Laser Start?
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=7848
Printed Date: 28 Jun 25 at 9:47am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Laser Start?
Posted By: GybinJoe
Subject: Laser Start?
Date Posted: 14 May 11 at 2:05pm
|
Heres the situation,
At a standard start line theres one boat (A) head to wind, sitting there waiting for the start whistle so she can bear away to starboard and start sailing.
As the whistle blows, Boat A bears away and starts to accelerate.
At the same time that Boat A Bears away, Boat (B) is on port tack at speed and a collision occurrs.
 Boat A protests B for not keeping clear when overtaking and Boat B protests A for tacking onto his course.
Who would be penalised? This happened to me and I was Boat B, I got penalised even though I was sure i was in the right.
 |
Replies:
Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 14 May 11 at 5:38pm
|
It sounds to me like you were in the wrong to be honest without lots more information.
------------- Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard" Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch" Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air" Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile" |
Posted By: GybinJoe
Date Posted: 14 May 11 at 10:10pm
|
I would have though Boat A was at fault beacuse he had a choice on which tack to take and chose a collision course. ------------- Laser Standard (Helm) J-80 (Crew&Helm) Laser 2 (Helm) Beneteau(Crewing for multiple boats) |
Posted By: SoggyBadger
Date Posted: 14 May 11 at 10:33pm
I have real problems with you description of the incident (maybe the protest committee did too  ). If A is on starboard and B is on port then overtaking is irrelevant. Your only possible chance of winning a protest would have been to argue that A didn't give you room/opportunity to keep clear before he/she altered course.
------------- Best wishes from deep in the woods SB |
Posted By: GybinJoe
Date Posted: 14 May 11 at 10:36pm
Oop's  Boat B was on a starboard tack too------------- Laser Standard (Helm) J-80 (Crew&Helm) Laser 2 (Helm) Beneteau(Crewing for multiple boats) |
Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 14 May 11 at 10:40pm
|
Right, if you were both on starboard then the other boat was windward boat and required to keep clear by the sound of it. Overtaking has nothing to do with it, you're either overlapped or you're not. ------------- Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard" Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch" Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air" Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile" |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 15 May 11 at 5:52am
I agree, we need lots more information.
If as you added, you were 'also' on starboard, then I'd be inclined to put all my money on boat A being in the wrong.
Had you been on port there would still be a very good chance on boat A being in the wrong...
Note; boat A could only be considered to be 'starboard' tack if had reached 'head to wind' by luffing up from a starboard tack course. If boat A was head to wind from port, then would not have any rights until established a 'close hauled' starboard course and then only on port tack boats.
We do need to establish boat A's rights, and whether in changing course it initially gave room for 'keep clear' boats to do just that.
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 15 May 11 at 5:58am
| Oh, and if boat A was moving backwards at the time by backing its sail then again, it will have forfeited all rights. |
Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 15 May 11 at 7:27am
|
Indeed. The other things requiring consideration are whether you could have avoided the collision, and whether you gave the other boat the opportunity to keep clear.
------------- Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard" Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch" Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air" Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile" |
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 15 May 11 at 8:26am
|
I am assuming a lot here....
A is the windward boat and was sitting head to wind on the start line (why they would sit 'head to wind' I do not know, perhaps they were lying to)
B was Leeward and established an overlap at which point A must keep clear
B was sailing a close hauled course and did not alter course
However if A was stationery then B has to give A enough time to react, this does include bearing away to get the boat moving so they can keep clear (I am pretty sure there is an ISAF case that covers this).
What you have not also given are the realtive points of sail leading up to and during the incident.. ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: Jon711
Date Posted: 15 May 11 at 9:12am
|
I agree with Jeffers, but there is a need for more info. Just checked through the appeals book, and can find no match, unless there is something we are not being told...
