What’s the ruling?

A boat on “conventional” port tack sailing by-the-lee meets another boat on port beating to windward. The beating boat hails “Windward boat keep clear!”. Do any of the rules, rule in favour of the boat sailing by-the-lee?

Dics

I've been thinking about this. A boats by lees windward side is the side opposite to the the side the sail is on, ie downwind.  Now I think this rule is in place to avoid confusion when  2 running boats, one by the lee come together.  So surely that means that both boats are to windward of each other and therfore neither have have rights. 

I suggest the singlehanded sailor luffs up a fraction and goes behind the port boat, in the its quickest to stay out of trouble theory of life 

Both boats are on port tack. For both boats the other boat is on her windward side. Neither boat is clear astern of the other so they are overlapped. Rules 10, 11 and 12 do not define a keep clear boat in this situation. Neither boat acquires a right of way, nor changes course when right of way boat, so Rules 15 and 16.1 do not apply.

Both boats are under an obligation to avoid contact (Rule 14), as neither has right of way nor is entitled to room the limits to Rule 14 do not apply.

If there is contact between the boats the Protest Committee wil have to decide if one, or both failed to avoid contact.

Whilst this situation seems to be a loophole in the rules, Rule 14 gives more than adequate protection to both boats.

Gordon

Stefan,

A by the lee port tack boat may well be sailing a reciprical course to a close hauled boat on port. If the by the lee boat passes upwind of the close hauled boat then both boats have the other to "windward" as defined by the definitions. Rule 11 specifically refers to the definition.

At the risk of repeating my self, both boats are on port, both boats have the other to windward and neither boat is clear astern of the other.

If I could integrate a sketch I could demonstrate this in seconds.Sketch the situation for yourself... a by the lee boat on port sailing an exact opposite course to a boat close hauled on port. If the course of the by the lee boat crosses upwind of the close hauled boat then all of the above applies.

I would disagree with Gordon on this, under the definitions section of the rules a boat overlapped when neither are clear astern.  A boat is clear astern when it is behind a line drawn across the transom of the other boat.  In the case of 2 boats heading towards each other, neither boat is clear astern therefore they are by definition overlapped, rule 11 therfore applies, 2 boats on same tack overlapped, the windward boat is the boat coming downhill and therfore must keep clear.  I would agree with other forum members that running by the lee has no effect, would be impossible to define on the water. 

Moomin

That is hard to imagine in practice. A single-hander might sail 10 degrees or so by the lee. They aren't going to sail 40-45 degrees by the lee. 

This should be in racing rules!!

I have to side with Gordon on this, though Stefan as always is correct; neither boat has right to pursue a course which could end up in contact. Any interpretable lack of avoidance can go against either boat but if there is any doubt (i.e. they both hold course to contact) the windward boat would be in proverbial deep water.

I feel this is an important point as it highlights the need for a rule stateing nobody has the 'rights of god' over anothers course and if we adhere to this, contact need never be made.

Were I to be the boat heading upwind towards a boat on the same tack, sailing by the lee downwind I would feel he was a poor sport indeed as his change of course would be more straight forward without harming his tactical master plan. Also on most sailing courses he would be behind me and in a visually better position to see me and judge the distances........ all splitting hairs though. 

Moomin

Rule 11 is not applicable because, according to the definition, both boats have the other boat on the windward side. The definition specifically does not say that the boat coming downhill is the windward boat. The definition of leeward is the side on which the mainsail lies. On a by the lee boat the windward side is the downwind side of the boat!

Rule 11 can only apply when one boat is windward boat and the other boat is the leeward boat. This is not the case here.

RRS definitions are not necessarily dictionary definitions!

Gordon

Stefan,

The situation is unlikely but not impossible, especially in boats with unstayed rigs. Funny things happen at sea!

Bumble,

Rule 14  avoiding contact is the "over-ride rule"...which applies to both boats in this situation

Gordon

I agree with Stefan, a boat sailing 45 degrees by-the-lee will be going pretty slow(looking for a collision!), or, if the boom is set square to the wind, it wil capsize pretty quickly!

