Trapezing and Windward Boat
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=13919
Printed Date: 24 Jun 25 at 6:00pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Trapezing and Windward Boat
Posted By: jcooper
Subject: Trapezing and Windward Boat
Date Posted: 28 Mar 22 at 8:03pm
|
How do the rules see the following situation: Two boats are close together on start line, both on starboard. The gun goes, the crew of leeward boat goes out on the trapeze and comes into contact with windward boat.....probably sails or rigging. Is the windward boat simply in the wrong under rule 11 or does the leeward have some responsibilities under rule 14? I'm assuming that rule 16 has no bearing here as the leeward boat has not changed course, even though the space it needs has suddenly increased significantly. The implication of rule 11 seems to be that if you are starting to windward of a trapeze boat you had better allow room for the trapezing! (We all try leave that distance above a leeward boat at the start, but don't always manage it).
|
Replies:
Posted By: GML
Date Posted: 28 Mar 22 at 8:35pm
|
The leeward boat does have responsibilities under RRS14, and indeed has broken RRS14, but provided that the contact did not cause damage or injury she is exonerated under RRS43.1(c).
And as you say, provided that the leeward boat did not change course then RRS16.1 does not apply, but boats often do change course at the start, and if the leeward boat luffed as well as the crew going out on the trapeze then potentially she may have broken RRS16.1.
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 28 Mar 22 at 9:34pm
The twin cases 73 and 74 are highly relevant to this.
It seems to me that if the crew of Leeward cannot get on the trapeze without making contact then Windward has already broken RRS 11. And Case 74 suggests to me that if the trapeze crew accidentally makes contact then they have not broken a rule. Its interesting that the Case book doesn't mention Rule 14. |
Posted By: GML
Date Posted: 29 Mar 22 at 6:20pm
|
The Case Book generally only mentions RRS14 if that is what the case is specifically about, so I wouldn't read anything into its omission from Case 74. As regards RRS14 - accidental contact is still contact, and if it would still have been reasonably possible to avoid that contact even if the leeward boat did not take action to avoid it until it was clear that the windward boat was not keeping clear then the leeward boat has broken RRS14. But as per my earlier post, if there is no damage or injury then as right-of-way boat she is exonerated for breaking RRS14 under RRS43.1(c). Being exonerated for breaking a rule doesn't mean the rule hasn't been broken, it just means that the boat doesn't have to take a penalty and can't be penalised for breaking the rule (see RRS43.2). |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 29 Mar 22 at 9:18pm
Referring to the definition of Keep Clear, exactly how do you make that out?
I agree with GML
there was contact. That contact could reasonably have been avoided by the crew of L not touching W. Case 74 was originally published in 1971, when the no contact rule was much softer than it is now. I think that's the reason why it omits rule 14, which, as GML describes, in the example, inevitably gains exoneration. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 29 Mar 22 at 9:19pm
Are you sure about that? Have you checked in detail? I haven't, but it doesn't ring true to me: the Cases usually reference every rule applicable to an incident, even if it is not determinative of the incident. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 30 Mar 22 at 8:23am
The crew is entitled to get out on the wire, yes? And if they get partially out on the wire so they are 1/4 inch short of touching windward then surely the condition "can change course in both directions without immediately making contact" is not met. The alternative would seem to be that the leeward ROW boat is prevented from sailing her course in her desired manner by the windward give way boat, which seems perverse. It would require the ROW boat to change course to leeward in order to have enough space for the crew to get on the wire. Its well established that Give Way does not need to anticipate gear being moved out of its normal position. But in this case the crew is moving into normal position. Does that have implications? |
Posted By: The Q
Date Posted: 30 Mar 22 at 12:21pm
|
Doesn't the leeward boat have to give time to manoeuver? ------------- Still sailing in circles |
Posted By: PeterG
Date Posted: 30 Mar 22 at 2:59pm
|
That's my view - 16.1 Interesting in terms of interpretation if the crew goes out on the wire while holding a steady course, but in the majority of cases on the start line there is going to be a change of course too as they harden up. A slightly different case is a leeward boat on a steady course in variable wind. It's harder to see 16.1 applying there. ------------- Peter Ex Cont 707 Ex Laser 189635 DY 59 |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 30 Mar 22 at 4:43pm
|
Let’s follow that logic train….a leeward boat on a steady course in variable wind doesn’t break 16.1 by extending on the trapeze and making contact.
