Starboard Rounding Windward Mark Incident
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=10878
Printed Date: 25 Jun 25 at 3:15am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Starboard Rounding Windward Mark Incident
Posted By: Marcus
Subject: Starboard Rounding Windward Mark Incident
Date 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. |
Replies:
Posted By: alstorer
Date 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 |
Posted By: JimC
Date 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. |
Posted By: moomin
Date 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 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 15 May 13 at 3:39pm
Spot on so far: rule 18 applies
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.
No rule 18.2 ( a ) applies.
Yup. So there's nothing to switch off rule 18.2. Moral for B: Don't tack in the zone. |
Posted By: Rupert
Date 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 |
Posted By: alstorer
Date 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
------------- -_ Al |
Posted By: Quagers
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Quagers
Date 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.
|
Posted By: JimC
Date 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! |
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 15 May 13 at 5:37pm
|
Sorry I should have been clearer, that was in relation to boats on the same tack based on the original description which is somewhat unclear. The important point is if the overlap exists when Blue changes tack (ie. blue passes head to wind) if the overlap doesn't exist at that point the yellow has no room. However rereading the description it sounds like the overlap would have existed as blue passed head to wind.
|
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 15 May 13 at 5:46pm
|
Ok new picture, is this what happened? Again the important point is the overlap when blue passes head to wind, even if thats subsequently broken again blue must thereafter give yellow mark room. If there is no overlap at that point yellow gets no room and must avoid. 
< id="adlesse_unifier_magic_element_id" style="display:none;"> |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 15 May 13 at 11:07pm
Your speculation is unnecessary.
Rule 18 does not apply to boats on opposite tacks on a beat to windward (rule 18.1( a )) and boats on opposite tacks on a beat to windward, that is, until the other boat passes head to wind are by definition, not overlapped.
OP said
Because OP said 'we started to keep clear' I take it that he meant that the other boat reached her close hauled course clear ahead and OP was obliged to keep clear under rule 12. The boats could have become overlapped any time after other boat passed head to wind making both on the same tack, but the geometry is unlikely: most likely other boat was clear ahead from the time she passed head to wind.
Next thing that happened was OP became overlapped to windward inside the other boat, in the zone, so the condition for rule 18.2( a ) was fulfilled.
|
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 15 May 13 at 11:14pm
|
It's quite possible though that even though the boat ended up to leeward clear ahead, an overlap did exist when port passed head to wind and was subsequently broken as the bore off. Its not something OP would necessary notice because its not something people look for but is what this protest would hinge on in the room.
< id="adlesse_unifier_magic_element_id" style="display:none;">
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 15 May 13 at 11:22pm
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 15 May 13 at 11:49pm
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 12:03am
|
Posted By: Marcus
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 11:02am
|
Interesting discussion and thanks for all the comments. I was a little inaccurate in my original description in stating that B tacked clear ahead and to leeward of us; what I should have said was that they completed their tack clear ahead onto a close hauled starboard tack course that was to leeward of our own. We then started to luff to keep clear and in doing so gained the overlap. The first of Quagers two diagrams is therefore correct. I take it that Rule 18.2 (a) together with the definition of Mark Room then should allow me to firstly pass to port of the mark unhindered and then to tack onto port to round it?
Actually, as I said in my original description I took a penalty because I was uncertain that Rule 18.2 (a) switched on since we acquired the overlap within the zone. In a very reasonable discussion with A after the race we agreed that we were both uncertain. On reading the rules aftewards we thought the incident had some similarity to the that covered by Rule 18.3 but this rule didn't apply of course because we, A, weren't fetching the mark.
As Jim originally suggested we could alternatively have slowed down rather than luffing. B would then have had room but wouldn't be able to tack back onto starboard anyway. The end result would be the same either way, we, A, would end up rounding the mark first. However, as Jim points out it's sometimes hard to think these things through in the heat of the moment!
Ultimately, is the moral, as Brass suggests, be careful when tacking in the zone?
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 11:15am
|
Yeah, brass, who is very good on this rules stuff, has clarified the situation to my satisfaction: what we have here is a situation where you can establish an overlap in the zone and still be entitled to mark room because the other boat tacked in the zone.
