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
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 8:24am
Sorry Brass, it wasn't you who said it, it was the Italian and Dutch, in an article I read about changing 16.2 from 2001 - 2005 (keeping clear v keeping clear by passing astern). I was just in a  thread where you were posting. Sorry, I should have gone back to check!

https://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12769&KW=16%2E2&PN=1&title=taking-penalties

I understand intent isn't that good when trying to determine what the rules allow, they should be taken as written. But at some point you do need to discuss intent to determine whether the rule is working to produce a better 'game'.

I.e. The offside rule is intended to stop goal hanging. You can't discuss the efficacy of the offside rule without mentioning the intention to stop goal hanging tactics. 

To my mind dial downs in fleet races, like goal hanging in football, is an undesirable tactic. It hands to much advantage to the attacker. I believe the intent of 16.2 is to stop or limit this tactic. And therefore it's worth looking at instances like Giles' to see why dial downs are still occurring. 

I don't mind a making it hard for another boat in a fleet race when they have a high score. To hand some advantage back to a boat with consistency. Putting yourself between them and mark and using the rules to force them to sail around you (passive aggressive). But the manoeuvre Giles pulls seems to be deliberately making it hard for a boat which is attempting to keep clear from doing so. Like A2Z says I think it would be pretty dangerous in many fleets. 

I basically think having rule which allow dial downs tips the balance too far in the favour of the attacking boat. A well balanced game is important for our enjoyment. Discards are a well accepted concept and if a boat is to attack another boat who has suffered misfortune or poor luck then I believe it should very hard to do so... otherwise, why have discards at all?
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: 982
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 19 at 8:28am
Originally posted by A2Z

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. 


Glad you enjoy the threads.

See my comments about MR skills above.

If the first thing your port tack mate thinks when he sees your initial bear away is 'Why is Starboard ducking me?' instead of 'I hope he's gone too deep to get back up to me', there will be tears.

You also run the risk that an average club protest committee won't be persuaded that a radical bear away followed by an aggressive hunt up is giving room: better not make contact.
Back to Top
Fatboi View Drop Down
Posting king
Posting king


Joined: 09 Aug 16
Location: Hampshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 174
Post Options Post Options   Quote Fatboi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 19 at 8:34am
As medal races are sailed under slightly different rules - Addendum Q IIRC.

I cannot remember the exact extent of the changes to the rules, but I am pretty sure that it allows hunting down other boats like in team/match racing as well as other scenarios that would not normally be allowed. 
Back to Top
ohFFsake View Drop Down
Posting king
Posting king


Joined: 04 Sep 08
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 176
Post Options Post Options   Quote ohFFsake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 19 at 8:43am
Originally posted by mozzy

I basically think having rule which allow dial downs tips the balance too far in the favour of the attacking boat
I think there are two things that tip the balance back.

The first is that a successful "dial down" is actually very hard to execute. In the first instance S needs to be pretty much exactly crossing P and at club level even if they achieve it once, there's a good chance they'll squander their advantage in doing so and at the next cross be behind.

The second is that the dial down is only a set piece. If P really wants to go right then he can respond with a lee bow tack on S to force them onto port, then follow and take them past the S/B layline if they want to turn the tables.

So initially the advantage is with S but it's not the only trick in the book, Match races aren't automatically won by the boat on starboard, but by the boat that has the better all round tactical game.

In fleet racing this tactic only has very limited success because it costs so much ground against the rest of the fleet. But in the situations where it is appropriate, where P and S are slogging it out 10 pts ahead of the rest of the fleet, and S has the chops to play P successfully then why shouldn't the rules allow them to exploit their competitive advantage?
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6255
Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 19 at 8:44am
Its a difficult one I think. Outside marks and obstructions the general thread of the rules seems to be that ROW can go where they like provided they don't make it impossible for Keep Clear to keep clear. Start putting in something like a no hunting rule and you've added a lot of complication.

I think in a case where ROW did not hold a steady course I'd be looking very hard at case 92, and if there was a collision I'd be looking very hard at whether ROW gave sufficient room right through the manouvers.

It seems to me its possible for Give Way to fail to keep sufficiently clear early in an incident, and then for ROW (esp. if continuing to change course) to fail to give room to keep clear subsequent to that, leaving the way open for a PC to penalise both. Perhaps Brass could comment?

Edited by JimC - 04 Jun 19 at 9:01am
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: 982
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 19 at 12:15pm
Originally posted by mozzy

 
I understand intent isn't that good when trying to determine what the rules allow, they should be taken as written. But at some point you do need to discuss intent to determine whether the rule is working to produce a better 'game'.

I.e. The offside rule is intended to stop goal hanging. You can't discuss the efficacy of the offside rule without mentioning the intention to stop goal hanging tactics. 

It may seem semantic but you can discuss rules 'improvements' by examining the 'effect' of a rule, rather than its 'intention', and then posit more or less favourable 'effects' that could arise from proposed changes.

What is risky is inferring the intent of a rule, which may have been amended numerous times, with numerous different 'intentions', sometimes promoted by those whose first language is not English.

