taking a windward mark too wide
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=8051
Printed Date: 28 Jun 25 at 5:28pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: taking a windward mark too wide
Posted By: x1testpilot
Subject: taking a windward mark too wide
Date Posted: 20 Jul 11 at 5:35pm
|
Say 2 boats on starboard approach a windward mark to be taken to port A is clear ahead, but passes the mark and opens up a gap does there become a point where B could ever be allowed to slip inside A or does B have to wait till A has rounded however far A goes (till outside the zone?)? Or is B's only option to protest A for not hold rounding efficiently (proper course)? In such situation if, having passed the mark, A gybes hard over before leaving the zone (a reasonable action without B being there) onto port, A would still maintain right of way till outside the zone? ------------- I like to take pictures of sailing, but I'd rather be sailing! http://www.LCSC.org.uk" rel="nofollow - LCSC.org.uk http://xdinghies.com/" rel="nofollow - Xdinghies.com/ X0 & X1 |
Replies:
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 20 Jul 11 at 10:41pm
|
Yes, B can go inside 'room given - room taken'.
CASE 63
At a mark, when room is made available to a boat that is not entitled to it, she may, at her own risk, take advantage of the room.
Two useful new appeals from the USA
Appeal 105 http://raceadmin.ussailing.org/Assets/Race+Admin/Appeals/Appeal+105+%2810-03%29.pdf - http://raceadmin.ussailing.org/Assets/Race+Admin/Appeals/Appeal+105+(10-03).pdf
Appeal 106 http://raceadmin.ussailing.org/Assets/Race+Admin/Appeals/Appeal+106.pdf - http://raceadmin.ussailing.org/Assets/Race+Admin/Appeals/Appeal+106.pdf
Appeal 106 puts it rather neatly
[Once a boat has] left the mark astern and, [is] beyond the mark, not "at" it ... she therefore [is] no longer entitled to room to sail her proper course or to the exoneration provided by rule 18.5. ... Although rule 18.2(b) still applied, it had no effect because it did not specify any rights or obligations after [the boat] was no longer "at the mark."
A breaks no rule: A is not obliged to sail her proper course: sailing her proper course at the mark is a condition to A getting exoneration if she breaks a right of way or room to keep clear rule under rule 18.5, nothing more.
If A gybes onto port while B remains on starboard:
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 20 Jul 11 at 11:15pm
|
Ah, good question. The way I would interpret it; A is entitled to room to sail to the mark and room to sail its proper course whilst at the mark. The $64,000 question for me would be; was that a Proper course? If its course couldn't be justified (in the absense of the other boat) then I would say the right to mark room would be lost as soon as it had first passed the mark. Though I can't see how B can protest A for sailing 'above' its proper course. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 21 Jul 11 at 12:35am
|
Previous answer tarted up to make it clearer.
OP's scenario was that it would have been reasonable for A to gybe in the absence of B, so A is sailing her proper course.
The $64k question(s) are:
If A was not 'at the mark' 'proper course' is wholly irrelevant. B cannot protest A for sailing above her proper course, that's a rule 17 protest and rule 17 does not apply here. All B can do is protest A for failing to keep clear or failing to give B room to keep clear, and B's success in that protest will depend on whether A is entitled to exoneration under rule 18.5.
|
Posted By: x1testpilot
Date Posted: 21 Jul 11 at 10:42am
This is the rough scenario I was thinking of. All in the zone. Additional complication of a significant current means that B is catching up as B approaches the mark and so is easily able to slip inside A that has gone rather wide. A would want to gybe and luff onto port where she does, though that would mean B cannot avoid T-boning A. 
------------- I like to take pictures of sailing, but I'd rather be sailing! http://www.LCSC.org.uk" rel="nofollow - LCSC.org.uk http://xdinghies.com/" rel="nofollow - Xdinghies.com/ X0 & X1 |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 21 Jul 11 at 11:28am
|
In that circumstance I would say that B is taking a big risk. If they impede A in any way they are toast. If the current were running from right to left and there's a log jam at the mark you can often sneak through like that, but with the current in that direction its a bit more risky.
I have a happy memory of doing that at the Weston Grand Slam some years ago, and an aggrieved B14 shouting at us that we couldn't go through there because we had no rights. So we said, yes, agreed we have no rights at all, but if we don't get in your way we're OK:-) |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 21 Jul 11 at 11:49am
|
I'd agree - B can go in there, but take her lumps if things go wrong.