The exact course of the by the lee boat is irrelevant. According to the rules, the windward side of a boat sailing by the lee is the side of the boat furthest away from the wind. If this boat, on port tack, passes a port tack closed hauled boat, leaving the closed hauled boat to port, both boats have the other boat on their windward side. Rule 11, therefore does not apply. Neither does Rule 10, nor Rule 12

Gordon

That would only be the case if the running and beating boats were approaching head-to-head, which everyone except Gordon agrees is an unlikely proposition.

In real life, a boat running on port by the lee will be approached by a beating port tacker from the stbd side (as viewed from the running boat). The stbd side is the running boats's leeward side (see definitions section). Therefore rule 11 applies and the running boat must keep clear. 

It is actually very simple. The definition of "leeward" means that it is the position of the main that matters for a running boat. It has to be that way, otherwise a boat running dead downwind could swap windward and leeward sides continously and other boats couldn't know how to apply rule 11. Since it is the position of the main that matters, whether the boat is by the lee or not matters not the in the slightest, and the running boat has to keep clear of the beating one.

 Stefan,

Excuse me for insisting on this question. However, this example does depend on a clear reading of the exact wording of the RRS definitions. If we cannot agree on these definitions and their application then the RRS lose much of their usefulness as a means of regulating participants behaviour on the water.

Stefan said - a boat running on port by the lee will be approached by a beating port tacker from the port side (as viewed from the running boat).

I think we can agree on that.

He then said : The port side is the running boats's leeward side (see definitions section).

This is not true...a by the lee boat on port tack will have her mainsail on the starboard side...the definition specifically states " However, when sailing by the lee or directly down wind, her leeward side is the side on which her mainsail lies." This definition simplifies the problem of identifying on which tack a boat is sailing

According to the definition the leeward side of a by the lee port tack boat is the starboard side, and her windward side is the port side. She would expect any other overlapped port tack boat on her windward, that is port side, to keep clear under Rule 11. The problem is that the windward side of all port tack boats beating up towards her also expect all overlapped port tack boats on their windward side to keep clear...

If someone could explain how I could integrate an image into this messsage I could demonstrate this very easily.

Gordon

Good point Stan.... did you just say 'flick the twat'?

Everyone,

I love the way Gordon makes a personal address before delivering a whirlwind of wonder on the subject. Makes one feel so....... chummy.

Bumble.

Bumble,

I put your name at the head of this message so that everyone knows that I am replying to the point you just made.

As for the "whirlwind of wonder" I have only been repeating (ad nauseam, perhaps) the definitions given in the rules that govern our sport. These definitions can, in exceptional circumstances, create a situation were Rules 10,11 and 12 do not apply.

 "flicking the twat" is not an option...stupidity is not against the rules. The rules only insist on spoçrtsmanship and fair play (rule 2). Gross breaches of a rule, good manners or sportmanship, or bringing the sport into disrepute are not permitted (Rule 69.1 a).

If "flicking the twat" was part of the game I would, for instance, when sitting on a protest committee, always find against the "twat" who walks into the protest room with a pint in his hand. As I, and most other judges, don't drink until the last protest has been heard, such behaviour is "twattish" in the extreme.

Gordon

I have to say I am in toatal agreement with Gordon.  The point is any sailor coming downwind who gets involved in this sort of situation is an idiot. All he needs to do is watch whats going on luff a little to go astern of the beating boat  smile sweetly at them and make sure they show no sign of tacking, if they do a quick shout of wait till i'm passed pleased, (room to keep clear, quickest way to clear is to continue downwind) and revel in the fact he's far enough ahead to have this type of quandry!  

Actually I didn't. Read it again.

Unfortunately I don't think he is in agreement with you.

If you read my first post I said that i thought that neither hand rights on each other as they were both leeward boats to the other, which in essence is what Gordon is syaing. All i'm saying is its easiest for the sailor heading downwind to keep clear and prevent a collision and staying out of trouble is fast!

Sorry Stefan I misquoted you. However it would have been more correct to say that a boat running on port by the lee MAY be approached by a beating port tacker from the stbd side (as viewed from the running boat. In which case the situation under consideration does not arise. However, the close hauled boat MAY under exceptional but not impossible conditions, approach the by the lee boat on the running boats port side, inwhich case both boats have the other boat ton their windward side.

I understand now that we have not established the facts... your analysis is correct - but for a different situation.