Let’s imagine that the same conditions apply on the start line…..if we accept the logic above them Leeward didn’t break 16.1. Now on a normal start the wind doesn’t change but there is a need to accelerate the boat. So leeward sheets on and as a consequence the crew must project more. I don’t see how this is any different from the first case I mention. Furthermore imagine we’re not in a trapeze boat but hiking…..as I switch from leaning in to perched my lower back makes contact with windward’s jib. Did I break 16.1 - nope…..windward was within 10 inches, less than the distance I might reasonably sit out….I didn’t break 16.1. Same applies if windward is within my trapeze distance then it’s not keeping clear. I don’t break 16.1 |
Posted By: ClubRacer
Date Posted: 30 Mar 22 at 5:15pm
|
How about pre-start inside the prep and instead of using your body you use the boat to heal on top of you so that it becomes flat when you sheet in. You make contact with the tip of your mast (un-intentionally)? No change in course is made. Is that the same as after completing a tight lee-bow tack, then bringing the boat on top of you to generate more dirty air and contact is made at the tip of the mast (un-intentionally)?
|
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 30 Mar 22 at 6:42pm
I think this really helps. Imagine in the pre-start your boat is heeled, as is the boat to windward, such that, hen as leeward you trigger pull the boat flat you hit the mast of windward which is actually above your hull. Surely no one would argue that in this situation 16.1 applies…..but it’s the same thing as going out on the wire….leeward is simply adopting a seaman like way f sailing the boat! |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 30 Mar 22 at 11:20pm
There's no doubt that W does not keep clear. Contact almost always proves failure to keep clear. It was the 'already' I was balking at. In the 1/4 inch example, crew could possibly be in a different plane to the hull of W (and not in amongst her shrouds). I don't think that the definition of keep clear necessarily works. I just think that somewhere around the 1/4 inch mark, give or take an inch, L needs to take avoiding action. That gets you there. Anyone want to argue that trapeze not going to full stretch is not an action? Crew going out on trapeze may be a normal act of seamanship, not to be unexpected. Otherwise Case 73 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 31 Mar 22 at 2:09am
Yup
Different. When you reach your close hauled course, you get a rule 15 obligation to give W room to keep clear |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 31 Mar 22 at 6:41am
|
Anyone want to argue that trapeze not going to full stretch is not an action? Crew going out on trapeze may be a normal act of seamanship, not to be unexpected. Otherwise Case 73[/QUOTE] Brass - wondered why you raise going out on the trapeze as an action? It doesn’t seem to come within the scope of the use of ‘action’ in the definition of Keep clear, nor rules 15 or 16? |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 31 Mar 22 at 7:27am
|
Quibbling around with words.
Going out on trapeze must certainly be an 'action', but obviously not an 'avoiding action' Is 'not [stretching] out on the trapeze [to avoid touching W]' an 'action? See rule 62.1(a). |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 31 Mar 22 at 12:06pm
|
Are understood - so you are suggesting that leeward could be in breach of 14 if it doesn’t take the available option of not stretching out?