Jon ------------- Blaze 711 |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 15 May 11 at 11:41am
|
There are 2 probable scenarios: It is extremely improbable that A was exactly head to wind . Head to wind is a very precise point, not a course that a boat can remain on for more than a very short time. The rules only mention passing head to wind (a transition) and a boat is only considered to have passed head to wind when it is clear that she has done so (using the principle of "last point of certainty). Unless there is very definite evidence it is safer to assume that A was somewhere between a closehauled course on starboard and the point where she had clearly passed beyond head to wind. The scenarios depend on how A got to this point of sailing Scenario 1: If A had luffed from a starboard close hauled course without passing head to wind she is still on starboard. B approaches from astern. B is keep clear boat (rule 12) B establishes an overlap to leeward and acquires right of way (rule 11). Rule 15 applies and B must give A room to keep clear. Room is the space needs in the existing conditions to manoeuvre in aseamanlike manner -which for a Laser stopped or sailing very slowly means room to bear away (more to full and by rather than close-hauled). If A does this promptly when B establishes the overlap (not before) than B must give A room to do so. If there is contact whilst A is acting promptly to keep clear then B has broken rule 15. 2 If A has clearly passed beyond head to wind and either returned to starboard tack (without reaching close hauled) or passed head to wind having been on port tack, but has yet to reach a starboard close-hauled course, then rule 13 applies and A is a keep clear boat. B does not acquire right of way when she establishes an overlap as she was already ROW boat (see rule 15). A must keep clear. However, if B changes course then rule 16.1 applies and B must give room to A to keep clear. Hope this is clear Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: blueboy
Date Posted: 15 May 11 at 3:31pm
|
Gordon, would welcome an opinion on a related situation. Prestart, keelboats L and W are overlapped, both on starboard, luffing and almost stationary. W is clear of L by around a foot and every time W goes up, L closes the gap again to maximise her own gap to leeward. At the gun, L bore away sharply, rotating around her keel and causing her stern to swing to windward and make contact with W. No damage resulted. I was W. It appeared to me I was making all possible effort to keep clear, particularly since every time I went up, L also went up and that L broke 16.1 (changed course to bear away and did not give me room to keep clear). L considered I broke rule 11. There was no protest. Thoughts? |
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 15 May 11 at 8:14pm
|
Blueboy, Contact without protest, both DSQ. I would say the windward boat's case sounds good. OP Whoever first used the word 'overtaking' gets DSQ'd and has to get a round in, unless of course the incident was after sunset. |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 15 May 11 at 8:26pm
|
RC400atC
"Contact without protest, both DSQ." Under which rule of the 2009-2012 rules would a protest committee impose such a penalty Could you be thinking of rule 33.2 of a previous version of the rules that have not been applicable for at least 10 years! Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 15 May 11 at 8:52pm
|
Basic Principle: ... a body off rules that they are expected to obey and enforce... A rule was broken, if you are in the right you should protest, if you are in the wrong or unsure you should accept a penalty. OK I admit my knowledge of R14 was out of date, that's why I read this forum, I've learned something, thanks! (10 years is not very long in terms of rules knowledge around Portsmouth, when did 'overtaking' leave the rule book?, I heard it from a sailing sec last month I do believe!) |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 15 May 11 at 10:12pm
|
The rules were changed in 1997. However, even in the old rules, valid at least since the 60s and probably since the 40s (some research needed) there was no mention of overtaking. The notion of overtaking boat comes from the Collision Regulations. The old rule 33.2 meant that a third boat could protest both boats for a minor contact and get them both DSQ'd, leading to vexatious protests. Under the present rules it is rare to protest only for breaking rule 14, because the rule gives some protection to the ROW boat. The keep clear boat will be DSQ'd for breaking another rule and rule 14 whereas the ROW boat will only be penalised under this rule if there was damage or injury. It is quite frequent that, to a third party, a rule appears to have been broken without a protest being called. Gordon Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 1:54am
Take a look at the definition of Keep Clear, last part:
With only 1 foot of separation, it seems quite likely that when L bore away, she immediately made contact, thus, just before L bore away, you were not keeping clear.
L can argue that, up until she bore away, while she was luffing, she was allowing you sufficient room to keep clear (evidenced by the fact that there was no contact up to that point). She can then argue that your failure to keep clear in breach of rule 11 the instant before she bore away (for which you deserve to be penalised) compelled her to contact you when she changed course away from the wind in breach of rule 16.1.
