Water a the mark protest
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=2906
Printed Date: 25 Jun 25 at 7:11am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Water a the mark protest
Posted By: Jack Sparrow
Subject: Water a the mark protest
Date Posted: 29 Apr 07 at 6:39pm
|
Interested on people's views on this. Windward mark. 2 boats inside and overlapping each other and the 3rd outside boat at 2 boat lenghts. 3rd outside boat after repeated calls did not give enough room for the 2nd boat to give enough room to boat 1. Boat 1 hits boat 2, boat 2 was very, very close to 3 but didn't hit boat 3. There was a protest. On the face of it a open and shut case you would think. Boat 2 protested boat 3 for not giving water for insurance claim for damaged from boat 1's collison with her. Boat 2 lost the protest beacuse it did not hit boat 3. Boat 3 was judged to of given enough room beacuse it wasn't hit by boat 2. Is this correct? Or was the Protest committee using an old rule book! I was a wittness not the protester. Boat 3 didn't give enough room. 2005-2008 ISAF sailing rules... AVOIDING CONTACT A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room... (a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room, and (b) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage or injury. ------------- 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 |
Replies:
Posted By: mike ellis
Date Posted: 29 Apr 07 at 6:48pm
|
well if boat 2 needed to fil out a claim form could it be said that boat 1 had caused serious damage, in which case it's boat 1s fault but that doesn't seem fair to me if boat 2 was avoiding boat 3 then could boat 2 point out that it wasn't boat 1s fault it was actually boat 3s fault? just me trying to work it out, probably wrong somewhere. ------------- 600 732, will call it Sticks and Stones when i get round to it. Also International 14, 1318 |
Posted By: FreshScum
Date Posted: 29 Apr 07 at 7:00pm
|
You definitely don't have to hit someone to win a protest. (Possibly this was less true in earlier rules.) If you did, Boat 2 would have only been able to win the protest if it hit both boats 1 and 3. Boat 1 would have had to hit the mark and Boat 2 to show that there wasn't enough room. It should come down to whether the protest committee believed that a reasonable person in Boat 2's position would feel confident that it has space to do what it is required to.(I think is what the Isaf cases say) So its a believeability contest. As a general point it seems to be better to try and hit the boat which is 'the most' wrong if there is a multiple boat situation, ie Hitting Boat 3 as windward and outside. Not much help now, sorry. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 29 Apr 07 at 7:35pm
|
If the facts found by the PC were that the outside boat left enough room for the two inner boats to get through, and the collision was due to an error of judgement by the inner boats then it has acted correctly. If I was on the PC I'd be wary of saying there was enough room just because there was not a 3 way collision, I would hope there was more to their thinking than that!
As a general principle though if you have to hit someone (and its never a good idea to hit anyone, the definition of serious damage that can DSQ you can be as small as scratched paintwork if its a smart well painted boat and there's a serious bill to get the scratch refinished), hit the guilty party, not the innocent one. Easy to say after the event. Case 21 in the casebook is a good one to read on the subject. http://www.sailing.org/rrs2005/casebook2006supplement.pdf - http://www.sailing.org/rrs2005/casebook2006supplement.pdf |
Posted By: Strawberry
Date Posted: 29 Apr 07 at 7:36pm
|
You are much more likely to win a protest if there is actual contact. There are situations when it can be a good idea to let contact happen. ie. when two boats are parallel (paralell, parallell, i dunno) in a w/ward l/ward situation, or in this case, water at a mark. But when its blowing its tit off, and two boats meet on opposite tacks, damage is imminent, and I would advise anyone to avoid contact! ------------- Cherub 2649 "Dangerous Strawberry |
Posted By: Jack Sparrow
Date Posted: 29 Apr 07 at 9:07pm
Thing is this is what worries me... It seems that after speaking to the protesting boats helm, that is what there decision was based on. They even came to the decision without calling the two witnesses, myself and another helm who would of given evidence that the outside boat did not give enough romm. ------------- 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: Garry
Date Posted: 29 Apr 07 at 9:15pm
|
Might be worth an appeal to the RYA if you're not outside the time limit. What were the facts found? Boat 2 was also entitled to call witnesses and the protest committee can't overrule that if the witnesses actually saw what happened (same goes for boat1 & 3 as well). ------------- Garry Lark 2252, Contender 298 www.cuckoos.eclipse.co.uk |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 29 Apr 07 at 9:21pm
Hang on there... they aren't the PCs witnesses, they are the party to the hearing's witnesses. If the PC hasn't allowed the party to have their witnesses heard then that sounds like a breach of rule 63.6. If the protesting helm wasn't allowed to call his witnesses he should ask for the hearing to be reopened (needs to be within 24 hours) and if its not reopened then appeal.