Which might be the case….but it would be my contention that in most cases 14. a would apply….a crew going out needn’t check that space to windward, and their first apprehension of contact would probably be head on jib r whatever. And that there would be few cases where exoneration under 14 b wouldn’t apply…..in fact notwithstanding US case 65, I would say that damage or injury would not have been caused by soft flesh on windward boat. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 31 Mar 22 at 1:08pm
I've always sailed fast and delicate boats, so I accept I am far less comfortable with very close quarters sailing than the majority. There's danger of too much logic chopping here, which is always dangerous when dealing with the rules, but what precisely is avoiding action? If the Right of Way boat has to modify her actions (and does forced inaction count as that?) because of the presence of the Give Way boat then I find it very hard to accept that the Give Way boat is keeping clear. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 31 Mar 22 at 1:36pm
SEE GMLs post second in the thread. L breaks rule 14. No beg-you-pardons.
Nah, don't buy that. L, like everybody else is required to keep a good lookout.
That I do buy<g>.
Don't get your reference. USA Appeal 65 is about one incident or two, which I don't think applies here, and the more relevant Appeal for you is RYA 2003/3. Did you mean US Appeal 45? That's about anticipation, and I don't think that's relevant here either.
Yes, but there might be some injury caused by the windward boat on some soft flesh. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 31 Mar 22 at 1:55pm
I'm not for one moment suggesting that W isn't failing to keep clear. What I'm saying, and I think you're saying above, is that that is because L needs to take avoiding action, the first part of Definition:Keep Clear, not the second part 'can't change course in either direction '. There's no doubt that if the crew of L swings in, or bends, or moves theyr hand or head to avoid touching W, that's avoiding action. What I'm playing around with is whether ceasing to extend, or, as you put it 'forced inaction' is 'action. |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 31 Mar 22 at 2:35pm
You’re not a trapeze crew are you? It’s actually really hard to look into that space behind you! So I was talking about 16.1 in the post above at 1842. Does L break rule 14 if she brings the boat upright into ty mast of a windward boat above her hull? If there isn’t some leeway for L why does the word ‘reasonable’ feature in the rule? I was referring to US65 because of the double incident concept…..my point being that it would be hard for 14b not to apply unless there were something which made it 2 incidents. Sorry for the confusion |
Posted By: davidyacht
Date Posted: 31 Mar 22 at 4:12pm
|
I don't think you need to be trapezing, historically I can recall several occasions where hard hiking after the start would have my head in the boat to windward's jib. I don't think I am allowed to do that now, but it did make the point without causing damage. ------------- Happily living in the past |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31 Mar 22 at 7:20pm
| A leeward boat sailing upwind on stbd tack with no obstructions near by has every right of way going. Why (and how) would they expect to look over their shoulder to see if they were in close contact with another boat, knowing that they must be right of way boat over any other? Surely if L can’t sail her normal course in her normal manner (i.e. with possibility of needing to trapeze) then W isn’t keeping clear? |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 31 Mar 22 at 10:11pm
No I'm not. That's no doubt what the guys behind the big assy in Case 107 said. It didn't wash.
I don't know why: nobody has ever said that L changed course. You said
I agree with that.