I hope this sketch makes things clear.  The situation may seem unlikely but Laser's, for instance, can find themselves by the lee in this way as can, for instance, Marblehead's with their balanced rig.

I do agree with tack'ho, who agrees with me.

 I also agree that the by the lee boat should understand that the close-hauled boat will be confused and keep clear. In any case both boats are bound by Rule 14, and as neither is a right of way boat, nor are either one entitled to room, neither can be exonerated if there is contact.

Gordon

Here wwe go again .

Its flippin simple

Wind coming from top of page .

Both boats same tack.

Yellow boat is to windward .

Yellow boat gives way !

Problem ???????????????????

PS its best to let yiour main out beyond 90 degrees to run by the lee !

How the fek can winward side of yellow be down wind you numbties ! if yellow is running by lee wind is coming from starboard side !

Would somebody please lend "far canal" a rule book. He might then be able to read the following definition ..."When sailing by the lee or directly downwind, her leeward side is the side on which her mainsail lies. The other side is her windward side. When two boats on the same tack  overlap, the one on the leeward side of the other is the leeward boat. the other is the windward boat."

In the sketch both boats have the other on their windward side, and they are both overlapped on the same tack.

(Italics refer to RRS definitions)

If "far canal" could then turn to Rule 11 he would read "When boats are on the same tack and overlapped, a windward boat shall  keep clear  of a leeward boat."

In this case neither boat can be windward boat as they do not have a boat on the side on which their mainsail lies. Both are leeward boats Rule 11 does not apply.

To quote " It's flippin' simple".

The writer of the rules used a specific definition of windward and leeward which is slightly different from the accepted nautical usage. Thes makes the setling of disputes about boats relative positions much simpler. It also, in this very specific instance, introduces a paradox that causes few problems (except apparently of comprehansion) because both boats are bound by Rule 14 Avoiding Contact.

You may wish to change this rule. In which case - good luck in both drafting a more adequate text then in getting it voted by ISAF!

Gordon 

If you are close hauled do you not have right of way over a boat that is not close hauled?

This was true in the version of the Rules agreed  in 1929 by the IYRU, the NAYRU and the New York Yacht Club. However there have been a few changes since then. The present version of the rules have been in use, with minor variations since 1997.

The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) do not apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend torace, are rcing or have been racing. They are not a "fall-back" set of rules when boats do not knoçw which Racing Rule applies.

In the same way the Highway Code does not apply when racing Karts or Formula One cars.

Gordon

Similar scenario happens regularly in radio control laser racing with port roundings on win lee course (no spreader mark ) but other way round , boats running down by the lee on starboard and boats beating up on starboard , both are each others windward boats by definitions above and both again must keep clear.

In ignorance there are shouts of starboard from running boat , then "winward boat" "ya loony"  from beating boat "and I'm on strbd too!" running boat apologises and gives ways or smacks into tother !

When it seems both should give the other room  from above .

Gets pretty hectic with 15 to 20 boats all in this situation .

Spreader mark will help , but not usually enough room.

Confirmation from rya.

The rules aren't as daft as you think ! this scenario is covered .

From Definition  rules 2005 - 2008 " A boats leeward side is the side that is or , when head to wind , was away from the wind " excerpt from definition .(the bit Gordon doesn't quote above)

So the boat running by the lee in this scenario has the boat boat beating on its leeward side and has to give way ,the boat beating has its leeward side AWAY from the running boat so running boat is to windward ,  as we all (mostly) thought in the first place .

Common sense reigns

the second part of the definition regarding the side of boat and boom position merely clarifys that a boat running by the lee is on whatever tack that the boom position dictates , not wind direction , the first bit of definition takes precedence as boats will be on same tack.

you can pull this apart as much as you like (whoever) but I'm happy that this shows that windward boat keeps clear and winward boat is one nearest the wind wherever her boom is !

PS. Gordon next time you quote a definition , quote it in intirety or at least say you missed the first bit out.

I'm probably going to regret responding to this but here goes.

The original question was:

A boat on “conventional” port tack sailing by-the-lee meets another boat on port beating to windward. The beating boat hails “Windward boat keep clear!”. Do any of the rules, rule in favour of the boat sailing by-the-lee?

