Racing Rules: Hailing for Mark Room

Hailing for Mark Room

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=11387
Printed Date: 27 Jun 25 at 8:40am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Hailing for Mark Room

Posted By: NickM
Subject: Hailing for Mark Room
Date Posted: 09 Mar 14 at 10:34pm

Can anyone comment on the obligations of helms to respond to a call for Mark Room by an inside overlapping boat? Rule 20 (Hailing) does not appear to apply.

In an incident A, B and C were broad reaching on starboard to a small port hand gybe mark quite well spaced apart. Force 2. A on the inside overlapped B, who overlapped C on the outside, as the boats entered the zone. A called for mark room to which there was no response. Seconds later, C gybed onto port and took a course that passed close to the mark, that left no room for A to gybe round the mark. When a boat length from the mark C called "No Mark Room."

As nobody had challenged the original hail, A assumed that mark room would be given and when C did hail, with B just outside, it was too late for A to change course to avoid contact with C.

(B and A may have slowed while in the zone which just enabled C to gybe, but 18.2(c) is clear that the inside boat is continued to be entitled to Mark Room even if the overlap is broken after the boats enter the zone.)

No doubt a Protest Committee would focus on whether A had established a right to Mark Room from C - or not, as C believed. 18.2(d) indicates that if there is reasonable doubt about an overlap being established, it should be presumed that it was not. However, if Mark Room is called for by an inside boat, is there any obligation on the outside boat to indicate they are going to ignore it?

Replies:

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 09 Mar 14 at 11:03pm

There are no requirements that I can see in the rules for hails in mark room situations, so my guess is that silence has no especial significance. A deliberately misleading hail on the other hand...

Don't forget 18.2c is based on the last point of certainty principle: if the boats were overlapped down the leg is assumed they stayed overlapped if there is doubt, and if not overlapped on the leg that they stayed that way.

And yes, to my mind the hearing would be about whether A or C had mark room.

Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 09 Mar 14 at 11:11pm

Originally posted by NickM

Can anyone comment on the obligations of helms to respond to a call for Mark Room by an inside overlapping boat? Rule 20 (Hailing) does not appear to apply.

In an incident A, B and C were broad reaching on starboard to a small port hand gybe mark quite well spaced apart. Force 2. A on the inside overlapped B, who overlapped C on the outside, as the boats entered the zone. A called for mark room to which there was no response. Seconds later, C gybed onto port and took a course that passed close to the mark, that left no room for A to gybe round the mark. When a boat length from the mark C called "No Mark Room."

As nobody had challenged the original hail, A assumed that mark room would be given and when C did hail, with B just outside, it was too late for A to change course to avoid contact with C.

(B and A may have slowed while in the zone which just enabled C to gybe, but 18.2(c) is clear that the inside boat is continued to be entitled to Mark Room even if the overlap is broken after the boats enter the zone.)

No doubt a Protest Committee would focus on whether A had established a right to Mark Room from C - or not, as C believed. 18.2(d) indicates that if there is reasonable doubt about an overlap being established, it should be presumed that it was not. However, if Mark Room is called for by an inside boat, is there any obligation on the outside boat to indicate they are going to ignore it?

Something like in this diagram?

There is no requirement in the rules for any hail of any sort in connection with entitlements to mark-room. Requirements for hails for room at marks were deleted in the 1995 rules rewrite.

Your scenario says boats were all on starboard, and all overlapped when the first of them reached the zone (presumably this was A, but it could have been any one to get rule 18.2( b ) to operate.

That being the case, A, as inside boat is entitled to mark-room under rule 18.2( b ) and will continue to be entitled even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins, as you have rightly observed under rule 18.2( c ).

Rule 18.2( b ) gives an entitlement to mark-room to a boat overlapped inside when either boat reaches the zone or a boat clear ahead when she reaches the zone. That would be A and B in this case.

The only way C is not required to give mark-room under rule 18.2( b ) and to continue to give it under rule 18.2( c ) is IF she ~~reached the zone~~ was CLEAR AHEAD when one of A or C first reached the zone, then ~~and OUTSIDE A and B, then, IF AND ONLY IF C then becomes overlapped INSIDE, does she become entitled to mark-room under rule 18.2( a ).~~:

1. If C reached the zone first and was clear ahead of A, then C is the boat entitled to mark-room under rule 18.2( b ), and retains it under rule 18.2( c ).