In a nutshell, you broke rule 11 first, before L broke rule 16.1, and L can argue that your breach caused her breach, and that she should be exonerated.
Normally the 'doing all W can' to keep clear notion applies to a hard, aggresive, continuous luff: can you really say you couldn't possibly have come up harder and made the gap bigger?
In the case of a gradual luff to build a cushion as you describe, L would be smart to say that her course consisted of a series of small luffs, puncutated by short periods of holding course while you responded, culminating with a period of holding course to allow you to get further away, before bearing away. W will usually find it very hard to refute this story.
|
Posted By: blueboy
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 5:27am
Nope, because there was no damage. 14(b).
Yes, because in this class, when you change course the boat essentially rotates around the fin keel. His stern came up towards my stern as he bore away and the contact was at the stern quarter. If I luffed, my stern would turn towards his. For a period at least there would be less room, not more. Conceivably, I might have avoided contact by bearing away, not luffing more, but then there may have contact elsewhere e.g. between rigs.
I would however argue that he could have beared away with the space remaining, just not so sharply as he chose to do. Before he bore away, I was keeping clear. So to what extent did I need to anticipate his bearing away?
Not particularly my choice since any more was immediately filled by L. However I've sailed a variety of keelboat classes and a foot of separation on an aggressive startline is, like it or not, pretty normal. I'd agree however that I don't know how this would have played out in a protest room. Neither, apparently, did he! We had a subsequent polite but tense exchange of views on the incident and I'm fairly sure if he was confident he'd win a protest he would have filed one. |
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 8:41am
| If a witness had protested both boats what would have been the outcome? |
Posted By: Lukepiewalker
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 9:07am
|
DSQ for the windward boat I would expect.
------------- Ex-Finn GBR533 "Pie Hard" Ex-National 12 3253 "Seawitch" Ex-National 12 2961 "Curved Air" Ex-Mirror 59096 "Voodoo Chile" |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 10:24am
|
Depending on the facts found I may well disagree with Brass on this. The situation as I read it is that L luffed followed by a luff by W to keep clear. L then luffs again and W luffs in response. This is repeated several times. In this case every time L luffs she is bound by rule 16.1 to give room to W to keep clear. There will reach a point where, in reply any further luff by L, W is unable to keep clear. At this point L must cease luffing. If, in reply to a luff by L, the only way for W to keep clear is to tack then L must give her room to do so. A further consideration on a crowded start line. W must have somewhere to go. If W has another boat to windward then when L gives W room to windward that includes the space needed for W to give room to the keep clear boat to windward. Furthermore, you cannot luff a windward boat into the committee boat. So - the question a jury would have to ask would be - did L give room to W to keep clear every time L luffed? Did W react promptly and adequately? If L had not been giving room to W before L bears away then not only do the last luffs break rule 16.1 but so does the bear away. On the other hand, if L had given room and W was not keeping clear then W has broken rule 11. If W was keeping clear but the bear away was so hard that W did not have room to keep clear then L breaks 16.1. It would be worth reading the Team Racing Call Book - calls B1, B2, C1 and C2 Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: blueboy
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 10:39am
50 boats sitting head to wind on the startline, each luffing the next. You think anyone's got time to see what's going on between two other boats? |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 10:48am
|
The source of a protest should make no difference to the outcome; It is the PC's job to establish facts and then decide, on the basis of the established facts, if a rule has been broken. Protests from Race Committee or judges on the water, for instance, do occur. Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: SalsaPirates
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 4:04pm
|
apologies but slightly off theme but related ..... As a member of a race team, if you see an infringment on the water, should you take any action? e.g.:
1. you witness an infringment and no-one does penalty turns or protests?
2. a competitor sails the worng course .... sails to wrong mark or rounds a mark in wrong direction or hits a mark and no other competitors witness or take action?
|
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 4:34pm
In the event of an infringement, if it was blatant enough to warrant it, protest the wrong doers. Alternatively ask a competent rules person to talk it over with the participants.
Depends a little on the level of competition and whether you think it's blatant disregard for the rules or just a one-off error of judgement.