Yes. It was reasonably possible for L to not bring her boat upright, therefore it was reasonably possible for her to avoid contact. The test is not was the action [of bring the boat upright] reasonable. The test is was it reasonably possible not to bring the boat upright. Coming back to rule 16. Educate me about pulling the trigger. Does pulling the trigger necessarily involve changing course? Is that what's bubbling along about this rule 16 stuff? Can it reasonably be argued that pulling the trigger: * usually involves changing heading from slightly below CH to CH? OR * by accelerating and the action of the centreboard as the boat comes upright, involves the boat's track moving ahead and to windward (thus changing course)? |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 31 Mar 22 at 10:15pm
We usually treat the coming together, with all the rules 11 14, 16 implications as one incident. It's something, all connected, happening within a few seconds. What sort of 'something which made it two incidents' did you have in mind? |
Posted By: Mozzy
Date Posted: 01 Apr 22 at 12:53pm
|
This is something that pops up a lot sailing the 800. Boats sailing in from behind tight to you, but not enough space for them to step out on the trapeze or for the windward boats leeward tiller to drop to leeward at they try to head up. Also remind me of a story from the 29er fleet. Not long after the start the leeward boat dropped their main sheet and capsized to windward. The tip of their mast tore through the windward boats sail. They finished the race, but had to go in for the next one to switch sails. The windward boat then applied for redress.. and not only was not reinstated to the second race, but was disqualified from the first race for not keeping clear (leeward boat didn't change course). |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 01 Apr 22 at 2:54pm
Yes it would be my expectation that it would be treated as a single incident. I guess two incidents might be if L altered course as a result of the initial contact and that W made it clear that it had two protests? |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 01 Apr 22 at 3:05pm
No I don’t think that can be reasonably argued as a general rule. Albeit it seems to underpin some posters’ views in this thread it is not the case that a trigger pull necessarily involves a change of course. It would be wrong for a PC to assume that it did. On the last question of the CB levering the boat’s track to windward, I would say that on very many occasions that I have watched Opis trigger pulling, where W asserted that L had changed course, in 90% of cases it was not magic movement to windward by L but a less good trigger pull by W resulting in W continuing to slide to leeward. Which to W felt like magic by L! Crabbing….now that is another matter….. |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 01 Apr 22 at 3:09pm
I imagine that felt fairly harsh to W! But I think that degree of ‘protection’ to L is appropriate, especially in our start line trapezing contact example. |
Posted By: 423zero
Date Posted: 01 Apr 22 at 7:46pm
|
You are talking a sizeable space to allow for L boat to be able to capsize without touching W, seems to be a gamble by W on a crowded start line, perhaps RO should call any boats that are to close ? ------------- Robert |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 6:44am
Closing speed in Case 107 might have been 3kts + 6kts = 9kts. Not really relevant. Case 107 says that if it's there to be seen and you didn't see it, or see it in time, you are not keeping a good lookout and not doing what is required of you to avoid contact under rule 14, no matter what obstructions, like a assy or being behind your back there are. In practice, as you observed, in the hiking out scenario, it is very unlikely that there will be damage or injury, so L will nearly always be exonerated. I get the sense that in your above post you are maybe feeling around for a rule 14 second sentence get out of gaol. I knew W was there, but because of the angles etc etc, it was never clear to me that W wasn't luffing up to keep clear, so the time for me to act never arose. It doesn't appeal to me. |
Posted By: Mozzy
Date Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 8:14am
It's an interesting one, not sure who sailed in to the start line gap. But more often than not it is the leeward boat that sails in from astern and close to the windward boat, to then give them maximum space to bear off and accelerate. I wasn't involved in the incident, only had it told to me second hand. The contact happened shortly after the start. I wonder if the windward boat ever had opportunity to get more than a mast length to windward before the leeward boat capsized. I also forgot, I think the windward boat, whose sail was torn, also got DND as damage was caused in the collision. So instead of getting redress they expected, they ended up with a DND and RTD.