2. If A reached the zone first with C clear ahead and not yet at the zone rule 18.2( a ) applies and rule 18.2( b ) does not, but rule 18.2( a ) only entitles a boat to mark-room when she is overlapped inside (See Case 2).

a. While boats are clear ahead/clear astern, there is no mark-room under rule 18.2( a ).

b. If C initially clear ahead, bears away to gybe, she will inevitably become overlapped outside A and A will then be entitled to mark-room, while they are overlapped.

c. Supposing C then sailed across A’s stern, she would then be clear astern of A and neither would be entitled to mark-room, then if C managed to become overlapped inside A, then A would be required to give C mark-room.

In other words, if C is overlapped or coming from behind, she is going to owe mark-room and continue to owe it all the way round.

And, as long as C was never claiming to be clear ahead before reaching the zone, whether or not the overlap was broken is irrelevant, so you don't need to go near rule 18.2( d ).

By the way, you said 'the Protest Committee would focus on whether A had established a right to Mark Room from C - or not': the protest committee wouldn't really need to do that: C is required to keep clear of A throughout, and unless C gets mark-room, rules 11 and 10 will be quite enough to decide the matter.

I get the feeling that in your case, where you say C believed that A had not established a right to mark-room, C was thinking that when B and A slowed while in the zone, she managed to pass to windward, and get clear ahead, and that, somehow getting clear ahead (after A and B had reached the zone) changed the entitlement to mark-room. She's wrong. It doesn't.

Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 7:58pm

Brass, Jim, thanks for your comments. The situation was roughly as per your diagram but I would put A (yellow) alongside B (blue) at points 2, 3 and 4. Also at point 4, C (green)'s bow was almost at the mark and she was at right angles to the course of yellow.

I understood the rules as you have described them. In a protest, the evidence of B would be key to deciding the facts. I was misinformed about hailing, but that throws up a question.

If there had been a protest and the Jury found that A was entitled to Mark Room, there is no doubt as to the outcome.

However, hypothetically, if the Jury found that A was not entitled to mark room, e.g. the hail had come too early and the overlap was broken before the first boat entered the zone, could C be faulted for not anticipating that A would sail on in expectation of getting mark room if she believed she (A) was RoW boat. 14(a) states that a RoW boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving mark room. In this case, having called for Mark Room, and getting no response, it was reasonable for A to assume that it would be given. By the time C shouted "No mark Room" (around point 3) it was too late for A to avoid a collision.

The rules give no significance to hailing, but if you imagine this scenario developing in total silence with both A and C believing they were the RoW boat, there would be carnage!

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 8:37pm

I guess it would all come down to how reasonable the PC thought A's belief that she had mark room was.
I would be very interested to hear Cs side of the story!

Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 10 Mar 14 at 9:46pm

My apologies everyone. I seriously scrambled the application of Case 2 in my reply to NickM.

Correct postion, as edited in my previous post is as follows:

1. If C reached the zone first and was clear ahead of A, then C is the boat entitled to mark-room under rule 18.2( b ), and retains it under rule 18.2( c ).

a. While boats are clear ahead/clear astern, there is no mark-room under rule 18.2( a ).

b. If C initially clear ahead, bears away to gybe, she will inevitably become overlapped outside A and A will then be entitled to mark-room, while they are overlapped.

Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 11 Mar 14 at 3:27am

Originally posted by NickM

Brass, Jim, thanks for your comments. The situation was roughly as per your diagram but I would put A (yellow) alongside B (blue) at points 2, 3 and 4. Also at point 4, C (green)'s bow was almost at the mark and she was at right angles to the course of yellow.

I understood the rules as you have described them. In a protest, the evidence of B would be key to deciding the facts. I was misinformed about hailing, but that throws up a question.

If there had been a protest and the Jury found that A was entitled to Mark Room, there is no doubt as to the outcome.

However, hypothetically, if the Jury found that A was not entitled to mark room,

Could only happen if C was clear ahead of A when the first of them reached the zone and either C reached the zone first or C was overlapped inside A.

e.g. the hail had come too early

hail has no effect on mark-room obligations or entitlements under the rules

and the overlap was broken before the first boat entered the zone, could C be faulted for not anticipating

A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule (Case 27)

that A would sail on in expectation of getting mark room if she believed she (A) was RoW boat.

Part 2 rules don’t normally deal in expectations. They are instantaneous, except where a limitation rule (such as rule 13, Tacking, or rules 15 and 16, room to keep clear, or rule 14( a ) need not act until it is clear,) provide a ‘buffer’.

