Rule question

Two cats, a Prindle 19 solo without spi (yellow) and a F16 solo with a spi (me, blue).

I'm under spi for the whole scenario. The wind is fairly light.

We round a mark and we have a reach to the next one (position 4 and 5 has us pointed directly at the next mark). I'm faster and I'm catching up so I go up a little to go over him. Right as I start passing him he suddenly goes up while at the same time screaming "up up up". At this point I'm overlapped so I can't duck away anymore, I'm forced to go up and my spi starts flapping (position 7).

He changes course again to the mark, I follow and as soon at my spi catches some air again I'm overlapped, but this time a little further away. He tries the same maneuver but I can go high enough to pass his bows and go ahead of him. I then power up and disappear.

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.

Small world. I had a similar situation with a P19 last weekend. Rules didn't come into question but it took forever. At first I tried going through his lee, big mistake, needn't have bothered. Imo, the only way is over the top.

As to the rules, who knows? My guess is it would be your word against his if it went to the room. I think he had the right to luff but only before the overlap.

Slight hijack I suppose, but P19 is a very nice boat. Why aren't there more of them?

I can see no ground for you to protest. If anything, he may have grounds to protest you if he feels you did not keep clear (which, if your boats were less then 1 inch apart as you say, then you most likely were not keeping clear).

11 ON THE SAME TACK, OVERLAPPED
When boats are on the same tack and overlapped, a windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat.

You need to anticipate that he may try to luff you. And consider that since he isn't running a chute, his luff can be a lot quicker and higher than yours.

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY
When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat’s actions.

Passing to windward can be risky.

sm

This has happened to me more times than I can count, and is a classic example of where using rules are not to anyone’s advantage tactically. Leeward boat has the rights to come up but they have the limits on providing time for the windward to maneuver and eventually some on proper course, but you do not want to have that be your only defense in a protest IMO.

Boats that pull this kind of tactic on the course are a danger, especially sloop vs spin. If they really want to protect their line they need to come up early letting you know that they will be doing so and you need choose another way around. This way nobody runs off the wrong way and lets the 4 boats behind you all in front of both of you. If the boat behind is overtaking rapidly, they should have just kept their best line and let them buy as they would only be in dirty air for a very short time and give up a lot less time than trying to round somebody up violently at the last minute.

You as uni are significantly limited boat handling wise, so being forced to reach is scary in any wind. In passing, you either want to go real high early so you can get by as you eventually did, or go low early. With the spin and a hull speed advantage, ducking will lose you very little ground. We had to do this several times to the P19 last weekend and there were a ton of H16s always in the way. Go low far enough that as soon as you hit their exhaust you can round up and maintain apparent and you can pop through a slower boat pretty quick.

-He has overlap so he has luffing rights (R11).

-If he luffed too hard he would be in breach of R16.1 (when RoW boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear).

-If he started luffing just after the overlap had been established he also would have had to keep clear (R15).

-Had you capsized you could have maybe protested for R2 (fair sailing), but not easy to prove.

If you filed the protest I think R11+R16.1 would have the best chance of success (especially since he went from a downwind to an upwind course).

I highly recommend taking a look at the ISAF Case Book, it describes all sorts of situations and explains the reasoning behind it:
http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/CaseBook20092012with2010changes-%5B8229%5D.pdf

I agree that tactically, this type of maneuver (sharp luff by the leeward boat) almost never makes sense for the reasons stated above. Unless you're in a situation where you have to stay ahead of that particular boat, you usually just end up both losing ground.

However, the leeward boat is not limited to sailing her proper course in this situation. The windward boat must keep clear and should anticipate that the leeward boat may try to defend her position by luffing. This is a basic windward overtaking leeward situation.

sm

SRM is correct on his explanation. As an windward overtaking boat, you have to assume that the leeward boat is going to defend his position by luffing you up - it is clearly within his rights as long as he gives you room and opportunity to avoid contact. It happens quite often in both mono and multi fleets.

Your best defense as an overtaking boat is to set up for the pass in advance and try to climb over the leeward boat with 2+ boatlengths of separation. This way the leeward boat will usually not act as aggressively as you overtake, and it will give you room to head down after you've broken the overlap.

That's what I thought, I don't think I have a case. as the RoW and leeward boat he is entitled to luff me as hard as he wants. He also gave me enough room to keep clear (barely enough room, but enough).

So, it's really a case of poor tactics? In my case I turned dead down wind to set the spin, there was light air and I probably could have completed the set much higher and not had to work so hard to get above the 19.

Matt I don't know how you broke through his lee. I couldn't do it.

Pepin,

No case for a protest; also; he only has to give you ROOM to keep clear; “Room and opportunity” was binned in the last iteration of the rules; it’s just ROOM to keep clear.

It could get interesting if he pushed you high enough to threaten a capsize; at that point I would call the following “If you want to take me higher; you will need to give me ROOM to take my Spi down”; if the helm of the other boat is at all switched on they will realise that the game is up.

Also, as stated; if you can get +2 boat lengths to windward; they cannot attack in the same way (cannot find the rules at the moment). Simple thing is to establish your passing lane and stay in it.

What rule says a leeward boat has to give a windward boat with the spin up room to take it down?