|
Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 9:15am
I guess this swings on whether a capsizing boat is "sailing her course"? Taking it to the next logical step, if a boat unexpectedly capsizes in front of you then you would surely not expect to be penalised for failing to avoid her if you were unable to do so. So in this case could it perhaps be argued that at the point the leeward boat loses control she switches from being ROW boat (rule 11) to becoming an obstruction, which establishes a new obligation on W and with it the defence that she did not have room to avoid? Also seems unlikely that L would drop a mainsheet and capsize without changing course, which again gives W a valid defence? |
Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 9:39am
I disagree that Case 107 is relevant. In that case the boats were always there and closing. On the start line L checks and sees Clear Astern. When they commit to go on the wire CA has become windward. How would you find if L projected on the wire, made contact with the jib of W and was then injured by W’s shroud? |
Posted By: Mozzy
Date Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 3:26pm
I believe if the windward boat had thought on their redress request they would have put in there that leeward changed course, as it's hard to imagine they didn't during the capsize. It's a story told by some friends who were young at the time. I think both they (windward boat) and leeward boat agreed in the boat park that it wasn't the fault of the windward boat and the leeward boat did spins or retired (admitting fault). I think both boats were good friend and they went along to either a protest hearing or request for redress solely for formalise what they all believed was the correct outcome: that the windward boat would get redress for that race, and the subsequent race they missed. They probably weren't aware of a need for leeward to change course and maybe when asked the question by the PC they just stated that leeward dropped the sheet.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 6:17pm
|
Reading this thread, is it any wonder that the sailing rules are regarded as opaque by so many people? 4 pages on someone essentially standing up and brushing against another boat. Makes me want to go cruising, almost. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: 423zero
Date Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 6:54pm
I always enjoy the rules threads, I even read the book, I know a bit weird  (I have a collection of Cricket rules books, from the 1800's to today), think a lot of it can be dropped for club handicap racing.------------- Robert |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 8:55pm
|
Club handicap racing actually makes the rules more complex and harder to deal with, in a way. Suddenly proper course can vary wildly between boats, where in a one design fleet it is likely that two boats going down wind will be sailing roughly the same angles. Same goes for upwind windward/leeward situations, too.
Simplified rules simply make bigger grey areas and bring up more situations that aren't covered. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 11:02pm
I disagree with your disagreement <g>. Case 107 says very clearly that everybody, including right of way boats must keep a good lookout. I think that What your are arguing about is what constitutes a 'good lookout'. I've previously said that this means 'seeing what's there to be seen'. As you now pose the problem, L has seen W, before the contact, judged that it is possible to hike out without contact, and committed to do so, and then finds that it's not reasonably possible to 'unhike' or bear away in time. You've almost got me convinced. I'm mindful of JimC's wise advice
However, While rule 14, very pointedly, avoids avoids addressing who hit whom, it is sometimes useeful to identify a 'hitter' and a 'hitee'. The picture I've had in mind up to now, is that L's crew extends on trap and in the act of extending, touches W. That is, L moves towards W and contact occurs. In that case, arguably, it is reasonably possible for L to have avoided contact simply by not extending [any further]. An alternative picture is that L's crew is fully or partially extended, and W accelerates or decelerates and by that change in motion, touches L's crew. In that case, I would agree that it was not reasonably possible for L, once her crew had reached that position, to avoid contact. Lastly, if there's any injury or damage, exoneration goes out the window. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Apr 22 at 11:28pm
I'ts an artifact of the RRS that they only contemplate boats rotating around the yaw axis (changing course). A boat that rotates radically around the roll axis, doesn't get an obligation to give room to keep clear. That's just the way it is. And there is no 'if reasonably possible' in the right of way rules. In the case of a boat capsizing 'under your nose', and you hit it: * it might not be reasonably possible for your to avoid contact, so you do not break rule 14, but * If you hit her before the masthead is in the water, you break rule 12, boat clear astern keep clear, * if you hit here after her masthead is in the water, then 'reasonably possible' kicks in via rule 22. The rules don't look at 'the point where she losses control', which would be endlessly disputable, but at the much clearer point where 'her masthead is in the water'. In either case where boats are on the same tack and overlapped or not, the boat clear ahead, or overlapped to leeward is the right of way boat and is an obstruction, all the time. |
Posted By: ohFFsake
Date Posted: 06 Apr 22 at 7:45am
Thanks for the excellent clarification. Having pored over the rules a little after writing my post I was gravitating towards the same conclusion regarding the capsizing boat. Of course in this instance it hits the windward boat long before the mast ever hits the water so the course change is perhaps the only possible defence for W to avoid penalty.
I guess I was just trying to find something in the rules to deny the inevitable conclusion that in order to avoid this situation on a start line you would need to maintain a mast height's separation from the boat to leeward, in the case of a 29er this being around 6m |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 06 Apr 22 at 9:49am
Recent events in the Formula One world suggest that our rules are a model of clarity and simplicity by comparison! |