I suppose the casual sailors understanding of this might be that you should reckon that if you tack in the zone you have very few rights. |
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 1:25pm
|
Is it not the whole of rule 18 that does not apply between boats on opposite tacks? The boat which tacks onto STBD must keep clear until she is past head to wind, thereafter she must give the other boat room to keep clear. As I read it though, the inside boat has no specific right to room at the mark.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 2:52pm
Yes, rule 18, in its entirity does not apply to boats on opposite tacks on a beat to windward (rule 18.1( a )) Yes the tacking boat must keep clear in accordance with rule 13. No, Rule 18 applies when two boats are on the same tack and at least one of them is in the zone. If rule 18.2( b ) or 18.3 do not apply then rule 18.2( a ) applies: a boat that becomes overlapped inside is entitled to mark-room.
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 2:53pm
|
The moral of the story is...don't tack in the zone unless you are damn sure you won't infringe anyone. I believe this is how the rules were intended to work to discourage people charging in on port and barging their way in. Where is does become interesting is where you have a starboard rounding and a boat approaching on port can lay and pass the mark. The boat on starboard is not allowed to tack at the mark if by doing so the boat on port and no longer keep clear (rule 16.2 if my memory serves correctly....). The defense of this is for the stb boat to slow to force the port boat to tack off (often used in team racing I am told). As for this situation, I think it has been excellently explain by Brass who is know for his extensive knowledge of the rules and clear explanations. ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 3:11pm
|
As was said on another thread, the rules are very complex. I guess this is because of the many ways in which boats can meet, and even with all these rules there are situations where maybe the rules don't match a situation perfectly. However, I'm not surprised that many newcomers are put off racing because of them.
------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: moomin
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 3:30pm
Not just team racing you need to be careful approaching a stb rounding mark on stb with a boat coming in on port. You may think you're being considerate by tacking on the mark, hoping that the port boat will be able to luff round your transom and not have to tack. (Particularly in H-cap racing when the 2 boats may not really be racing if there's a big PY gap)
The problem with being "considerate" is that as soon as Stb goes into the tack rule 13/16 kicks in and stb becomes the give way boat.
A bit of consideration does help with h-cap racing when the boat you're encountering at the mark may not be the baot you're in a tight race with, but ensure both parties are aware of what's going to happen! ------------- Moomin |
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 3:57pm
So R18 starts to apply when the second boat has tacked onto port. By which time it is too late for the first boat to establish an overlap. So once the second boat is to leeward on port, the first boat has only the right to room to keep clear and can be sailed the wrong side of the mark? Does not seem equitable, but the rules appear to say that. I think this is why marks are supposed to be left to port. To change the scenario slightly, if the stbd boat dipped the stern of the port boat inside the zone would you give him an inside overlap? |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 4:08pm
Rupert, The rules are not that complex. The Part 2 When Boats Meet rules occupy only six well-spaced A5 pages. Add 2 pages for Basic Principles and Part 1 Fundamental Rules if you wish. There are numerous simplified/shortened rules guides. What might put newcomers off is people endlessly telling them how complex the rules are.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 5:02pm
Are we talking about the OP scenario diagrammed by Quagers thus:  Here, no boat tacks onto port. Rule 18 begins to apply when Blue passes head to wind and both boats come to be on the same (starboard) tack.
By 'first boat' I take it you mean Yellow. There is very little Yellow can do to influence whether she becomes overlapped or not. Yellow's tactical objective is to gain an inside overlap on Blue so that she is entitled to mark-room. It depends on Blue's judgement and boat handling whether Blue can achieve that or not.
NO, once both boats are on the same tack in the zone, whichever boat is overlapped inside is entitled to mark-room. If Yellow is clear astern, she is give way boat (rule 12), as you say, entitled to room to keep clear (rule 16.1), but in that case, all she does is trails Blue around the mark. If Yellow can get her inside overlap, she would become the windward boat, required to keep clear (rule 11), but Blue cannot sail her the wrong side of the mark, because by becoming overlapped, Yellow gains her entitlements to mark-room (rule 18.2( a )). In the diagram @4, Blue is forcing Yellow the wrong side of the mark, and is breaking rule 18.2( a ) by not giving mark-room.
The rules specify the way the game is played: if everybody complies with the rules the game is, by definition fair and equitable. Would you like to explain how and why you think one boat or another is unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged?