If the boat is sailing by the lee by a typical 10 degrees or so for an unstayed rig, then in order for the boats to be on a collision course, the beating boat will be approaching from the starboard side of the running boat (running boat's view). The "rules" and "common-sense" definitions of windward and leeward agree and the running boat must keep clear. I think we all agree on that. The fact that the running boat is by the lee makes no difference. Port/starboard is defined by the position of the main, not the direction of the wind.

Gordon then came up with another scenario. Here the by-the-lee boat is running so deep that the boats are on nearly reciprocal courses. In order for the boats to be on collision course, the windward boat is now approaching from the port side of the running boat. As he has argued, by the definitions of the rules, both boats are to windward of each other and both/neither have right of way.

The original question didn't make it clear which scenario applied, but in the 20+ years I've been racing, the first happens all the time but I can't remember an instance of the second. I agree it is conceivable and I agree with Gordon's interpretation of the rules. It is an intriguing hole in the rules. However I think it unlikely that it is actually answering the question.

I think a lot of the confusion has arisen because people think Gordon is talking about the first scenario rather than the second. It certainly confused me for a while.

In gordon's sketch the boats arent overlapped (yet)!  And neither is clear astern!  So neither is yet obligated to keep clear!  If they are on a collision course then I would argue that gordon's second scenario as explained by Stefan is impossible - at least part of the leeward side of one of the boats must be creating the overlap.

And if they are side by side (ie become overlapped) (not for long - closing speed will be large!) then neither have become obligated to keep clear!  And neither are constrained in the right to luff apart from by allowing room to keep clear if they luff or bear away - neither establish the overlap from clear astern.    

So it really is a knotty one - but if the running boat gybes she is establishing rights and must therefore give an oppurtunity to keep clear.  If she luffs at any time once overlapped it would be almost impossible for the close-hauled boat to keep clear.  The port tack boat has less speed and freedom of manoeuvre.

My view - if they touch - flick both the "t**ts.

frayed you guys still missing the point , once the fact one boat running by the lee and by definition is on same tack as beating boat forget the windward leeward side relative to boom.

The bit From Definition  rules 2005 - 2008 " A boats leeward side is the side that is or , when head to wind , was away from the wind " excerpt from definition .(the bit Gordon doesn't quote above)

then takes over ,

ie boat running however deep when looking over the side AWAY FROM THE WIND has the beating boat on this side ie the leeward side , so by rule ( ) whatever has to keep clear.

If its good enough for RYA thats good enough for me .

Admit its a bit of a confusing process to get through .

Far Canal: I'm baffled why you think the RYA's words clarify anything one way or the other. Read the entire definition of windward/leeward. You are quoting the wrong sentence. It is the bit starting "however" that applies in this situation, as the wording makes clear.

Sargesail: you are correct to say neither boat in Gordon's diagram is clear astern. Therefore, in the definitions of the rules, they are overlapped, although in the "common sense" use of the word they are not. Read the definition of clear astern/clear ahead/overlap. They are overlapped, on the same tack and both have the other to windward. Therefore the rules just say they mustn't hit each other but are otherwise unforthcoming on who should keep clear.

It is really annoying that the PDF documents you can download from the ISAF site have disabled copy/paste, so I can't paste the relevant definitions here.

Stefan

Have you tried clicking on the I on the Acrobat toolbar (next to the arrow)?  This allows you to highlight and copy text.

all i can say is far canal

i'm off for a race !

Just got back from a week on the water in Britanny (not much sailing as the boat developed a mechanical problem after a nocturnal argument with a mooring line!)

Nice to see that this thread is still running. Even nicer to see that Stefan agrees with me!

It is worth expressing some caution when reading RYA interpretations. They are sometimes in advance or somewhat at a tangent with ISAF interpretations. As a French qualified judge and an Irish qualified race officer I regard RYA rulings as interesting view points - but only ISAF rulings apply worldwide.

Gordon: I agree with you in the sense that you are correct in the situation you describe and it is an interesting point you have raised.

However I think it is unlikely that the original and fairly innocuous question actually related to the distinctly esoteric scenario we have been debating. If this situation in which two boats on collision course had equal rights were a common one in practice, the rules would have long since been fixed. Either that or we'd have a lot of broken boats.

Unlikely situations test the rules to the limits...and in this case the rules do provide a solution.

As for the reality of the situation - in handicap racing when a close-winded hiking dinghy (a Snipe) helmed by a mad luffer meets a Laser coming off a wave...

...or in RC racing when the rig can take some time to gybe...

Gordon

The solution being that they are required not to collide, but with no indication of whose responsibility it is to do so or how? Not really much of a solution, is it? Or have I misunderstood? 

Nevertheless it is a solution. Rule 14 is a rule that applies in all situations, even one in which both boats can claim that they are the right of way boat.  Intelligent men these rule-writers.

Gordon

Hmm, very intersting. I've read through these posts & then the rules & it seems you've come up with some interesting stuff!

It seems it's windward/leeward (using "...When two boats on the same tack overlap, the one on the leeward side of the other is the leeward boat." [ISAF Def: Leeward & Windward]) unless they are heading directly towards each other when rule 14 applies?

I just also had a thought i'd throw in...
Surely if the boat that is running by the lee to go as far as heading straight towards a beating boat on the same tack is going to be surfing on waves? And surely then they are going to be doing transitions between broad reaching & running by the lee? Surely then this is changing course & they are going to have to give the beating boat room to keep clear (under rule 15), which must surely be a considerable time as they are going to have to tack? And so in the event of a collision the beating boat will argue this & take the protest?

Just a thought. (Sorry if it's a repeated point)

The course of a boat is defined by the direction in which it is sailing not by the point of sailing.

Gordon

Hu? I'm a little confused.

I don't really see your point. Is it because I talked about the boat moving between broad reaching & running by the lee? I used this example as it is common, it is difficult to explain any other way & to show that the boat would be varying its course. I didn't mean to make it sound that boats have differing rights based on the point of sail they are on (as I took from your statement).

To be more precise in rule 16.1 a boat changes course when her compass heading changes not when she goes from a reach to run. A change of point of sailing can take place without the boat changing course - this is frequent on inland waters - I have seen boats go from a close reach on port to a close reach on starboard and then back wihtout changing course.

Gordon

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. I was only using the example as a matter of ease to avoid saying "when the boat's compass heading changes from 150 degrees to 200 degrees based on a wind averaging from 000". I'm not sure if this is even correct as I don't use a compass & seems a little long winded (if you will excuse the pun)! I just assumed everyone would know I intended a change of course, as it is the most common usage of the wording.

Although this possibly would have been clearer if I'd included the compass headings.

Aye, well said.

Cheers Calum

Except that when on a protest committee I would base any judgement on what was said and not on what I may think someone may have intended to say. Surely the whole point of this thread has been to study precisely what the rules say.

A boat does not change it's course because it goes from having the wind on a broad reach to having the wind by the lee. It may do this without changing course, that is without changing the direction in which the boat is heading.

The language of the rules is very simple, very clear AND very precise. Our usage should be equally as simple, clear and precise.

John was talking about surfing on waves. Pretty obviously therefore, this would not be inland in light and fluky conditions. He is discussing the kind of radical and frequent course changes some boats and helms can use to advantage e.g. http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/downloads/?s=73&ArticleNumber=5 - http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/downloads/?s=73&Article Number=5  and I think he was entirely "clear and precise".

Now Gordon, we are duly convinced that you are very knowledgable, but how about answering the questions being asked instead of whatever you feel like talking about? 

Steffan,

I think I did answer John's point by reminding him that, for the rules, a change of course is a change in the direction in which a boat is heading, not a change in the angle between the wind direction (real or apparent) and the axis of the boat. There are many situations in which this angle may change, surfing being one, fluky winds another, however this change does not constitute a change of course.

Gordon 

I still don't know what your opinion on my statement is gordon, now that we have cleared up that there was a change in direction, that is. This wasn't my question though - it was would the running by the lee boat win the protest in the scenario I gave?

Also on your point about taking what is said literally I find ludicrous. You are picking on technicalities to return the verdict; this will not produce justice in many situations. The rules are there to help us enjoy our racing and this can only be done by using them sensibly and putting the right people on the protest committees. These people should not necessarily be those most knowledgeable on the rules but those that can best establish the actual circumstances & apply the rules.

