I guess in this case you would claim you couldn't have seen it until it was too late. This is all assuming it is accidental, if deliberate toss starboard under R2. < id="adlesse_unifier_magic_element_id" style="display:none;">

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

 

Based on Case 91.  Nicely put.

 

Originally posted by Lukepiewalker From Case 77 It looks like Starboard failed to avoid contact, but would be exonerated because no damage occured, and Port would be exonerated because they could not reasonably be expected to avoid contact with the equipment out of it's normal position.

 

Agree that Case 77 says that the right of way boat, whose gear accidentally and unexpectedly moved out of normal position broke rule 14 by causing contact that she could have avoided, but is exonerated because there is no injury or damage.

 

Based on the scenario in Case 77 I'm not real comfortable with the conclusion that A 'caused' contact, nor that the 'cause' of the contact is relevant to whether rule 14 is broken or not.  If I was hearing a protest like this I would be thinking very carefully about whether it was reasonably possible for the right of way boat to have prevented or not allowed her gear to get out of normal position.

 

In this case, Port is not exonerated:  becasue it was not reasonably possible to avoid contact she never broke rule 14 in the first place.

 

 

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

 

Originally posted by Quagers This is all assuming it is accidental, if deliberate toss starboard under R2.

 

I really can't understand this enthusiasm to go grubbing for rule 2, in a case where the OP clearly said it was unintentional

 

Originally posted by JimC starboard's mainsheet has fallen out of the (self draining) boat and is trailing behind starboard for a couple of boat lengths. Starboard is unaware of this.

 

Case 73 is the case about deliberately making contact, and the test it sets is quite high:  there must be 'no other intention' than to cause a breach of the rules.

 

You should also be aware of the RYA Appeal that is the companion to Case 73

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing P did or failed to do or can do or not do will cause S to 'need to take avoiding action' so P is not failing to keep clear (Case 77) and P does not break rule 10.

 

1) If she stands on without any action P breaks no rule.  There is no reason why she should take a penalty.

 

2a) If P touches the trailing sheet, which it seems inevitable she will, the above applies:  she breaks no rule;  there is no reason why she should take a penalty.

 

2b) If P touches the trailing sheet and there is no injury or damage, even if a protest committee found that S even though she was unaware that her sheet was trailing, could reasonbly possibly have avoided the contact, then S is exonerated under rule 14( b ).

 

3)

 

See above:  it was not reasonably possible for P to avoid contact with the sheet, whether she attempted to take avoiding action or not.  Unlike the IRPCAS rule referring to 'take action to avoid collision', rule 14 (main part) refers only to 'avoiding contact if reasonably possible'.  If there is no action that P could have taken to avoid contact (as in this case) then she is not required to take any action at all.

 

OK, so the stopper knot on the sheet snags on P's centreboard, and the boats get pulled together and carnage ensues.

 

It would have been nice, and a tribute to her superb seamanship, if P had whipped up her centreboard, freed the trailing sheet, and sailed off into the sunset before there was any further contact, but she was under no obligation to do anything:  it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact with the sheet:  she has broken no rule at all.  Even if the boats come together and there is injury or damage, then P has still not broken any rule and can not be penalised.

 

As for S, if there was injury or damage, if she remembers Case 77 which said that the right of way boat whose equipment moved unexpectedly out of position caused contact, she might be inclined to take a turns penalty.  On the other hand, she might think that there is no way that the accidental streaming of her sheet astern, that she was unaware of 'caused' the contact, and might quite reasonably expect a protest committee to conclude that it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact and that she had not broken rule 14 either, in which case she might decide not to do any penalty turns.

 

 

Just covering all the angles as this is a natural question that someone might have after reading the answer to the original question. I made very clear the limited set of circumstance it would apply and if it was proved to be deliberate I absolutely feel a R2 penalty would be appropriate. It would be similar to the 'crew hikes out not in response to a gust to cause contact with a windward boat.' situation.

 

I acknowledge that Gordon has in the past chid me for a certain 'colonial robustness' in my approach to sportsmanship and fair play, but it's not a natural question to me at all.  It seems to involve a primary assumption that one of our fellow sailors is a cheat.  It smacks of a certain 'my sportsmanship is bigger than your sportsmanship' approach, or to say the least an exaggerated delicacy.

 

That said, lets take a look at the issue as raised by responses to the OP in a little more detail.

 

Originally posted by RS400atC Suppose starboard had deliberately trailed his sheet in order to put port at a disadvantage?

 

As discussed with reference to cases 77 and 91 Port will break no rule by touching the trailing sheet.

 

How then would deliberately trailing the sheet 'put port at a disadvantage'?

 

Answer:  it wouldn't.

 

OK, suppose S had some half-smart idea of trapping P into breaking a rule.

 

By deliberately trailing the sheet, then all my Case 77 worries about whether S 'caused' the contact go away:  S deliberately trailing the sheet caused the contact:  it was reasonably possible for S, by not deliberately trailing the sheet to have avoided contact.  S broke rule 14, but as previously discussed, there being no damage or injury (and except in the rather unlikely event of the sheet snagging on S and drawing the boats together, damage being unlikely) S shall be exonerated in accordance with rule 14( b ).

