Racing Rules: Tacking onto starboard at the windward mark

Print Page | Close Window

Tacking onto starboard at the windward mark

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=12116
Printed Date: 26 Jun 25 at 5:15am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Tacking onto starboard at the windward mark

Posted By: Wobble
Subject: Tacking onto starboard at the windward mark
Date Posted: 07 Aug 15 at 5:26pm

Approaching a port-rounding windward mark in a tight fleet, with wind dying and the tide pushing everyone under, a lot of people are putting in late tacks onto starboard. Mayhem, sorta.

I tack onto starboard six or seven boat lengths out, under the oncoming train and in good shape to make the mark. Shortly after I complete the tack, a port tacker who I considered had been about four boat lengths above me on port and sailing behind - I don't think he was overlapped -- comes through, ignores my call of starboard, forces me to to dip, and I miss the mark. I growled but didn't protest.

He said that I had to allow him room to keep clear, that he had nowhere to go, and that he had no obligation to anticipate that I was going to tack onto starboard. All of this depends on a different telling of the facts-, i.e. that we were much closer than I had estimated. He did not dispute that my tack was complete. He might have been inside the zone, but didn't claim this, and I'm not sure that would change things.

My case if I had protested is that this is a simple Rule 10 situation and that he could have tacked back to starboard before putting himself in that position. Witnesses said I should have protested.

How would this play in the protest room? Would the difference as to facts change the outcome?

Replies:

Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 07 Aug 15 at 5:43pm

Assuming you tack is outside the zone. (Not that it actually makes a difference).

You are clear ahead and leeward, so right of way (11 and 12). You luff and tack. 13 then applies.

13 WHILE TACKING After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course. During that time rules 10, 11 and 12 do not apply. If two boats are subject to this rule at the same time, the one on the other’s port side or the one astern shall keep clear

Between head to wind and your close hauled course, you have to keep clear. Once you're on your starboard close hauled course, you are RoW as a starboard boat (he's still on port). You have acquired RoW through your own actions, so 15 applies.

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat’s actions.

Room to keep clear is defined:

Room The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31, while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.

Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat (a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and, (b) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact.

So after you have acquired RoW, by completing your tack to starboard you initially have to give him the space to keep clear while manoeuvering promptly in a seamanlike way. Did he have time for a tack or duck?

He doesn't have to anticipate that you're going to tack. http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Racing/RacingInformation/RacingRules/RYA%20CASE%20BOOK.pdf" rel="nofollow - RYA appeal 1993/5 illustrates.

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 07 Aug 15 at 5:57pm

Different facts always change the outcome.

If I were on the PC I would be interested in exact sequence of events. If all agreed that you completed the tack, then hailed, then when you realised he wasn't going to tack had time to duck, then if you were in fast tacking dinghies I'd strongly suspect he had time to tack and you'd given him enough room. The hail is irrelevant rules wise, but it does give an idea of the timing.

Posted By: Wobble
Date Posted: 07 Aug 15 at 6:07pm

I tacked and expected him to tack too. When he didn't, I hailed. It was all in slow motion, with no wind.

Edit: my tack is definitely outside the zone. Our encounter is possibly at the zone, but not sure. Also don't know if it matters...

In my opinion he had time to tack, but didn't want to because that would have seen him squeezed out and buried. It seems to me that it all hinges on whether he had time to keep clear: I say he had, he says he hadn't. Who is the onus on, I wonder, to establish this? I would be relying on the witness to back my version of the truth.

Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 07 Aug 15 at 6:28pm

There is no onus. From the judge's manual.

K.18 Hearing Procedure: Finding the Facts

In almost all cases the differences of opinion are settled by the quality of the evidence. The racing rules do not give the onus of proof to one boat or the other. Port is not required to prove she kept clear of starboard. A protest committee is required to consider all the evidence, consider who was in the best position to determine what happened, determine which evidence is more credible, then decide the facts of the incident.