14(a) states that a RoW boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving mark room.

Rule 14( a ) applies to both boats. A is right of way boat. C is entitled to mark-room.

In this case, having called for Mark Room, and getting no response, it was reasonable for A to assume that it would be given.

I take it you mean ‘was it reasonable for A to assume mark-room would be given?’.

Answer: if the protest committee has found that C was clear ahead, necessarily beyond reasonable doubt, and C was entitled to mark-room as discussed above, then NO, it was not reasonable for A to assume that C would give A mark-room, or that C would keep clear.

But ‘assumptions’ by any boat are irrelevant.

The issue for the protest committee is, given that rule 14( a ) applies and contact occurred:

‘when was it clear that the other boat was not keeping clear or giving room, and, at that time was it reasonably possible to avoid contact?'

By the time C shouted "No mark Room" (around point 3) it was too late for A to avoid a collision.

Agreed.

How does this play for you?

A’s Point of View

A is the right of way boat.

Regardless of whether A or C, or neither is entitled to mark-room, A must, when it becomes clear that C is not keeping clear, if reasonably possible, avoid contact.

@2 A has no reason to think C is not keeping clear (or indeed, giving mark-room).

@3, with C gybing towards A it is abundantly clear that C is not keeping clear, but it is not reasonably possible for A to do anything because she is jammed between C and the mark (assuming that the mark isn’t of a type that it is clear that running over the mark is better than contact with C).

Some time between @2 and @3, C gybed and hailed. Pretty much at that point, it must immediately be clear to A that C is not keeping clear. A’s bow might be 20 cm before or 20 cm after the mark: I’m happy that even if A’s bow was not quite at the mark, it was still not reasonably possible for A to bear away and avoid contact.

Taking into account rule 14( a ), A does not break rule 14.

C’s Point of View

C is give way boat. If C does not think she is entitled to mark-room, she must keep clear of and give mark-room to A and avoid contact if reasonably possible.

C, throughout has freedom to change course away from A: it is always reasonably possible for C to avoid contact.

If C was entitled to mark-room she must, when it becomes clear that A is not giving mark-room, if reasonably possible, avoid contact.

@2, I would be inclined to think that it is pretty clear that A is not giving mark-room: A has hailed that she thinks she is entitled to mark-room. if A continues on her course, she will not be giving C room to sail close to the mark or room to round the mark as necessary to sail the course. At this point it is reasonably possible for C to bear away and avoid contact with A.

@3, once C has gybed, it is even more clear that A is not giving C mark-room. It is still reasonably possible for C to bear away and avoid contact with A.

@4 there is contact.

C breaks rule 14, even taking into account rule 14( a ).

The rules give no significance to hailing, but if you imagine this scenario developing in total silence with both A and C believing they were the RoW boat, there would be carnage!

I disagree. No hails is no worse than, as in this case, each boat hailing (and believing) that they have an entitlement that the other boat must afford them.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for meaningful communication to indicate intentions or perceptions.

In this case, A hailing ‘Mark-room’ or ‘water’ or whatever as she reached the zone was a good start: having come in with all three overlapped it would have contributed little if A had hailed ‘overlap’ any earlier.

It might have clarified matters if C (when she [thought she] saw the overlap broken) to have hailed ‘Overlap Broken’ or ‘No Overlap’.

Stuff about hailing

There is a difference between the effect and utility of hails between baots on the water and the effect of evidence about hails in protest hearings.

Hails on the water convey facts, perceptions and intentions (and helpful opinions about other sailors’ parentage and personal habits). Hails assist other boats to ‘play the game’ and to play the game safely.

With the exception of hails when approaching an obstruction under rule 20 and hails of ‘protest under rule 61.1( a ), the rules do not require any hails and do not create or change any obligations or entitlements if hails are, or are not made.

In a protest hearing, and depending on the other evidence:

1. Not much can be inferred from a single hail from one boat. It might be evidence of how someone saw a fact at the time, but it might or might not be factually accurate

2. It might be inferred from a response from one boat to a hail by another, that there is reasonable doubt about whether an inside overlap was made or broken in time, .

3. Nothing can be inferred, in particular, absence of doubt cannot be inferred, from any lack of response by one boat to another's hail.

Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 11 Mar 14 at 9:03pm

Brass, many thanks. As ever a masterful explanation of all the issues!