I would suggest only going to protest if you have sufficient witnesses, and the situation is clear enough, to be reasonably sure of a 'conviction', you have nothing to gain personally and a the worst case is the protest not upheld meaning the guilty party thinks he can get away with x,y and z in the future.
Just a pragmatic approach at club level.
|
Posted By: asterix
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 4:41pm
|
"I would suggest only going to protest if you have sufficient witnesses"
isn't this a bit of a general problem -particularly for single handers?
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 5:06pm
|
The race committee not recording a boat as a finisher when she has finished wouold be grounds for redress, as it is contraryto rule A5. By the time that you have "had a word" with competitor time limit might well have been reached and the RC protest might well be found invalid. There are ISAF guidelines on what a RC and judges would protest - somewhere in the manuals. Roughly speaking anything that smacks of unfair sailing should be protested (including hitting a mark and sailing on. Increasingly judges are being asked to more pro-active - commonly by signalling that they believe that they have seen an infringement. Any such request from a class association or organising club would be studied. I would advocate informing competitors. Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 5:10pm
|
When there are no witnesses, judges form their own idea of what happened from each competitors statements, based on their own experience as sailors. This can lead to interesting debates: at one hearing at a one design keelboat regatta evidence was given that an incident occurred just as one boat was starting to take their spinnaker down - for the cruiser-racing judges this was clear evidence that the boats had not reached the zone, whilst for the keelboat sailors on the panel this was clear evidence that boats had already entered the zone... Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 5:21pm
Done it myself, it was the crew's fault!
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 5:29pm
|
I think I'd agree that if the RO sees that a boat has sailed the wrong course, then they cannot be counted as a finisher - it is a little like a boat being over the line at the start and just hearing silence at the finish, surely? As has been said, though, wise to take a time, just in case. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: asterix
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 5:31pm
... but rather than being DNF, wouldn't they be DSQ for breaching RRS 28 (assuming they didn't correct ther error)?
in what circumstances do you become DNF rather than DSQ?
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 5:36pm
|
Wouldn't there have to be a protest for DSQ, whereas a boat not completing the course is DNF, whether the course isn't completed because of retirement or because of missing out vital parts of it? ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 16 May 11 at 7:24pm
|
Race Officers cannot disqualify a boat - they can only give the penalties laid out in Rule A5, which are limited to incidents at the start or finish line. If it is alleged that a boat has not sailed the correct course then a hearing is required (see rule 28.1). If the Race Committee does disqualify a boat incorrectly then the boat is entitled to redress because of the incorrect action of the committee. The redress hearing will only be deciding if the RC's action was correct. The competitor should be reinstated. If the RC then protests they would have to explain why the protest is outside the time limit. "Because we don't know the rules" should not be an adequate excuse. Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: blueboy
Date Posted: 17 May 11 at 6:11am
Correct. If you read the definition of "finish" in RRS there is no mention of whether or not the correct course has been sailed. "Finishing" is basically some part of the boat crossing the finish line in the correct direction. Sailing the wrong course is not DNF, it is DSQ under RRS 28 ("sailing the course"). I had this come up when I was Club RO last year. A sailor complained (to me) that another boat missed a mark, which I must surely have seen (I didn't) and I should therefore disqualify them (which was not my role). The sailor who missed the mark later RTD. |
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 17 May 11 at 10:48am
|
Finish A boat finishes when any part of her hull, or crew or equipment innormal position, crosses the finishing line in the direction of the course from the last mark, either for the first time or after taking a penalty under rule 44.2 or, after correcting an error made at the finishing line, under rule 28.1. According to that definition, on many club courses, a boat would 'finish' before sailing the second lap. Has ISAF become completely divorced from club sailing around the cans? |
Posted By: asterix
Date Posted: 17 May 11 at 11:24am
|
well it depends on how you interpret 'last mark' because that could be interpreted as 'the mark before the finish line after the specified number of laps'.
But I do wonder if a boat could miss several marks, sail close to the finish line, do several penalty turns (to make up for missing the marks) and then finish in a quicker time than sailing the race 'properly' would take?
