Catsailor.com

Another Rule Situation (

Posted By: Jake

Another Rule Situation ( - 02/04/11 01:32 PM

This one is a weird one from the Unruly Blog by way of Scuttlebutt this morning (http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/)


THIRD PARTY PROTEST -- “TACK OR CROSS”
By Matthew Knowles, Unruly blog
Here is one that I've been asked about by two people separately in the last
few months:

Three small keelboats, S, P, and X, are going upwind in light air. S(tarboard) and P(ort) are on a collision course. X is a few boatlengths away. P hails to S "Tack or Cross?".

S decides that she wants to continue towards the left side of the course, and realizes that if P leebows her she will have to tack away onto port, so she responds "Cross!", and bears down and ducks P, allowing P to cross. Had S not altered course, she would have hit P.

X then yells "Protest P and S!" and files a protest against both. You are on the jury. What is your decision? ANSWER BELOW.



JURY DECISION
The situation in question - a starboard tack boat agreeing to duck a port tack boat on an upwind leg - happens all the time on the race course. But the rules are not as understanding. Here are two opinions:

* From Jos M Spijkerman, International Umpire/Judge:
Rule 60.1 states that a boat may protest another for an alleged breach of a rule in part 2 if she sees the incident (or was involved). So X has the right to protest. She protests both boats, because she wants to have both stories, and - more importantly - both to become "party" in a protest.

The PC cannot do anything else then conclude that P did not keep clear. The fact that she had to ask for the crossing alone would already mean that S might need to take avoiding action. And that is already not keeping clear.

The fact found that S also ducked and otherwise would have hit P only reinforces that. But even if S did not have to duck, P did not keep clear according the definition. Rule 64.1 dictates that any boat that was a party to a protest is found to have broken a rule SHALL be disqualified!

I understand this might be perceived as "Why the F is X interfering" and "Leave well enough alone", but the basic principle is not only to follow the rules, but also to ENFORCE!

* From Matt Knowles, US SAILING Racing Rules Committee:
Jos makes a very articulate argument and I agree with him. I think in this case the rules force an unfortunate outcome. One boat "keeps clear" of another when "the other can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action." Without doubt S had to take avoiding action. Therefore P broke rule 10, and must be disqualified per rule 64.1

Now, you can hedge and say "her course" was to duck, but you would have to face the reality that it is only because of P's presence that she is required to duck. S's desired "course" is to keep sailing upwind!

I don't think this scenario is unrealistic either. In my mind the way this is most likely to come up is if, late in a series, P were fighting for a top spot with X, and X saw the incident and decided to press an aggressive 3rd party protest. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if this has never come up before.

More comments here: http://www.unrulyracing.com/2011/02/third-party-protest-tack-or-duck.html

Posted By: Isotope235

A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 02:32 PM

Well, I'm very junior to the two judges quoted - but you know that doesn't keep me from expressing my opinion. I disagree with their analysis. The difference is how we apply the definition of "keep clear"

The key phrase is "with no need to take avoiding action". I think that in this case, P was keeping clear. Had S not replied to P's hail but simply held her course, then P would have kept clear by tacking. S did not NEED to take avoiding action. She CHOSE to alter course for tactical reasons. Therefore her action was not an AVOIDING action.

When S changed course, she was obligated under rule 16.1 "CHANGING COURSE" to give P room to keep clear. Because of the verbal exchange beforehand, any other action would have been a breach of rule 2 "FAIR SAILING".

My decision would be that no rules were broken.

Regards,
Eric
Posted By: Jake

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Isotope42
Well, I'm very junior to the two judges quoted - but you know that doesn't keep me from expressing my opinion. I disagree with their analysis. The difference is how we apply the definition of "keep clear"

The key phrase is "with no need to take avoiding action". I think that in this case, P was keeping clear. Had S not replied to P's hail but simply held her course, then P would have kept clear by tacking. S did not NEED to take avoiding action. She CHOSE to alter course for tactical reasons. Therefore her action was not an AVOIDING action.