Marks are not 'supposed' to be left to port. Marks are supposed to be left on whichever side the SI specifies they must be left on. In windward/leeward fleet racing, windward marks are usually specified to be left to port, because it is thought that this diminishes protest incidents. Paul Elvstrom has always been a strong opponent of port rounding courses (Elvstrom Explains, Explanatory (Red) Section Rule 89.2)
If Yellow on starboard had dipped below the stern of Blue, then Blue would have probably ended up on her close hauled course, overlapped inside Yellow, entitled to mark-room. But why would Yellow be so foolish?
|
Posted By: Jack Sparrow
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 6:43pm
LOL... that's why this protracted discussion is taking place ins't it... because the interpretation of the rules is so simple, for what looks like a simple rules situation. I can tell you from first hand experience of novice sailors, that no one is ramming the concept down there throats that the rules of sail are complex. They create that experience all for themselves just by going through the training process and experiencing them for themselves. Brass... you obviously get a kick out of this sort of thing and your mind is predisposed to enable quick visualisation of sailing rules, and that's great. But one hell of a lot of people find them dam confusing! Especially as they get updated every few years. ------------- http://www.uk3-7class.org/index.html" rel="nofollow - Farr 3.7 Class Website https://www.facebook.com/groups/1092602470772759/" rel="nofollow - Farr 3.7 Building - Facebook Group |
Posted By: knotty78
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 7:01pm
|
isn't this covered by
18.3,18.3 Tacking in the Zone If a boat in the zone passes head to wind and is then on the same tack as a boat that is fetching the mark, rule 18.2 does not thereafter apply between them. The boat that changed tack (a) shall not cause the other boat to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact or prevent the other boat from passing the mark on the required side, and (b) shall give mark-room if the other boat becomes overlapped inside her. |
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 7:24pm
|
No, Knotty The boats still need to tack to round the mark so neither of them is fetching it. So 18.3 does not apply.< id="adlesse_unifier_magic_element_id" style="display:none;"> I must admit this has caught me out a bit, I have done quite a bit of team racing as well as a bit of umpiring and I had always assumed it hinged on the overlap when R.18 'switches on' which now seems to be wrong. The rules are written predominately with fleet racing in mind where it makes some sense to penalise people taking in the zone but it doesn't work so well for team racing. If a boat laying the mark on port with time to burn and a mark trap to do bears off, tacks in the zone and waits to do the trap they are completely vulnerable as all a boat has to do is get a windward overlap and they get room. No matter if port had been sitting there for some while.
|
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 16 May 13 at 9:56pm
I think to summarise where I was struggling to line up the words of the rule with what I thi#ought they meant: 1) Just because R18 does not apply while you are different tacks, that does not stop it applying once one boat has tacked in the zone. Thanks Brass, it's only by challenging people like you to explain that I get any closer to fully understanding the rules. |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 17 May 13 at 10:47pm
|
I think the other thing that stops us getting this aspect of the rule and applying it to how things happen on the water is that in many cases where this might happen P would not put herself in this situation - as P in most cases I would either make the tack I needed early or go in to very high and slow mode, in order to be able to duck S, lay the mark and gain mark room under 18.3 (b), or, if S nailed the layline, make a better rounding. Beyond that the other thing forgotten in this discussion until now is that in very many cases (especially if P's tack on to Starboard was close to the mark) Rule 18.2 (e) would apply, because having just completed her tack she would struggle to bear away to make a gap for a newly overlapped S, especially when you consider that on many boats the bear away will actually send the stern to windward. It's important to note the difference of obligation between 18.2 (e) - in the situation in this question you must only give mark room if you can do, but that in 18.3 (b) you have an obligation to give room because you were the one that tacked. Always a fun moment in team or fleet racing to bear away and then shoot the mark beneath a stopped "tacker in the zone". Bold but effective! Especially if you wish to induce shock!
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 23 May 13 at 9:07am
|
If P's tack is in the zone (or rather, if she passes head to wind in the zone and is then on the same tack as S) then 18.2 (including 18.2e) does not apply and 18.3 does.There is no get out clause for the tacking boat!
