Yes, as long as he had an overlap he had rights to room at the mark.

remember with assymetrics they sail the angles rather than more dead downwind of conventional boats, so the overlap angles are far greater, meaning that nearly half the race track (the guys that went left down the run mainly) owe him water.

draw the situation on a bit of paper and draw a line coming off the transom to show the overlap and you will see its quite obvious that he has an overlap.

you can effectively ignore the port starboard rule within the 3 (or whatever size the s.i's state) zone. its only really an issue at the windward mark and even then its not completely true, as port boats do have some rights.

mark on the same side and at least one of them is in the zone. However,

(a) between boats on opposite tacks on a beat to windward,

(b) between boats on opposite tacks when the proper course at the

mark for one but not both of them is to tack,

(c) between a boat approaching a mark and one leaving it, or

(d) if the mark is a continuing obstruction, in which case rule 19

i had almost the same thing a couple of years ago i was on starboard coming into the two boat lenghs when a boat came in asked for water and gybed right in front of me with me having not a lot of choice but to luff up avoid a collision therefore becoming the inside boat.i tried to protest the other boat on grounds that it was unsporting conduct ie gybing right in front of me giving no where to go apart from hitting him or going above him even though i had a witness i still lost cause i should have given him room.

umm it was intresting a vareo against a rs 400

andy

This is quite intresting about the how much room.

reading this http://members.home.nl/jmspijkerman/BLOGFiles/MarkRoomUK2o.pdf - http://members.home.nl/jmspijkerman/BLOGFiles/MarkRoomUK2o.p df

at the bootom of the two pages. I cannot see (within the rrs) why a windward boat cannot sail their proper course around the mark. it may just be me but the way im interpreting it is that if two boats are on port, overlapped and rounding a bouy to port, the inside boat is to windward, and she cannot bear away to sail the course she would like to sail (proper course) as she will break rule 11. and according to the article she is not exonerated even though the rules say she is exonerated from rules of part A (in which rule 11 is written) if the outside boat is not giving her mark room. the definition of mark room is:

Mark-Room Room for a boat to sail to the mark, and then room to sail her proper course while at the mark. However, mark-room does not include room to tack unless the boat is overlapped to windward and on the inside of the boat required to give mark-room.

ignoring the second sentence it clearly states that you can sail your proper course which is the course you would sail in the abscence of other boats, i.e. out wide and in tight for a leeward mark.

im bloody confused. i went to a rules seminar and we went through mark roundings. and the international jury did state that you are now entitled to make a racing rounding.

i dont see why the article states that you cannot if you are windward boat. am i missing something blatently obvious here?

ahhh cheers dave. that makes alot of sense.

im sure that wil cause some grief. probably not the best thing to go into a protest room with, especially as the plaintiff, because as with alot of rules, its very wishy-washy,  i mean how much room do you need? how do you prove how much room you didnt have. unless of course you hit the bouy, but then you are still require to do turns (unless you may hit the bouy within the class rules) as its not covered under exoneration.

i think ill suggest to them when i call for water next time, that i require enough room to sail my proper course. it will get people thinking along the right lines.

Two phases:  from the edge of the zone to the mark:  IW is only entitled to room to sail her direct course:  at the mark, IW is entitled to sail her proper course to get fastest to the next mark.

And according to Bryan Willis, OL needs to be steering a course sufficiently outside the mark to allow IW room to round it (2xBmax?), at the instant the first boat reaches the zone.

But once she is at  the mark, as long as she is taking 'mark-room to which she is entitled' she shall be exonerated under rule 18.5 for breaking rule 11, and, as long as contact does cause damage or injury, shall not be penalised under rule 14 (rule 14(b)).

I think that once at the mark, IW could bear away and 'flare' a little to create more room, but there may be a dispute about whether she was at or to the mark, and whether she bore away too far.

If there's no contact with something then a 'room' protest is hard to win.

Why?  there is no game change.

No-one is interested in how much room he 'anticipates' you need (unless you are getting into really arcane stuff about rule 14(a)).  What counts is how much room the protest committee decided you needed to sail your proper course at the mark.  If the PC are all laser sailors, then you might be stuck.

And you don't like being attacked by Topper Mums because .....?

If a boat does not give your mark-room to which you are entitled and forces you to hit the mark you are entitled to exoneration under rule 64.1(c).

Difference between 18.5 and 64.1(c) exoneration is that for 64.1(c), you have to be compelled to break a rule (like rule 31), while for 18.5, you just have to be taking room to which you are entitled without compulsion:  a pretty fine shade of meaning, but OL might argue that although he did not give your enough room to sail your proper course, he didn't push you up so far that he forced you to hit the mark.

Hmmm this gets more and more confusing.

My interpretations after sieving through books, is that you are entitled enough room when you are at the mark, to make a proper course rounding. for arguments sake wide in, tight out, which say in a laser requires 10feet of room. You cannot take anymore than these ten feet, otherwise you will have broken rule 18.4. you are required to avoid contact, so you cannot "barge" yourself some room, i.e. if the outside boat gives you only 6 foot, all you can do is take the 6 foot and protest. if contact occurs in that 6 foot you are exonerated as long as it was without intention.

I believe you can squeeze the outside boat out enough to make a proper course rounding in this example, 10 feet. but if the outside boat is having none of it, you cannot make contact with him as you are not avoiding contact rule 14a

the rule 14, Avoiding Contact, reads

a boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled room or mark-room

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

(b) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage or injury.

basically you can bear away or luff up, as long as the other outside boat is bearing away also i.e. their bow is pointing away from the mark, but if they are not playing ball, when you bear away to gain the room you are entitled, you cannot hit them as this is not avoiding contact and is a breach of rule 14(a).

But does Rule 14(b) not contradict rule 14(a)?? If you cannot be penalised, if you are right of way boat/entitled to mark-room, unless you cause damage or injury. so surely in a bullet proof boat like a pico rule 14(a) doesnt exist (unless heaven forbid, you injure someone) and you can barge yourself some room without being penalised?

god this is so confusing/grey its making my brain hurt thinking about it

With all due respect to Brass, my answer still stands. The OL boat has to give mark room or face protest, likewise the IW cannot barge to make room.

Topper Mums are scary if you kill their children. Don't know why.

Back on subject, I was trying to think how this would work for both IW and OL boats tactically. IW wants mark room in order to make a fast rounding and keep her as windward boat after the mark. OL does not want to end up underneath IW after the mark as she will stay buried for the next upwind leg. So does it make any sense for the OL to squeeze the IW at the mark?

I don't think so. Surely (and I accept this ignores all the other boats on the race track) OL needs to bear off big style in order to fall clear behind IW and then make a very tight rounding and perhaps get upwind of IW after the mark. It's an accepted practice that if you enter the zone clear ahead but with another boat up yr chuff you slow up as much as possible to force the other boat to the outside and thus take your dirty air on the next leg. So I see no benefit in OL trying to luff or squeze the IW round the mark. It slows IW's rounding but also slows OL by the same action. And leaves OL still to leeward which is a poor place to be for the next leg. The only time it might work for OL is when the overlap is minimal and OL manages to end up on IW's lee bow after the mark, forcing the IW to tack off.

The tactical opportunity occurs for any boats behind.

Given that OL should/could be giving more mark room than under the old rules when IW was not entitled, there is a greater likelihood of a gap for Clear astern (CA) to sail into in a safe windward position.

For OL the decision as to whether to round outside and ahead in safe leeward/lee bow position or to slow and come inside is probably shifted further in favour of slow and inside since the former will be harder to obtain.

Hmm,

But, Clear Astern has no rounding rights (because of the 3 length zone), so as OL rounds up, CA is now caught a) without rights to room for the mark and b) most likely windward boat.

If you can't argue that you had mark room, then you don't have rights to round the mark, so CA has to head up, and either hit OL or the mark... Avoidng contact with another boat is probably more important, so it's penalty turn time.

You've not exactly understood what I meant.  At leeward marks there is often an opportunity for CA to turn inside OL, ending up in one of 3 positions:

CA of IW and CA of OL (OL and IW remain overlapped) but in a safe windward position with respect to OL.  OL suffers more in the downwind, as opposed to lee bow, dirty air from IW, and can not luff.  CA is in a passing lane.

CA of IW and overlapped with OL (OL and IW remain overlapped).  Presence of IW limits ability of OL to close the gap.  As above - CA is in a passing lane.

CA of IW and overlapped with OL (OL and IW are not overlapped).  CA is no longer "protected" by IW, and there is greater risk of OL shutting the door as described in your post.  However often OL will struggle to do so without serious detriment to her own position.

Under the new rules OL is likely to be further from the mark, increasing the oportunities for CA in each of the examples above.

Good tactical application of the rule Dave and Sarge.

OL pushing close will work when OL is well advanced on IW and has a chance of coming away in a lee bow position.

Otherwise the rule will 'play' when OL is a little bit clueless:  improperly tries to close the door, rounds up, just thinks luffing is a good idea and so on.

OL should never have let herself get in that situation in any case. She should have luffed much higher than the mark well in advance of the zone, then born off hard just before the zone to break overlap. This assumes the overlap had been ongoing for some time. If not and IW had just established overlap just before the zone then OL should have seen her coming and, again, driven high to avoid being rolled, either taking IW with her or forcing her to the outside where she would have been buried as the new OL.

This only makes any sense if the two boats are of similar handicap. If there is a vast difference in speed then let the faster boat go and get on with your own racing. No point in an Oppie match-racing a 49er.

Gordon,

I have been witing for your post with interest!  And I am not surprised to see you say that.  It is a much sounder prospect.  Unfortunately the interpretations of proper course that have formed the basis of this discussion have been pedelled in print at various coaching sessions and it will be interesting to see how long it takes to be sorted out.

Not dissimilar to what happened when tacking inside 2 lengths first came out.  I was protested at the CHS/IRC Nats for tacking inside 2 lengths by a massively overstood boat that did not luff above closehauled.  Both parties agreed those facts but and that I was tack complete, and that was found as facts but the PC still nearly lobbed us!  When they revisited the wording we were OK but their perception had been shaped (as had the other skippers view) by some poor coaching

Yes - that's pretty much what I did.  Thankfully the committee didn't quite follow normal procedure and allowed a "second" summing up before finalising it's decision!  I have a feeling that the chairman and his wing men weren't quite in agreement (he holding the correct interpretation).

It's just a shame that the wrong interpretation has already spread (as evidenced above!).  It will take some time to correct.

Matt

I attended a rules update course run by the RYA with a couple of judges and they interprted the rules as you are allowed mark-room for tactical purposes because  "Mark-room" definition includes "proper course" and if your proper course is to get around the race track is a fast as possible which will mean wide in and tight out then you are entitled to that mark-room.

Mark room is not just "room" to sail around a mark it is room to sail your proper cousre around the mark. Even if it means the boat giving mark-room can not sail her proper course. If  mark room for a proper course is not given and some disaster happens then the inside boat will  exnorated under 18.5 and the boat required to give mark-room will be penalised.

They both agreed that the word "to" as in "to the mark" will be hotly disputed.

That was their take on it and it will be interesting to see what cases evolve.

On Thursday.

Yes, but if my poper course is tight out and I was not able to sail this becuase I was not given enough mark-room to sail wide in then has not the rule has been broken? Sailing my proper course is different to sailing any course to the next mark.

I thought I had this straight!!!!

I just re-read it and agree with you. (I got there!)

It's just fully clicked with me too.

Gordon is truly a god when it comes to the rules!

Does this finally settle it?

http://sailing.org/tools/documents/QA2009022-7004.pdf - http://sailing.org/tools/documents/QA2009022-[7004].pdf

I think it does Brass, and thanks to everyone who has made me re-evaluate the new rule. Like many, I had gone to a presentation at my club to hear about Mark-Room. The talk was given by an ISAF IJ and I certainly got the impression that some form of tactical rounding was now admissible.

It now seems from re and rereading the rules that nothing much has changed with regard Rule 18. The definition of "Room at the Mark" has now moved to the "Definitions" section and the "zone" is now a recommended but not prescribed 3 boat lengths rather than two.

Still a wee bit confused about the definition of "at the mark". Is it when any part of the boat is overlapped on the mark? When the mark is amidships? When?

It's less an issue when boats are moving well but in light winds, taking your "proper course" at the leeward mark will involve rounding up hard. This is inevitably going to kick your stern out, more noticeably in longer boats. Do I assume that the OL boat has to anticipate this and keep clear?

It's not like this is an unlikely scenario. What we have been discussing is the leeward mark for every ww/lw course.

(Incidentally, a youngster in a Topper called for room on me on Sunday. He was at the "zone" I came rattling round his outside and he wanted to be sure that I would leave him room to round. Racing against a 20ft cat in a Topper when you are 11 can be intimidating. Well done him for calling. I gave room)

Is it not now "hull lengths"? ie a huge carbon pole will now not count.

Great article, Brass. I've taken the liberty of rescripting your post to provide a direct link. Like me, you commonly use Chrome, but it seems to be limited wrt this forum site.