New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Port & Starboards
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Port & Starboards
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
ohFFsake View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 04 Sep 08
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 219 		Post Options Post Options   Quote ohFFsake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Port & Starboards
    Posted: 03 Jun 19 at 1:09pm
It's enough to think about the letter of the rules without having to take into account the intent as well! However I would think that if the intention were to outlaw "dial downs" then they would not have included the word "immediately" in rule 16.2, so I presume the intent is to avoid collisions in dial down situations.

Looking again at the coverage, in slow motion it seems like Giles blocks, then there is a sensible delay, then the other boat avoids, which would seem entirely legal from both sides.

But then viewing it at real time again I can't make my mind up whether that's the case, or whether Giles is indeed too late with his second "block", or the third case which is that his second course change was to avoid a port boat failing to keep clear, which I guess is the conclusion the jury boat reached.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 19 at 1:14pm
Originally posted by rich96

 
So be clear - the rules regarding port and starboard at a windward mark (port rounding) are NOT the same as a port starboard upwind elsewhere on the course ?

i.e if you were on port upwind and tacked infront of a starboard tacker and made them alter course remote from the windward mark you would be fouling them but, as long as they can sail over or beneath you in the windward mark zone (without them going above close hauled) you're ok ?

Outside 3 boat lengths if the windward boat has to luff above close hauled that's fine as long as they have room to do so. 

Inside 3 boat lengths if the windward boat and boat that entered the zone on starboard has to luff above close hauled to keep clear, then the tacking boat has broken 18.3. 


Edited by mozzy - 03 Jun 19 at 1:19pm
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 19 at 1:22pm
Originally posted by ohFFsake

It's enough to think about the letter of the rules without having to take into account the intent as well! However I would think that if the intention were to outlaw "dial downs" then they would not have included the word "immediately" in rule 16.2, so I presume the intent is to avoid collisions in dial down situations.

Well we used to have 'hold your course' to prevent dial downs or dial ups. 

My understanding from what Brass has written is they changed to the current wording to stop boats coming in on port at the start then claiming starboard boats didn't 'hold their course' due to them heading up at the gun, but with the intent of still outlawing dial downs in fleet racing.  
Back to Top
ohFFsake View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 04 Sep 08
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 219 		Post Options Post Options   Quote ohFFsake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 19 at 1:23pm
Originally posted by rich96

[QUOTE=ohFFsake] First scenario: No rule broken, though if it went to protest B might find it difficult to convince the committee that A didn't need to go above close hauled.
[/

Thanks

So be clear - the rules regarding port and starboard at a windward mark (port rounding) are NOT the same as a port starboard upwind elsewhere on the course ?

i.e if you were on port upwind and tacked infront of a starboard tacker and made them alter course remote from the windward mark you would be fouling them but, as longg as they can sail over or beneath you in the windward mark zone (without them going above close hauled) you're ok ? 
Not quite!

In the instance quoted it was stated that the tacking boat completed their tack before S had to take avoiding action.

That puts P in the clear in open water, but within the mark zone there is an additional obligation, which is that even if they do complete their tack as above, they must not cause S to have to go above close hauled to avoid them even after their tack is complete.
Back to Top
davidyacht View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 29 Mar 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1345 		Post Options Post Options   Quote davidyacht Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 19 at 2:34pm
Had something quite similar this weekend, me in the zone on starboard tack, port tack boat comes in between me and the mark and tacks ... with no collision.  But it was ever so close ... but on reflection there was no collision and I did not have to sail above close hauled, so he did nothing wrong.

I could have played things tactically better, if I had gone bow down  and then positioned my boat so that I was only just fetching the windward mark, then he might have either had to tack below the layline, or gone behind me or I might have had to sail above close hauled which would have allowed me to call him.
Happily living in the past
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 19 at 2:48pm
Originally posted by mozzy

The other boat was given a penalty. 
To be honest I thought the purpose of 16.2 was to prevent tactics such as these. Giles seems to change course a few times. 
I think the first bear away is just about okay, but at 50 seconds the Hungarian bears away further still to pass behind, at which point Giles almost immediately alters his course as well to bear away further. 
Maybe Giles forgot he wasn't team racing? I think he was lucky to get away with that. 


I think you and Rich 96 are missing the fact that the Hungarian is never passing astern of Giles. It’s never got below him so it can’t get behind either! Becusr of the nice early bear away.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 19 at 9:32pm
I didn't miss that
Originally posted by mozzy

I'm not sure the other boat is ever sailing to pass astern because Giles drops the bow so early. So it forces the other boat to either try and cross, which is unlikely as Giles would come up, or tack back. Which is what Giles is saying to the umpire the boat should have done. 

My point was that I thought 16.2 was really meant to stop this sort of tactic.

But in reality, as long as you do your dial down before the port boat bears off to duck, and you're not hunting down the fleet then you can get by 16.2 as the port boat is never 'passing astern'.

But if you watch, Giles bears off, Hungary completes tack, sees Giles is pointing at his transom. Hungary looks to cross ahead, at which point Giles heads up. Hungary then sees Giles is going to dial him up, so commits to a bear away. Giles then bears away with increasing severity. 

Hungary then heads up last minute. I think, although Hungary was never passing astern, Giles was lucky that his changes in course were determined to give room to Hungary. 

It sits uneasy as it makes it very hard for a boat which is trying to keep clear, from doing so. It also gives an upper hand to an 'attacking boat' in that it makes it very easy to force a boat off to he left. Which is fine in match racing. But I'd prefer it be less easy in fleet racing. 