------------- Gordon |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 23 May 13 at 10:32pm
|
Gordon, I suspect you may not have read the scenario. Neither boat is fetching the mark - so surely 18.3 does not apply. I'd be interested for your read of the full situation. I had to scratch my head. As S I would not have jumped to the conclusion that I could get mark room (situation is a very rare one and as per my post above P has to be quite dumb to create the conditions) - but I am currently persuaded that not only could i prevent P tacking in my water, but that I would have mark room.
|
Posted By: E.J.
Date Posted: 23 May 13 at 11:34pm
|
I have the same concerns as sargesail. I now understand that in this scenario I would be entitled to mark room but I fully expect to hear a cry of 'You didn't have an overlap a 3 boats' when I use it in battle, which will be technically true but irrelevant in this specific scenario. All logical, but I'm not sure I trust the rest of my club have invested the furled brow time that I have; I might chicken out of pushing the issue too hard when arguing with an octogenarian in a battered FF.
To sum up, clear and direct logic on forum Vs Tremulous ambiguity on water. ------------- |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 24 May 13 at 7:59am
|
Sargesail, you are right - I did not go back to read the scenario. I was reacting to later comments. Mea culpa. I will take my turns! Rule 18 did not apply when the first boat entered the zone. Rule 18 began to apply when both boats are on the same tack, which is when P passes head to wind. P must: - keep clear until she is on a close hauled course; - when P does reach a close hauled course she becomes ROW and must initially give S room to keep clear; - when S becomes overlapped to windward 18.2a applies and S is entitled to mark-room. As S is overlapped on the inside and to windward, mark-room includes room to tack. Two points - 18.2b only applies when rule 18 applies as the first boat enters the zone. If 18 switches on when boats are already in the zone then 18.2a applies. In this scenario P would have great difficulty in pleading that rule 18.2e applies. If the overlap is established whilst P is still tacking and at that moment she is unable to give mark-room it is probable that she was not keeping clear, and thus breaking rule 13. If the overlap was established soon after P reached a close-hauled course and P claims that she could not give mark-room then it is probable that she had not initially given S room to keep clear ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 24 May 13 at 1:55pm
|
In this scenario P would have great difficulty in pleading that rule 18.2e applies. If the overlap is established whilst P is still tacking and at that moment she is unable to give mark-room it is probable that she was not keeping clear, and thus breaking rule 13. If the overlap was established soon after P reached a close-hauled course and P claims that she could not give mark-room then it is probable that she had not initially given S room to keep clear [/QUOTE] Hmmm - agree all the rest....but I can see circumstances with boats which are slow to accelerate where you could fulfill obligations under rule 13, but still be in a position where you can not give Mark Room.....I am replaying a sitaution like this in a Sea View Mermaid a few years ago. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 24 May 13 at 2:27pm
In which case you'd just have to do your turns like a gentleman wouldn't you... And if you pushed the other boat the wrong side of the mark so you gained a significant advantage then I suspect your only option would be to retire. I think there are a number of places in the rules where its possible to get yourself in a situation that you can't get out of. I guess the lesson is that if you have to tack in the zone for whatever reason its wise to ensure there's enough room for any approaching boats to get between you and the mark. |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 24 May 13 at 5:22pm
| But 18 e is designed to deal with this. If S takes an overlap from which room can't be given even tho then P has no obligation to give the room.. Rule 10 and then rul3 13 she is KC....but she categorically does not have to consider S and the mark until S is overapped....and could take her chances in the room.....proving it would be more difficult.....and then getting the PC to understand teh nuance. Which takes me back to the fact that P's tack is plain dumb! |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 3:57am
|
Terribly bad risk/reward ratio.
You talked above about 'struggling to bear away to give mark-room'. I'd be wanting evidence that you put up a pretty damn good struggle: main all the way out, tiller up, genny eased, weight down the boat.
As Gordon said, initially you are facing a rule 10, rule 13, rule 15 sequence of keep clear and give room obligations, close to the mark, so that your rule 15 obligation will include giving S room to not touch the mark, 'initially' while it applies. Then, if:
On a protest committee, I'd be asking myself (and you) if you had such excellent judgement and boat handling to judge and execute the tack into clear ahead with inches to spare, then how come those skills deserted you 10 feet later when it came to bearing away at the mark? I suspect that 4 out of 5 protest committees will bang you for rule 13 in the first place, and 9 out of 10 umpires will penalise you for not doing all you could to give mark-room.