When S changed course, she was obligated under rule 16.1 "CHANGING COURSE" to give P room to keep clear. Because of the verbal exchange beforehand, any other action would have been a breach of rule 2 "FAIR SAILING".

My decision would be that no rules were broken.

Regards,
Eric


I agree. To look at it any other way would be to give P the authoritative right in the situation to dictate S's. X was not affected...in fact, S lost distance up the course by ducking P to the advantage of X. X is just bitter little man.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 02:52 PM

I'd go with Eric, and then I'd go find X and kick him in the nutz.

;^)
Posted By: Todd_Sails

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 03:25 PM

I would also have to agree with Erics' post. If S was worried about altering course for P, S could have hailed P to tack when they asked.

X is SOL
Posted By: Isotope235

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Jake
To look at it any other way would be to give P the authoritative right in the situation to dictate S's.

I don't follow that statement. Can you elaborate on it?

Also, I don't think X is necessarily being a poor sport. She is entitled to protest under rule 60.1(a), and actually expected to under the Basic Principle of Sportsmanship and the Rules. The circumstances regarding X's involvement are not described in this scenerio - only that she witnessed the incident. We have no evidence to suspect X's motives.

For example, suppose that X was directly behind S, close enough to view the encounter but too far to hear the hails. X clearly sees S alter course and naturally assumes it was to avoid P. X honestly believes that P broke rule 10 and exercises her right to protest. This is not in iteslf a bad thing. It could actually be a good thing.

What if this were in a closely contested regatta, where X and P were in prize contention. If I'm X and I see P break a rule, I'm going to protest.

What if X knows that P has a knowledgable and crafty skipper, but beleives that S is a relative novice? X might suspect that S is reticent to protest, or that P cowed S into believing she was at fault? Sportsmanship might demand a protest here.

But, let's stick with the usual circumstance - S and P think they're both fine, but X thinks a rule was broken. It goes to a hearing where all three boats tell their stories, everybody realizes that the crossing was amicable, and the three skippers go away satisfied. That's much better than X telling everybody on shore (or at the bar) that he saw P "cheating" on the racecourse.

Regards,
Eric
Posted By: anonymous weanie

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 04:14 PM

Look, you guys may not like it, but that was a legitimate way for me to win that race. I have a really hard time with those two guys, but fortunately this rule is a sword not a shield. I like my pickle dish - those Corinthian yabbos can suck it. Fact is, take this to the room with three different Juries and you get three different outcomes - I rolled the dice and came out on top for a change. And I didn't need better boat handling or speed to do it! I love this game.
Posted By: Kris Hathaway

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 04:33 PM

Hold on...Case states that S wanted the left side of the course AND to avoid P's potential leebow. So S elected to change course. 'Nough said? Both S & P would be exonerated?

Had S held her course, P would have been obligated to keep clear but S thought that there was a tactical advantage to let P sail off to the percieved unfavorable side. P's hail does not impress me and someone should enlighten him.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Timbo
I'd go with Eric, and then I'd go find X and kick him in the nutz.

;^)


Note to self, wear a cup near Timbo
Posted By: Mark Schneider

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 05:43 PM

I agree with Eric... (I think the senior judges see an opportunity to make some rule refinements because the language is not up to the situation .... a sailing version of an activist judge)

The lesson learned here is that Protests are NOT WAR in the Jury room!....we need to get over the notion that protests are about fixing cheating and teaching the SOB not to do it again.!

IMO it also reinforces the notion that you play the game by the rules and we REQUIRE you to self enforce the rules for a good game.

The game is great when you play it hard and by the rules.... A culture of ah... I will let that infraction go simply undermines the entire game. The rest of the fleet can't know that the game has the necessary degree of self imposed integrity unless we follow all of the rules all of the time.

