Careful how you apply that. It only applies in as far as to prohibit "hunting"...that is when a port tack boat starts to duck a starboard boat and starboard keeps going lower and lower making the port boat have to dig even deeper. You can call starboard all day long and tack as long as the port boat didn't have to take a new immediate action. Ethical? no, probably not, to call a starboard that you do not intend to utilize...Legal, can be.

Agreed. I have been arguing (more or less) all along that S was in violation of 16.1. It was my observation that every time I (P) changed course to avoid, you(S) matched my move to keep us on a collision course. Now...note I am not saying you did it to hunt me...I realized the first time was due to a puff, but when I switched to go above you and you then came up....things were getting close and at that point I was stymied as to which way you would "let me" go...then at the last possible moment I could see you pushing your tiller to go up so I pulled hard to dive off. My contention is that I am not required to anticipate your next move, only to react to your latest, and after your last move to come back up, I had no room by that point to make a "seamanlike maneuver" to avoid....hence the last second crash maneuvers on both our parts. I know in your description you stated you held your course waiting for me, but it "appeared" to me that after diving in the puff, that you then came back up....I am not arguing that the first move to dive in the puff was wrong (although there are some on here who have argued that it was). I am arguing against the subsequent maneuver to come back up as by that time our distance was probably half what we started with and I was running out of options. I am curious how our dissagreement on your "course" would play out in a protest room without impartial observers. Seems to me that is a critical key.

BTW...where did you find this? I can;t find it in either the rule book or the case book?

Found this link: Link to 16.2 interpretation

interesting doc....raises a question a bit off topic for this particular thread, but: How many and what various docs are "authoritative" when it comes to resolving racing issues? This particular doc looks like someone's attempt at explaining the rule changes in the most recent Rule book (2005). I know there were many of these types of docs published when the new rule book came out, but how much validity or authority do they really have? In this particular case, the author is making the assertion that 16.2 only applies upwind, while the wording in the rule merely states "after the starting signal" which could be interpreted as any time between start and finish of the race. I'm not saying it is correct or incorrect....I don't know, which is why I am raising the question.

I was under the impression that only the Rulebook and the Casebook were authoritative, and that anything not explicitly spelled out in either of those docs would be left to the judgment of the Protest and Appeal process.

Mine too.

The judges who interpret the rule book are the authority. The casebook can provide those judges (and competitors) information from which to back up their position if they so choose.

I can see how this rule might be applied if you are both upwind or both downwind, but not if you are headed directly at each other. The rule specifically states "...a port-tack boat is keeping clear by sailing to pass astern of a starboard-tack boat...". You can't pass "astern" of a starboard tack boat when you are headed directly at each other.

This is a tough call and the ruling would undoubtedly be a judgment call where the judges would try to shake the facts out of the two points of view (and if you think your two points of view are 'strange'...it's not at all...it's rather typical).

Sounds to me like a RC committee error. There is no wing mark to force the boats rounding the weather mark to sail a little off to one side before hoisting their spis. Simple as that.

This still does't help the crews on the water who encounter such a situation though.

Wouter

Look at the other cases quoted above; they provide the info.

Simply put there is a judgement (which is what judjes do!) to make on the Port vs Stb as to when the port boat is committed to an action and cannot reasonable keep clear. Thus the speed and manoverability of the boats make a difference.

I always find taking these examples to the extreame always help to define them.

Consider 2 lasers, these are very slow, very manoverable boats; you might argue that a couple of boat lengths is enough. Consider two ORMA 60's sailed single handed, very fast and not very manoverable. You might suggest 500m in a big wind was the commitment point.



As for the RC's error in not putting a spacer mark in. It helps to prevent these situations, but if it is windy, the Stb boat with the kite up will still be sailing down into the port boats tracks. If the sailing instructions say that there is no spaces, the competitors should be aware that this situation may occur and plan for it.

Indeed, if I'm faced with such a setup of bouys then I won't approach the weather mark anywhere near the port layline. I would tack through the middle or go to the starboard side of the course.