At the very least, if it happened, you would be wise to do a couple of 'insurance turns'.
Next problem, however, is, if you force S the wrong side of the mark, you might have gained a significant advantage, so that even two turns aren't enough and you are lucky to cop a DSQ instead of a DNE for deliberately breaking a rule.
Bottom line: you're absolutely right: don't tack in the zone.
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 11:04am
|
Brass - I don't disagree with the practicalities which you state above in terms of the protest committee, and some umpires..... But you are I think overemphasising some aspects here "inches to spare" for example. You need not be inches from the mark and yet still struggle to achieve the required mark room (I have in my mind here some 26foot keelboats with an 18 foot waterline, so lot's of fish tail problem - exactly what would happen if you let the mainsheet go and heaved the tiller to wondward as you suggest). If S piles in to windward/inside in that situation then P (who has fulfilled her obligations under 10, 13 and 15) should have some protection.
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 11:46am
|
Why should P have any protection? In the zone rule 18 is the predominant rule, and rule 18 is clear that P never had any rights of any description.
Seems to me that as rule 18 is evolving over 4 year cycles on the whole its getting more and more hostile to complex manouvers within the zone. Although I just glanced at the 93 rules for comparison*, and back then they were explicit that if you tacked in the zone you had to give room to a boat that had to luff past your stern and thus gained an inside overlap, (42.3(a)ii) so there's been no major game change over the years in this particular aspect. *I'm very bad at throwing away old books! |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 3:03pm
Thanks for the good example. I can quite easily visualise a 26 ft 'turnstile', that having made her tack will close the gap to the mark no matter which way she turns. Agree that in that case, she could be absolutely 'unable to give mark-room'.
I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the language of protection being applied within rule 18, but that's exactly what rule 18.2( e ) provides
I think rule 18.3 has been pretty stable since the 1995 rewrite, but its predecessor certainly moved around quite a bit in the 93, 89, 85, and 81 rules. Thanks for pointing out the 93 rule, the language of which matches up with the current MR amendment to rule 18.3, which I had always found a bit baffling. I'm quite happy to have it 'hostile to complex manouvers within the zone'. In my experience that's when competitors lose track of rights and entitlements and start piling into one another. 1993-97 rules is the one book I don't have, otherwise, mine go continuously back to the big American/European fusion in 1961, plus the American rules of 1953 and the RYA rules of 1947.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 3:19pm
|
However, for your "turnstile": the room required under rule 15 would almost certainly be far greater
------------- Gordon |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 4:15pm
|
Don't disagree with that either Gordon. Although it is my assumption that by tacking clear ahead and to leeward P has fulfilled her obligation under 10, 13 and 15. But I want to draw out the distinction between an 18.3 situation where the tacking boat "shall give mark room if the other boat becomes overlapped inside her" and where therefore she has to anticipate the requirement, and this situation, where she does not have to anticipate that the other boat will choose to go inside. This seems to me a logical application of the principle behind 19.2 (c). Remembering too that S does have choices. She can keep clear by slowing or going to leeward too. I remember the revision when it first came in, and had an early Protest hearing from a boat which had understood the rule to be: you can't tack in the zone. Thankfully they admitted that they had overstood and were reaching in - from there we establishd that there had been no luff above close-hauled. Jim C - I jave a few old rule books - my favourite is early 50s.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 5:06pm
|
I do not think you can assume that just because a tack is completed clear ahead and to leeward that P has fulfilled her rule 15 obligation. How far ahead? How far to leeward? If S is obliged to make an unseamanlike manoeuvre in order to keep clear then P has not initially given room to keep clear. Room to keep clear includes room not to touch the mark. There is a debate amongst match race umpires. Many believe that if there is no contact then rule 15 cannot have been broken. I would argue that this is not the case and that rule 15 can be broken without there being contact. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 7:50pm
|
Sargesail, it doesn't seem desirable to me that a boat that chooses to undertake the very high risk activity of tacking in the zone in front of a ROW boat should have any confidence that they have any rights.