|
Posted By: Jack Sparrow
Date Posted: 29 Apr 07 at 9:24pm
|
Thanks Jim I will pass that on.
------------- 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: rogerd
Date Posted: 30 Apr 07 at 8:28am
|
Posted By: mike ellis
Date Posted: 30 Apr 07 at 4:06pm
|
no, i think that only applies at leeward mark. port and starboard apply at windward mark but not windward leeward. i think, i hope, please correct me if im wrong. ------------- 600 732, will call it Sticks and Stones when i get round to it. Also International 14, 1318 |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 30 Apr 07 at 4:57pm
|
2 boat lengths applies - Ergo don't tack inside it. W/L boat also applies ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: redback
Date Posted: 30 Apr 07 at 11:38pm
| Assuming the mark is soft I feel the inside boat should have hit the mark rather than hit the boat outside. Certainly damage should not be caused when boats are parallel. You only need your bouancy aid or tiller extension to touch the outside boat to make a point and this is what boat 2 should have done to boat 3. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 01 May 07 at 12:03am
And then you seriously risk get disqualified under Rule 2 - Fair Sailing. Read Case 73 in the ISAF casebook. |
Posted By: John Wilson
Date Posted: 01 May 07 at 1:05am
If you're looking at 73, you should probably look at 74 as well then! I was presuming redback meant it more in the 74 way than the 73. |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 01 May 07 at 8:01am
|
Are the cases on-line anywhere ? Went to look up 73 and 74 and cannot find my book I assume 73 is the "leaning back with arms on trapeze and touching/hitting the shroud; not normal sailing position" case ? ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 01 May 07 at 8:55am
|
If you dig around on the ISAF website, the case histories are available as a large PDF file. |
Posted By: Garry
Date Posted: 04 May 07 at 7:20pm
|
There RYA case book can be downloaded from the racing section of the RYA website ------------- Garry Lark 2252, Contender 298 www.cuckoos.eclipse.co.uk |
Posted By: Calum_Reid
Date Posted: 05 May 07 at 8:42pm
|
give me a while to play with TSS and il write my view from an umpires position. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Calum_Reid
Date Posted: 05 May 07 at 9:50pm
I assume you mean a situation like this:
If so then: - the rules that apply up until 2 boat lengths depend on how the overlaps were established. (I'm guessing that the case is that green came from behind to overlap to windward of yellow and grey the same to boat 2.) - If my assumption is correct then rule 11 and 16 apply. - Once 2 boat lengths is reached then rule 18 applies - Rule 18.2(a) applies as does 18.2(d) which means rule 16 does not - Therefore as soon as yellow luffs to round the mark green must immediately do so and so must grey to avoid green - Yellow should protest green for not keeping clear and green should protest grey to follow the room at a mark rules fully - The fact that the contact was between yellow and green i assume was because when boat 1 luffed to get around the mark then green decided he couldn't luff aggressively because of grey - Therefore green broke rule 18.2 and grey broke rule 18.2 green would be exonerated under 18.2(e) and 14 as he made an attempt to avoid contact. - I will email it to a few more senior umpires but they may be a little busy at the moment with that little competition in Valencia. -------------
|