It is an unalterable responsibility of the protest committee to establish the “facts” that the decision will be based upon, even when the parties present widely differing testimony. If one party says the boats were one metre apart while the other says ten boat lengths, the protest committee must decide which opinion is more creditable. Varying testimony is common and does not necessarily mean that someone is lying. It may reflect different perspectives or feelings at the time of or after the incident. ....

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 07 Aug 15 at 6:34pm

There's no onus as such on one or the other. The PC has to listen to the evidence and work out what they think is the most likely sequence of events. Most likely it would differ from both parties version!

Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 09 Aug 15 at 8:37pm

There is no onus,as stated above, but I bet (with no evidence at all, really) that more decisions go in favour of RoW boat.

-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 09 Aug 15 at 10:28pm

Originally posted by Rupert

I bet ... that more decisions go in favour of RoW boat.

Well, in those circumstances you'd expect the ROW boat to be in the right more often than not.

Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 10 Aug 15 at 2:20am

Originally posted by Wobble

Approaching a port-rounding windward mark in a tight fleet, with wind dying and the tide pushing everyone under, a lot of people are putting in late tacks onto starboard. Mayhem, sorta.

Key question would be 'How long had you been sailing on starboard no higher than your close hauled course when you began to bear away to pass astern of P?'

This sounds like he's just throwing 'rules phrases' around, without really knowing what rule or what action in breach of a rule he's relying on.

First and foremost, if you, having reached a starboard tack course no higher than close hauled, needed to take avoiding action because you had a reasonable apprehension that there would be a collision if you did not, then P has broke rule 10 (Case 50).

He said that I had to allow him room to keep clear,

Precisely when did he think this obligation occurred, one wonders:

While you were still on port, and overlapped to leeward or clear ahead, you, as right of way boat changing course were required to give P room to keep clear: on your story he was four boat lengths away at this time: that's plenty of room.
From the time you were head to wind until you reached your close hauled course on starboard, you were required to keep clear (rule 13), and therefore no giving room rule applied to you.
Once you reached your close hauled course on starboard tack, you acquired right of way and were required initially to give P room to keep clear.

Hence the question: how long were you on starboard tack before you had to bear away, then the issue would be, did that time allow sufficient room for P to keep clear of you?

that he had nowhere to go,

Well, that's a matter for evidence about distances, times and speeds.

and that he had no obligation to anticipate that I was going to tack onto starboard.

Quite right, neither he did. All he had to do was:

keep clear of you while you were on port tack, clear ahead or overlapped to leeward;
keep clear once you reached your close hauled course on starboard.

True, he did not need to do anything between when you passed head to wind until you reached your close hauled course on starboard, because he was right of way boat, but he's not disputing that your tack was complete: he's talking about room to keep clear after that.

All of this depends on a different telling of the facts-, i.e. that we were much closer than I had estimated. He He might have been inside the zone, but didn't claim this, and I'm not sure that would change things.

My case if I had protested is that this is a simple Rule 10 situation and that he could have tacked back to starboard before putting himself in that position. Witnesses said I should have protested.

How would this play in the protest room? Would the difference as to facts change the outcome?

All depends on speeds and distances from the time your reached your close hauled course.

Posted By: Wobble
Date Posted: 10 Aug 15 at 11:55am

Thanks for these responses. It does seem to be down to establishing the facts -- and of course I've had innumerable incidents where it's precisely the facts that are in dispute.

Interesting that there is no onus presumed on either party. I suppose one has to accept that life isn't perfect and trust that the protest committee is doing its best.

I'm solid in saying that there was a minimum 10 seconds between my being close-hauled on starboard and then having to bear away to avoid him. He inevitably would dispute this: he says he was 'amazed' to see me tack back onto starboard; I was pretty amazed to see him attempt to cross on port.

Posted By: fish n ships
Date Posted: 10 Aug 15 at 3:51pm

My experience of these types of situations are that 9 times from 10 the other boat has got themselves into trouble has realised too late that they're approaching on the wrong tack, without any rights or enough space. Then one of two things happens either they are inexperienced and panic or they should know better and don't want to write their race off. Either way the end result is them pushing and shoving into the starboard lay-line "boat train" whilst shouting a few rules to try to justify themselves.

It never ends well and someone (usually another boat that was in the right) always ends up getting spat out the back/missing the mark/tacking to avoid a collision and having their race disturbed instead of the boat at fault.

We had someone that did it regularly at the windward mark and would then receive shouts/abuse (usually with some four letter words attached) from the other boats around them. If anyone pursued it further with a protest they would threaten a counter R69 protest for the verbal shouting/confrontation. Luckily after a season this boat left and the calm was restored - it never did end up at protest although i often wondered how much abuse would be required for a R69 protest to work?

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 10 Aug 15 at 4:22pm

There's some guidelines that suggest that fleet norms affect what's considered inappropriate language.

The use of threats of RRS 69 to intimidate someone not to protest sounds like RRS 2 territory to me. One should never forget that under RRS 69 the PC may issue a warning rather than a penalty, and in the situation described I can imagine a PC issuing the starboard boat an RRS69 warning to try and avoid using naughty words in future and the port boat a rule 2 DND.

Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 10 Aug 15 at 9:43pm

Too f**king right!

-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686

Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 11 Aug 15 at 1:39am

Originally posted by JimC

There's some guidelines that suggest that fleet norms affect what's considered inappropriate language.

The use of threats of RRS 69 to intimidate someone not to protest sounds like RRS 2 territory to me. One should never forget that under RRS 69 the PC may issue a warning rather than a penalty, and in the situation described I can imagine a PC issuing the starboard boat an RRS69 warning to try and avoid using naughty words in future and the port boat a rule 2 DND.

Naah.

A rule 69 hearing cannot deal with anybody other than the competitor who is alleged to have broken rule 69 (rule 69.2).

Rule 2 requires a valid protest.

A Protest Committee may protest a boat but not as a result of information in a hearing from an interested party other than the representative of the boat itself (rule 60.3)

They could, of course go to rule 69 against the threatening boat, because a protest committee can go to rule 69 on any information or report.

I'd be more inclined to dismiss the rule 69 foul language allegation; As, I've said, mere foul language, between mature adults, IMHO, may be bad manners, but absent some aggravation, does not rise to gross bad manners.

Having done that, I'd leave the threatner alone.

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 11 Aug 15 at 7:08am

I was assuming a valid protest from the starboard boat on the original issue.

Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 11 Aug 15 at 7:49am

That would be for a breach of rule 10, on the water?

Threat to go rule 69 when? probably not at the time of the port/starboard incident.

Two incidents.

CASE 80
A hearing of a protest or a request for redress must be limited to the alleged
incident, action or omission.

Collisions causally linked?:

RYA Appeal 2003/3
If there is a causal link between a series of collisions,
they may be regarded as a single incident for the
purposes of rule 60.3(a)(1)

Threat the inevitable result of the port/starboard?

US Sailing Appeal 65
The test of whether two occurrences were one or two incidents is whether the
second occurrence was the inevitable result of the first. A boat intending to protest another
boat for two incidents during a race, no matter how close in time, must inform the protested
boat that two protests will be lodged.

I don't think that is going to get you there.

Posted By: Wobble
Date Posted: 11 Aug 15 at 9:45am

Never came across a Rule 69, actual or threatened, in RL.

Actually, I was super-polite - surely a signing of my growing old. I left out anything that could be construed as abusive, though I also omitted the word 'protest', which overall I think was a mistake in view of the discussion.

Posted By: Jack Sparrow
Date Posted: 11 Aug 15 at 11:47am

I'm surprised anyone is debating the reasons for - 'the decline in club sailing' - on another thread on here, after reading this thread. You have gentlemen, described in a few posts why people don't want to take up sailing as a sport.

-------------
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: Wobble
Date Posted: 11 Aug 15 at 12:59pm

Originally posted by Jack Sparrow

You have gentlemen, described in a few posts why people don't want to take up sailing as a sport.

So we can take it you would prefer that we confine ourselves to discussion of non-contentious aspects of the rules of our sport?

Perhaps we should accentuate the positives, N. Korean-style. I should like to wax lyrical about the draw of the sea and of sailing, but of course someone more articulate got there before me ...

[TUBE]X82NNkkjSYI[/TUBE]

Do you think that would help challenge the mighty XBox? Smile

Posted By: Jack Sparrow
Date Posted: 11 Aug 15 at 5:59pm

Originally posted by Wobble

Originally posted by Jack Sparrow

You have gentlemen, described in a few posts why people don't want to take up sailing as a sport.

So we can take it you would prefer that we confine ourselves to discussion of non-contentious aspects of the rules of our sport?

not at all, carry on.

It's a legitimate set of questions after all.

Heavens knows, maybe the process will encourage a generation of yet unknown sailors to take up a sport riddled with such contentious rules. Or just maybe, ISAF will do some editing.

-------------
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: JimC
Date Posted: 11 Aug 15 at 6:05pm

Compared to the problems, say, athletics and cycling have got I'll take ours thanks...

Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 11 Aug 15 at 7:16pm

We get ourselves into complex situations, so we need a complex set of rules. When setting a race for beginners in Funboats, I remove all but the don't crash rule, and ignore that, too. Works for them, wouldn't work for those who want to take it more seriously.

-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686

Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 12 Aug 15 at 4:22am

Originally posted by JimC

Compared to the problems, say, athletics and cycling have got I'll take ours thanks...

I don't know if JS is complaining about port and starboard near windward marks or foul and abusive language and rule 69/2.

If it's about port/starboard, then I think Rupert's got it covered.

About, foul language and abuse, there may be a point.

When I was involved in swimming and orienteering, it would have been just unthinkable for a competitor to cop an earful, either during a race (a bit difficult with swimming) or around an event venue. I think that's probably the same for any participation sport like golf, or indeed, aths or cycling. It may be different where the marketing department has promoted a 'bad-boy' image with trash talking and sledging as in basketball and cricket.

Sure aths an cycling have drug problems, but I suspect that drug problems, appearing at the elite level, don't deter families from participation, while an image involving foul mouthed bad manners might.

Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 12 Aug 15 at 8:16am

Unlike society as a whole, I'd say there has been a reduction in the use of bad language in sailing over the past 30 years, and it is now more frowned upon. It may just be where I sail, of course, or even just the utterances from my mouth that have changed, of course!

-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686

Posted By: Jack Sparrow
Date Posted: 12 Aug 15 at 4:42pm

Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by JimC

Compared to the problems, say, athletics and cycling have got I'll take ours thanks...

I don't know if JS is complaining about port and starboard near windward marks or foul and abusive language and rule 69/2.

If it's about port/starboard, then I think Rupert's got it covered.

About, foul language and abuse, there may be a point.

A bit of both really.

The rules need to be simplified. The fact that there are X number of pages debating a single situation shows the situation is overly complex and is symbolic, in my view of the reasons there is low up take of sailing. It's true that a lot of the old guard like it that way. But the old guard die. If people want sailing to continue as a meaningful SPORT it needs youth.

The Americas Cup is doing a good job of effectively simplifying and creating understanding with the technology being employed. The concept of 'understandability' they have used to make the AC meaningful to crowds needs to be employed in our rule set.

And yes, rule intimidation, swearing and boat bullying needs to be got rid of. Unfortunately it is sort of embodied in the sail rules through the concept of 'protest'. Which creates an aggressive mind set not to dissimilar to two barristers playing chess. A lot of old guard sailors like this sort of sailing. And enjoy drifting around a tree surrounded gravel pit at 1 knot, having a mental battle with an club adversary.

I've yet to see a teenager get much out of this type of sailing. That's not to say it shouldn't exist. Just maybe they that enjoy that sort of sailing should 'team race' with the current set of rules. And let those interested in SPORT ( in the athletic sense ) and not 3D CHESS, sail with a rule set that is focused more on getting around the course as cleanly and swiftly as possible.

Maybe there should be two very distinct rule sets? RULES LIGHT and RULES HEAVY after all most classes have an Inland Championships as well as there regular Champs etc...

JimC - as for drugs, I'd be careful about pointing the finger at other sports with the inference being that Sailing is clean.

-------------
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