I guess you are entitled to ask from room to capsize without your mast hitting the leeward boat :P

I don't see 16.1 giving a capsizing boat a pass there is nothing that says an overtaking boat must keep clear by a defined distance. IMO, if that situation goes to the room the windward boat would get tossed for failing to keep clear. It's not difficult to figure out that passing a sloop with a spin is filled with risk especially as the breeze comes up. If you choose to roll the dice (regardless of what you think of the tactics) it's on the windward boat and they have chosen their fate.

been there before too....I usually ask the leeward skipper to "please hold still, this will only hurt for a second"...with a smile (and knowing that I don't have right of way should they decide to fight me).

Dave, in the specific instance under discsussion I respectfully disagree (See - a Subordinate can be respectful to his President).

The Leeward boat luffed up in this case - changing course.


Now, if the spin boat was overtaking, cut it close, got a puff, flipped and their mast hit the leeward boat then that would be a different matter. Rules 11 and 15 apply in that situation.

In the case of a spin boat overtaking, the leeward non-spin boat acquired right of way because of the other boats action and is not required to give room - unless they alter course - e.g. luffing up
(I think)

Chris.

Yes, and that's why we have a protest room. Even then it can go either way depending on who is interpreting the rules. Which is also why you can file an appeal.

I still don't think a ROW boat is obligated to give room to a boat that is being sailed badly and I consider a capsize sailing badly. The windward boat knew going in that they could get luffed up.

So, are you saying that I can pass "any" leeward boat with my spin and as soon as they start taking me up I simply say... easy there buddy you come up any further and I'm going to capsize on top of you and you'll get tossed? Still don't see it coming out that way in the room.

The P19 can't luff at all.

"17 ON THE SAME TACK; PROPER COURSE
If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull
lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above
her proper course while they remain on the same tack and overlapped
within that distance, unless in doing so she promptly sails
astern of the other boat. This rule does not apply if the overlap
begins while the windward boat is required by rule 13 to keep clear."

"If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack"

Are you now saying you obtained overlap to leeward of the P19? Which would mean the P19 would be to windward and if they luffed up it would not have affected you because you were to leeward.

Pete that rule basically says if you obtain overlap to leeward you do not not have luffing rights and must maintain proper course, and based on your post and Pepin's post this is not what happened, so this rule does not apply.

You are also aware you fouled us LARGE at the start of race 1 on Saturday, right?

Read R17 again Pete.

Pepin: what was the course to the next mark?

That applies only to the overtaking boat - the F16 with spinnaker in this case. It means that you can't sail from behind and under someone and then take them up. It doesn't say that the ROW boat who is being overtaken from windward can't alter course to defend.

I'm with Dave on this one, you need to plan way ahead if you are the spinnaker boat and be prepared to drop the kite quickly if the leeward boat starts to engage his rights and you haven't been able to get enough height to negate his advantage. I agree that it's a risky and not terribly beneficial maneuver on part of the non-spin boat...but it's within his rights.

Care to elaborate there Ding?

Nope.

That may be the accepted interpretation, but that isn't what the rule says. The wording is vague and imprecise.

Nevertheless...

Actually Pete, the wording is anything but vague and is very precise and clear. Don't forget these rule wordings have evolved through several iterations and have been tried and tested time and again worldwide in front of very knowledgeable juries. If you look at the wording throughout the current RRS it is clear that a lot of thought has been put into the phraseology.

+1

We experience this commonly on the West River during Tuesday evening racing (A-Cats, single-handed F16s,and double handed N20s). Common practice is to avoid the situation. If it is close, it is not worth getting challenged into a precarious point of sail because the overtaking windward boat has very limited rights and can be "luffed". Ironically, it does not have to be exclusive to sloop vs spin boats. The F16s sail higher than the N20s with the chute.

No I'm not aware of that. If I did I apologize.

If you were fouled, as a minimum you deserve an apology. If I did foul you I should have done a turn.

How about some "cyber justice"? If the jury, here assembled, finds against me I will bring rum to Gilligan's.

This is my interpretation:

Before the start your were on starboard tack approaching the start line. I was basically on a collision course, nose to nose but at some distance away in light air. I jibed in front of you, from port tack onto starboard tack. My boom swung across midline of the boat, putting me onto starboard tack and clear ahead, all the time coming up to weather. You came through my lee and made a good start.

Where is the foul?

To see my point have an English teacher diagram the verbiage.

With that, I am done with this particular argument. If this is the customary interpretation, I'll adapt.

Pete,
You refer to the rule where the leeward boat is overtaking to get the overlap and hence cannot luff. Pepin was windward as far as I can tell by his description and he can then get run up.

Right or not it is a crappy move tactically unless you are match racing just that boat. As the lead boat and you screw up by letting someone up on your hip it is too late to try and run them off. Once they start taking your air dive deep, gain some separation and they will be out of it very quick. Then try and match speed with them and you still have positional rights coming into the next move or mark.

Maybe Ding is referring to the fact you had no rights as you first fouled us barging down the start line.

Let's begin with the rules I've seen quoted that don't apply:

• RRS 15 "ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY" does not apply. Yellow was clear ahead at the beginning, became leeward boat when overlapped, clear ahead, and leeward again. Throughout all that maneuvering, Yellow had right of way. She did not acquire it along the way. Blue did not acquire right of way until she passed Yellow at the very end.
• RRS 17 "ON THE SAME TACK; PROPER COURSE" does not apply. Yellow did not become overlapped from astern (she was ahead). Blue did not become overlapped to leeward (she passed to windward). Neither boat was restricted from sailing above her proper course.

Now, onto the rules that do apply:

• RRS 11 "ON THE SAME TACK, OVERLAPPED" at the times the boats were overlapped, Blue (windward) was obligated to keep clear of Yellow (leeward).
• RRS 12 "ON THE SAME TACK, NOT OVERLAPPED" at the times the boats were not overlapped, Blue(astern) was obligated to keep clear of Yellow (ahead).
• RRS 16.1 "CHANGING COURSE" when Yellow changed course, she was obligated to give Blue room to keep clear.
• RRS 64.1(c)"Penalties and Exoneration".
• Definition of Keep Clear.
• Definition of Room.

Now, the definition of "Keep Clear" reads (in part):
If the boats were only "inches" apart at times, then it is very likely that had Yellow (leeward) changed course any further, she would have immediately made contact with Blue (windward). If so, then Blue was not keeping clear and broke RRS 11.

The definition of "Room" is:
From the description, it sounds like Blue acted promptly in a seamanlike way throughout the encounter. I think Blue has a good argument that Yellow did not give her room to keep clear as required by RRS 16.1.

If the protest committee finds that Blue was compelled to break RRS 11 by the illegal action of Yellow (breaking RRS 16.1), then Blue would be exonerated under RRS 64.1(c), and Yellow penalized under RRS 64.1(a).

In all honesty, however, I think most protest committees would rule that Blue kept clear and therefore neither boat broke any rule. It is possible (depending on how the PC determines the facts) for this protest to go either way. <edit addition> I should say that this would be a difficult protest to win. The most likely outcome is no foul. The next most likely outcome is Blue is disqualified. Protest Committees will most often side with the right-of-way boat, unless the give-way boat can demonstrate that the other boat's action made it impossible for her to keep clear, despite her best and most seamanlike action. Blue has to make a very compelling argument in order to win. <end addition>

Some instructive cases are:

Capsizing is not considered "seamanlike". If a leeward non-spin boat rounds a windward spin-boat up so high that she capsizes, then the leeward boat breaks rule 16.1.


This means that Blue was not obligated to anticipate Yellow's actions, only to respond to them (contrary to previous posts).

I hope that helps,
Eric Rasmussen
US Sailing Certified Judge

We had to alter to avoid contact with you while you were still on port and before you flopped onto starboard. If we had not altered you would not have been able to start your jibe and would been forced into a head on situation with us and the fleet on our hip and behind us. 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, your only out was to jibe and foul us and hope you got a pass, and you did get a pass. Although you fouled us you really screwed the boats behind us because you plugged up the boat end nicely.

Pete when you completed your jibe you were never clear ahead you were at our beam and the situation went from P/S to W/L, if you were clear ahead you would have been over early and we would not have had to alter course to avoid you. All this took please at t-20.

If this had been a crowded agressive start and you attempted to jibe down into an oncoming starboard fleet at the boat there would have been mucho contact. There would have been no place for the starboard boats to go.

NONE; however, The leeward boat needs to give room; if I’m already sailing as high as possible to pass and they want take me higher; I MIGHT argue that once they start to luff; In order for ME to luff I need to take the kite down. It would be a moot point. IT COULD get interesting if the windward boat did capsize and landed on the leeward boat in insurance terms.

Simple solution is to get in a decent passing lane and pass to leeward; or sail extra high and pop the kite and sail over them.

If this is in fact the case, then I would agree with others that have stated during previous threads that spin & non-spin boats should not race, or perhaps even be on the same course together. In fact, any boats that have grossly varying downwind sailing characteristics should probably not be on the same course. Clearly, this interpretation of Rule 16.1 would give the windward boat a serious advantage when passing a leeward boat - the leeward boat has no defense.

sm

I think we've beaten that horse to death already. I don't see how rule 16 changes things any.

Regards,
Eric

court adjourned. I'll bring rum, what flavor?

Eric,

Great post - thanks. I would agree that it is not seamanlike to capsize.

"Maybe Ding is referring to the fact you had no rights as you first fouled us barging down the start line."

Jeez! I'll bring a BIG bottle of rum.

I had no idea. We need to go back to protest flags.

Not the easiest of scenarios to analyse properly. Yellow has one more position point than blue!

Well in the context of this scenario, it means that the leeward, right of way boat, must have a thorough understanding of the handling limitations of the windward, give-way boat. If she does not, then she must expect that any alteration of course could cause the give way boat to have to act in a non-seamanlike manner.

Not saying you're wrong (clearly, you are most certainly right), just that the interpretations that you've cited effectively put serious limitations on the the right-of-way boat. The windward boat doesn't have to anticipate that the leeward boat will try to luff her, yet the leeward boat has to anticipate that her luffing could cause the windward boat to capsize- hence the leeward boat has virtually no defense against a boat passing to windward. Something about that doesn't seem right to me.

sm

Rule 16 is a shield, not a sword.

It limits the actions that a right-of-way boat can take. It does not bestow any tactical advantage on the give-way boat. If a windward boat (W) establishes an overlap on a leeward boat (L) such that L cannot change course without making contact, then W is clearly breaking rule 11. If L luffs up to protect her position, she must do so in a way that allows W to keep clear. As long as she does, W must respond promptly and in a seamanlike way.

My statement was that L cannot luff up so hard and so suddenly that W has to do something unseamanlike, such as crash-tack or capsize. If L luffs high enough, W might have to douse her chute - in which case L must give her room to do it.

The rules do not prevent a boat from sailing into an untenable position. If W allows herself to get so close that she cannot respond to a luff, then she's out of luck. She can't use rule 16 as a weapon against L.

That holds true no matter what kind of boats are sailing, and no matter how little or how much each skipper knows about the characteristics of the other boat.

Sincerely,
Eric

Thanks all for all you input, especially Eric with his detailed analysis.

My take home lesson: If you attempt a pass to windward, make sure you have the room and the speed to finish the maneuver without being impaired by anything the passed boat does. I'll give myself more room next time.

I hope someone says something to me if I foul them... the problem is if someone else fouls me I wonder whether they were just being punks or didn't understand that they were fouling me. If I know someone on the course and I think I may have fouled them (or that they fouled me) I try to find them at the end and ask what their interpretation was. It is hard to make that confrontation sometimes but it is honestly the only way I will learn (or they will learn).
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."
Why were they yelling to start with.... they were having a bad race....

Not exactly - It's saying that a leeward boat with much slower speed potential should expect to get passed to windward by the boat with much higher speed potential and should have rights only to a point.

I think the term "rights" is unfortunate. The phrase "right of way" is also misleading. We see those words and think of the rules as entitlements. Then we get upset when people violate our "rights".

If you turn that around and read the rules as obligations, then things get simpler and less heated. A port-tack boat is obligated to keep clear of a starboard-tack boat. A windward boat is obligated to keep clear of a leeward boat on the same tack. A boat clear astern is obligated to keep clear of a boat clear ahead on the same tack. A boat that is changing course is obligated to give a keep-clear boat room to keep clear. All boats are obligated to avoid contact if reasonably possible, and so on.

A boat may be "right-of-way" and still have several other obligations.

I hope that helps,
Eric

Hi Eric. Why did you say "Yellow did not become overlapped from astern (she was ahead)."? Blue came from astern to pass to windward, at some point they were overlapped. What am I missing?

Also, why is there all this debate about allowing blue "room" to drop her chute? Why can't a spin boat round up all the way to irons with the chute up, especially in light air?

Mike

Mike,

Because in anything above about 5 kts; a single handed F16 will capsize with the kite up if you head up too high; even with the traveller and mainsheet dumped

Really? Even with the spinnaker sheet dumped?

Mike

Eric,
That is a very helpful point you are making. Claiming “No rights” is an overused and miss-used short cut. On Tuesday night we were having a rules discussion at the bars end and the "no rights" statement came up. And I started to respond they have the right to not be collided with, so although they are in the wrong they still have at least one "right" or entitlement. It would not have helped. At least Mast-abeam didn’t come up, we are making progress…

The boats became overlapped, but Yellow was not astern - she was ahead. Let's take a look at the rule in question:
Yellow was not clear astern before she became overlapped, so rule 17 does not apply to her. Blue was clear astern before becoming overlapped, but she became overlapped to windward (not leeward) of Yellow, so rule 17 does not apply to her either. Neither boat was restricted from sailing above her proper course.

I hope that helps,
Eric

You should read RRS 17 "ON THE SAME TACK; PROPER COURSE" with rapt attention to understand that sentence

In that particular case RRS 17 doesn't apply because the leeward boat didn't get there by overtaking.

You can also say, phrasing it differenty, that RRS 17 doesn't apply as it could be only triggered by the overtaking boat passing to leeward.

Same thing. This rule cannot apply.

Trust me, the problem isn't that I don't understand RRS 17. The reason Rule 17 doesn't apply is because she was originally clear ahead.

I think I read Eric's original sentence out of context of Rule 17. I've read his post again, makes more sense to me now.

I'm really not sold that a spin boat can't go upwind with the chute up and flogging without capsizing (especially in light air). I think I'd need to see that in person.

Mike

ditto

on my 5.5, i might be able to point the bows upwind but i sure couldn't sail with my spin floggin me in the face... it would be all over the deck, in the spreaders, in the halyard, in the jib and there would be no way it would snuff.

i am sure i would capsize (or break) with any decent gust around 9 or soooo

I agree with that, in most instances, you probably could luff the kite and let it flog and sail higher...is that seamanlike? (I'm just asking the question).

I spent a lot of time 2 summers ago experimenting sailing with the spi up at high angles to see if I could make it pay to sail lower; but much faster upwind in very light conditions with plans to use it if it worked at that years Piers race; I could sail about 15 degrees lower(but it took ages to get going and I did not have a lot of control).

It was fast in about 2kts of wind; 3kts the traveller was at the end stop and 3-4+ the mainsheet was dumped; anymore and the kite would tip me in. The transition from “some control” to “must bear off RIGHT NOW” was a very small difference in apparent wind; I’m sure sometimes my own speed caused me to have to bear off as the apparent built to the point I was no longer under control!

Sometimes the rudders would stall and I would do an uncontrolled bear off; sometimes the plates would stall and the boat would slide sideways; sometimes the rudders would stall and the boat would slam tack - I COULD tack the boat WITH planning up to about 3-4kts; but not hold head-to or close to wind – it’s a one shot deal to tack.

Not safe to be done around other boats!

Wow... you guys need to race some mono's.

You defend your wind at all costs. You make it clear that you will take a competitor up to head to wind if necessary... should they try that kind of pass. You may lose that race to others who laugh and say... have at it boys and happily sail to the next mark. ... BUT... they won't try the same stunt on you in the next race.. Even boats in different class's won't let you take their wind (cause they get crushed in their class sailing in your dirt... pain is in the eye of the leeward boat).

IMO, Take a boat head to wind... this is a seaman like maneuver that everyone should be able to execute. . .... If the crew on the attacking boat... can't manage to execute the maneuver and capsize in the process... They will foul and take the penalty. Nothing says that the round up maneuver on your particular boat won't mean that you won't have to snuff your chute as a standard practice.

The reality is... the boat clear ahead is looking at the spin boat and coming up to defend and coming up to defend and coming up to defend. If the spin boat doesn't get the message... don't go there... I will luff you up... the spin boat is clueless about racing or simply trying to bully the non spin boat.

As many have said... if you want to pass to windward.. you need to get to your passing lane early... Sailing up on a boats hip... is NOT the proper passing lane.

I would say yes. Not ideal, or tactical, but it is a seamanlike maneuver. Like Mark said, don't they do this all the time on monohulls (particularly in match races)?

Scooby, from your responses it seems like you're hell-bent on the windward boat retaining some right to keep the spinnaker trimmed while being headed up. I think it has to be blown it as part of heading up, if that's what's needed to stay upright. Again, the leeward boat is trying to force windward to sail upwind, which is normally done without a spinnaker, so I think the onus is on the windward boat to trim AND maneuver (not just maneuver).

Mike

Flog the kite and you go over quicker. Simples.

Have you ever sailed a light boat with a kite?

That's the part I'm trying to understand. Thank you Scooby.

If that is true, I agree with you, forcing up a boat in such a way is not going to make any friends...

EDIT: BTW, this is exactly why, when I'm serving on a protest committee for a class I'm unfamiliar with, I ask other jurors (or a disinterested sailor) with class-specific familiarity to confirm or deny the boat-handling testimony given by the parties. You'd be amazed at how effective this is at derailing a lot of nonsense.

Mike

I thought you can't take someone head to wind (fully "luff" them up) unless it is prior to the start. Doesn't proper course come in here somewhere too?

no you have it backwards... before the start.. you can only take them up to close hauled... after the start you can luff them to head to wind.

See above for proper course...

really? I know you have a lot more experience than me, but I thought I had that one down!

edit: just tried to look it up and didn't find anything specific about it and didn't see anything about prior to vs after the start

The relevant rule is 17:

So if you are racing and try to overtake from underneath (lee side) you cannot luff someone up. If you are being overtaken to windwards, then you can luff the windward boat up (provided you give them room to keep clear).

There is no 'proper course' before the start - so you can luff a boat head to wind. Once the gun goes off, your proper course is close hauled.

I'm not sure if Mark is not just yanking your chain.
Chris.

Chris.

Thanks Chris,
any difference between prior to and after start?

I just edited my reply to answer that. Pre start - luffing OK. Post start - not OK if overtaking from clear behind.

BUT remember the leeward boat will USUALLY define what proper course is. So if a high pointing boat is sailing up under you; it is THEIR proper course that defines what is Valid; thus if you are sailing a low pointing boat; be ready to tack away. Second; if you are windward boat and disagree with them on proper course; you still have to avoid them and take them too the room;

Finally remember that proper course is something that is REASONABLE and follws the definition of what proper course is (in summary the course you qould sail to get to the mark QUICKEST in the absence of other boats; this MIGHT include sailing to gusts!

Agreed. Hobie 16s would be wise to watch for A-Cats climbing up underneath them in mixed fleet racing for example.

Been there before....the "you don't want to be there" warning was followed by "why?" and after a quick pointing demonstration right after the gun goes off, the H16 says "holy crap, you weren't kidding!".

OK, so I spoke with a Senior Judge (who happens to be an International Umpire) this weekend about the original scenario. He confirmed my original position on this.

He said that regardless of (and in part, especially because of) the handling characteristics of the spin boat, that does NOT entitle them to claim they were unable to keep clear if they capsize. Such a boat should expect to be headed up to the moon, and if they decide to overtake to windward, should leave enough space so they can avoid capsizing when the leeward boat brings them up.

Mike

Good news.... Common sense leads you to the proper answer (as well as a careful reading of the rules)

Boat's ahead of you have the right to protect their position. That's the game we play period. If you attempt a pass by going for their wind... you have to keep clear... Snuffing the chute (because you must to stay upright) is just part of the passing boat's move.

Mind you... the probability of this working is small.
So... figure out the timing of the dive move... or plan to set up high for a clear passing lane.

That begs for the question:
If a non-spin boat takes up a spin boat and the spin has to be dropped. If the head of the spin fouls the leeward boat when it blows off for the douse. Did the leeward boat give room for avoidance?

I think that question has been answered. You're focusing on the wrong part of the equation.

Mike

Playing devils advocate here.

As burdend boat does not have to anticipate what a ROW boat will do; Thus; you cannot ASSUME the leeward boat WILL luff; you just have to react to it; thus I would STILL argue that room means room to drop the kite if needed.

You're free to argue anything you'd like, but in this case, it appears that you would lose.

If you know your boat needs so much space to safely round up, you need to leave that much space if you pass someone to leeward (on their windward side). The rules are simply not intended to protect the passing boat.

Mike

But the rules are there to avoid collissions; if the windward boat is FORCED to capsize on top of the leeward boat; the leeweard boat did not give them enough room to keep clear.....

Remember I am playing devils advocate...

Hi Scooby,

I have several points to make that I hope will help you and others understand this basic Right Of Way (R-O-W) rule 11; When boats on the same tack are overlapped, a windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat. (that is the actual wording) So the burden is mandatory on the windward boat. That is limited in this case by rule 16 which requires the R-O-W boat to give the other boat room to keep clear. This has all been pointed out already but since room is a defined word it is also a rule. It is "The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvring PROMPTLY in a seamanlike way. I emphasized the word "promptly" because that seals the deal against your devil's advocate position. You must not only respond to the luff but you must do it promptly (no excuses). You must be prepared to handle your boat promptly in a seamanlike way at all times. It is not seamanlike to capsize, shrimp the spinnaker, teabag while trapeezing, steer erratically with your foot on the tiller, etc. That may happen at times with any of us, but it is not an "out" with the rules. They explicitly state what is required and that IS something that you need to anticipate no matter what your course.

The first and main purpose for the RRS is to make racing safe. It is not safe to require a R-O-W sailor to know how every different boat on the race course may handle. It IS safe to require every sailor to know how his own boat may handle so it is up to that sailor to allow himself the room necessary in the existing conditions to maneuver safely and responsibly near R-O-W boats.

In rereading the earlier posts, it still strikes me that several racers thought that the windward boat in this scenario was O.K. to pass close to weather of the leeward boat. I hope everyone now understands that to be a high risk maneuver. Matt McDonald described the classic tactic for the faster boat to qickly pass through to leeward but it seems to have escaped attention. Most experienced racers WOULD anticipate a sloop rigged boat luffing an overtaking spinnaker rigged boat even though the rules do not require that as you correctly wrote. The rules also do not require the leeward boat from anticipating that the windward boat may not manoeuver promptly in a seamanlike fashion but, again, most experienced racers WOULD so that they can be ready for the consequences (read rule 14). I hope this helps.

I did this maneuver in low wind. In higher where a gust can force you to bear away without warning I would never have attempted to get that close.

The main reason I was too close is that we just both passed the mark and there was not enough distance between the mark and the passing point for me to separate on any side. My choices were to make a speedy run on top of him, or stop below him because there was no way I was going to build enough speed to pass through the wind shadow: have you seen the size of the P19 sails?

In retrospect I should have delayed my mark rounding, by going further away before jybing, building separation so I could go under him outside his wind shadow.

OK, but I would argue that to maneuver a spinnaker so you can sail to windward in a seamanlike way would be to drop said spinnaker...not flip the sucker.

I think this is a 50/50 proposition...maybe 60/40 in favor of the leeward non-spin boat. It's going to come down to the judge until we have an exemplified interpretation.

I'm with Jake on this - unless someone can pull a relevant example out the casebook.

Where in the rules does it state a boat has to anticipate what another might do and PLAN for avoiding action?

You state yourself that the wording is “promptly”; not “anticipate”

IF I got into the position(and I would try not to, remember I am playing devils advocate), I would still be saying “to manoeuvre promptly, the first thing I will need to do is PROPTLY drop my Spi ONCE THE LUFF HAS STARTED”

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.

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

"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?

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

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:
ISAF Case 92:
The third case underscores that a Windward boat can break rule 11 simply by getting too close.

ISAF Case 88:
Regards,
Eric

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):
Regards,
Eric

I vote for option 2 (public flogging)

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 .

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 . I'll move right out of your way!

Exactly where I was steering this to.

Leeward boat cannot just head up without any burden.

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...

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

Pepin,


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.

Nice of you not to highlight the "With the wind any higher" of that sentence

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.

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

Basic Principle - Sportsmanship and the Rules 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"Good sportsmanship is a fundamental tenet of our sport.

Rule 14 "AVOIDING CONTACT"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):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: 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

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.

I agree that in the majority (probably vast majority) of such passing situations, if W(indward) cannot keep clear of L(eeward), it is her own fault for getting too close. However, a blanket statement that no matter what "windward gets tossed" is an oversimplification. You can't just ignore rule 16.1. I refer you again to ISAF Case 60.

Sincerely,
Eric

Eric, I assume no collision occurs in your example.

Take this very same situation and ask the question... what if starboard is worried that port is not keeping clear but does NOT tack away at the last moment below port and hail protest as you describe. (flick Port)

They continue on starboard for a beat or two and then decide that port is not keeping clear and they crash tack to go head to wind in front of port and stop their forward progress on starbord. Starboard's expectation was that Port would safely pass in front of them and starboard had avoided a collision and hail protest.

However, PORT is unable to keep clear of starboard who is now head to wind and stopped and so Port's expectation that starboard would sail on allowing them to duck their rudders is now not possible. So while trying to suddenly bear off hits the starboard tack boat.

In the protest room Starboard says... I crash tacked to avoid a collision with port who was not keeping clear. I expected him to pass in front of me... at worst... he would round up head to wind beside me. I am within my rights to avoid a collision at all costs and I thought that my crash tack was the appropriate move to avoid a collision even though I was the ROW boat.

Port says I was absolutely keeping clear and bearing off to just clear starboard transoms. Starboard suddenly and with out real reason panicked and changed course to go head to wind without giving me room and opportunity to keep clear. I bore off and sheeted out to avoid a collision but was unable to avoid him.

What would the jury rule.... with these facts and testimony.


My fleet has a very cautious racer who pulls the escape rip cord early... sometimes he pulls the cord a bit too late as described here in this example and argues that you backed me into a corner and Starboard had no choice, I am sailing with my niece and I am being safe.... You are breaking the rule.

IMO... the ROW boat Starboard must understand the game and the fleet they are racing in with respect to tight crosses. and they have some restraints on their maneuver's that they make under the "I was trying to follow the rules and avoid a collision" rule. in particular... they must give the burdened boat room to respond to their change of course.

The "I took action to avoid a collision" is not a get out of jail free card for the ROW boat.

Your thoughts?

Mark,

I don't quite follow the scenerio you're describing, but I gather that you have a racer who has difficulty reacting at the right time when boats meet. The best advice I can give is to leave him a little extra room until he develops the experience and comfort to judge crossings better. At the clubs where I usually sail, we offer reticent sailors a green ribbon to fly while racing. That lets the other boats know he's not comfortable in close situations and we give him a wider berth.

Yes, that's Rule 16.1 - the topic of most of this discussion.

True. I only quoted half of ISAF Case 50 in my last post. The other half reads:
The pivotal phrase here is "genuine and reasonable apprehension". An inexperienced sailor will often have a genuine apprehension of collision that is not reasonable. He will take avoiding action earlier than necessary or when not necessary. He may take actions in panic that actually make things worse.

These situations can be tough to sort out in a protest hearing because the testimony is usually as erratic and tangled as the boathandling. The point of Case 50 is that there is no burden of proof on either the right-of-way boat or the give-way boat. Both boats must present adequate evidence to support their case. Protest Committee must then determine the facts and apply the rules. If PC finds that the ROW boat had a reasonable and genuine apprehension of collision, and took avoiding action, then they should rule in her favor. If PC finds that the ROW boat's apprehension was not genuine, or not reasonable, or that she did not take avoiding action, then they should dismiss the protest (assuming no other rules apply).

I hope that helps,
Eric

Yes. In the example that I am trying to describe. Starboard took actions that made things worse. It's usually comes with... I did not know what port was doing, therefore I must take action to avoid a collision. The actions make a collsion unavoidable.

In this collision example. I would expect the jury to find both at fault. Port for failing to stay clear of starboard and Starboard for changing course without giving port room and opportunity to stay clear.
Would this outcome be reasonable?

I think it's critical for people to understand that there is no burden of proof... Each side has to present evidence about the interaction on the water. Both could be at fault as the situation plays out.

I think many people are not quite on this page and want black and white answers 100% of the time.!

There is no get out of jail free card where Starboard can't stand up and say... i was on starboard... I took action I deemed necessary to avoid collision... I can't be at fault no matter what happens.

As always... communication helps enormously... but your expectation that the other guy will signal you his intention when you want does not allow you to pull the escape cord and hail protest or make the collision unavoidable if you don't get the communication.

Mark describes the exact position I found myself in, being on Stbd and hailing to the port boat, twice, on the first weather leg at a National event. After each very loud call I saw the skipper of the port boat look under his mainsail and made eye contact with him on both occasions. Having done this I made the assumption that he would avoid me and continued racing. At around 2 boatlengths to collision I realised his intent to dip below me (he had been trying to clear ahead and realised too late that it would be too close), I saw him ease his main and start steering down, so I kept my course. On bearing away he powered up, and with the class of boat in question (deep V-hulled catamaran, 18ft with skegs and no daggerboards), as soon as it powered up it sailed straight as if on rails, with no respect for any rudder input (Dart sailors will understand)..
At this point I realised his attempt at dipping below me was not going to work, so I attempted to head up to avoid collision, which was the only way I could go. This made it worse as I slowed, and he ended my regatta in the first race.
My question : If I had NOT tried to avoid the collision, it might have been possible that the damage would have been less, as he hit me in front of the rear beam - had I maintained speed he might have hit me on or behind the beam. How would I have fared in the protest room, having deliberately NOT altered course, in order to attempt to avoid the collision..?

I find it difficult to imagine a scenerio where a give-way boat is penalized for breaking rule 10 (or 11) and the right-of-way boat is penalized for breaking rule 16. The two should be mutually exclusive. If the ROW boat breaks rule 16, the GW boat would be exonerated under rule 64.1(c).

It is possible for the GW boat to be penalized under rule 10 (or 11), and the ROW boat penalized under rule 14. Occasionally (but rarely), protest committee will disqualify multiple parties.

Absolutely correct. Right-of-way is not carte blanche. When a boat focuses on her rights, she tends to forget her obligations.

Also true. Things go much smoother when both boats know what to expect from the other - its easier to avoid contact when there are no surprises.

Regards,
Eric

I can tell you of a case where this exact thing happened at hobie midwinters(Divis Island). Port got the DSQ and lost the protest.

Eric,

I am aware of Case 60, as is my friend. I'm going to take his word on this one, Case 60 won't help windward in the overtaking situation described in this thread. He's an IRO, SJ and IU, and has worked everything including Olympics. Not that he couldn't make a mistake, but I'm willing to take that chance.

Mike

That's fine. I'll keep my own counsel (which is that it's a valid argument, but a difficult protest to win). I place much more faith in logical explanation than in ex cathedra assertion. Here is an example. Several years ago, when I was a judge-in-training, I had a question about the meaning of "room" as applied under then rule 18 (marks and obstructions). At a sailing conference, I individually asked two Senior Judges, one International Judge, and one International Umpire. One of them assumed that in the situation I described, that I was one of the skippers and simply told me "You're in the wrong". One said he didn't know, but that 90% of the time, boat "A" would lose the protest. The other two said A was wrong. When asked, not a single one of them could point me to a spot in the rule book to justify their assertions (as I didn't really want a ruling - I wanted to clarify what "room" meant). It took me some time, and several reads of the RRS, but I finally found the item I was looking for (in the rule 18 preamble). Then I was able to string all the pieces together to interpret the hypothetical incident.

I think that we often get a mindset of how the rules should work, and forget what they actually say. If a person makes a rule assertion and can't back it up with logical application of the rules as written, then I don't really care what their credentials are. I'll stick with what the rules say. I've had arguments with IJ's and IU's over the rules and I stick to my guns until they show me all the links from A to Z. I've won some (like the IJ who asserted that no contact = kept clear). I've lost some (although gaining a better understanding of the rules is really a win).

The end result is that I won't make a rules assertion unless I can back it up by pointing out the relevant rules and explaining how they string together. As a protest committee member, I will never vote to penalize a boat unless I can explain exactly what rule was broken and how.

Can you cite any Rule, or USS Appeal, or ISAF Case that states that rule 16.1 does not apply between boats overlapped on the same tack (i.e., subject to rule 11)? If you can, I'd love to know. If not, then I'll stick with the rule as written:

Sincerely,
Eric

Eric,

You're my hero!

I understand. I've been on both sides of this situtation myself - once before I learned to steer with the sails on my Isotope (I was the port boat), and once on a San Juan 21 (as crew on the starboard boat). Both cases were the first race of a regatta. Both cases resulted in contact with damage that put me out of the rest of the races. Neither case went to a hearing - the port boat admitted fault and retired both times.


I think you would fare ok. Look the protest committee members straight in the eye, and with sincerity and conviction say that you believed he was going to duck you, and when it became apparent that he could not that there was nothing you could do to avoid contact. Tell them that your best option for minimizing damage and risk of injury was to hold course and speed. Explain that heading down would be disaster, and heading up would slow you down and risk greater damage.

Rule 14 reads "A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible". In the situation as described, it was not reasonably possible for you to avoid contact.

I hope that helps,
Eric

Hi Eric,

You have a valid point (wanting to see rule and case numbers), but I've already answered all of those concerns. We were talking over a beer, I mentioned all the what-if's and why-not's listed by you and others (over and over again now). His answer was the same, windward gets tossed. (FWIW, he also agreed that the maneuver by the leeward boat was completely moronic in a fleet race.)

I don't blindly follow anyone, and I know anyone can make a mistake, but this is one of the 2-3 people on the planet that I take at face value with this stuff. And that has nothing to do with their titles.

I think that the main point has also been mentioned here, don't put your boat into a position that you can't get out of...

Mike

Is this a case of not being clear or of having a message that you do not want to accept? I clearly stated that the rules do not require anticipation. They DO REQUIRE MANEUOVERING PROMPTLY. THAT requires tiller movement, so if you first do sail handling then you already have violated the requirement to maneuover promptly. By anticipating what will happen, you will be BETTER PREPARED to fulfill your RRS responsibilities correctly, that's all. Like Jake wrote in reaction to my post, that may even mean taking down the spinnaker before you are overlapped. So unless you can steer towards the wind promptly in response to a luff while taking down the spinnaker, then you have violated the RRS requirement. Otherwise, by the time you finish taking the spinnaker down in response to a leeward boat luff, any luff on your part is no longer prompt. So, to be extra clear, what I am saying is that in order to execute their RRS responsibilities, experienced racers have learned to anticipate what may happen so that they are ready to behave correctly, accordingly, w/o delay. To go one more step, anticipation would have prevented the whole situation which has been explained ad nauseum by now. Required by the rules? No. Smart and practical? YES!

I know sailing rules are different than other racing rules but in auto racing, we call that blocking. Going off line to interfere with someone is just dirty pool and you should let them go if they are that much faster than you are.

Almost certainly there would be the opposite reaction if the passing auto deprived fuel from the passed auto which is essentially what the passing windward boat does to the leeward boat. And while I do not watch Nascar racing, I do occasionally read in the paper about all the feuds going on about some car "bumping" another to push them out of the way. It is amazing to me that this is allowed, (as opposed to severely punished) especially considering the much more severe effects that can have on the cars and drivers compared to sailboat racing. The closest I ever got to that was on Hobie 21s in the Prosail Series back in the day and, guess what? That was run by a group that sponsored Nascar racing!

I don't care for oval racing whether it be boats or cars. I like cars that turn right and left.

If you know how to hit properly, it is safe. If you are really good, you can make it look like an accident. I used to race spec racers and there is an art to taking someone out. I only had to use it a couple of times.

it's off topic; but they did make an escalating effort to disallow the aggressive driving in NASCAR a couple of years ago. It culminated with the last Talladega race last year where they told the drivers that bump drafting or nudging in the turns would be heavily penalized. It was the single most boring race in the world - the drivers hated it and ended up in a three hour parade with hardly any position changes up until the last 10 laps of the race. The fans hated it. It was dumb. The NASCAR ratings had been in a multi year decline and that one race hurt them even worse.

So this year? The NASCAR organization said "screw it" and told the drivers to police themselves. An eye for an eye. Play nice or risk sanctioned retaliation. The result? A pretty exciting year so far full of drama. If a driver decides to nudge another driver's rear bumper to loosen them up in the corner, he better have a faster car when he gets in front of them or there will be hell to pay!

Now, that said, I don't care to have this on my race course...nobody is paying for my boat and giving me a salary. I get enough drama off the start line and playing the shifts around the course!

Is bump drafting allowed in Scott's WWF series? It's sailed with Waves for heaven's sake, so not much could happen to them...