Situations happen quickly on the water (damn fast when I don't anticipate the situation coming up), the rule book sets the standard that the entire fleet can sail to.... Your instantaneous choosing to waive a rule has unintended consequences.

In this case Starboard made a legit tactical call .. X thought S an P were breaking the rules. He makes that call by evaluating the fleet culture on the race course.

Perhaps X was frustrated with the diminution of the game and decided to take a stand or he had something to gain. ( A noted A class sailor lost it over this kind of issue) ... No matter... It was a legit protest.

Differences of opinion, interpretation and perception of the facts get sorted out best in the protest room... Perhaps the bar will work well but a hearing ensures all points being heard and it reaches closure. The bar conversation will go on and on and on.

If I were X and heard the testimony that S waived P by... I would withdraw my protest (assuming that I could at that point).

We need to emphasis sailing fairly and by the rules and lower that psychological barrier to hailing protest and taking the issues to the room. We should expect all to learn to handle the disagreement on the water like Corinthians.

Those old guys have seen it all!
Posted By: Isotope235

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
If I were X and heard the testimony that S waived P by... I would withdraw my protest (assuming that I could at that point).

A protest can be withdrawn if the protest committee allows (see rule 63.1). I agree that if I were representing boat X, and heard S's and P's stories in the room, I would ask to withdraw the protest. If I were on the protest committee, and X asked to withdraw his protest after hearing the other boats' testimony, I would vote to allow it.

Regards,
Eric
Posted By: Mark Schneider

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 06:12 PM

Ah I remember now. ... the PC committee has to allow the withdraw at that point in the process.
So, An activist judge looking to make some history.

Do you think the wording needs some work... or can the case book clarify this point.... (I hope it's the case book)
Posted By: David Parker

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 07:23 PM

I am confused here. If port-starboard conflicit is immenent and port asks tack-cross? and starboard says cross, what would you do as port? Wouldn't you assume it was YOUR job to duck the S boat? Why did S duck P? Seems like a recipe for disaster! If S wanted to keep going up wouldnt' they just yell "starboard" just keep going?

In this case if X and P were up for top spot, if I were X I might consider "team racing" going on here as it seems that S was clearing the way for P to keep charging upwind instead of losing ground to S.

I say, "team racing" so DSQ for both S and P!

But then, I know nothing.
Posted By: Isotope235

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
Do you think the wording needs some work... or can the case book clarify this point.... (I hope it's the case book)

I'm not aware of any authoritative reference (e.g. ISAF case) on this scenerio. It would be nice to have. Perhaps if such a situation were to go to an appeal, we'd get a ruling. In the meantime, I think it can be useful to approach rule interpretations backwards from time to time. That is, the "tack or cross" gambit is a common and accepted part of the sailing game. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to apply the rules in such a way that prohibits a port-tack boat from using it. That approach leads me to the opinion I gave earlier. Maybe some other judges think the rules need revision, but I'm ok reading them as I do currently.

Originally Posted by David Parker
I am confused here. If port-starboard conflicit is immenent and port asks tack-cross? and starboard says cross, what would you do as port? Wouldn't you assume it was YOUR job to duck the S boat? Why did S duck P? Seems like a recipe for disaster! If S wanted to keep going up wouldnt' they just yell "starboard" just keep going?

This situation doesn't really come up much in catamaran racing. Boatspeeds and tacking times make the lee-bow an impractical maneuver for cats. It's more of a keelboat tactic. Picture two boats beating to windward on opposite tacks. Boat "S" is on starboard tack, and "P" on port. As they approach, it becomes apparent that P is a little ahead, but not quite far enough to cross S.

P calls out "Tack or cross?" This is really a bit of a threat. P is essentially saying "if you don't let me cross, I'm going to tack on your lee bow - what's it going to be?" Another boat's weather hip is a bad place to hang out for most boats. If P were to successfully tack on S's lee bow, S would be in an untenable position. She would have to tack away.

Therefore, S needs to decide where she'd like to go. If she wants to head back to the right side, she can hail "tack", "starboard", or even say nothing at all. Then when P tacks, S can tack too. If S wants to keep going left, her best option may be to reply "cross", and bear away (or slow down) so that P has enough room to make it.

Once P has hailed "tack or cross", she is bound by S's response. If S says "tack" and P ducks, or if S says "cross" and P tacks, then P breaks rule 2 "FAIR SAILING". Therefore, P should only use this gambit if she wants to go right, but is willing to tack and leebow S if necessary. If P wants to go left, she should simply tack. If she really wants to go right, perhaps she should just duck and hope S doesn't tack on her wind. P only gets an advantage when she wants to go right and S wants to go left.

I hope that helps,
Eric
Posted By: John Williams

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 08:18 PM

Tactically, Starboard has the option. If you're S and you're headed to the favoured side with a clear lane, you DON'T want Port to pull off a successful leebow and steal your thunder.

If you're the Port boat and you don't want to tack into the traffic or risk the foul, it is polite to ask for the cross if you suspect Starboard is going that way for a reason. If you ask, you're obligated to tack immediately if Starboard says so, and hold your course if he waves you through.

Edit - Can't keep up with you, Eric. I disagree, however; I see this situation three or four times a season from both sides. Watch the latest video from Steeplechase for a great visual demonstration of how effective a leebow can be.
Posted By: Jake

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/04/11 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Isotope42
Originally Posted by Jake
To look at it any other way would be to give P the authoritative right in the situation to dictate S's.

I don't follow that statement. Can you elaborate on it?


I guess I didn't word that really well and in hindsight it's not quite that way.
Posted By: _flatlander_

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/05/11 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by David Parker
I am confused here. If port-starboard conflicit is immenent and port asks tack-cross? and starboard says cross, what would you do as port? Wouldn't you assume it was YOUR job to duck the S boat? Why did S duck P? Seems like a recipe for disaster! If S wanted to keep going up wouldnt' they just yell "starboard" just keep going?
No way man, if I was P I'd expect just the opposite, IF I'd asked/hailed "cross or tack", and been given the OK to cross.

If I was P, and knew I needed to keep going right, I'd hail "Hold your course" first, then duck S.
Posted By: John Williams

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/05/11 03:10 AM

"Hold your course" gets you nothing, though, John. It is a meaningless hail that S can completely disregard, and therefore dangerous, IMO.
Posted By: _flatlander_

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/05/11 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by John Williams
"Hold your course" gets you nothing, though, John. It is a meaningless hail that S can completely disregard, and therefore dangerous, IMO.
OK, sorry for the thread hijack BTW...and understood hailing "hold your course" is no longer in the rules,
If on a collision course (as P boat) and my intention is NOT exercise my option to tack, with S hailing "STARBOARD" to the last second, and guessing if I'll lee bow him?
And at the point when I'm obviously not lee bowing? (because it takes ~4 seconds to initiate and complete the lee bow tack) and still in collision course, then what?
Is he going to keep driving forward? thinking if I hit him I'll be DSQ'd and him exonerated?
I think instinctively S is going to do everything but blow his main sheet, or head up in to irons (he wants to maintain his speed).
At a critical point he may (or may not) do "something" to avoid contact by P which would likely be ducking P (and then protest)
Trouble is, that critical point would be about the same time I(P) would be starting a duck of him (S).

Given in the previous example, P is testing to see if she can get S to bite on a slight change in course in exchange for no lee bow.

What's the proper way to intentionally duck S? (when on a collision course) do I hail "I'm gonna duck" What? "ducking you" What?
Seems like "Hold your course" gets me nothing, rights wise, but it does clearly get my intentions across, legal or not?
Since my PROPER COURSE as P, in this situation is to duck S, (when not choosing to tack) do I just wave? give the OK sign?
Are you saying hailing my intentions is dangerous?
Enlighten me.

BTW, is asking "Cross or Tack?" a specific rule?
Posted By: HMurphey

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/05/11 03:17 PM

Guys,

Remember the rules discussion last year that may have an impact on this situation ..... the starboard boat gets to determine/say "what is too close for my comfort" and has the right and obligation to avoid a "imminate collision" .... so port maybe trying to feel out starboard as to what is "too close" and avoid violating the RRS's and being protested.

Personally I think the more (polite) communication between boats racing is benefical in preventing collisions .... even if the hail is not an offically reconized one according to the RRS's.

I agree w/ Eric on this one .....

Harry
Posted By: Isotope235

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/05/11 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by John Williams
I disagree, however; I see this situation three or four times a season from both sides. Watch the latest video from Steeplechase for a great visual demonstration of how effective a leebow can be.

I didn't mean to say that cats can't leebow. I meant I don't think "tack or cross" is generally a useful tactic for cats. Given their straight-line sailing speed and the time needed to tack, if you can't cross then you can't leebow either. If you're aware of catamrans hailing "tack or cross", however, I'd be interested to be proven wrong. I'm happy to learn.

Regards,
Eric
Posted By: Isotope235

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/06/11 12:17 AM

The hail "hold your course" is not binding on a right-of-way boat. I still say it though. When I hail "Starboard", or "Leeward", I am simply alerting another boat that I'm there. When I reply to a hail with "hold your course", I only mean that I'm aware of them, and that I intend to keep clear. If you want, you can hail "I'm going to cross" or "I'm going to duck" instead. That would make your intention even clearer.

Hailing is not explicitly recognized nor required outside of rules 20 and 61. According to Dick Rose, however, rule 14 "AVOIDING CONTACT" implicitly requires hails, as they are a reasonably possible way to help avoid a collision. Many other judges disagree with that opinion though. Either way, I believe that they are still a good idea. "When Boats Meet" is much safer if they are aware of each other and know what actions to expect.

In a starboard/port encounter, although boat S has right-of-way, she still has an obligation to avoid contact under Rule 14. At some point, if P does not keep clear, then S has to take some sort of "avoiding action" (which is typically to change course or speed). S doesn't get carte blanche on when to make that decision. She must have a genuine and reasonable apprehension of contact. Take a look at ISAF Case 50 at http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/CaseBook20092012with2011changes-[9701].pdf which states:
Originally Posted by "ISAF Case 50"
When, after considering all the evidence, a protest committee finds that S did not change course or that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on her part, it should dismiss her protest. When, however, it is satisfied that S did change course, that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead, and that S was justified in taking avoiding action by bearing away, then P should be disqualified.


Oh, and there is no specific rule regarding "tack or cross". It's just a common tactic in close port/starboard crossings.

I hope that helps,
Eric
Posted By: David Parker

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/06/11 12:56 AM

Just using my experience, other boats have often hailed, "DUCK YOU!" or "YOU DUCKING IDIOT!" That seems the norm... I figure that means hold my course and I just keep going.
Posted By: orphan

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/07/11 02:00 PM

This topic is discussed in theJan/Feb 2011 sailing world by Dick Rose(See Tack or Cross). This is one of the top guys on the rules and he does not see this as violation of the rules.
And he has the bio to have some cred.

Member, US SAILING Racing Rules Committee for over 20 years. Chairman of the committee for 12 years.
Member, International Sailing Federation (ISAF) Racing Rules Committee for over 10 years.
Member, ISAF Racing Rules Committee Working Party for last 12 years.
Chairman, ISAF Case Book Working Party for last 8 years.
US Sailing Senior Judge.

Posted By: Mark Schneider

Re: A Dissenting Opinion - 02/07/11 03:14 PM

Dave
As Starboard... your OBLIGATION is to not change course which forces the other guy to react... that is in the rules... (obligations on changing course) You can tack away from the port cross if you do so early enough and not foul port.. but you can't use the I am nervous factor to take a course change action and call foul on port.. (see Erics citation of the appeal)

Now... your level of confidence in ports behavior goes UP when you know all the sailors out there on the race course and you "KNOW" how they Sail. Here is a good story, Two very good US sailors go to the EU on Tornado's and are yelling STARBORD at every cross in the pro Tornado fleet.. (See Eric's best practice) The fleet asked a third party to tell him to shut the hell up because he was just annoying. So...in the Tornado Fleet... Eric's SOP of hailing ... and (Dick Rose's SOP) was nixed by the fleet culture. So... the communication issues are part of fleet culture not necessarily the rules.

The hails you are using above are just part of the local fleet culture...

KNOWING how your fleet sails is also a bit of a trap. The rules are the only standard.

It's important to be very clear so that rookies and old guys like me are clear on the best standard of practice.

Staboard is sailing his course. The conservative course (of action for port is to not place yourself in a protestable position ...

Port should tack or start ducking early....
There is NEVER a reading of starbords mind.. or a dependence on knowing the fleet culture... the rules are clear what starboard must do... (not change course) .. . as the published case made clear... In this special case Port Asked Starboard Tack or Cross ... AND THEN If you do ASK... you do what starboard requests.... If you don't get an answer... there is no mind reading... you tack or duck and take the conservative action...

IMO... We need more protests of crosses where port doesn't quite make it... and starboard lets him off the hook after turning down and chooses NOT to call protest.... Even though the advantage gained is small it encourages RISKY action.... Port is really depending on starboard being able to bear down... dump sheet... not stall rudders etc etc..... Protests will shift the behavior to conservative sailing. (I bet most people have NOT been in more then one or two protest hearings in their life...)

I know my own stupid behavior is to take risks on crosses... I recognize this when i am on the beach... but in the heat of the moment... you want to make that cross... and wanting too and being smart are not the same thing.

My gripe is that the good guys are not making good Standard Operating practice clear enough in these threads ... these discussion are busy trying to mark out the exact edges of the rule.. so the message is confusing!

In many of these threads... sailors seem to think Starbord has to do something as the cross is developing.... They Starbord are EXPECTING some action by Port more then the final course change by port ... (but none is officially required and so they start mind reading... what will port do?... I want to know as starbord what port will do? ...Do they see me? ... my not knowing makes me nervous!... I will holler starboard once more!!!... ... which is my way of asking... what the hell are you going to do?.... He STILL has no obligation to say or acknowledge your yell..... He keeps on coming......ACCK.)

Now one of two things happens... it looks very bad to starbord... so they change course and yell protest) .... but they have no case... (as they are perceiving the cross in thise story) ... they have to come up with facts about wind strength, speed and distance between the boats to make the case about when they changed course .... remember... the protest committee has to decide if the cross was unreasonable or not... Starbord needs facts to support his judgement and the PC needs facts to support Starbords call... nervousness won't cut it.

or Two.. all of the noise will cause confusion on port's part.... (WTF.... Starbord should just sail strait....)

Sometimes they will know that Starbord will loose focus... start pinching... slow down and now Port is TEMPTED to cross.... or just pissed at the rookie on starbord for shitting around and forcing them to make a BIG turn down.
Bad things happen all around.

I would say... Starboard... keep a proper lookout... Sail hard and don't change your course... if you decide... OH **** at that last minute... Port screwed the pooch... I must turn up to avoid... or Turn Down to miss their rudders. God help me... and wish me Good luck!.... your turning is your proof you were trying to avoid a collision and keeping a lookout but sailing hard and as expected. (And pay attention to the fleet culture)

Port... I would say... Keep a proper lookout x2... Sail conservatively... DON't push the cross... it is NOT worth it.

(And Pay attention to the fleet culture)


© 2024 Catsailor.com Forums