Also to put a duty on the protester as opposed to the protest committee for stating the incident in terms of the rules doesn't make sense to me. The protester is likely to be going through the situation for one of very few times in his/her life, the protest committee should have far more experience & so help with getting the competitor through the rules, especially by asking questions where they see such ambiguity as you have pointed out in my first post. By being in effect the link between plain English, spoken by the competitors & the officious nature of the rules with this plain English, from the protester, being translated into rule based language by the committee & applied to the rule book.

This is the sensible way to be & to have over officious protest decisions will only lead to disolusionment amongst those sailors & ulimitly harm our sport.

My full answer to this and his last posting would be :

1.The situation I described MAY occur due to the existence of surfing conditions, but not necessarily. There may be other circumstances : fluky winds and RC sailing have been cited

2.A transition from a broad reach to running by the lee does not in itself constitute a change of course, as a boat might do this while sailing in a straight line. A change of course occurs when the direction in which the boat is travelling changes.

3. In the situation I described both boats could claim to be the right of way boat. Rule 15 does not apply as the right of way boat only has to give room "initially". 

4. Rule 16.1 only applies IF a right of way boat changes course. If neither changes course then the rule does not apply. Only rule 14 applies. I would add that the beating boat does not necessarily have to tack in order to avoid contact.

5. If in a protest a competitor states that a boat changed course BECAUSE they went from a broad reach to running by the lee the protest committee should verify that the boat in question did in fact change the direction in which it was travelling. The competitors case would be stronger if they could demonstrate that this direction did in fact change. This is not being pedantic, merely trying to establish the facts.

6. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of protest committees to ensure that competitors who may be unfamiliar with the rules and protest procedure can express themselves, the competitor who has studied the rules and has experience of protests will always have an advantage. Which is why any keen racing sailor should read the rules, protest when necessary, and volunteer to sit on protest committees. The protest committe can only make a decision on the basis of the information that is presented to them

7. The language used in the rules has been greatly simplified over the years. Whenever a word is used in the rules in a way that is in anyway different from a dictionary definition the rules give a definition - the use in the rules of windward and leeward being a good example.

8.A protest committee should not make a decision directly on the information given by competitors. This information is used by the protest committee to establish, to the best of their ablities, a description of the incident. It is at this point that the work of "translating" competitors testimony into the language of the rules will be at it's most intense. It is only when the facts are established that a protest committee should consider which rules apply and if a rule has been infringed

9. Personally, whenever I chair a protest committee I always offer, after having given the formal decsion of the committee, to explain the ruling, with reference, when necessary, to the Case Book. This is especially important when the decision is based on a legal nicety, or on an interpretation of the rules that may not seem obvious. After all protests are heard I am available, usually somewhere near the bar, to answer any queries on the rules, on incidents that occured during the day, or any other points arising. I also prefer to be out on the water during racing, even when there is no judging on the water.

10. If, in the situation I described, in a diagram, some time ago,  if neither boat changes course and there is contact then both boats have infringed rule 14 and the protest committe would have to consider if a penalty is appropriate. If one boat changes course then they are obliged to give the other boat room to keep clear. The protest committee would have to decide whether the boat that had changed course had left enough room.

11. The best option for the by the lee boat would be to gybe on to starboard in good time to let the beating boat time to keep clear.

Hope this answers your questions.

Thanks, gordon. I think that covered all of them. I didn't really mean all of them to be answered; they were kind of a thought process, one assumption leading on to the other, that lead onto the last question (ie the beating boat would win the protest).

It seems that if you accept the assumptions, after verification that the by the lee boat has actually changed direction, the beating boat would most likely take the protest if there was a case of not enough time to keep clear. The if there was enough time to keep clear after the change & they are subsequently heading in exactly the opposite directions, on a collision course then rule 14 is the only rule in force.

This last point, where rule 14 applies, seems to be a weak point in the rules, where both boats are required to avoid a collision. I have in my past had a "pavement" incident where I have been walking directly towards someone coming the other way on the street, one steps to one side to avoid & the other steps the same way & so we are on a collision course again & so we both step back, etc until they meet & collide. Funny when it happens on the pavement - but not so on the water! What, in your opinion, would a protest committee decide in a situation like this if both boats have major damage?

No, I did not! It was a beautiful, wonderfully cared for ent!

I don't think it was exactly the same as it was an ent, so he def wasn't running by the lee. So one of us had right of way, my memory is too fuzzy to remember who though (is that selective memory?). I seem to think I might have been keep clear boat!

