Announcements
New Discussions
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Re: Rule question [Re: scooby_simon] #214861
06/29/10 06:26 AM
06/29/10 06:26 AM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,525
pgp Offline
Carpal Tunnel
pgp  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,525
Indulge me for a moment please.

Not long ago we had a serious port/starboard collision at my club. One boat was damaged to the point of having a hull replaced, one person was injured so badly he is still under a physicians care. The ensuing sh!t storm was so bad there was much talk of Rule 69 complaints, and one of the injured parties has left sailing, probably for good.

The potential for a similar occurence is present when trying to pass a sloop to windward while under spin. Arguing rules when you've knowingly put yourself in a capsize position is inherently unseaman like, imo.

In the port/starboard case the port tacker was so blatantly wrong, the damange so severe, imo, he should be thrown out of sailing! I see this spin v sloop matter headed in the same direction.

Pepin, I think you found the best solution, and it isn't relying on the rules. I was able to get by the P19 without a luffing contest, but it took a long time. Tactically, the best solution begins with the mark rounding.

btw- Matt was able to punch through the P19's lee.





Pete Pollard
Blade 702

'When you have a lot of things to do, it's best to get your nap out of the way first.

-- Have You Seen This? --
Re: Rule question [Re: Jake] #214869
06/29/10 07:47 AM
06/29/10 07:47 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
I
Isotope235 Offline
old hand
Isotope235  Offline
old hand
I

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
Originally Posted by Jake
It's going to come down to the judge until we have an exemplified interpretation.

Jake,

I don't really see much difference in opinion about the interpretation of the rules here. I think the arguments are not about the boats' obligations, but about the facts of the incident. If boat(s) didn't keep clear, or give enough room, then one (or both) are being too aggessive. The crux of deciding such a protest is determining which boat that was.

What were the conditions? What was the wind velocity? What was the sea state? What course were the boats on? How fast were they going?

Did the windward boat attempt to pass so close that her own actions made her unable to keep clear? That is, was she too close to respond if L maneuvered? Did she not keep a good lookout? Did she not respond promptly to actions of the leeward boat? Was her boathandling in any way unseamanlike?

What were the actions of the leeward boat? Did she make a hard turn into the windward boat or did she come up gradually? Did she keep a good lookout? Was she attempting simply to defend her wind, or was she trying to trip the other boat? Did she reasonably attempt to avoid contact, damage, and injury?

Now, I'll admit that there's a pretty big gray area there. When the situation is clear one way or the other, then the decision is easy, but otherwise, that's where judgement comes into play. There are differences of opinon between judges as to how much room is enough, and even what level of boathandling qualifies as "seamanlike". At the SAYRA Judges Committee meeting earlier this year, we had an hour-long discussion of what skill level constituted "seamanlike" - without reaching a consensus.

I think we'd all agree that it's better to pass far enough away to avoid that gray area. Dave Perry suggests that a boat closer than two boatlengths of a leeward boat is in jeopardy of not keeping clear. If a boat flying a spinnaker attemps a reaching pass to windward within two boatlengths of a boat not flying one, she should be prepared to douse, or even douse ahead of time. Best of all would be to pass with enough separation that the leeward boat doesn't try to defend against it.

The rules place no burden of proof on either boat. See ISAF Case 50. Protest Committee must find the facts and base their decision them. Therefore, it is critical that you present your facts as clearly and as convincingly as possible.

Regards,
Eric

Re: Rule question [Re: Isotope235] #214871
06/29/10 08:07 AM
06/29/10 08:07 AM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 24
Nova Scotia Canada
O
old salt Offline
stranger
old salt  Offline
stranger
O

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 24
Nova Scotia Canada
"Not long ago we had a serious port/starboard collision at my club. One boat was damaged to the point of having a hull replaced, one person was injured so badly he is still under a physicians care. The ensuing sh!t storm was so bad there was much talk of Rule 69 complaints, and one of the injured parties has left sailing, probably for good."

It's just a race, people. I don't care if I have 10 rules on my side that say I'm the ROW boat. If some ***hole looks like he's going to hit my boat, I'm going to manouver to avoid a collision first, worry about how that affects my position second, and protest last. Waving a drivers handbook at the idiot coming at you on the wrong side of the highway is the very definition of futility.


