 'In what circumstances may a port tack boat that does not keep clear of a boat on starboard not be penalised?' Your answer would have worked better.
Edit: this post crossed with OhFFSake's preceding post.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 9:57pm
Maybe the better question would have been 'In what circumstances may a port tack boat that does not keep clear of a boat on starboard not be penalised?'
It's about precise use of language, not necessarily detail.
|
Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 06 Dec 12 at 10:05pm
| I agree that your definition is better, but it's putting the emphasis on the wrong boat! What I was trying to come up with was a list of situations where the rules place the onus on S to avoid P (be it by keeping clear, giving room or whatever), as a way of making people think a bit about their obligations and not just their rights.(It also doesn't cover the rule 14 case...) |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 07 Dec 12 at 4:16am
Doesn't an approach following the Section A, B, C, and D structure of Part 2 pretty much get you there?
Section A - Right of Way Rules
One boat is always the Right of Way boat, and the other is the Keep Clear boat. The starting point of any rules situation is Am I the Right of Way boat?
Section B - General Limitations [on Right of Way]
Starts with rule 14: If you are keeping clear you will avoid contact. If you are the Right of way Boat you must avoid contact if reasonably possible.
Rules 15 and 16 usually follow on from rule 14, because they are usually only broken when there is contact.
Section C - [Limitations on Right of Way] At Marks and Obstructions
Special rules for going round corners.
Dummies version: Regardless of whether you are Right of Way or not, don't run anybody off the road; don't run anybody into the wall.
Once you move up from the dummies version, you just have to try to learn the rule, practice and apply it.
Section D - Other Rules - Extra Special, unusual and weird situations
Some of which you should be able to remember because they are so weird, and most of which won't trouble you because they are unusual.
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 07 Dec 12 at 7:08am
|
Agree with Brass... the original post/quiz creates confusion because it talks about "keep clear" requirements changing, but that's a definition with a specific meaning so to talk about the requirements changing makes the rules sound more complicated than they actually are.
The basic ROW rules are pretty straightforward, and provided you don't push things in close quarters situations they are easy enough to deal with. All the complications come in close quarters situations where boats may be changing course rapidly. If in doubt don't get into those situations! This is the major difference between Col Regs and RRS and why RRS are so much more complex. Colregs say "don't get into close quarters situations": RRS give you details of how to deal with them if you have studied adequately. Brass' summary of how the Sctions interact is really neat, and is a very useful study aid I think... |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 07 Dec 12 at 9:25am
|
Not sure the OP was using the words "keep Clear" as in the rules definition - more in the "keep out of the way" sense. From that point of view, whether you are giving mark room or genuinely "keeping clear" makes no odds in the spirit of this thread - they are still situations where the port boat has to be avoided, and not the other way round. What I find interesting is the number of situations that are listed, yet what short time periods they tend to apply for before normal service prevails. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 07 Dec 12 at 12:18pm
Firstly, regardless of what OP had in mind originally, obligations to keep clear, give room, give mark-room, avoid and not interfere with are not all the same. If you tell a sailor that when they are on starboard tack a boat on port tack must keep clear of them, but if they are changing course they must keep clear of the port tacker, you will seriously confuse them. You have to make some sort of semantic differentiation. What I think JimC is agreeing with is that there needs to be some sort of structure and logic to the rules to assist recollection, understanding and application, otherwise the sailor will have to learn 12 'rules of exception' off by heart and then try to apply them, without any logical structure to help them.
Agree, After all, Part 2 is called When Boats Meet, and boats spend a lot of time sailing without meeting. All the moreso, most times boats 'meet' the Section A Right of Way rules work just fine, and the Limitations, and Extra Special rules apply even more rarely. Rules 18 and 19 get a bit more use, because boats tend to converge at marks and obstructions.
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 07 Dec 12 at 2:10pm
Most probably - but I submit that there lies insanity... It seems to me that a substantial number of problems people have with the rules is that they read the text of the rules, but don't read the definitions, and without an understanding of the definitions the rules are pretty much impossible to understand in detail. And if you use "defined" phrases in a conversation where the context is the rules, but with a meaning that differs from the definition, then I think the potential for confusion and misunderstanding multiplies enormously. Think of it: if you were attempting to explain an aspect of the rules to a beginner, and in that conversation you were sometimes using the phrase "keep clear" to the RRS definition and sometimes with a generic meaning of "do not collide with", then unless that beginner was a great deal smarter than I am I suggest they'd be bound to come out more confused than they were to start with... |
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 07 Dec 12 at 6:48pm
Colregs 12 a) 1).when each has the wind on a different side, the vessel with the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other. 11) when both have the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to windward shall keep out ofthe way of ther vessel which is to leeward. 111) If a vessel with the wind on the port side sees a vessel to windward and cannot determine with certainty whether the the other vessel has the wind on the port or strboard side, she shall keep out of the way of the other. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 07 Dec 12 at 8:09pm
OK, thank you, my omission.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 10 Dec 12 at 8:14am
|
Brass said :
"Rules 15 and 16 usually follow on from rule 14, because they are usually only broken when there is contact."
I would disagree. A ROW of boat does not give room if she does not give the space the other boat needs n the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamalike way. If the keep clear boat, after the ROW boat acquires right of way or changes course, is obliged to manoeuvre in an unseamalike way then ROW boat has broken one of the two rules (15, 16). A crash tack, a crash gybe, a near miss that owes as much to good luck as to good boat-handling, hitting a mark, an "emergency" luff or bear away... all these can be considered unseamanlike. To quote the TR Call Book "General Principles for umpire decisions (not authorative except for team racing, but providing guidance) "... any manoeuvre that puts aboat or crew at risk of damage is unseamanlike." damage does not necessarily result from contacts between boats. Fortunately for all our insurance premiums, boats can break these rules without going to contact. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 10 Dec 12 at 8:34pm
|
Perhaps Gordon and I will have to disagree, or perhaps I can persuade him that most rule 15/16 breaches are established by by contact between the boats.. Have a look through your old protest notes and published protest decisions: I think that's what you will find. I am well aware of the theoretical possibility that contact might only be avoided by a ) the give way boat being compelled to manoeuvre in an unseamanlike manner, b ) only by the right of way boat taking action to avoid contact, or c ) only by a miraculous close shave, in which case rule 15/16 will have been broken without there being contact. My observation is that these circumstances are in the minority of cases. I particularly dislike the language about 'crash tack' and 'crash gybe'. I don't think there is any such thing. Boats can and do tack quickly, and gybe quickly. Competitors spend hours training to do exactly this. Get your stopwatch out and take a look at how quickly boats can tack or gybe when they want to: that's how quickly they can tack or gybe when they are obliged to do so 'promptly'. Likewise I would have huge difficulty in differentiating between an 'emergency' luff or bear away, and just executing such a simple and relatively unrisky manoeuvre quickly or promptly. Certainly the 3 or 4 seconds it takes a Laser to to tack, might be (minusculely) less than a fully trapped 505, and appreciably less than, say an IOR Maxi with runners and the whole crew hiked on the rail (or the sail training ship I recently read about where the skipper claimed that his tacking process occupied nine minutes). Certainly a boat with a pole and sym spinnaker will take longer to gybe than a mono sail or an assy boat, but competent crews don't take all that long. Of course, it depends on the existing wind and wave conditions, partiicularly gybes, where, in heavy conditions, it might indeed be seamanllike to wait for wave conditions before gybing. On the other hand, in light conditions, tacking all-standing with the headsail aback is a perfectly seamanlike way of heaving to. I am also well aware of Case 103 which sets the standard to be expected as that of a 'competent, but not expert, crew of the appropriate number', and I am happy to give a bit of leeway about 'competent' depending on the level of the event. I do quite like the guidance from the TR call book about putting a boat or crew at risk of damage. My bottom line is that I do believe that most rule 15/16 breaches result in contact and that rule 14 thus forms a useful logical link between the Section A Right of Way rules and Section B Limitations giving room to keep clear rules. |
Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 10 Dec 12 at 9:08pm
|
Thanks for some great replies people. In terms of the original question, how about: "Under what circumstances might a starboard tack boat be penalised for failing to avoid contact with a port tack boat?" Not perfect but hopefully good enough to get my original point across. Which was an attempt to stimulate some of our sailors to think a bit harder about the rules - eg being close-hauled on starboard doesn't mean you can stop looking out for other boats. |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 10 Dec 12 at 9:14pm
|
Thankfully, when umpiring, most rule 15 and 16 penalties that I give do not involve contact. On the water the fast tack or gybe - when the crew is ready and prepared - is very different from the crash tack or gybe to avoid a collision. The absence of preparation is often a tell tale sign. And, increasingly, we seem to be giving more penalties for breaches of 15 and 16 and far fewer for 10,11,12 and 13. In other words boats, in team racing or match racing, seem to know how to keep clear unless the ROW boat does not give room when acquiring right of way or changing course. Wouldn 't be the first time that there are differences of interpretation between umpires, who view the incident, and judges, who reconstruct the incident. Or, as any rugby fan will know, between sports officials in the northern and southern hemispheres! ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 10 Dec 12 at 9:18pm
With the greatest respect, I think there is. In my boat with symmetric spinaker, we typically dead run with the crew sat well to windward with sheet and guy in hand; helm sat well to leeward steering and trimming main. A normal "seamanlike" gybe would involve probably 5 to 10 seconds of prep - crew re-trims spinaker to keep it flying through the gybe, helm moves to centre, cleats main, takes guy and sheet from crew and moves to steering with tiller between knees. Only now would we be in position to gybe in our normal seamanlike manner, and if its windy we'd probably look to pick a moment some time in perhaps the next 10 or 20 seconds when wind / wave conditions make gybing safest. On the other hand, if another boat unexpectedly forced our hand we could gybe immediately from our normal running position in order to avoid a collision. But in light to medium conditions we'd come out of it with spinaker collapsed, crew at risk of getting hit by the boom, possibly sheets tangled etc, and in heavy weather there'd be a very high chance of wiping out. I think "crash gybe" would be a fair description of the latter situation...
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 10 Dec 12 at 10:35pm
|
Maybe Brass would be happier with "unprepared" tack or gybe
------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 10 Dec 12 at 10:42pm
The answer to your present question lies wholly in rule 14 and is:
What JimC and I are trying to get across is that your list of 'exceptions' is pretty sound, within the imprecise notion of 'exceptions' but that, in terms of coaching sailors in rules or tactics (or worse still, in adjudicting protests), the list is a bit long to learn by heart and there are nuanced different obligations (give room, give mark-room, avoid, not interfere etc) that need to be applied.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 10 Dec 12 at 10:56pm
Very nice observation about the difference between umpiring and protest hearing.
I would tend to think that MR and TR competitors have a more 'finessed' approach to the on-water rules than many club and keelboat racers, which is likely to shift the balance between keep clear and room to keep clear. In particular, I think MR/TR competitors are likely to hunt up or down much more agressively, but more precisely, than in ordinary fleet racing: the risk/reward balance is better, and it's more part of 'the game'.
I don't think it would be fair to take my opinion as representative of Australian judges: its just an opinion based on the observations as I see them.
Thank you. Yes I would. Infinitely.
My experience is that protest parties who use the term 'crash tack' and 'crash gybe' are usually the ones on the lower side of the 'competent but not expert and sufficient number ' standard.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 11 Dec 12 at 3:07am
I certainly don't want attack Gordon's experience and judgement but I have just trawled through the London Olympics protests. Here's what I found.
There were 12 valid protests initially for breaches of rule 15, 16, or 18. 2 citing rule 15, 5 citing rule 16, and 7 citing rule 18 (there were overlaps with protests involving more than one rule).
Of these 12 cases:
Nine out of ten cases of failing to give room involved contact. Two out of two cases where a protest against a boat alleged to have failed to give room were dismissed did not involve contact.
Most established cases of failing to give room involve contact between boats QED.
Take home lesson for young players:
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 11 Dec 12 at 10:00am
|
I would conclude that most rule 15 and 16 breaches that do not involove contact are not brought to the protest room! This may well be because, especially at the highest level, competitors avoid the jury room as much as possible when there is the shadow of a doubt about the possible outcome of the result. I have been at MR events (including evets where the majority of the teams were going to the Olympics)where almost no penalties were given for rules 10-13. The majrity of penalties were for 15 and 16. Good sailors know how to keep clear if they re given room to do so. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 11 Dec 12 at 12:16pm
NO protests for breach of rules 15/16 were upheld and nearly ALL those protests resulted in the give way boat being penalised for not keeping clear.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 11 Dec 12 at 1:03pm
|
I am always wary of stats. The stats from the 7 Olympic cases involving rule 15 and 16 are based only on protests lodged not on breaches of the rules. I would conclude that the statistics from the Olympics show that competitors have decided that it is not worth bothering protesting for rule 15/16 breaches that do not involve contact. This may be that it is difficult to demonstrate that rules have been broken without contact, or, more likely, that top class competitors are reluctant to risk going to protest when they consider that the result is aleatory. When race officials are able to see the incidents the number of penalties for breaches of rule 15 and 16 increases greatly. This is because race officials on the water can clearly see the difference between a prepared manoeuvre and a manoeuvre forced by the actions of the ROW boat. It may well be that umpires are interpreting the rules slightly more strictly because they are working at events in which the organisers provide the boats. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 11 Dec 12 at 3:19pm
|
I'm with Gordon on that... And I do sometimes struggle to switch between team racing and fleet racing...the classic example is the TR call that limits hunting by a starboard tacker on the beat (if an immediate alteration of course is required than the STer has infirnged?)...to fleet racing where boats continue to alter course at very close range directly in order to prevent one continuing on a course where one is keeping clear and at a very late stage resulting in a crash change of course. Absolutely no chance of a decision in the room....and you better do that crash tack because every club PC in the world is going to lob the port tacker.
|