crazy sailors
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=6616
Printed Date: 28 Jun 25 at 6:16am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: crazy sailors
Posted By: desteve1
Subject: crazy sailors
Date Posted: 10 Apr 10 at 6:52pm
is there a rule stating that colision must be avoided ? it seemed completely unfair because she crashed into my boat and ruined my fibreglass hull, she knocked my brothers brand new burgee and sunk it and grazed a few other toppers and oppies. all of us did our turns and everything but it seems unfair to not punish her for careless sailing...  ------------- laser 81188 (looking for a name) |
Replies:
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 10 Apr 10 at 7:23pm
There is, but the most significant ryle is probably this one:
which states that in the event of serious damage just doing turns is not adequate. Of course that does depend who was at fault... |
Posted By: desteve1
Date Posted: 10 Apr 10 at 7:49pm
|
if she deliberaty runs into you to make you do turns ? ------------- laser 81188 (looking for a name) |
Posted By: Garry
Date Posted: 11 Apr 10 at 5:24pm
|
If its deliberate then its a breech of rule 2 a
disqualification under this is non discardable. However, if a collision took place and you had to do turns then that also suggests you broke a rule? If so you would solve this by everyone just following the rules... Also if the collision was deliberate and you have evidence you should let your insurance company know as part of the claim. What you probably need is someone to take this to the RYA arbitration scheme if your club is signed up to it. ------------- Garry Lark 2252, Contender 298 www.cuckoos.eclipse.co.uk |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 12 Apr 10 at 6:15pm
|
Ditto Garry; IF she had opportunity to avoid collision (or lessen impact/damage), then she should have taken avoiding action. To deliberately not do so (even though she had right of way) I also believe would fall within the scope of rule 2. It would certainly be interesting to present this case (backed up by a successful protest) through insurance for the avoidable damage caused... |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 12 Apr 10 at 6:38pm
| The main point that needs to be made from this is that there should always be a protest hearing if there's insurance level damage... |
Posted By: Garry
Date Posted: 12 Apr 10 at 8:51pm
------------- Garry Lark 2252, Contender 298 www.cuckoos.eclipse.co.uk |
Posted By: Garry
Date Posted: 12 Apr 10 at 9:12pm
|
Its probably worth making a further point here and I am
sure those that regularly race small dinghies will sometimes get themselves into sticky situations. We sometimes push the rules, so most common is probably squeezing ahead of a starboard boat when you're on port, tacking at the windward mark and trying to squeeze through or going inside when there isn't enough room or you're not entitled. Sometimes even the best of us misjudge that and the right of way boat has to avoid a collision. Conversely if I think someone is going to tack inside because I've over-stood or squeeze inside when they don't have mark room, I'll try and get down to the lay-line to force them to tack early, go outside... In these situations its easy to get it slightly wrong (on both sides). We have to accept that and try our hardest to avoid contact, that way if one or both of us make a mistake and there is contact its rarely significant. If we start to try and deliberately have contact it will only be a matter of time before you cause £100s of damage - we all pay for that in higher insurance premiums. There's also a bit of common sense needed, a foiling moth or twin wire skiff in any breeze has a lot less manoeuvrability than a Lark so its best to give them room rather than get involved in close quarters last minute avoidance. Furthermore if I was sailing a 40 foot yacht I would leave a much bigger gap, because the consequences of a small error are so much greater. ------------- Garry Lark 2252, Contender 298 www.cuckoos.eclipse.co.uk |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 12 Apr 10 at 9:49pm
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 12 Apr 10 at 11:47pm
|
In principle I disagree. If two parties in a damage collision are honest and agree on the circumstances and who was at fault there should be no necessity for the matter to be 'formalised' by a protest hearing. Remember, protests are about places in races, not about fault in a legal sense. Look at rule 68 and the relevant RYA prescription. Note also that RYA Arbitration is just another means of resolving a protest: it is not like an insurance or damages arbitration. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 13 Apr 10 at 8:46am
Nice thought, but I am talking about something that would involve insurance companies... And people can honestly disagree about the circumstances of what happened.
Yes, and then again no. There is case law that RRS have a legal standing. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 13 Apr 10 at 9:19am
|
You're absolutely correct. By entering a race all competitors agree that, at least, Part 2, When Boats Meet of the RRS becomes the 'rule of the road' between them. Certainly, where the parties disagree, that's what the protest process is for, |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 13 Apr 10 at 9:49pm
|
"is there a rule stating that collision must be avoided ?" Yes, rule 14 "Avoiding Contact" - which means that even if you are the right of way boat, if it was possible to avoid contact and you did not do so you should be penalised, if there is damage or injury. And if there is damage or injury the appropriate penalty is to retire. Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 13 Apr 10 at 10:27pm
|
If there is actual contact/damage I have almost never seen
a protest committee rule 1 party entirely innocent, it it gets to the point where there is a collision you are both at fault in some way. |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 14 Apr 10 at 8:39am
|
Read rule 14 carefully. A boat cannot be exonerated for breaking this rule, but the right of way boat shall not be penalised unless there is damage or injury, and need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark room. Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 14 Apr 10 at 6:24pm
|
How old are the parties involved in this spat? ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 14 Apr 10 at 9:41pm
|
Not necessarily relevant - some of the mowt mature sailors I have seen in a protest room were Optimist sailors. And lots of childish behaviour from those old enough to know better. Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 15 Apr 10 at 7:21pm
|
It can certainly affect the way matters need to be settled, though, especially at learner level for children. A quiet word with someone could have a much better effect than a rule 2 protest. Could at adult level, too, mind. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: desteve1
Date Posted: 17 Apr 10 at 2:51pm
 ------------- laser 81188 (looking for a name) |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 18 Apr 10 at 10:30am
|
I had an issue with someone a while back - open and shut case - barging on the start line !!! Took 4 months for this "Gentleman" to admit he was in the wrong and sort the insurance claim out.... ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 18 Apr 10 at 5:38pm
|
Did you protest? Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 18 Apr 10 at 11:24pm
|
Yes; Protest won; open and shut as I said. Still took months as he simply would still not admit liability.!!!!!