Re: Rule question [Re: old salt] #214872
06/29/10 08:14 AM
06/29/10 08:14 AM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,525
pgp Offline
Carpal Tunnel
pgp  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,525
Originally Posted by old salt
"Not long ago we had a serious port/starboard collision at my club. One boat was damaged to the point of having a hull replaced, one person was injured so badly he is still under a physicians care. The ensuing sh!t storm was so bad there was much talk of Rule 69 complaints, and one of the injured parties has left sailing, probably for good."

It's just a race, people. I don't care if I have 10 rules on my side that say I'm the ROW boat. If some ***hole looks like he's going to hit my boat, I'm going to manouver to avoid a collision first, worry about how that affects my position second, and protest last. Waving a drivers handbook at the idiot coming at you on the wrong side of the highway is the very definition of futility.



In this case the port tacker was hailed repeatedly and made no attempt to alter course. Contact occurred as the starboard tack boat attempted to avoid the collision.

The port tacker subsequently received a dsq for the race. Is that sufficient punishment for causing personal injury and property damage?


Pete Pollard
Blade 702

'When you have a lot of things to do, it's best to get your nap out of the way first.

Re: Rule question [Re: pgp] #214874
06/29/10 08:21 AM
06/29/10 08:21 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Mark Schneider Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mark Schneider  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Yes

But what the hell.... What would you prefer?...
Shunning by the club members forcing him to resign?
public flogging?
arrest and conviction for assault and battery or some other Fl crime?
The injured party can take it up in civil court.

As far as the game of sailing is concerned... he is DSQ

Last edited by Mark Schneider; 06/29/10 08:25 AM.

crac.sailregattas.com
Re: Rule question [Re: flumpmaster] #214875
06/29/10 08:22 AM
06/29/10 08:22 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
I
Isotope235 Offline
old hand
Isotope235  Offline
old hand
I

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
Originally Posted by flumpmaster
I'm with Jake on this - unless someone can pull a relevant example out the casebook.

Here are some relevant ISAF Cases. The first two illustrate that a Leeward boat can break rule 16.1 in passing situations.

ISAF Case 60:
Quote
When a right-of-way boat changes course in such a way that a keep-clear boat, despite having taken avoiding action promptly, cannot keep clear in a seamanlike way, the right-of-way boat breaks rule 16.1.

ISAF Case 92:
Quote
When a right-of-way boat changes course, the keep-clear boat is required to act only in response to what the right-of-way boat is doing at the time, not what the right-of-way boat might do subsequently.

The third case underscores that a Windward boat can break rule 11 simply by getting too close.

ISAF Case 88:
Quote
A boat may avoid contact and yet fail to keep clear.

Regards,
Eric

Re: Rule question [Re: pgp] #214877
06/29/10 08:36 AM
06/29/10 08:36 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
I
Isotope235 Offline
old hand
Isotope235  Offline
old hand
I

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
Originally Posted by pgp
The port tacker subsequently received a dsq for the race. Is that sufficient punishment for causing personal injury and property damage?

Was there evidence that the Port-tack boat (P) acted in an unsportsmanlike manner? If so, Rule 2 may apply. The penalty for a breach of Rule 2 is DND (DSQ, Non-Discardable). Did the Protest Committee observe or receive evidence that there may have been a "gross breach of a rule, good manners, or sportsmanship"? If so, PC may call a hearing under rule 69 "ALLEGATIONS OF GROSS MISCONDUCT". Additional sanctions can be imposed (up to the international level) as a result.

In the United States, liability for property damage and personal injury is a legal matter. US SAILING Prescription 68(b) states (in part):
Quote
No protest committee or US SAILING appeal authority shall adjudicate any claim for damages. Such a claim is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts.

Regards,
Eric

Re: Rule question [Re: Mark Schneider] #214879
06/29/10 08:38 AM
06/29/10 08:38 AM

A
andrewscott
Unregistered
andrewscott
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
Yes

But what the hell.... What would you prefer?...
Shunning by the club members forcing him to resign?
public flogging?
arrest and conviction for assault and battery or some other Fl crime?
The injured party can take it up in civil court.

As far as the game of sailing is concerned... he is DSQ


I vote for option 2 (public flogging)

Re: Rule question [Re: ] #214881
06/29/10 08:56 AM
06/29/10 08:56 AM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 976
France
pepin Offline OP
old hand
pepin  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 976
France
I love this forum. You start from a simple question about a club race situation in the UK with a friend where you did end up jousting a bit on the way.

Add a few days of imprecisions, miscommunications, generic remarks not related to the issue at hand: you end up with a political discussion about the possibility of public flogging in Florida smile

Another few days and this thread will turn into yet another "drill, baby, drill" thread cry

Attached Files
Re: Rule question [Re: pepin] #214882
06/29/10 09:07 AM
06/29/10 09:07 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Mark Schneider Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mark Schneider  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
pepin

had you flipped your boat on top of the P19 because you were unable to keep clear (jury finding) ... What should have been your penalty? What would have been your liability? What would have been your responsibility?

(I am sure you know the answer to the rhetorical question)

It's important to understand and be clear on the entire process.... that's the point of replying to PGP.


crac.sailregattas.com
Re: Rule question [Re: Mark Schneider] #214883
06/29/10 09:24 AM
06/29/10 09:24 AM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 976
France
pepin Offline OP
old hand
pepin  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 976
France
Originally Posted by Mark Schneider

had you flipped your boat on top of the P19 because you were unable to keep clear (jury finding) ... What should have been your penalty? What would have been your liability? What would have been your responsibility?
THERE WAS NO WAY I WAS GOING TO FLIP: 2-3 knots of wind and I weight 95 kgs. I would have to go on the trapeze on the leeward side to flip my cat in those conditions. A good friend of mine on the P19. We talked all the way through the maneuver, friendly British/French banter, as usual. We passed inch of each other but we both know our boats fairly well and how to handle them in tight quarters. He gave me room, I gave him as much as possible.

After the race we had a beer at the bar and were unsure of the rules. Hence my question. Don't make it something completely out of proportion with big words like penalty, liability and responsibility. I don't know about you, but I'm sailing for the fun of it.

Re: Rule question [Re: pepin] #214884
06/29/10 09:26 AM
06/29/10 09:26 AM

A
andrewscott
Unregistered
andrewscott
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by pepin
I love this forum. You start from a simple question about a club race situation in the UK with a friend where you did end up jousting a bit on the way.

Add a few days of imprecisions, miscommunications, generic remarks not related to the issue at hand: you end up with a political discussion about the possibility of public flogging in Florida smile
[Linked Image]
Another few days and this thread will turn into yet another "drill, baby, drill" thread cry


Nothing will bring this thread back into alignment like a kitten talking in ebonics smile


Last edited by andrewscott; 06/29/10 09:28 AM.
Re: Rule question [Re: pepin] #214885
06/29/10 09:27 AM
06/29/10 09:27 AM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 24
Nova Scotia Canada
O
old salt Offline
stranger
old salt  Offline
stranger
O

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 24
Nova Scotia Canada
Quote
In this case the port tacker was hailed repeatedly and made no attempt to alter course. Contact occurred as the starboard tack boat attempted to avoid the collision.


That makes a world of difference! The original post implied that the ROW boat did nothing to prevent a collision, which seemed silly. Now it's a case of the ROW boat simply reacting too late. At the kinds of closing speeds I would imagine were involved to do that kind of damage, that is not a criticism at all. It must have been a matters of seconds or less and friggin' scary.

DSQ takes care of the racing aspect, but port would be slapped with a lawsuit immediately if it was me he hit. Proving negligence in court to recover damages would be interesting, you'd have to make sure the judge understood the ROW rules first crazy .

Plenty of witnesses to the hailing, etc. should make it a slam dunk. Maybe he'd have to sell the boat to pay the fines - cosmic justice?

PS. I haven't raced in many years - if I get back into it, be assured that for the first season or two if you want to gain an advantage on me just yell out "RIGHT OF WAY" and some random rule number smile. I'll move right out of your way!

Re: Rule question [Re: Isotope235] #214888
06/29/10 09:50 AM
06/29/10 09:50 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,528
Looking for a Job, I got credi...
scooby_simon Offline
Hull Flying, Snow Sliding....
scooby_simon  Offline
Hull Flying, Snow Sliding....
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,528
Looking for a Job, I got credi...
Originally Posted by Isotope42

ISAF Case 92:
Quote
When a right-of-way boat changes course, the keep-clear boat is required to act only in response to what the right-of-way boat is doing at the time, not what the right-of-way boat might do subsequently.


Regards,
Eric


Exactly where I was steering this to.

Leeward boat cannot just head up without any burden.

Last edited by scooby_simon; 06/29/10 09:51 AM.

F16 - GBR 553 - SOLD

I also talk sport here
Re: Rule question [Re: old salt] #214890
06/29/10 09:54 AM
06/29/10 09:54 AM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,525
pgp Offline
Carpal Tunnel
pgp  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,525
Okay. The real life situation I just cited involved adults. What if the (back) injury in this case is to a sixteen year old girl? Any idea how the parents would respond?

Right after this case came out of the protest hearing, I mentioned to a friend that the port boat acknowledged seeing the starboard boat at, iirc, 17 boat lengths. My friend's response was, "then starboard had plenty of time to avoid." He had a horrified look on his face when I responded, "So did port."

There is much talk of increasing juvenile participation in our sport. If that happens, I think it would be a good idea to have a clear understanding of the rules and a clear understanding of the expectations. Since I have no children, I have no dog in the fight, pardon the expression. I'm just sayin...


Pete Pollard
Blade 702

'When you have a lot of things to do, it's best to get your nap out of the way first.

Re: Rule question [Re: pgp] #214891
06/29/10 10:10 AM
06/29/10 10:10 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,969
B
brucat Offline
Carpal Tunnel
brucat  Offline
Carpal Tunnel
B

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,969
OK guys. I didn't drill my friend for case numbers and rule numbers (we were at a regatta party, not a hearing or seminar). However, no many how many "what-ifs" I threw at him (in response to all the variations thrown out here), his reply was the same, windward gets tossed.

He is very much, "Don't talk past the sale." This example was such a no-brainer to him, he seemed to get annoyed at the multiple questions, in his mind, none of them changed anything. Windward gets tossed.

I think the only way leeward gets in trouble is if there's contact that causes damage. And windward would still get tossed.

Mike

Last edited by brucat; 06/29/10 10:14 AM.
Re: Rule question [Re: pepin] #214894
06/29/10 10:29 AM
06/29/10 10:29 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Mark Schneider Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Mark Schneider  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,116
Annapolis, MD
Pepin,
Quote
Do I have ground to protest? There was no contact, but at times less than an inch between us. With the wind any higher I would have probably capsized with the spi up going upwind. Due the the size of the sails on the Prindle it would have taken me forever to go under him hence my choice to go over.


I understand you are trying to understand the rule and tactics and nothing disastrous happened. But you recognized the possibility. In addition to the rule... you should also know and understand that

Penalties (RR and the Sailing jury and judge)
Liability (Civil and Criminal Courts in the USA... Britan???)
Responsibility (Placed on the participant by the Prescriptions (USA)) Britan ???

go hand in hand with the rules and tactics. These are the words used in the RR of sailing, the Prescriptions and the NOR and SI;s,
When the **** hits the fan (accidents and mistakes) ... you will be held to the meaning of those words. You sign on to them when you sign the entry form.
Just because you "sail for fun"... does not give you a pass... Fact of life...the vast majority of us are sailing for fun... few are getting paid and mistakes and accidents happen.

I encourage you to understand all of the ramifications of the rule including penalties, liabilities and responsibilities.




crac.sailregattas.com
Re: Rule question [Re: Mark Schneider] #214897
06/29/10 10:41 AM
06/29/10 10:41 AM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 976
France
pepin Offline OP
old hand
pepin  Offline OP
old hand

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 976
France
Nice of you not to highlight the "With the wind any higher" of that sentence smile

I'm asking an hypothetical question about how the rule applies, and you come back with no answer but some drivel about law that is completely irrelevant to the question asked.

Case closed in my case. Have fun talking with yourself. I'm out of there.

Re: Rule question [Re: pgp] #214901
06/29/10 11:09 AM
06/29/10 11:09 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
I
Isotope235 Offline
old hand
Isotope235  Offline
old hand
I

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 807
Hillsborough, NC USA
Originally Posted by pgp
There is much talk of increasing juvenile participation in our sport. If that happens, I think it would be a good idea to have a clear understanding of the rules and a clear understanding of the expectations.

Here are some rules that it would be appropriate to start off with (for kids and adults):

Basic Principle - Sportsmanship and the Rules
Quote
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promply take a penalty, which may be to retire.
Sailboat racing is a self-policed sport. We are all expected to follow the rules, and take a penalty for an error.

Rule 1 "SAFETY". Safety (our own and others') is paramount. We must carry appropriate safety gear, and operate our boats in as safe a manner as practical. We must also help anybody in danger.

Rule 2 "FAIR SAILING"
Quote
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanshp and fair play.
Good sportsmanship is a fundamental tenet of our sport.

Rule 14 "AVOIDING CONTACT"
Quote
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible.
No matter who has right-of-way, everbody must avoid hitting another boat if they can. The rest of the rules in Part 2 of the rulebook simply spell out the process for avoiding contact.

Now, on to something more advanced, but appropos to the discussion:

ISAF Cases 26 and 87, and Rule 14(a):
Quote
A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear.
A right-of-way boat is not obligated to take "avoiding action" until it is evident that the give-way boat cannot keep clear. At that point, however, it may be impossible for the right-of-way boat to avoid contact. Technically, the right-of-way boat doesn't break rule 14, but taking avoiding action sooner would have been better.

ISAF Case 50:
Quote
When the (protest) committee find that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P should be disqualified.
In other words, a right-of-way boat does not have to wait until the give-way boat cannot keep clear. She need only wait until there is a "reasonable apprehension" that the give-way boat will not keep clear. At that point, it is appropriate to take avoiding action, and the give-way boat has not kept clear.

Say, for example, that there's a Starboard/Port crossing situation where it is not clear that P will cross S cleanly. P maintains that she would have crossed had S held her course. P argues that S bore away when P could still have taken action (such as swinging her transom away) to keep clear. S states that had she and P held course, that S believed they would collide. S says she waited until the last moment that she felt she could safely avoid contact and acted to do so. Even though P could potentially have avoided contact if S had held course, S acted upon a "reasonable apprehension" of collision - and therefore P broke rule 10.

So, the message is - take avoiding action when you need to in order to prevent contact.

Regards,
Eric
US Sailing Certified Judge

Re: Rule question [Re: pepin] #214902
06/29/10 11:11 AM
06/29/10 11:11 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 612
Cape Town, South Africa
Steve_Kwiksilver Offline
addict
Steve_Kwiksilver  Offline
addict

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 612
Cape Town, South Africa
Two things I find interesting in this thread, both not relating directly to the original question though.
Dave Ingram wrote the following in his response to a start-line infringement where a port boat gybed in front of him on the line, causing him to take avoiding action (as the ROW boat) : "You could not have continued on port because you were already at the boat, you couldn't tack because you would have been over early."
My understanding is that he COULD have tacked (in fact his only real recourse)if in doing so he could have cleared the line and not fouled anyone. Whether he would be over early or not has no bearing on what his obligations were under the rules. If he could have tacked away without causing anyone else to take avoiding action and without hitting the start boat, he should have done so, been over early and come back to the start area when safe to do so.

PTP wrote the following : "For example... I was driving one time and felt I had the right of way at a mark. They screamed at me and I was like W.T.F.? I found that person at the end because I honestly wondered whether I had truly fouled them as they have a lot more experience than I do racing. They replied to me when I asked what was up: "no problem, you totally had me."
I figure you should have protested him under the fair sportsmanship rule. Many hot-shot sailors use this tactic to intimidate less experienced sailors at a mark rounding or in other situations, and sadly get away with it because the novice gives way. IMO this infringement should get a DSQ and a request from the race comittee for this competitor to pack his boat up and go home early. It`s the only way to prevent this behaviour.

Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Damon Linkous 

Search

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 440 guests, and 92 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Darryl, zorro, CraigJ, PaulEddo2, AUS180
8150 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics22,404
Posts267,055
Members8,150
Most Online2,167
Dec 19th, 2022
--Advertisement--
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1