Anyway, we were both lucky that we didn't end up with any holes. It could have been loads worse. Although, it didn't feel that way at the time!

Rule 14 obliges a boat to avoid contact "if reasonably possible". In addition a right of way boat, or one entitled to room, only has to take avoiding action when it becomes clear that the other boat will not keep clear.

In this case the protest committee may conclude that the situation was somewhat uncertain (the time we have spent discussing it is proof of that), and that both boats have suffered major damage  affecting their result in the race and maybe the series. If I was chairing the protest committee I would be tempted to conclude that the damage was a sufficient penalty and that there was no need to inflict a penalty such as disqualification. On the other hand, if there was evidence that one or both boats had had a reasonable opportunity to avoid contact and had taken no action to do so, then disqualification would be an appropriate penalty.

The decsion would depend upon the facts established according to what the competitors said in the protest room.

Gordon

To go back to my points on page 5 which concerned establishment of overlap and on which stefan quite rightly corrected my assumptions - I am intrigues as to how folk view the fact that any significant luff by the by the lee boat will create an overlap - and it will then clearly be windward boat - this would aslo be the case if the boats meet anything other than bow to bow (if you allow my assumption that the by the lee-er is unlikley to try and run underneath the close-hauler! - a fair one I think).  So if there is course changing as described by John (and eventually agreed by Gordon "I'm not a pedant - I'm pedantic!" (firmly tongue in cheek and with apologies!!).  then the likelihood is that the boats have been overlapped - that he put himself there and that therefore he should assume that it is for him to keep clear - apply Gordon's gybe solution - or head up and reach round the back!

The close hauler should be in the clear - if he becomes right of way boat it is not through his action - though clearly he must avoid a collision.

As both boats are on the same tack and neither boat is clear astern of the other then, according to the RRS definition, they are overlapped even though they are approaching from nearly reciprocal directions. A change of course by either boat would have to be very radical in order to break the overlap.

This holds true for both scenarios that have been put forward. In one scenario this means that rule 11 applies and the windward boat keeps clear. The additional scenario I introduced is one (unlikely but it has happened) in which, because of the way RRS defines windward and leeward, there is no windward boat, both boats can claim to be leeward boat. Rule 11 is inapplicable so rule 14 obliges both boats to avoid contact.

Gordon

PS If applying the rules as they are written, precisely and in accordance with the policy of ISAF, constitutes "an overating or parading of book-learning or technical knowledge or an insistance on strict adherance to formal rules, or even being possessed by by a doctrinaire theory " (such is the definition of pedantic) then I am proud to say that I am guilty as charged. The current rules are simple, short and logically structured. The essential rules for when boats meet are a mere 4.5 pages long. There is little excuse for not using these rules precisely.

Bryan Willis adds his interperatation to this ripe cherry :)

Been a while since we've done one of these, so let's get to it: The Rules Guy, http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Practice-2009-2012/dp/0470727888/ref=sr_1_1/190-9279952-6680867?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240538038&sr=1-1 - Bryan Willis .

http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Practice-2009-2012/dp/0470727888/ref=sr_1_1/190-9279952-6680867?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240538038&sr=1-1"> Q: I'm in a Laser going downwind, by the lee on starboard gybe. Wind is about 5 knots. There is another laser which has already rounded the leeward mark, coming upwind towards me on starboard tack. We hold our courses, with him on a bearing to pass to my port side, and me to pass on his port side. We're on more or less reciprocal bearings. As we pass, my boom hits his mast. There is no damage. We both protest. Who is wrong? Who should get chucked?
 -Matt Knowles

A: This has always been a bit of a conundrum. If you take the situation a few boat lengths back, the running boat was probably on the windward side of the boat close-hauled, so the running boat is the keep-clear boat. When she crosses the line projecting ahead of the close-hauled boat she ceases being the keep-clear boat and so might possibly be said to ‘acquire right-of-way’, requiring her to initially gives room to the other boat (rule 15).

But if you just take the situation you describe, and if both boats are sailing steady courses, then both boats are on starboard tack and both are on the other boat’s leeward side, so neither is windward boat, and rule 11 doesn’t apply. The only rule that can be applied is rule 14 requiring each to avoid contact with the other and if there is damage, both boats could be penalized.