Wouter

And....if the left side is favored....you will lose. Rules are in place for a reason, and what I have already learned from hashing this situation out will go a long ways towards allowing both Mike and I to both sail competitively in a similar situation next time without conflict. I appreciate everyone's input....Thanks!!

I beleive the rule book is the ultimate source for the rules. Secondary is the appeals book which I have seen an appeal overturned but only once.

Anything else is just informed sources. I try to look at who the writer was. The articles in Sailing World by Dick Rose I've seen brought into a protest room as a source of information. I'd say Dick Rose is pretty much the ultimate source for rules opinions. But even he says that his is just an opinion in his explanations and that you have to get a formal ruling following rule 70.3 in App. F.

I've learned quite a bit about 16.2. I haven't read the rules in a few years and this rule has seen some changes. I don't see why it wouldn't apply to boats downwind either reading the rule. But I do believe they both have to be upwind or downwind. Monohulls don't have the issues we have downwind with hunting so I don't think they see it applying there.

I do think that if I was bound by 16.2 I would have been in the wrong by my initial turn down. However I don't believe that boats coming directly at eachother are bound by 16.2. I think it was really designed for the mono's coming upwind hunting eachother.

Here's some more info: Sailing World Rules

Mike Hill

Mike

Sorry I have to pick you up here. I've been quoting a judge who is using 49er's as examples. I would say that 49er's, International 14's etc have even bigger issues with big course alterations in gusts.

The ultimate source of the rules is the rules book along with all other documents named in the definition of "rule".

The US Sailing Appeals, ISAF Casebook, Callbooks, and Rule 42 Interpretations are authoritative interpretations of the rules, but do not rank as rules themselves.

Any other rules commentary (including mine) are just somebody's opinion.



My understanding is that RRS 16.2 was written to curtail "hunting" when sailing upwind. It does not, however, specifiy upwind, so I believe it would apply between two boats sailing downwind on opposite tacks as well.

That said, RRS 16.2 does not apply in this instance because neither boat was sailing astern of the other. Rules 10, 14, 16.1, and possibly 64.1(b) do apply. The proximity of the layline is not relevant -- this same situation could occur in the middle of the course.

"P", the boat sailing upwind on port tack was obligated to keep clear of S under RRS 10, and to avoid contact under RRS 14. "S", the boat sailing downwind on starboard tack was obligated to give P room to keep clear under RRS 16.1 and to avoid contact under RRS 14.

There was no contact, so both boats complied with RRS 14. If we accept that S bore away to avoid contact with P, then P did not keep clear and broke RRS 10. If the protest committee decides that S gave P room to keep clear, then they must disqualify P unless some other penalty (such as turns under RRS 44.1) applies. If, however, the protest committee determines that S altered course and did not give P room to keep clear, then S would be penalized for breaking RRS 16.1 and P would be exonerated under RRS 64.1(b).

The one thing that is clear in this example, is that the facts are not clear. In my experience, that is typical in protest situations. The hard part of a protest hearing is not applying the rules, but rather figuring out what happend on the course. Bear in mind also that each witness may give completely honest and completely different testimony - simply because we each see things from a different perspective.

So, if you go to the protest room, be as clear and objective about the facts as you can. Protest committees often give more weight to objective testimony over esitmates. For example, "I bore away xx degrees (from xxx to xxx on my compass) yy seconds (I counted one-one-thousand, two-one-thousand...) and crossed zz feet from his transom" is going to be more convincing than "I turned to miss him". Boat speeds, and closure times are better data than eyeball distance estimates.

Regards,
Eric

I agree with your analysis of what rules apply.

Starboard is sailing his proper course which is up and down based on the wind. For most of the time period in question he can do what he wants. (he can't be accused of hunting a port tack boat) Port simply has to adjust as best he can.