 

S, however, deliberately broke a rule with the intention of gaining an advantage.

 

Well, we can search the RRS and the Case Book and we will not discover any general rule or interpretation that says anything special about deliberately breaking a rule.

 

That said, I don't have too much trouble accepting that it's a recognised principle of sportsmanship and fair play not to deliberately break the rules with the intention of gaining an advantage.

 

If we consult the RYA Guidance on Misconduct we discover that deliberately breaking a rule with the intention of gaining an advantage is:

Firstly, it's all very well for us to talk in a scenario on a rules forum about what S does 'deliberately' and what S 'intends', but in the absence of the trusty Brain-o-Scope, it may be exceedingly difficult to prove these mental states in a protest hearing (and as I have indicated, in my opinion, extremely rude to our fellow competitors to suggest that they may be assumed).

 

Remember the rule 2 requires that any alleged violation must be clearly established, and any rule 69 hearing must reach 'comfortable satisfaction' (Case 122).

 

Secondly, RYA Appeal 2004/3 flatly says:

So, yes it's interesting and educational, if somewhat insulting to our fellow sailors, to examine how rule 2 might run in this case.

 

If contact results from S deliberately trailing a sheet, hawser or fishing line, then S breaks rule 14 because it was reasonably possible for her to have avoided contact by not trailing the thing.

 

What on earth is a twiller and why are you abusing it by calling it lazy?

Originally posted by RS400atC If S chooses to trail a warp, is P not obliged to keep clear of it, to the limit that this is possible?

My personal opinion on this which is shaped by TR call A4 and case 73 is that if the mainsheet is trailed purely with the intention of causing contact or forcing port into a much larger duck than normal then that would be a R2 infringement. If its something the boat does every lap then there is more of an argument to be made.

 

I can't see how discussing a hypothetical question on an internet board is insulting to anyone, by discussing these sort of issues everyone learns how the rules apply in different situations and improves their knowledge out on the water. Which can in turn only be of benefit to all of us. Clearly "what if it was deliberate" was always going to be asked in relation to this question as it raises interesting points.

 

I don't think TR Call A4 adds anything:  it's just a short gloss on Cases 73 and 74.

 

It does, however remind me that, while the normal RRS do not mention deliberately breaking a rule, rule C8.3( b ) does enable umpires to give an additional penalty for deliberately breaking a rule in Match Racing.  Curiously this doen't seem to be repeated in Appendix D for Team Racing.

 

I think the essence of Case 73 is the 'reaching out' and making contact when otherwise the give way boat is keeping clear.  Thus, reaching out with a hand or extending an extendable bowsprit, or heaving a line, so as to make contact, when that action 'could have no other intention than to cause W to break [a right of way] rule' intentionally and avoidably breaks rule 14 and in deliberately breaking a rule to gain advantage breaks rule 2.  The reservation in RYA Appeal 2004/3 that touching a boat that is so close that she is already breaking rule 11 seems to me valid and useful here.

 

I don't agree that trailing a line, or say rigging a spinnaker pole to windward without a spinnaker set, in order to increase the 'envelope' of a right of way boat that a keep clear boat must keep clear around, as long as the equipment has been out of its normal position long enough for the equipment to have been seen and avoided breaks any rule.  Case 91 says exactly that.

 

There is a very limited number of rules that depend on a boat's equipment being 'in normal position' (Definition Clear Ahead, Clear Astern, Overlap, and Definition Finish).  There is no other requirement concerning a boat sailing with her equipment in normal position in the rules.

You could rig a long pole to leeward for the start to guarantee a gap to accelerate into. In the situation here you can force back into a duck several BLs longer than necessary. 

These actions seem pretty unsporting to me and clearly the community agrees or we would see them out on the course. For me any placement of a piece of equipment with only the intention of causing contact or making it harder to avoid is no on.

 

 

In this case the camera and its support are equipment in normal position.

 

Originally posted by RS400atC Towing anything behind the boat would presumably break the propulsion rule? Although it is a known survival technique in ocean sailing.

 

That's a good one.

 

If it came up in a protest hearing I would expect to see some mumbo jumbo about 'normal act of seamanship'.

 

Originally posted by RS400atC Originally posted by Brass ... What on earth is a twiller and why are you abusing it by calling it lazy? ..... Twin tiller extension. As used on B14's and others. Some classes not all boats have them, depending on sheet arrangement. Fr'instance RS800's they are or were an option. The one you're not using trails out the back of the boat. You may not expect it to be there, but there it is, deliberately 4ft behind the boat....

 

 

Gotcha.

 

Parts of a boat's equipment may have a range of 'normal positions'.

 

I think that's in its normal position.

 

If you propelled or deliberately wiggled it so as to touch a give way boat ... Case 73  you break rule 14 and rule 2.

 

Unless you're in the UK and subject to RYA Appeal 2004/3: