There was a discussion on this last year. Hope this helps.

http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4585&PN=2&TPN=1 - http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4 585&PN=2&TPN=1

Indeed, we did.

Just to test this principle;

i) If boat A clear ahead sailing a steady course, and a faster boat B approached from directly astern 'punted' boat A on the transom. Boat B would be in the wrong, yes?

ii) If boat A clear ahead sailing a steady course, with boat B similar speed very close astern, and boat A accidently dropped mainsheet and slowed suddenly with again a rear end shunt. It would, however unfortunate, still be boat B in the wrong, yes?

iii) Same scenario as ii) except Boat A slowed suddenly by 'deliberately' trailing leg in water. Boat A broke a rule, boat B exonerated? 

Would that be correct?

I did state an 'accidental' act in case ii, however in what instance would boat A be at fault if it slowed itself suddenly deliberately, but legitimately, resulting in a rear end shunt? Could it fall under rule 14, avoiding contact? If there was minor contact with no damage then Boat A hasn't broken a rule, or has it? and has boat B?

It's the kind of thing that could possibly happen pre-start, or maybe team racing?

Rule 16.1 states; When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear.  Note I have underlined changes course, it does not mention slowing down or speeding up!

Or could a deliberate act to slow resulting in a collision by a following boat fall under rule 2; 'sportsmanship and fair play'?

Does anyone know of any cases?

I don't know of any cases but you are required (as right of way boat) to give the give way boat the opportunity to keep clear, this applies whether you are altering course or stopping by backing a sail.

I thought we'd conclusively established that deliberatly trailing your legs in the water was illegal propulsion (albeit of the negative sort).

Garry

You haven't got this quite right.

As right of way boat you are required to allow the give way boat room (not 'opportunity') to keep clear in only five situations:

1)  initially if you gain right of way through your own actions (rule 15);

2)  if you change course (rule 16);

3)  if you are obliged to allow the give way boat mark-room under rule 18

4)  if  you are obliged to allow the give way boat room to pass an obstruction under rule 19;

5)  if you are obliged to allow a give way boat room to avoid you under rule 20.

A right of way boat is not generally obliged to allow a give way boat room to keep clear.

A right of way boat which keeps a steady course may change speed so as reduce the room to keep clear available to the give way boat (think of the port/stbd situation near a windward starboard rounding mark, where S may slow down to force P to tack away from the layline).  This does not have to be accidental.

A right of way boat, however, is taken to have changed course and becomes subject to rule 16 if she changes from going ahead to going astern (MR Call Ump 35).  If she moves astern by backing a sail, that's a whole new ball-game and she becomes the give way boat under rule 21.3.

If a right of way boat reduces the room to keep clear available to the give way boat, she exposes herself to risks under rule 14 if contact with injury or damage occurs.

Nope.  As long as A does not change course or start moving astern B has no entitlement to room to keep clear, although A may have a possible obligation to avoid contact.

The position does not change if A starts sails deliberately intending to slow down.

Thank you Gordon,

I did wonder about standing on the bottom to hold the boat (therefore maintaining speed @ 0 knots). That could be presented as performing an act of seamanship. Applying the same principle to deliberately (passively) immersing the body to slow down is logical but who would think  that it was intended within the rules?

I think the first sentence, rather than the last sentence of rule 42.1 rules it out.

'a boat shall compete using only the wind and water to ... decrease her speed'

That forbids a boat to use the water 'AND a hand or foot' to decrease her speed.

I'm not sure about how rule 42 applies to accidentally immersing some body part (or boat's equipment).  I think there's a colour of intentionality about rule 42, particularly in things that are NOT pumping, ooching or rocking.  A brief, unintentional dunk in the drink that slows the boat down, I don't think breaks rule 42:  falling overboard in the first place does not break rule 42:  if what you do thereafter is getting back on board, surely that's 'an act of seamanship'?

When I was sailing on the Thames in the 70's we had a protest regarding holding onto the banks/railings etc.

The definition of anchoring was looked up - didn't include holding onto the railings, sandbags , trees etc - only a proper anchor (or weight) or crew standing in the water (not on the bank/slipway with dry feet).

Protest was upheld and no-one ever did it again...

I recalled the discussion regarding the original rule of "checking way by abnormal means" - Apparently, helm X saw a log jam at the gybe mark (well behind), threw a bucket over the stern (attached to a line), slowed down and then sailed between the logjam and the mark (the whole mass being virtually motionless), and gained loads of places.

I sometimes think that the rules should be re-written without seeing the previous ones - excepting the Port/Starboard & windwar/leeward fundamentals. That would reduce the inheritance of concepts that are ot deined.

Colin

From the Rule 42 interpretation book ( http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/42interprets2005book-7233.pdf - http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/42interprets2005book-[7233].pdf  ):

I think that clears it up, not allowed.   

I think there are three bits:

1. what constitutes propulsion
2. what constitutes seaman-like action
3. what is the spirit of the rules

It comes down to whether by 'propulsion' you mean 'forwards' if so then slowing by way of a leg in the water is OK, if 'propulsion' means a force to change 'velocity' then a leg in the wather is not allowed. 

I would not consider a leg in the water a seaman-like action, if nothing else it shows a lack of prowess on the part of the helm in question.  If you cannot slow the boat by normal steerage and sail control (backing the main if nothing else) then you need more practice - just my opinion. 

I think this is something that ISAF should have cleared up by now myself, but have always assumed that it was not in the spirit of the rule if nothing else. 

Guess that does not give you an offical answer but maybe we should start a petition to ISAF to get an example of this put in the case book and some clarification given. 

I'm not all that thrilled about it myself.  As you are aware, I'm very much in favour of looking at actions and behaviour and not intent

Yes there is.  Rule 42.2 points us towards repeated actions (where I think repeated implies intentionality, not that I want to harp on intention).  I don't think that a single action, involving hull and equipment in normal position, and not haveing the effect of 'a stroke of a paddle' will break rule 42.  Note that at the moment the ISAF interpretation refers to 'a stroke of a paddle', not 'the effect of sticking a paddle in the water without stroking':  maybe a future version will.

What, under rule 47.2?  I would probably argue against it in a protest committee.  I don't know what such a committee might finally decide.

I would argue against that, as an act of seamanship, provided that the boat is eventually stopped by the crew standing on the bottom as permitted by rule 45.

In the other thread, Jos argued that propel also means to retard.

I think this is probably done to death at the hypothetical level.

"A boat shall compete using only the wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her speed."

I think it's clear that the rulemakers were considering actions that both increase and decrease speed and Gordon's dictionary reading of "propel" to restrict the application of the rule to speed-increasing actions is not what the rulemakers had in mind.

I don't think what you do with your body in the boat has any reference to what you may do with your body outside the boat (in the water)...If you wave your hand around in the air, sitting in the boat it wouldn't have an effect, repeat with hand in water and it could be described as paddling

I do see your point about a motionless limb in the water Gordon....But if a boat was moving, and you placed your foot/leg in the water to slow/stop it. The initial action of submersing the limb (before holding it still) is surely moving it. Sorry to be pedantic.

We could pick holes in definitions all day long. At the end of the day I don't think we are going to find an answer here, unless there has been a ruling on it, or the ISAF can give a clarification.

And sticking a foot out to slow the boat is "moving your body". Ilegal.

Slowing the boat by whacking into a wave while hiking is not "moving your body". Legal.

7.5 general at top of page 5

http://www.regras.com.br/cms/images/stories/pdf/06_IJManual_ rule42_07_3927.pdf - http://www.regras.com.br/cms/images/stories/pdf/06_IJManual_ rule42_07_3927.pdf

EDIT: I know this relates to the 2008 rules but I doubt very much that things have changed that much relating to on the water judging and I can't be bothered to search any further.

Likewise, very informative but still doesn't address the specific question.

Thanks Luke, now that may be the answer we are looking for...

Does anyone have a link for the 'International Judges Manual'?

ILLEGAL

Case closed