------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: laser193713
Date Posted: 21 Jul 11 at 12:14pm
|
I have always understood it that once A is past the mark, no longer overlapped with it, they lose all protection from rule 18 and then B becomes ROW boat in that situation. At the end of the day it is A that has gybed onto port while B may still have been on starboard so A is in the wrong then. If A luffs B hard then B has to avoid the mark which is an obstruction so A must give B room to do so as she is now reapproaching the mark. I always think it is easier to picture mark rules when the boats are large yachts rather than dinghies. It is so easy in dinghies to get off a mark when hooked but imagine the consequences for a yacht doing this and getting forced onto a mark, particularly a metal racing mark. If A was to steer a course as shown they could be penalised for deliberately causing a collision if there was one because of the massive angle they have steered through in such a short space of time. ------------- |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 21 Jul 11 at 2:56pm
Yes, once A is past the mark and no longer 'at the mark' she ceases to meet the condition prescribed in rule 18.5 for her to be entitled to exoneration for breaking a part 2 rule. Rule 18,2(b), however, continues to apply, while ever Boat A remains in the zone (rule 18.2(c)), and if A once again sails 'to the mark' or becomes 'at the mark', Boat B must, again, give A mark-room. A, having gybed onto Port is not in the wrong unless she fails to keep clear of B and somehow or other is not sailing 'to the mark' or 'at the mark'. In all probability, if A is 'reapproaching the mark' she is sailing 'to the mark' and entitled to mark-room to do so. Once A is 'at the mark', provided her proper course is to luff, she may luff as hard as she likes, because rule 18.5 expressly gives her exoneration for breaking rule 16. A is absolutely entitled to 'slam the door' on B. Why do you say the mark is an obstruction? OP provided no evidence to suggest that it was. It should not be assumed that every mark is an obstruction. Normally racing marks, even of they are of metal or other solid construction, will be so designed that they are small enough that a boat one of her hull lengths from the mark would not need to change course substantially to pass and thus they do not meet the definition of Obstruction in the rules. Usually only a large shipping buoy is big enough to be an Obstruction. Whether the mark is an obstruction or not is somewhat irrelevant, even if it was an obstruction, while ever at least one of Boats A or B is in the zone, rule 18 continues to apply (rule 18.1), and when rule 18 applies, rule 19 does not (rule 19.1), except where the mark is a continuing obstruction (rule 18.1(c)). If A is taking mark-room to which she is entitled at the mark, her only 'unexoneratable' obligation, for which she can be penalised, is to avoid contact with B causing damage or injury (rule 14(b)). If there was contact between A and B without damage at the point of contact but which forced B into contact with a mark which caused damage to B (whether the mark was an obstruction or not: say a fitting on the mark gouged B's topsides), then A would have broken rule 14 and, on valid protest, would be liable to a penalty. There is no rule against 'causing a collision'. I suggest that, when discussing the rules, it is best to try to use the language of the rules themselves. It prevents misunderstandings. I don't agree that it is best to visualise rules applying to 'large yachts': probably better to envisage small racing keelboats, 20 to 30 feet, or larger, heavier dinghies, as what the original rule developers had in mind, although the racing rules committees are ever mindful of small dinghies (and giant multi-hulls).
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 21 Jul 11 at 6:37pm
But then who's going to get within the 3 boat length zone at Cape Horn
 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 21 Jul 11 at 10:45pm
Indeed.
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 22 Jul 11 at 9:07am
Are you sure on this? I am led to believe that a right of way boat is also an obstructions as is a large patch of weed therefore you are allowed to call for 'room' to avoid that obstruction (which include tacking in certain circumstances, see the thread that has the 'Rainmaker' discussion... ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 22 Jul 11 at 9:51am
Yes, yes, [sigh]. There is a specific definition of what an obstruction is in the rules, and its all about the size of the object. Most racing marks are smaller than boats and large patches of weed.
The definitions are vitally important parts of the rules, it really is important to know them. The way people think its probably a bad idea to have them at the back of the rule book. I reckon they should be at the front. |
Posted By: Ian29937
Date Posted: 22 Jul 11 at 11:54am
Totally agree. If you don't know what the words mean how can you understand the rules? Ian
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 22 Jul 11 at 12:42pm
|
The problem was that Brass stated that 'Usually only a large shipping buoy....' without qualifying the statement. (Hence to comment about large land masses which was definitely tongue in cheek and my comment about other smaller obstructions).
Not everyone (myself included) has the time to read all the definitions. To me it is common sense that a racing mark is not an obstruction as it is part of the course. ------------- Paul ---------------------- D-Zero GBR 74 |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 22 Jul 11 at 12:55pm
Common sense will get you in trouble. Its easily possible for a racing mark to be an obstruction. The definitions are there specifically because the ordinary english sense of the words may be unclear or contradictory. To be brutally honest if you are saying you are too busy to read the definitions you are saying you are too busy to read the rules, because its not possible to understand some of the rules adequately without knowing the definitions they rely on. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 22 Jul 11 at 1:40pm
Thanks JimC, I was talking aboout buoys or marks that might or might not be obstructions. Of course right of way boats or larege pieces of South America can be obstructions. The reason that the Definitions are at the back fo the RRS books is so that they are easier to find: just flip to the last page and there they are. If you have ever used the Elvstrom Explains books where they are at the front of the rules, but behind the title pages, contents etc, you will understand the difficulty.
|
Posted By: laser193713
Date Posted: 22 Jul 11 at 1:51pm
Interesting break down there, I agree with a lot of what is said here, but interpret the rules slightly differently perhaps. I would not say that having passed the mark and gybing back towards it that A is sailing to the mark, in fact A is sailing to the next mark of the course, yes she is sailing towards the windward mark again but is NOT sailing to it. Remember that B is not expected to anticipate the sudden gybe of A, the diagram shows A sailing a reasonable distance before making this gybe and in many classes of dinghy and yacht this could be a plenty large enough gap to take. Correct me if I am wrong, my rules knowledge is fairly strong but without a rulebook in front of me quoting rules word for word or by number is beyond my memory  ------------- |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 23 Jul 11 at 12:24am
Sorry Paul,
I may, in quoting Brass, have inadvertently taken away the context of 'racing marks being obstructions' (nothing to do with 'obstructions' in any other way).
My tongue in cheek comment about the large land mass, was made knowing that Cape Horn is a course mark in round the world yacht races. I guess if I had used the Fastnet rock lighthouse instead, it may have been better understood.
Andy Mc.
|
Posted By: ob1
Date Posted: 23 Jul 11 at 8:30pm
I agree that it is sensible to try to understand what the rule developers had in mind.
In this case though, is there any evidence (in the casebook etc) that the rule developers intended that a boat could be sailing 'to the mark' or 'at the mark' more than once in any single rounding of a mark?
Hasn't a boat passed a mark, once that mark stops affecting the boat's course? - if so, then once a boat has stopped being 'at the mark' for "mark n", it is then surely sailing to the next mark of the course("mark n+1") and not back to "mark n"?
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 24 Jul 11 at 10:59pm
You say ‘as I remember ...'. It seems to me that your remembrance might be based on the 2005-2008 rules. Under those old rules, rule 18 applied from when boats were ‘about to round or pass a mark’ until ‘they have passed it’. The zone did not affect whether rule 18 applied or not. The zone only affected whether a boat clear ahead or an inside overlapped boat gained right of way, overriding the ordinary right of way rules or had a continuing right to room. These entitlements switched off when the rule as a whole switched off. There were cases which made it clear that a boat had ‘passed’ the mark when it had left the mark clear astern, thus there could be a time when boats were still in the zone, but rule 18 had ceased to apply. Contrary to your recollection, the rule did not switch off until both boats had passed the mark. I think your recollection of the old rules, and your mis-recollection about rule 18 switching off when only one of the boats had passed the mark may have influenced your ideas about the way new rule 18 works. The new 2009 rules take a different approach. Rule 18 now applies between boats whenever at least one of them is in the zone. This paper about the 2009 rules was prepared by one of the drafters http://yachting.org.au/site/yachting/ayf/downloads/Technical/RaceManagement/Comparison%20of%20Old%20and%20New%20Section%20C%20Rules.pdf - http://yachting.org.au/site/yachting/ayf/downloads/Technical/RaceManagement/Comparison%20of%20Old%20and%20New%20Section%20C%20Rules.pdf It tells us that there was no ‘game change’ intended for rule 18. Note that, applying the 2008 rules to the situation in the diagram in this thread, Boat A, having reached the zone clear ahead, had right of way over Boat B, until both boats had passed the mark. There are some other references about ‘to the mark’. MR Call Ump 43 http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/MRCallBooksupplementfor2011booklet-%5b9673%5d.pdf - http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/MRCallBooksupplementfor2011booklet-[9673].pdf says that a boat is sailing _to_ the mark when[ever] she is sailing a course towards the mark that will leave the mark on the required side, until she is _at_ the mark. US Sailing Appeal 105 http://raceadmin.ussailing.org/Assets/Race+Admin/Appeals/Appeal+105+%2810-03%29.pdf - http://raceadmin.ussailing.org/Assets/Race+Admin/Appeals/Appeal+105+%2810-03%29.pdf says “The phrase “room to sail to the mark” in the definition Mark-Room means space to sail in a seamanlike way to a position close to, and on the required side of, the mark” Q&A 2009-022 http://www.sailing.org/27411.php - http://www.sailing.org/27411.php Answer 1 If the boat entitled to mark-room has right of way, she is free to sail any course [to the mark] within the limitations of the rules of Part 2, Section B, and, if it applies, rule 18.4. |