Near collision whilst broaching
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=11013
Printed Date: 27 Jun 25 at 10:38pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Near collision whilst broaching
Posted By: jsluke
Subject: Near collision whilst broaching
Date Posted: 03 Aug 13 at 5:27pm
|
Boat A is on port tack heading directly downwind under Spinnaker. Boat B is also on port tack and heading downwind under Spinnaker. Boat B approaches Boat A from astern and more than 2 boat lengths to leeward. She establishes an overlap and closes on Boat A. Boat A is ready to keep clear of Boat B, however she suddenly broaches and crash gybes onto Starboard. She is out of control throughout the broach and at one point looks like she is about to T-bone Boat B. Boat B crash gybes to avoid the collision and in the process damages her spinnaker. Boat B protests Boat A for not giving her the time and opportunity to stay clear when gybing onto Starboard. Boat A does not deny any of the facts but simply states that she was out of control. Would Boat B win the protest? Thanks. James. |
Replies:
Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 03 Aug 13 at 11:11pm
|
Yes. Case 99 seems to be the nearest in the casebook. ------------- Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard" Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch" Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air" Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile" |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 04 Aug 13 at 2:10pm
As Luke says.
Being out of control does not exonerate a boat from its obligations.
Whilst there may not have been any physical contact between the two boats, for P to undertake an uncontrolled crash gybe and in doing so damaging its spinnaker to avoid a collision indicates that S' change of course did not give P sufficient opportunity to keep clear in the context of the rules. Addendum; Rule 15 / rule 16.1 would apply.
|
Posted By: laser193713
Date Posted: 05 Aug 13 at 9:30am
| Should S have to retire for causing serious damage? Or is that only the case in a collision? |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Aug 13 at 11:54am
|
If a boat KNOWS she broke a rule she MUST take a penalty (Basic Principles - Sportsmanship and the Rules [not a rule, by the way])
If she knows she broke rule and in the incident, caused serious damage or injury, her penalty shall be to retire, that is she cannot take a turns or scoring penalty (rule 44.1( b ). If a boat does not KNOW that she broke a rule she is under no obligation to take any penalty, and it is up to another boat or a race or protest committee to make a valid protest if they wish the boat to be penalised (rules 64.1 and A5) |
Posted By: Ruscoe
Date Posted: 05 Aug 13 at 1:46pm
|
But if boat B has the ability to complete its 'Crash gybe' then surely it had time and oportunity to complete the manovure? The fact the kite was damaged may be for a number of reasons. How can this be proved to be boats A's faultif there was no contact? ------------- |
Posted By: laser193713
Date Posted: 05 Aug 13 at 2:14pm
What if this happened in the TDF... would anyone retire then?  Now, I will put my feet up, grab a beer and observe the chaos!
 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Aug 13 at 2:55pm
I've previously said I don't like the term 'crash gybe' because it's slangy and carries no precise meaning. I think, however, in this case it means, clearly enough, a gybe 'all standing', with spinnaker pole out the wrong side of the boat, toe of the pole and tack of the spinnaker in the water and so on: couldn't, by any stretch, be called 'seamanlike'. If there was no room to do anything other than that, to avoid a serious collision, then A did not give room to keep clear in a seamanlike manner. Likewise, I would have no difficulty in concluding that damage to B's kite was caused by A breaking the rules. Understand that this is all 'hypothetical' based on words on the internet, and in a real protest hearing, the protest committee would be looking very carefully at evidence about how close, how strong the wind was, where and how the spinnaker was damaged. |
Posted By: mongrel
Date Posted: 05 Aug 13 at 3:48pm
Brass, YOU ARE THE MAN/WOMAN when it comes to rules, another excellent post!
|
Posted By: Ruscoe
Date Posted: 05 Aug 13 at 4:37pm
|
Brass, I agree. I also hate the term Crash gybe, hence my post really. A gybe to me is the complete maneuver otherwise it’s a major change of direction! However is a gybe considered to be when the white sails cross the boat or when the spinnaker is reset on new leg? Genuine question and one I should really know the answer to. Also how do you define a seamanlike manner, could this protest be a result of someone’s inability to complete the gybe correctly (user error) we have all been there even when not under pressure. One thing I would disagree with is how was the damage caused by boat A? No physical contact, sure a gybe was forced on boat B, how would a supposed 'Crash Gybe' knacker a kite? In the case of boat A's insurance I would be pretty miffed. It would also be interesting to hear from insurance companies to understand their view points. But agree with Mongrel...Brass, you really are a great source of rule interpretation. Thanks for sharing. ------------- |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 05 Aug 13 at 6:10pm
Get thee to the definitions section of the rule book for gybe... But, especially when you get to bigger or more delicate boats, there are all sorts of things that can break if you have to crash gybe... For example I normally had 3mm or 4mm ply sidedecks on my Cherubs, and if you bashed it hard with an elbow or knee you could do damage. No problem with normal sailing, but although I never did it I can imagine if I had to crash gybe maybe I could slip and crunch, hole in the deck. In that case I reckon the damage would be entirely down to the boat that made me crash gybe, and heck, they can damn well pay up. |
Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 05 Aug 13 at 9:02pm
|
The fact that a boat required to keep clear is out of control does not entitle her to exoneration for breaking a rule of Part 2. When a right-of-way boat becomes obliged by rule 14 to ‘avoid contact . . . if reasonably possible’ and the only way to do so is to crash-gybe, she does not break the rule if she does not crash-gybe.
------------- Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard" Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch" Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air" Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile" |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Aug 13 at 2:51am
Fair darts Jim, You'll look for a long time to find 'tacking' or 'gybing' in the definitions. They went in 1995. Their meanings are now their common English, or nautical meanings. What matters, for the purposes of the rules is what tack a boat is on (at any instant): to get to this we look at the definition of Tack, Starboard or Port, which takes us back to the definition of Leeward and Windward, which talks about 'the side on which her mainsail lies'. Right of way transitions in tacks are 'buffered' by rule 13 While Tacking. Transitions in gybes are instantaneous (except in Match Racing). You can tell when the gybe is complete, but not when it starts. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Aug 13 at 3:07am
Case 110 ...Contact is not necessary for one boat to cause injury or physical damage to another. ... Question 2 Must contact between the boats occur in order for redress to be granted under rule 62.1(b)? Answer 2 No. A boat that suffers injury to a member of her crew or physical damage while acting to avoid contact with a boat that has broken a rule of Part 2 may be entitled to redress if the injury or damage is found to have made her score significantly worse and was not her fault. Damage to a kite can happen pretty easily in an involuntary gybe: pole and a foot or so of the kite tack digs in the water, loads up big time and the kite lets go around the tack reinforcing. The pole then then bends L shaped around the leeward shrouds, for bonus points taking them out on the way. Likewise, boat bucketing around through the gybe, bow heroically manages to get the pole off, only to stick it right through the kite, or simply that your light kite that you have been nursing on the dead run just explodes or flogs itself to death when you round up into the broach. Sure a genius helmsman might have kept it under control better, but as I said, I'd have no difficulty saying the other boat 'caused' the damage. |
Posted By: Hitcher
Date Posted: 18 Aug 13 at 11:00pm
I'm not sure I can think of a situation where the rules ever need to know when a gybe starts though? As you say, a gybe is instantaneous, so it starts the instant before the boat is on the new tack and the gybe completed. So in this case the boat is on port and bearing away at a RoW leeward boat until the moment it is on starboard aiming at it and out of control.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 20 Aug 13 at 12:30pm
|
Another formulation: If a boat is obliged to perform an unseamanlike manouevre by a another boat that should keep clear or give room then the relevant rule has been broken. If in the course of the unseamanlike manoeuvre a boat suffers damage or injury tihen the appropriate penalty for the infringing boat is to retire as soon as she becomes aware of the damage. When is a gybe unseamalike - probably when it has to be performed immediately, without the normal (for the boat) preparation. ------------- Gordon |