For ordinary club sailors like me I think it's probably best considered like taking water you aren't entitled to if a gap opens up - if you get away with it fine, but if you don't you just have to put your hand up and take your penalty. After all there can be few situations where one *must* tack in the zone,in most cases its going to be a tactical decision, so its not unreasonable. Match and team races OTOH are places I will not go... Its a hopelessly pointless - indeed dangerous - exercise to try and double think what one thinks the rules ought to be trying to say, but while I agree in the rules there's a general tendency that a boat holding a steady course does not have to anticipate what another boat will do, this isn't the situation here. It would not seem out of line with the general thread of things that a boat that elects to tack in the zone should be required to anticipate that a boat approaching the mark on a steady course to round the mark will continue to sail that course and round the mark, especially as the rules clearly state that in the situation where a boat was not clear ahead when she entered the zone then she may at any time have to give water. To me, as a definite rules amateur, I think that's the important point: the rules say you must give mark room if you were not clear ahead, rather than you need only give mark room if the other boat is overlapped*. So before they tack P already knows that they must give mark room to any boat that gains an overlap, no matter when, and surely they must judge their tack accordingly and its not unreasonable to expect them to anticipate the results of their manouver. Conversely S knows that if they gain an overlap at any stage of the proceedings they are entitled to mark room, and shouldn't be require to anticipate the possibility that P may get themselves in a situation where they are unable to give it. Your interpretation of rule 10/13/15/18 seems to me to make for an awful lot of switching off and on of ROW in fractions of a second, and its very hard for this rules amateur to believe that's desirable or even the correct interpretation. Looking back on old rules I must say that I think the rules people are doing a good job, and I'm glad I don't have to sail the boats I do now with the rules as they were when I was 17... I see, especially on US forums, people bewailing how the rules have been made worse, but I don't find that at all. Apropos of that, I'm sure I saw recently, although I foolishly didn't make a mental note of who and where, a quote from one of the mid 20thC greats, maybe Uffa, to the effect that the merger with the US rules had made everthing too complicated and aggressive and things had been better when they sailed under the old British rules, which I think more nearly approached colregs. *a crucial thing I've learned from this thread |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 8:20pm
Gordon, Thanks for acknowledging that there is debate around the rule 15 issue in your second para. I have been involved in such discussions with umpires, and found the split interesting.... In the first instance I am trying to resolve this rule situation....I am not looking at the OP's situation specifically, but using the assumption that P fulfills her Rule 15 interpretation as part of my hypothesis. So the answer to how far to leeward and how far ahead is far enough. That said I do want to understand "why room to keep clear includes room not to touch the mark"? I take it that you do not accept my assertion that this is akin to Rule 19 - if the room isn't there then it can't be taken? If S sticks his nose in to a non-gap then surely tough luck.....? But I go back to my starting point - P is mad to tack there......I'm just trying to get to the heart of the rules....can't see it in the Appeals Cases or the TR Call book but I may be missing something. Matt
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 8:32pm
|
When P reaches a close hauled course she acquires ROW. She must initially give S room to keep clear. Room, under the nex definition includes space to comply with her obligations under rule 31 i.e. not touch the mark. As to the debate amongst umpires I believe that the "I gave room beacause the other boat didn't hit me" is somewhat of a cop-out, making life much easier for umpires. The most difficult moment to judge is when a boat establishes an overlap from clear astern inches/centimetres to leeward of the other boat. If the now keep clear boat cannot chnage course to keep clear without immediately making contact then I believe that she has not been given room. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 8:35pm
Jim, You demonstrate clear signs of being no rules amateur. I go back to the opinion I started with - that P has far better tactical options than to tack. And that she'd struggle to make a case for protection under 18.2 (e) in front of a PC. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think you are in much more danger of interpreting what the rules ought to be saying than I am. So let's do your thoughts of the two boats think again. I am P approaching....I know that at a windward mark unless one of us is fetching the mark then I can consider Rules 10 and 13 as if the mark is not there. I misjudge my approach and end up tacking in the zone ahead of S. I am an enlightened sailor having read this thread (but I'm in a minority) and I know that when S gets overlapped inside me I must give him room. But if 18 doesn't apply until he gets overlapped why should I tack early? (other than to be safe - there is no rules driver is what I mean). I am S - I see P tack. There is no room between him and the mark. I know I can get an overlap and be entititled to room but there is a risk that he will force me in to the mark...