------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: laser193713
Date Posted: 27 Apr 10 at 3:41pm
|
This is not really the case. If a protest committee find out that the only reason for the protest is to aid in an insurance claim they should (and probably will) throw it straight out. Happened to us sailing the quarter tonner a long time ago, we were in the right technically but a fair amount of damaged was caused to the other boat but none to ours. We thought it best to retire from the race as a gesture rather than for a rules reason. The other boat was forced to retire too. We got off the water and contacted the yacht club to get the details of the boat who we hit and swap insurance details. When doing so we found out they had protested us, i went to the hearing and after hearing each others sides i asked "why are you protesting us?" to which i got the reply "for insurance reasons". The Jury then kicked the protest out on these grounds. Protests are not there for insurance, they are there to make the racing fair. ------------- |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 27 Apr 10 at 4:51pm
|
The only reason for holding a protest hearing in the case you cite would be if there was an allegation that the penalty taken, which was to retire, was inappropriate. To quote Case 99 - "when a boat's penalty under rule 44.1b is to retire, and she does,(whether because of choice or necessity), she cannot then be disqualified." If there was an allegation unfair sailing (rule 2) then a penalty worse than retiring could be applied - DNE. However, the protest committee could, in this case, have decided that rule 14 had been broken by your boat - in which case the other boat could have been granted redress. Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 28 Apr 10 at 12:07am
I disagree. While, as I said in previous posts, there should be no need for a boat to protest 'for insurance reasons' a protest committee may not 'throw a protest out' in any way based on the reasons for the protest. A protest committee must hear all protests that are lodged (rule 63.1). The protest committee must continue the hearing of all valid protests (rule 63.5) and reach a decision whether or not any boat broke a rule (rule 64.1), then inform the parties (rule 65.1), and if requested do so in writing (rule 65.2). Not until the protest committee has decided whether or not a boat has broken a rule should it consider whether the boat has taken an appropriate penalty and further penalisation does not apply. The protest commitee does not get to pick and choose. This is a 'service to members' mandated in the RRS. I would suggest that it's mandatory nature is specifically there to assist in deciding fault for purposes of adjusting damages. In particular, it forestalls the difficulties of arguing in court that a) the RRS apply, and b) exactly how they apply before a tribunal completely unfamiliar with them. |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 28 Apr 10 at 8:32am
Never say for "insurance reasons"; always say "to establish the facts as bounded by the RRS". ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 28 Apr 10 at 1:16pm
|
Brass, you are of course right. However the fact remains that both boats have taken a penalty (volontarily or not) so they cannot subsequently be disqualified. Unless, of course, it is found that rule 2 has been broken. In the same way a hearing may be necessary to establish whether the conditions for redress have been met. Different MNAs may have differing attitudes to the question of damages. The RYA, for instance, specifically states in its prescriptions that any claim for damages shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and not considered by a protest committee. And that a boat that takes a penalty or retires soes not thereby admit liability for damages or that she has broken a rule. Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: laser193713
Date Posted: 28 Apr 10 at 3:51pm
|
The protest was heard so the jury did the right thing to satisfy the rules. The other boat then lost the protest based on the fact that they were protesting for insurance reasons rather than to clarify the rules situation. My point is purely that you should not protest for insurance and expect the jury to take you seriously! That is why I asked why they had protested us. Something I would always ask in a situation like this where we were 100% sure we were in the right for a rules situation. Perhaps even if you are not 100% it is still worth asking because if the other party slip up and mention insurance you may win the protest by default anyway... ------------- |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 28 Apr 10 at 4:34pm
|
Other boat should have appealed! You cannot invalidate a protest because it is only for insurance. There had been a serious collision, with damage. A rule had been broken (I'm trying to imagine a situation in which there was a collision with damage in which a rule was not broken). However, such a protest would not change either boats score, as both had retired. But, the damaged boat could, after the protest hearing, ask for redress if she could prove that damage was caused by other boat breaking a rule of part 2 Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 29 Apr 10 at 1:12am
|
Thank you Gordon. I am particularly obliged for the pointer to the 'does not thereby admit liability', which also resides in the US Sailing Prescriptions, but not in the Australian ones, although I think the inference from the rules is really clear enough. Interestingly I understand that the Netherlands MNA, and I presume some other European MNAs have no prescription to rule 68. I would empahsise that the prescription is NOT authority for a protest committee to refuse to hear or decide a protest: the protest committee is obliged to decide what rules a boat broke (and how penalties apply): this is a long way from deciding a claim for damages. |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 29 Apr 10 at 8:52am
|
Brass, Just realised that I have been doing too much team racing umpiring recently - we often put in to the SIs that protest committee will not hear a protest if it does not affect the results. Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 29 Apr 10 at 10:59am
|
Boats provided by OA I presume? But in the event of damage collisions, don't you need to make findings to settle whether they get their damage deposit back? |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 29 Apr 10 at 12:26pm
|
Theoretically yes - but if a penalty was taken the penalised boat usually accepts liability. Hearings become essential if there is an allegation that ROW boat broke rule 14 and cannot not be penalised. Gordon ------------- Gordon |