I would think it was unfair conduct (RRS 2), but how would that be protested or determined?
|
Posted By: SalsaPirates
Date Posted: 17 May 11 at 12:14pm
An interesting kettle of fish and variety of opinions. Many thanks for the clarity Gordon ... makes sense and your response is aligned to what I thought the answer should be, however a point of further clarity please.
When you say 'a hearing is required' .... at club level, I guess this means either Race team can protest under 60.2 (a) (provided they actually witnessed it and are not working on third hand information) or can utilise the RYA advisory hearing procedure (if adopted into club SI's) and assign an appropriate exoneration penalty?
|
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 17 May 11 at 12:18pm
The protest committee would decide that the boat asking for redress had broken a rule by not sailing the course and would disqualify the boat.
Also asking for redress knowing you had not sailed the course would not be fair sailing.
If you dispute the course or honestly claim you have sailed it that's obviously different.
Also, another competitor could protest as soon as they heard the boat not sailing the course had been re-instated?
In our club, as soon as we come ashore and it becomes aparent who has not sailed the course, they effectively retire. We may be slightly out of line in listing them as DNF but the points are the same.
|
Posted By: furtive
Date Posted: 17 May 11 at 12:19pm
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 17 May 11 at 12:49pm
|
To reply to several points: - the last mark on a multiple lap or complicated course is the mark that is to be rounded last in the order defined by the SIs. Thus a course on a river that was Start, 1,2,3,1,2,3 Finish mark 3 is only the last mark the second time round - even if boats have to sail through the finish line to sail from 3 to 1. The blue flag is flown to show that the finishing line is open. - rule 44.1 does not allow a boat to take a 2 turn penalty for breaking rule 28 (not sailing the course. The only way to repair the error is to return and sail the correct course. - a boat that requests redress because they have been scored DNF or DSQ by a Race Committee that they have not sailed the score correctly should be reinstated. See Case 80 which deals with just such an incident. A hearing must be limited to the protest or request that is put to the jury. You cannot disqualify a boat for breaking a rule after a redress hearing. - there is no limit on the right of a boat to retire - in club racing a quiet word from the race committee and a request to be scored RAF is an effective and "lega" way of dealing with the problem. Merely scoring the bopat DNF or DSQ is neither effective nor legal Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: asterix
Date Posted: 17 May 11 at 1:20pm
Thanks - I agree with you - I realise now that penalty turns apply to Part 2 and that RRS28 is in Part 3.
But, I would still be interested to know how a protest under RRS 2 would happen and how it would be determined.
|
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 17 May 11 at 1:32pm
Assuming there is no dispute as to what courses were actually sailed. If there is a dispute there needs to be a protest.
In the appeal case you refer to, I get the impression the appellant claimed to have sailed the course correctly. It's an old case, was the def'n of finish the same then?
I'd like to think no-one would go to appeal knowing they'd missed out a lap.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 17 May 11 at 1:40pm
|
Protests under rule 2 or hearings under rule 69 (both could be appropriate) would in this case be most often associated with another protest under rule 28. If the protest committee establishes as a fact that a boat not only did not sail the course, but did so deliberately with the intention of gaining an advantage, then they may decide to penalise under rule 2, for having violated recognised principles of sportsmanship or fair play, or initiate a rule 69 hearing for the gross breach of a rule. The protest under rule 28 serves to establish the infringement. One advantage of rule 69 is that there is considerable flexibility in the penalty, which can vary from a warning to a life-long ban from sailing anywhere in the world. Gordon ------------- Gordon |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 17 May 11 at 2:00pm
|
What's the procedure for Rule 2 (and other fundamental rule) hearings? I just skimmed the rules and didn't see much (unlike 69). Are the time limits and notification the same as a part 3 protest?
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 17 May 11 at 2:30pm
|
An allegation that rule 2 has been breachedshould be protested in the normal way. However, much like rule 14, it will often be the protest committee that decides, in the course of hearing a protest, that rule 2 has been breached. Once a protest is declared valid, the protest committee establishes facts and decides, on the basis of those facts, which rule, if any, has been broken. They are not limited to judging if a rule invoked on the protest form has been broken. Indeed, it happens often that it is the protestor who ends up being penalised. Gordon ------------- Gordon |