IMO... S's obligation to give room to keep clear comes in the last few seconds... when in this case he dramatically altered course to avoid a collision. What could port EVER SAY in this circumstance.... IMO, His only argument would be... I was clear... the change in course was unnecessary. He would need more evidence to support the claim he was clear and S's change was unnecessary.

What am I missing?

Not the last few seconds....

Given the angles involved, how long would it take P to tack and then be in a position to claim their rights as now being the leeward boat ?

As I said above we are talking a few 100m when it is windy.

How long does it take to tack a cat ? 8 seconds, how far will a boat travel in that time ? If P was to pinch to avoid them, how long would it then take to change that into a bear off or tack. It is not the last few seconds where S's burden comes in, it is a long way before that. Remember that P only has to react to what S does as a result of the Gust (and then the required bear off). You could argue that P has atleast one second to react, one second to put the helm over and then some time to actually get out of the way. IMO when on STBD, I usually think I am committed within about 10 seconds of the Port boat.


Lots of people get into trouble pushing it too far when on Stb.

I often hear sailors claim "proper course" - usually when it doesn't apply. By my count, the rules only mention "proper course" in three places: RRS 17.1 (which restricts a boat from sailing above her proper course), RRS 17.2 (which restricts a boat from sailing below her proper course), and RRS 18.4 (which restricts a boat to her proper course until she gybes). This situation is not one of these three cases, so "proper course" is irrelevant.



Near the beginning of the encounter between the two boats, P may be able to react to S's course changes and still keep clear. During that time, P must react to S's actions. Late in the encounter, a change of course by S may render P incapable of keeping clear. During that time, S must hold her course.

Exactly where those obligations change is a judgement call, given that it changes dramatically with the boat type and sailing conditions. S may draw the line in one place; P might draw it in another, and the protest committee could place it somewhere else. You may not appeal the facts found in a protest hearing (only the application of the rules), so behooves you to consider the protest committee's interpretation.



S's obligation extends as far as necessary for P to keep clear. Depending on the boats and the weather, that may be more than just a few seconds. If, for example, S changes course enough that P must tack, then S must give P time and space to assess the change and tack - promptly and in a seamanlike manner. How long does it take you to complete a tack (perhaps coming in from the trapeze with crew) - more than a second or two?

In this case, P can (and does) say that S changed course and P reacted, and S changed course again - leaving P unable to keep clear. I don't think we are able to resolve that difference in testimony here, but a protest committee will make a decision one way or another.

With the exception of RRS 18.2(e), the rules do not put a "burden of proof" on any party in a protest. Instead, the protest committee must find the facts and determine whether or not sufficient room was given, and whether or not avoiding action was necessary. ISAF Case 50 speaks to this issue. P and S both need to present and defend their positions.

Regards,
Eric

Eric,

Thanks a lot for jumping in. You pretty much sum up exactly where I have come to in this discussion. Sounds like you have some protest committee experience.

You're welcome.

Yes, I've been hearing protests for about 4 years now. Funny thing is, I didn't set out to be a judge. I just wanted to know the rules so I could use them to my advantage.

Mostly, what I've learned is to steer clear of situations like this one. As has been pointed out already, both boats would probably have been better served by crossing cleanly. S (looking down the course) could have either heated up a little and blown by to windward of P, or could have driven deep and slipped below. The first option may be a little faster (no wind shadow from P), the second a little safer (preserves an escape to leeward). Both are better than risking a DSQ. P (looking up the course) could have pinched up a little and established a line to windward of S. That may be slower, but it avoids sailing through S's shadow and sure beats double-tacking or doing turns.

Regards,
Eric

The key here is the very last few seconds when "S" started to round up. What did "P" do? If "P" jagged the stick and did an emergency bare away immediately after "S" changed course and a collision was still going to happen then I'd say "S" has fouled. If "P" delays by even a short time and then reacts or only a mild change of course then "P" will clearly have fouled. The devil is in the detail on this one.

As Eric says, the best thing is to avoid the situation in the first place.

Tiger Mike