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 8:38pm
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 9:33pm
|
I am not convinced that there is a contradiction. If P finishes her tack clear ahead but close enough so that there is a rule 15 issue then P and S were almost certainly overlapped as, or soon after, P passed head to wind. If either P or S were in the zone at this time then 18.2a applies and in addition to meeting her rule 13 and then later rule 15 obligations P must give mark room. 18.2e does not apply because the overlap was not obtained from clear astern or by S tacking to windward. S, overlapped on the inside to windward, is entitled to room to tack. If P breaks the overlap, 18.2a ceases to apply only to reapply when S establishes a new overlap. If P is now unable to give mark room it seems improbable, to say the least, that P was giving mark room whilst tacking. ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 10:38pm
Maybe what this thread is highlighting is that that rule of thumb we've always worked by isn't entirely enshrined in the rules and in fact there's an exception... I sail boats that go very fast upwind, are wide, but come very slowly out of a tack, and I can easily envisage this situation happening. But I think on the whole I'm with Gordon. Rule 15 is critical. With the revised definition of room that includes compliance with rule 31 then I really cannot imagine a situation in which P can be considered to have given room if S doesn't get round the mark without touching it. Certainly in the boats I sail neither bearing away behind a slower boat or attempting an immediate slow down could remotely be considered manouvering in a seamanlike way. |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 10:55pm
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 10:57pm
Agreed ref an exception....but I can't quite see how the rule 31 aspect of room is not in conflict with 18.2 (e) - may be some unintended consequence of the change.
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 10:59pm
| The irony in all of this is that I started with the assumption as S that I wouldn't be able to get mark room! The thread has corrected that view....but many were in the same boat as me....which demonstrates the logic.....unless you go to the default "if you tack in the zone you're wrong"..... |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 27 May 13 at 11:46pm
If P reaches her close hauled course clear ahead, whether above or below S's course, I think this is looking like a 'pure' rule 15: if there is time and space for S to keep clear to windward, there will proabably also be room for her to bear away and go to leeward (as you say, starting sails and slowing up as necessary): special circumstances such as a third boat to leeward, of course, excepted. Agree with Gordon, that if the boats are really close together, there's every good chance that P has not given S room to keep clear, but it might be that the boundary between rule 13 and 15 is indistinguishable, whether on protest hearing evidence or umpire observation.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 28 May 13 at 12:01am
I thought we'd all agreed that while it would seem logical to extend the 'if she is unable to give mark-room' get-out in rule 18.2( e ) to mark-room under rule 18.3( b ) the rules don't say that: When rule 18.3 applies rule 18.2 does not apply, so there is no get out of gaol card under rule 18.3.
I quite liked what JimC said:
Just another thing while thinking about rule 18.2( e ) and rule 19.2( c ). The get out of gaol criteria are subtly but distinctly different:
Rule 18.3( e ) 'from the time the overlap began the outside boat has been unable to give mark-room'
Rule 19.2( c ) 'at the moment the overlap begins there is no room ... to pass between'
Under rule 19.2( c ) the outside boat can be well able to give room but may refuse to do so if there was no room at the beginning of the overlap.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 28 May 13 at 12:24am
If, despite JimC's advice you want to metaphysically contemplate 'principles' or 'what the rules should say or mean', you could say that the rule 15 obligation to give room to not touch a mark under rule 31 is 'in tension' with the rule 18.2( e ).
However you can't say there's a contradiction.
Rule 18 deals with mark-room.
Rule 15 deals with room to keep clear.
Different animals.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 28 May 13 at 12:31am
A bit simplistic there, and you're importing words from the definition of keep clear overlapped, applicable to the right of way boat, into the room to keep clear situation and applying them to the give way boat.
Consider the situation where a boat clear astern surfs into the close leeward overlapped position and then the same wave picks up the other boat and surfs her clear ahead again.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 28 May 13 at 12:43am
Are you happy with your understanding now?
One needs to keep 'what the rules do say now' separate from 'what the rules should say in the future'.
This has been a good thread and I think we are all inching towards a better understanding.
I hope the spectators other than the three of us have enjoyed it.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 28 May 13 at 12:51am
'Don't tack in the zone' is a rules maxim. It's not a rule or even 'rules shorthand'.
I feel a little guilty mentioning it in a rules discussion.
It's valid as a tactical 'rule of thumb' because almost any tack in the zone exposes all sorts of high risks, for comparatively little rewards.
|