The Racing Rules Committee Submissions for rules changes, which are retreivable back to about 2000 are useful in determining the intent of rules changes, as are various documents and commentaries by those involved and close to the process, but the background documents for the development of the basic 1995 rules rewrite isn't readily available.
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: 982
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 19 at 12:20pm
Originally posted by Fatboi

As medal races are sailed under slightly different rules - Addendum Q IIRC.

I cannot remember the exact extent of the changes to the rules, but I am pretty sure that it allows hunting down other boats like in team/match racing as well as other scenarios that would not normally be allowed. 
If you wanted to enlighten us with a reference to an unusual rules document a link would have been helpful.  Here it is


Except for Hand Signals under rule 20, Addendum Q does not change any rules of Part 2.

As I pointed out above, rule 16.2 is deleted in MR rules, but not in TR rules, and not in Addendum Q.
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: 982
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 19 at 12:35pm
Originally posted by JimC

I think in a case where ROW did not hold a steady course I'd be looking very hard at case 92, and if there was a collision I'd be looking very hard at whether ROW gave sufficient room right through the manouvers.

Case 92 involves boats on opposite tacks, with S bearing away.

Key point in Case 92 is 'P continued bearing off in order to pass astern of S.'  This unequivocally switches rule 16.2 on.

That's different from the video case here where S bears away strongly and plenty of distance away, so that P thereafter is never sailing to pass astern of S and rule 16.2 does not come on.

The Appeal decision in Case 92 decides that S first broke rule 16.2, that is by causing P to immediately change course to continue keeping clear, even though there was room for her to do that, then breaks rule 16.1 by further changing course so that there was insufficient room for P to keep clear, and there was contact.
 
Originally posted by JimC

It seems to me its possible for Give Way to fail to keep sufficiently clear early in an incident, and then for ROW (esp. if continuing to change course) to fail to give room to keep clear subsequent to that, leaving the way open for a PC to penalise both. Perhaps Brass could comment?

There's no 'rules' reason why there can't be two penalisable breaches.

If a Give Way boat fails to keep clear, she breaks the relevant right of way rule.  Often a change of course by a Right of Way boat after that can be characterised as action to avoid contact, or to minimise contact, after the Give Way boat has already broken the right of way rule, and hence not a breach of rule 16.

Possibly a protest committee that suspects that there was an initial failure to keep clear, immediately followed by a failure to give room to keep clear might conclude that any failure to keep clear was within the room to which the boat was entitled and exonerate the GW boat under rule 21.  Note that the incident will probably involve contact, and a right of way boat turning towards the incident is probably going to break rule 14.

It might be the case that there are two incidents:  first a straight up failure to keep clear, with the ROW boat taking needed action to avoid, followed by the ROW boat taking a second bight, and this time not giving room to keep clear.

This all gets even more difficult where the incident is the 'dance of death' where the Give Way boat makes several changes in course to keep clear and the Right of Way boat also makes several changes to give room to keep clear, but because of lags in reaction time or execution, the changes are at cross purposes, and there is the loud sound of crunching fibreglass.

If we want to carry this further, I think someone needs to come up with a more specific scenario.





Edited by Brass - 04 Jun 19 at 10:26pm
Back to Top
andymck View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 15 Dec 06
Location: Stamford
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 367
Post Options Post Options   Quote andymck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 19 at 11:03am
16.2 is an incredibly difficult rule to sail to and police. The interpretation seems to vary, the aggressiveness that the starboard boat is allowed to use also seems to vary. The phrase “sailing to pass astern” is also a tricky one as well. This is dependent on not only heading but also speed. Sometimes a boat will head up to slow down in order to pass the stern of a starboard boat.
The interpretation is also inconsistent between umpires. With collisions being pushed much more often and the port boat being penalised more often in recent experience.
This appears to be different interpretation to similar situations we had filmed at the team racing 2015 worlds, where if contact occurred and the port boat was trying to keep clear the starboard boat was penalised. They were not letting the starboard boat push to a collision, however this was a generally windy event.
This has led to teams pushing collisions again, as green flags tend to be flown if there was not one. In my opinion quite correctly.
This in fact then led to a long discussion with the umpires at the Wilson trophy, as there was a general feeling that things were getting more aggressive, and that collisions were becoming more prevalent. When does 14b come relevant? The issue being that damage is not always obvious. Boats can de laminate from a collision without any obvious visible issue.
In fact damage and injury are not defined within the rules.
This led to a discussion about can 14 be modified in the sailing instructions to discourage collisions. You cannot in fact change 14, but you can define damage. This has been done with good effect in the 2k keelboat racing series that happens in Europe. They defined damage as occurring from any hard contact involving a bow or rig. The penalty being the loss of 3 race wins. Apparently they don’t have an issue with aggressive hunting anymore.
Andy Mck
Back to Top
rich96 View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 20 Jan 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 514
Post Options Post Options   Quote rich96 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 19 at 12:39pm
If you are the port tacker sailing upwind (remote from any marks etc) and tack directly infront of a starboard tacker, also sailing upwind, and, whilst you have completed your tack, you are not up to speed - where is the starboard tacker supposed to go ?

Have you fouled him ?





Edited by rich96 - 05 Jun 19 at 12:39pm
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