Before seeing this, I thought if you were trying to force a boat out left you'd have to sit close enough that they can't complete the tack and bear off. This takes quite a bit of skill. Sitting close enough to prevent the tack and duck, but not getting lee bowed yourself. But seeing this you can hold a lane far enough away that you don't risk getting lee bowed and can then dial down once they tack and force them to tack back again.  


Edited by mozzy - 03 Jun 19 at 9:36pm
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 19 at 10:09pm
Always better to hold and dial down on the same tack so they can’t flick out rather than risk the tack.

I think these tactics are a valid and important part of our sport.
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1146 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 19 at 12:48am
Originally posted by mozzy

Maybe Giles forgot he wasn't team racing? I think he was lucky to get away with that. 

Rule 16.2 isn't switched off in TR, only in MR.

Originally posted by mozzy

Originally posted by ohFFsake

It's enough to think about the letter of the rules without having to take into account the intent as well! However I would think that if the intention were to outlaw "dial downs" then they would not have included the word "immediately" in rule 16.2, so I presume the intent is to avoid collisions in dial down situations.


I'm not real keen on 'intent' myself.  It tends to lead people into reading things into the rules that aren't there.

Well we used to have 'hold your course' to prevent dial downs or dial ups. 

I don't think the 'hold your course' hail ever had much validity.

The IYRU rules, as far back as I can go always used the 'shall not alter course so as to prevent ...' language:  there was never an absolute requirement to 'hold your course'.

My understanding from what Brass has written is they changed to the current wording to stop boats coming in on port at the start then claiming starboard boats didn't 'hold their course' due to them heading up at the gun, but with the intent of still outlawing dial downs in fleet racing. 

I don't recall discussing why rule 16 was written as it is, and certainly not discussing preventing dial downs.

What rule 16 did was consolidate the requirements to give room appearing in several different rules (opposite tacks, same tacks, before and after starting etc), so there was probably quite a bit of rationalisation and wordsmithing going on.

As I understand it there was, and still is some controversy about 'hunting', between those who think it should be prohibited altogether, and those who think it should be limited only as necessary (as rules 16.1 and 16.2 do).  AIUI, rule 16.2 is a concession to the prohibitionist camp.

In Elvestrom's Summary of Changes in the 1997-2000 Rules in the 1997 Elvestrom Explains, he doesn't talk about how rule 16 will work at all.

Sorry, should have looked more carefully, rule 16.2 didn't make it into the 1995/97 rewrite.  It was added in the 2002 rewrite and Elvestrom had quite a bit to say

New Rule 16.2 intending to curtail 'hunting' was introduced
1 January 2000. The term 'hunting' is new to many sailors. A
right-of-way boat that changes course so as to make it more difficult
for another boat to keep clear is said to be 'hunting' the other
boat. Under the old rules, when a night-of-way boat changed
course she was not permitted to prevent the other boat from keeping
clear, nor was she allowed to obstruct the other boat while
she was keeping clear. Even if the old requirement not to obstruct
the other boat did not specifically prohibit a change of course
from the right-of-way boat, it was thought to prevent 'hunting'.
.
The new simplified rules were introduced in 1997, however, with
no special 'anti-hunting' rule. A debate about the necessity of such
a rule has been going on within ISAF for several years both before
and after the introduction of the new rules. Some felt that'new
Rule 16 by itself provided sufficient control over hunting, Others,
especially from North America, argued that new Rule 16 encouraged aggressive tactics like those used in match racing, and that
this was directly in conflict with the goals'of the new rules to discourage contact and minimise anxiety at close quarters.

Rule 16.2 does ,not apply to match racing, and some felt that even
in a fleet race it puts more restraint on the tactical possibilities of
a right-of-way boat than the old requirement not to obstruct the
other boat.

Originally posted by mozzy

Originally posted by mozzy

I'm not sure the other boat is ever sailing to pass astern because Giles drops the bow so early. So it forces the other boat to either try and cross, which is unlikely as Giles would come up, or tack back. Which is what Giles is saying to the umpire the boat should have done. 

My point was that I thought 16.2 was really meant to stop this sort of tactic.

See above, I don't think there is evidence that this was in the contemplation of the drafters, and the rule as writen certainly allows it.

But in reality, as long as you do your dial down before the port boat bears off to duck, and you're not hunting down the fleet then you can get by 16.2 as the port boat is never 'passing astern'.

...

It sits uneasy as it makes it very hard for a boat which is trying to keep clear, from doing so.

Yes, that's exactly what the rules, used aggressively do do.  They enable a boat in a controlling position to make life 'very hard' for another boat, and in particular, to control the actions and positioning of the other boat.  As long as they don't make it impossible, by prompt seamanlike action, for her to keep clear, that's permissible.

It also gives an upper hand to an 'attacking boat' in that it makes it very easy to force a boat off to he left. Which is fine in match racing. But I'd prefer it be less easy in fleet racing. 

As you wish, but the tactical reasons for the bounce (in this case, 1) to force the overstand, and, more importantly, 2) to ensure that Giles will still have starboard tack advantage on the next cross when he will be on the starboard tack lay to the mark are just as valid in this fleet race as they would be in match racing.

Usually the argument against using MR tactics in a fleet race is that while you are match racing, the rest of the fleet goes thundering by.  OK, we are all familiar with MR tactics in elite events, and the limited numbers in a Medal Race further encourage this.

In club/regional racing, I think the problem with the rest of the fleet, plus the fact that you have to be better at executing MR tactics than most fleet racers are to bring them off, keeps the lid on things.


Edited by Brass - 04 Jun 19 at 1:24am
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 19 at 5:38am
I find these rules threads very educational, thank you.  However, I now feel at liberty to dial down like Giles S did and I’m not sure I trust my friends to respond as swiftly and decisively as the Hungarian did.  In the ensuing carnage it would be hard to argue I tried to avoid contact. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy