Cowes

T-Boned

Can't believe that Groupe Edmond believes that they have any rights.

They must have felt Artemis tacked too close (guessing) and since the boats have difficultly dumping the main Groupe Edmond did everything they could to avoid and couldn't therefore Artemis shoulders the blame and why GE signaled protest. If you choose Suicide port it pays to think a few moves ahead and even then it can just go bad.

It was GE that took out Groupama's rudders at this same event last year, causing the crew to abandon ship as she hits the seawall.

2010 Crash

After watching it a few times, it looks like Groupe Edmond did actually try to react pretty quickly when it was apparent that Artemis wasn't getting through that tack quickly (looks like they tacked into a header). Boy, those X40s do not maneuver well to leeward when the breeze is up. You can see the leeward rudder stalled on Edmond early in the bareaway (well before the hull was even flying).

Well, photographic evidence is suspect, because it is often difficult to judge actual boat placement due to camera angle and foreshortening. Even video can can be misleading.

That said, it looks to me like:

1. Both boats were sailing on a beat to windward, on port tack. Team Artemis (A) was about 4 boatlengths ahead of and about 2 boatlengths to leeward of Team Groupe Edmond de Rothschild (GE).
2. Boat A proceeded to tack to starboard.
3. After A passed head-to-wind, and before she reached a close-hauled course, GE began to bear away.
4. GE bore away hard, slacking sail and turning, but her rudders stalled and her port bow hit A's port side just ahead of the transom, significantly damaging both boats.

If that is indeed the case, then the rules that apply are:

• As A started to tack, rules 12 "On the Same Tack, Not Overlapped" and 16.1 "Changing Course" apply. Rule 16.1 requires A to give GE room to keep clear. Rule 12 requires GE to keep clear. Both boats do.
• When A passes head-to-wind, Rule 12 ceases to apply and rule 13 "While Tacking" does instead. Now A is required to keep clear and GE has right-of-way. Rule 15 "Acquiring Right of Way" does not apply since GE acquired right-of-way because of A's actions. A is required to keep clear of GE. Given that GE took avoiding action at this point, A did not keep clear.
• I can't tell if A reached a close-hauled course before contact. If not, rules 13 and 14 "Avoiding Contact" apply. If so, then Rules 10 "On Opposite Tacks", 15, and 14 apply. Rule 14(a) states "...a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room...need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear...". It appears to me that GE acted as soon as it was apparent that A was not keeping clear. If A completed her tack before contact, then GE was required keep clear and A was required to give GE room to keep clear. A was also required to avoid contact if reasonably possible.

Based on that, it looks like A broke rules 13 and 14. GE did not break rule 14. If A reached a close-hauled-course, then A also broke rule 15 and GE broke rule 10, but GE is exonerated under rule 64.1(c) "Penalties and Exoneration".

Therefore, it looks entirely reasonable and appropriate that Team Groupe Edmond protested.

Regards,
Eric

Eric, Please give us your rules analysis on this collision :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJpFueH1wvQ&feature=player_embedded

Eric, I just don't see it.

A was clear ahead and tacked to round the mark, GE comes flying in on port and smashes into him.

Looking at the white flash on A's starboard bow just before impact, it appears to me A is on the new tack and making headway for a normal mark rounding.

Observed on video at 18 sec the crew dumped the jib making it even harder to bear off?

Aremis was clear ahead up until she passed head-to-wind. At that point, she was tacking, and became the give-way boat. See Rule 13.

You can't just tack right in front of another boat, no matter how close to the mark or the layline you happen to be.

It appears to me that Artemis did indeed complete her tack just prior to contact. Since Groupe Edmond had long since taken avoiding action (albeit unsuccessful), A had already broken RRS 13. Completing her tack just means that she broke rule 15 as well.

I understand. My contention is that A had completed the tack and was in the process of making the mark rounding and GE had to give way.

At least that's how I see it.

Either way, I wouldn't want one of my crew mates dicking about waving a flag while I was hanging over the side tethered by my ankle with my head under water!

I hate to say it, but I think I agree with Pete on this one. It appears to me that Artemis had completed its tack and was on starboard with their sails drawing. Maybe I am not seeing it right or do not clearly understand how the rules apply here.

Shouldn't GE have anticipated that Artemis would be taking on the layline and prepared for the duck that was coming?

How long after a boat completes a tack onto starboard do they remain the give way boat?

I guess I don't understand this contention. Aretmis completed her tack less than one second prior to contact. How could Groupe Edmond possibly have kept clear?

You're right, it looks like they need bigger rudders, and don't dump the jib if you're trying to bear away...

Eric, with your interpretation of the rule, I don't see how you can race cats in anything over 6 knots of wind. Had I been sailing A I'd do the same thing every time.

As you say, GE had 1 second, imo, that is damning evidence. You shouldn't come flying in on port unless you are absolutely certain of yourself. (incidentally, I think GE had about 7 seconds to make a decision, made the correct decision, but his boat couldn't respond, compounding the error in judgement.)

I had the same thought. Always tend to people in danger first.

RRS 61.1(a) states "A boat intending to protest shall... conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity...". It is reasonable to perform emergency acts of seamanship (such as assisting a person in danger) before flying the flag.

Furthermore, RRS 61.1(c) states "if the incident results in damage or injury that is obvious to the boats involved... the requirements of this rule do not apply...". The damage was obvious, so the protest flag was not necessary.

I also noticed that Groupe Edmond waved a yankee flag (yellow and red striped), rather than a bravo flag (red). Yankee is used in match racing, and I presume that the sailing instructions changed the protest flag for this race.

Regards,
Eric

Eric, it would seem that the leading boat has no rights while rounding the mark. It's been a long time for me and the rule book but really, the leading boat at a mark rounding needs to leave room to a boat thats clearly behind with no overlap and on port?

I'm not sure I'd want to race with these rules.

One thing is for sure. These boats are tough.

Rule 13 states:

Judging by the video, I would say that

1. Artemis begins her tack at 0:12. That's when she starts to head up. At this point, both boats are on port tack and Artemis is clear ahead, so rules 12 and 16 apply. The boats become overlapped almost immediately, and then rules 11 and 16 apply. Both boats are upholding their obligations at this time.
2. At time 0:14, Artemis passes head-to-wind (you can see her jib flutter). Now rules 11 and 16 cease to apply, and 13 takes over. Rule 14 also comes into play.
3. At time 0:15, Groupe Edmond starts bearing away. I see her main ease at 0:16 and both sails are dumping air by 0:18 (while continuously bearing down).
4. Artemis continues to turn until 0:20, so that's when I'd say she reached a close-hauled course. At that instant she is no longer tacking and is now on starboard tack. Rule 13 no longer applies. Rules 10 and 15 do.
5. At 0:21, the boats collide.

The sails don't have to be drawing. What counts is being on a "close hauled course". That means that the boat is pointing in the direction on which she would sail close-hauled.

From a rules perspective, no. A boat does not have to anticipate the actions of another boat. She need only react to what the other boat actually does. See ISAF Case 92.
From a judgement perspective, one should always try to anticipate what other boats might do. I don't see any evidence that Groupe Edmond failed in that, given that she began her bear-away within a second of Artemis passing head-to-wind. Groupe Edmond was obviously ready to take avoing action and did not delay.

A boat completes her tack when she reaches a close-hauled course. At that instant, rule 13 ends and rule 10 applies. rule 15 "Acquiring Right of Way" also applies, so a boat that tacked to starboard must initially give a port tack boat room to keep clear.

I hope that helps,
Eric

You have that backwards. You shouldn't tack in front of an oncoming boat unless you can complete your tack and then give him room to keep clear.

This is a great video to illustrate the tacking and right of way rules.

My experience is that sailors believe that so long as they get their boat around onto starboard that they have tacked and the burden is now on port. (period end of story)

They forget that they have to give room and opportunity to port (B) to avoid them. They don't instantly receive a get out of jail free card by sitting there on starboard. (Back in the day... you would see sailors grab the boom and push it to starboard and holler starboard (ha ha....) The rules have changed ...

What I see is similar to Eric..... Port (B) went into max avoid while starboard (A) had no rights and was tacking. This avoid collision was before starboard would have acquired rights... They (A) acquire rights on starboard ONLY AFTER the room and opportunity to avoid a collision requirement is met.

I look at the video and see that Port could do nothing more (The fleet knows that the boats don't bear off... the bows dig with rig that far forward and the rudders come out of the water and stall.... game over)

Room and Opportunity is the key phrase here... Looking at the video... do you think that port was not doing all they could to avoid the collision? Do you think they were late to respond.... IE after (A) is now sitting there on starboard with Port (B) missing their opportunity to avoid a collision.

Starboard (A) took a chance that they would complete the tack and get moving AND that port had room and opportunity to avoid.... They screwed up on both factors.

Imagine the protest without the video or witness's (who's accounts as to time and distance will certainly differ)

I did not understand the rule then, and I doubt that anyone does.

Port tackers will now be completely out of control, using the fact of a collision to prove they were in the right.

I don't doubt this was a good rule at 6 knots...

This was not a finish....

The trade off was made between the game you remember and the goal of avoiding collisions in the current game. You have to pay attention to the evolution of the game.

Had B been right on A's hip... Would you have said that A was winning?

Rule 18.2(c) states "...if either boat passes head to wind..., rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply. Although Artemis may have been entitled to mark room upon entering the zone, she lost that privilege (along with right-of-way) when she tacked. The rules have been this way for over a decade. I'd suggest giving the rule book another read.

Nevertheless, these are the rules we are racing under. People may hate to acknowledge it, but there are restrictions on the actions of right-of-way boats. In fact there is only one page of rules on right-of-way and four pages of rules that limit right-of-way.

And yes, there are situations where the keep-clear boat has tactical control over the right-of-way boat. This is one of them.

Regards,
Eric

I'm continually impressed with the way the rules are written for two reasons:

1. I haven't found any contradictions, and
2. there is almost no way to force a foul on another boat. You have to really stretch to find a scenerio where a boat breaks a rule without having done something wrong herself.

I disagree. I believe most racers who try to understand the rules, do. Just realize that right-of-way does not bestow impunity.

I think that's untrue and overly dramatic.

It's a good rule at 6 knots or 60. Either way, you can't turn right in front of someone, cause a collision, and then claim it's their fault.

Sincerely,
Eric
US Sailing Certified Judge
Member Area D Appeals Committee

The last time I was at Juana's I was hit bow on by a port tacker trying to force his way through a line of starboard tack boats.

Don't get me started on bargers at the start line...

You have the credentials, you're opinion will win out.

The jury found for GER but it doesn't make sense to me.

I agree that boats have to give others room and opportunity but still see that GE was at fault given the significant amount of time A gave GE to see its actions.

I believe this crash would not have happened had the windward mark not been within a couple of boatlengths of Artemis. From what I could see, Artemis was ahead and to leeward. Artemis tacked and was clearly moving forward on starboard. A appeared to need to travel one or two boatlengths to round the windward mark. Rule 18 applies in this situation as I understand that the zone is now 3 boatlengths.

GE had two options: it could attempt a bear away as it did unsuccessfully and keep to the tightest racing or it could luff up, crash tack, and possibly hit the mark or have to jibe around to make the mark. GE was coming into the mark on port and likely within the three boat length circle.

Many racers, independent of being on X40s or Melges or what have you have hit boats just like this because they didn't want to tack inside and not make the windward mark. It was good racing but it didn't work out. At this level of professional sailing, it seems to me GE should have avoided even if it meant not sailing their preferred course. Of course, doing so could lead to additional complications as the courses are close to land and A would soon be bearing down on them after rounding the mark.

Maybe the jury is sending a message to keep things simple and safe on the water.

I would add... It is much better to think about these situations at home... with a beer ... and the rule book... and the catamaran cheat sheet rather then REACT to what you think or remember with a boat under your control at 12 knots.

>I look at the video and see that Port could do nothing more (The fleet knows that the boats don't bear off... <

Isn't this the second time we observe a bear away collision?
Someday we may see low stall rudder shape change?

Looks like the main traveler was eased.
Could the main sheet have been released?
Perhaps the main sheet prevented the traveler from going out further?
Why was the jib released at the 18 sec?

We had the exact same thing happen to us at the F18 worlds (we were the port tack boat).
They were going to file a protest but didnt do so in time, wasnt too happy about it since I think we had a good case for a protest.
IMO when tacking you just have to keep clear, mark rounding or not...

Eric, isn't the rule quoted above in the context of the full 18.2 (c) rule?

18.2c
When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b), she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins. However, if the boat entitled to mark- room passes head to wind or leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

I don't see the version of 18 (c) that you cite in the 2009-2012 rule book with 2010 changes.

I believe Boat A that tacks with the zone onto starboard has right of way over boat B that enters the zone on port after Boat A completes its tack, correct?

I guess I'm hung up on the meaning of "opportunity" to keep clear. Had I been sailing GE, I would have simply eased the main, that, imo, would have slowed me down enough to avoid the collision.

Am I right in assuming that you don't have to slow down even if it is the only way to avoid a collision?

I just noticed that and was about to post about it...yeah, they did dump the jib while the skipper was trying to bear away. That didn't help at all.

What significant amount of time? The video shows 4 seconds of boats sailing parallel courses, 2 seconds of Artemis going head-to-wind, 6 seconds of Artemis tacking, and 1 second (at most) of Artemis on starboard tack before contact.

For the first 6 seconds, Artemis has right-of-way and Groupe Edmond keeps clear. For the next 6 seconds, Groupe Edmond has right-of-way and spends 5 of the 6 taking avoiding action. Artemis did not keep clear. Artemis may have regained right-of-way for the last second, but there is no way that she gave Groupe Edmond room to keep clear.

Artemis was not entitled to mark room under rule 18.2(b) once she passed head-to-wind. See rule 18.2(c). Therefore, the mark being nearby is irrelevant.

Yes, GE could have crash-tacked instead. Crash-tacking is not a seamanlike maneuver and could have been just as dangerous as a failed bear-away. Either way, Artemis did not keep clear. Artemis had two legal options. She could have slowed down, let Groupe Edmond pass, and tack behind, or keep going until GE tacked and then tack herself. I don't think she was close enough to luff GE up.

Regards,
Eric

No rule requires you to anticipate what the other boat may or may not do....but yeah, probably.

Why isn't GE obliged to slow down?

Excellent point. That's exactly why we need to have these discussions here. Then we'll know what to do when we get into similar incidents out on the racecourse. I'm kind of surprised that noone has yet asked how Artemis could have avoided this situation.

What Team Artemis should have done, was pinch up before she got near the mark, and scrape Groupe Edmond off at the bouy.

Know the rules, forsee a problem coming, and plan to aovid the situation before it forms.

Regards,
Eric

It's a hydraulic mainsheet system...it eases sloooowly. Ask Nigel Pitt. He said it was scary how slowly the mainsheet system would bleed down when you hit the valve.

A lot of you are really getting caught up that this happened near a mark but it really doesn't have much to do with it because both boats are entering the zone on port. The rules apply in the same way they would in open water. If Artemis had entered the zone on starboard and GE came in port, the rules would be very very clear and GE (not entitled to room due to tacking inside the zone) would be at fault.

Ahhh... This seems to be a case of GE being dead right.

that's good to know. I was wondering what Artemis could have done short of sail way past the mark and hand the lead to GE.

You're right. Rule 18.2(c) did change in 2010, and I quoted the old version. The updates had slipped out of my rulebook (I guess I should have pasted them in). Instead of reading "if either boat passes head to wind", it now reads "if the boat entitled to mark room passes head to wind". The change was made because some team racers had found a way to exploit that loophole to turn off rule 18. The change doesn't affect this scenerio though, because it was Artemis who tacked.

In that scenerio, rule 18 doesn't apply because boats A and B are on opposite tacks on a beat to windward (see rule 18.1(a)). It's a simple rule 10 situation.

I hope that helps,
Eric

At time 0:14, Artemis passes head-to-wind. I see Groupe Edmond bearing away at 0:15, and I see the mainsail eased at 0:16. Both actions were taken while Team Artemis was the keep-clear boat.

No. Rule 14 requires all boats to avoid contact if reasonably possible. Slowing down constitutes "avoiding action", and is a reasonable one to take. If a right-of-way boat maintains course but slows down to avoid a give-way boat, then the give way boat does not keep clear.

Regards,
Eric

Thanks Eric, I could never keep all this stuff straight.

Had this occurred away from any marks or laylines, GE would likely have tacked and had ample time to do so. It was only after they committed to ducking that the wind shifted and the boat powered-up and get out of control. They had plenty of time to tack but it was not preferred to them so they unsuccessfully tried to shoot behind. It took Artemis only 3 secs to tack!!!

This situation (tacking too close) does happen away from marks or laylines. It happened twice at the Tanzer 16 Nationals (one of which was in front of me causing me to crash-tack) and I saw it happen on Hobie 16's at the Special Olympics last week.

As I count it, Artemis took 8 seconds to tack (2 to go head-to-wind, and 6 more to reach a close-hauled course). I saw GE taking avoiding action 6 seconds before contact, so I'm not sure that a crash tack would have been different except for where the boats hit.

Bear in mind that when GE bore away, she was the right-of-way boat. Even without contact, Artemis still broke rule 13. There was only one second at the most between Artemis gaining right-of-way and the collision. That is not "ample time" to tack.

Thank you Eric, It seems A was much more at fault here, IMHO

Hmmm....I count Artemis on starboard and close haul at 16 sec, started tack at 13. It was at 21 sec contact with GE. Had GE started to tack at 17 sec, she would have slowed up considerably and easily avoided contact. Extreme 40s seem to tack quickly but have real issues bearing off.

GE misjudged the duck not expecting Artemis to come out of the tack as slowly as it did.

Well, we watched the same video and came up with very different sets of facts. That is one reason photo evidence is treated with skepticism. I doubt, however, one will convince a jury that a 40' catamaran can tack in 3 seconds. I see Artemis turning all the way to 0:20.

Regards,
Eric

I think you see Artemis turning all the way to 20 seconds because they are not coming out of the tack on a close hauled course, they overstood the mark and are bearing away to go to the mark. I think if Artemis had accelerated out of the tack close hauled, GE would have cleared their stern. It looks like Artemis spends at least 1-2 seconds spinning their boat to the mark instead of accelating close hauled.

I understand but disagree with the rationle.

Firstly, we are sailing catamarans not 4ksb and I posit the damage to both boats in the case at hand. NOT anticipating is inherently unsafe.

Secondly, we are discussing an approach to A mark. Where else was Artemis going to go?

I feel the starboard right of way rule should be strengthened.

Again, thanks to Eric for all his work. Somebody has to try and keep us straight and I appreciate it.

Me too.

A was starboard, GE was port. Simple enough to me.

I disagree. It only seeks to confuse us. Who the hell can run through that whole rule analysis on the water in order to determine who needs to do what? Throw it in 4 boatlengths from the mark while blowing 20knots. I know that my mind is devoted to keeping the pointy end up.

Furthermore the more complicated the rules are, the easier it is for situations like this to pop up where both boats think that they are doing the right thing and therefore crash thinking "well its the other douchebag's fault!"

Seriously the rules we have are not practical and the fact that we need certified judges to figure out who was at fault for, what appears to be a simple port/starboard incident really chaps me the wrong way.

G'mornin' sunshine!

I had some vague notion of a rule set based on the traffic light. If port is red and starboard is green, you just look at the boat you're approaching and stop or go. Mentally extending the bows to a potential point of impact would quickly determine who has right of way.

Obviously I've not put a great deal of thought into it. Jus' sayin'...

I really dislike the current rule as it leaves too much room for interpretation.
Who is to say how much room is enough?

These guys bore off on a boat known for stalling. The lead boat appeared to over stand the mark so it appeared there would have been room for a tack and then GE would have had rights for buoy room and could have easily avoided a collision as the boat can tack that fast, where they just stalled the rudders in the bear off. At the least they should bear responsibility for not avoiding the collision – it was not very avoidable they way they went about it, but that was not the fault of the other boat.

As the rule is better understood it will invite more agressive port tactics with similar results, imo.

GEDR is sailing from clear astern of A entering circle so owes room per rule 18. GEDR sails straight on proper course to mark , but open commiting to the mark rounding (early), A shuts the door, and puts GEDR in the squeeze. A heads down to mark, pinching, sailing slow. Easing his sails to accel, trims and begins maneuvers to head back up, when GEDR, attempting to avoid hits A. In question is whether rules engine penalizes GE for 18, or A is DSQ'd for unseamanlike rounding.

Given the proximity to the circle, A did not make a seamanlike rounding (rule 18), and was intentionally short on the rounding. (A tactical squeeze to slow down/stall GE.) Because of position of both boats in the circle at the time of contact the decision by A to not afford GEDR sufficient room inside the circle, and at the mark, A has fouled GEDR, as A's aggressive sailing did not leave GE room to keep clear as per rule 11 (GEDR was leward boat entering the circle). 16.1 also applies as maneuvering boat (A) did nothing to keep clear of GEDR who was on proper course. Rule 18 takes precedence because it is in Section C of the rulebook. Therefore A must give GEDR room to round the mark, but instead, maneuvers to round mark.

My opinion is that A should be DSQ'd. I don't have any favorites here; its' just what I saw. and I'm offering my 2 cents.

Pete,

Both boats came in on port. Both were taking a chance there was not a starboard boat approaching This has nothing to do with the mark or laylines. This is simply...don't tack in front of me. Not arguing if there was enough time or if he could have tacked, but the rule has nothing to do with the mark.

No way - or at least not often in the instances I have seen collisions and protest in these situations. The aggressive tactics come from the port tackers who use ambiguity in the rule to push situations. Your behind but you might win in the protest room.

A boat has to provide opportunity to avoid, they do not have to provide opportunity for the other boat to do whatever they want. In my view the lead boat accomplished their tack and was sailing. I do not agree there was a broken rule then because GE appeared to have both time and room to accomplish their own tack, but they did not, they forced a protest and lost their boat for a few days. The still could have tacked and protested, but it is a lot more visual to the judge boats to try a spectacular bear away.

The judgment call comes from how much room is required to be clear ahead for a maneuver. In the crappy video shot, it appeared to me to be enough. Eric and the judges saw it as not enough. As the lead boat was on or even past the lay line there was also then plenty of opportunity for GE to realize a tack was coming – not part of the rule, but something that should be considered in the decision of determining that all was done to avoid a collision.

Again, Eric has the credentials so his opinion will carry the day.

Cheers!

A got to the the circle first and GE was not overlapped so GE was not entitled to bouy room. That situation never changed even after A tacked the bouy room issue was settled when A got to the circle first and GE had no overlap, GE would have had no rights for room no matter what. The issue remains tacking too close and port starboard and depending on those in the room it could go either way IMO and it has.

That's why we're discussing it now - so that when you're out on the racecourse you'll know that you can't blindly turn into other boats. Think through common scenerios before racing so you'll know what to do when they pop up. Look outside of the boat and determine your options and obligations before you reach oncoming traffic. Plan your actions ahead of time -- don't react in panic. I'm sure that the crew on Groupe Edmond were watching Artemis like a hawk, and had already decided what their course of action would be if she tacked. It takes time to notice that another boat is changing course. It takes time to assess one's options. It takes time for the crew to act. It takes more time for the boat to respond. I count 3 seconds between Artemis starting to head up, and when I see Groupe Edmond's boat turning down. It's entirely possible that GE planned the bear-away before Artemis moved, and acted the moment they saw her change course.

Come on. The rules of Part 2 "When Boats Meet" are only 6 paperback-size pages long. That's a lot shorter than the rules of little league baseball, and the kids don't have any problem learning them. It doesn't take a certified judge to understand the RRS, just a willingness to open the rule book and read. This is not a simple port/starboard incidient. In fact, Artemis is on starboard tack for only a small part of the encounter. Right-of-way changes twice. Please read rules 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.1, 18.1(a), 18.2(c), and the definitions of "keep clear" and "room". Pay attention to the obligations rather than fixating on "rights".

What? What interpretation.
.... Starboard has ROW.... BUT with a restriction...

How much room was enough ?
Ugh... well if you go boom... it was not enough... if you miss the SOB.... it was enough. Artemis Failed here.... clearly not enough room (even when Baron started ducking before they were required to)

Do you think Port WANTS to smash Starboard??? The rules don't anticipate Port pulling a miracle out of their butt. Do you think Starboard is going to walk in the room and say to port... you did not do enough to avoid me... you should have done more (go for that miracle). No! .. they are going to say... I left plenty of Room and Opportunity for port to duck and Port Screwed up... they did not manage their boat in a seamanlike manner.

While there is no burden... they are going to ask port... WHEN did you drop the traveler... Again... they ONLY have to do this when Starboard actually gets on starboard.

Do you think Port is going to protest Starboard after he just misses starboard and say... Oh you did not give me enough room... Answer... Of course I did... you missed me...
Baron does not protest Artemis if he successfully ducks. He protests when he can't duck and this resulted in the collision.

Port is going to protest Starboard ONLY when they crash tack to avoid a collision. AND they only have to do execute the crash tack when the tacker actually gets on starboard..... So... the critical evidence will be... where did the boats wind up after port's crash tack. (was it really a crash tack... or did port panic and protest to screw with starbord out of pique)

Oh... and Starboard can't go into the room and say to Port... Oh You SHOULD have crash tacked to avoid the collision...
Crash tacks are NOT seamanlike handling of your boat.

In the past... You had bozo's lunging for the boom to shove it some place and try to avoid responsibility for the crash tack that port had to execute.

IMO... the current wording of the rule is far better then past versions.... It balances the obligations of port and starboard and tacking extremely well. The language allows for the timing issues / wiggle room to work itself out.

You need to go back to a version of the RRS with a tacking rule that you like and defend the Artemis protest with those rules.... Otherwise your argument
is just silly.

Your analogy is flawed. Here is one that is more apt.

Imagine that you are driving in the right lane of a multi-lane road (in the US). There is another car behind you driving in the left lane. You approach a cross street and decide that you want to turn left. Your legal options are to change lanes, slow down (allowing the other car time to avoid you), and turn; or to slow down, let the other car pass, and then change lanes and turn. Instead, you enter the intersection and turn left in front of the other car. It brakes and swerves but still hits you in the rear quarter. Now, ask yourself who was at fault:

1. You, because you turned in front of the other car, or
2. him, because he should have anticipated your turn and slowed down to avoid you before you even reached the intersection?

No. As the rule is better understood, leeward boats will be less agressive tacking in front of windward boats.

Eric, I acknowledge your expertise but we stopped talking rules and started talking human nature a long time ago!

I still vividly remember that port tacker appearing out of the crowd and heading straight into my bows! That and the drive are the reasons I don't do Juana's anymore.

I’ve been I a protest room where the defending a position actually used the phrase; “Of course I was unable to avoid a collision – I hit him didn’t I?” Brilliant defense

Some interpretation is unavoidable, unfortunately. But where is the line, is he clear behind by 4 boat lengths or 6 when the lead boat can tack? Maybe we institute a 3 boat circle or something more identifiable. Anyone who races has been in both sides of this situation. Usually there is no issue, sometimes there is yelling, and on rare occasions there is an accident. Unfortunately the occasions I have seen it go to protest have been mostly port boats trying to use the rules as an offence. Not always the case (and not here either as I doubt GE wanted to wreck their boat) but it happens.

The next move on the course was to tack to starboard. There was more than enough room (again in my view and the argument) to pull off a normal –not crash tack- tack. GE was going to protest either way if they felt they were not given enough time, the act of crashing had nothing to do with that.

A good protest committee will avoid off-the-hip conclusions such as "It looked like enough room to me" or "It didn't". Instead, they will break down the incident into a sequence of steps, and analyze the obligations of each boat at every point that they change. PC will nail down hard facts, such as boat proximity, speed, and closing times. Proximity and speed can be very difficult to estimate, so unless instrumentation is available, closing times are generally more accurate.

Now, we are seeing widely varying estimates of distance, speed, and course from watching this video, so it's no surprise that different people reach different conclusions based on what looks like "enough" or "not enough room". Therefore, let's try to be more analytical. As I said before, I see Artemis begin to head up at time 0:12. I see her jib luffing about her mast at time 0:14, so that's when I call her head-to-wind. I see Groupe Edmond changing course beginning at time 0:15.

Now, at the moment Artemis passed head-to-wind, she forfeited right-of-way (see rule 13), and entitlement to mark-room (see rule 18.2(c)). Instead, she is obligated to keep clear of Groupe Edmond. One second later, GE starts taking avoiding action (changes course and slacks sheets). I think one would have a very hard time convincing a jury that Artemis completed her tack, and then gave Groupe Edmond enough room to keep clear all within that one second. Personally, I don't believe that a catamaran that takes 2 seconds to go from close-hauled to head-to-wind, can go from head-to-wind down to close-hauled on the opposite tack in less than that. GE had to take avoiding action while A was still tacking and therefore the keep-clear boat. Thus I conclude that Artemis broke rule 13. Given that Groupe Edmond continued to take avoiding action but could not prevent collision is (in my opinion) prima facie evidence that A did not not give GE room to keep clear after completing her tack. Therefore Artemis also broke rule 15. I don't see anything to indicate that Groupe Edmond's actions were not prompt, nor unseamanlike, so I don't believe she could have reasonably avoided contact. Therefore, GE did not break rule 14. Artemis, however, could have avoided contact (by not turning so close) and therefore did break rule 14.

It appears to me that Artemis (A) tacked between 2-3 boatlengths from the mark, so I conclude that she entered the zone on port tack clear ahead of Groupe Edmond (GE). While A remains on port tack, she is not obligated to give GE mark-room. Instead, GE is obligated to give A mark-room under rule 18.2(b). When A passes head-to-wind, the obligations change. Rule 18.2(b) no longer applies (see rule 18.2(c)). That happens two seconds into the encounter, so rule 18 never really comes into play.

Do the rules require that Artemis give Groupe Edmond enough room to duck Artemis, or just enough room to keep clear?

I agree that there wasn't enough room to duck. But it looks like they have plenty of time to tack. Artemis was head to wind within 3-4 seconds of starting the tack and effectively stop. The crash happened at 0:21. So, Groupe Edmond could have begin the turn at 0:17 which was after Artemis was on a starboard tack. All of that is assuming that Groupe Edmond will continue going toward Artemis at the same speed even though it began the tack. More likely, 2 seconds into the tack they will be moving at 1/3 of the speed.

There is no way to set a fixed distance for "room". There is simply too much variation in maneuverability between different boats and in different conditions. This is always going to be a judgement call.

If GE had sheeted in the jib, and the hard over rudders had not stalled out, and a collision was averted; could GE get a judgement for Artemis tacking to close?

So... how do the old rules... of any quad... make this better?

Currently, PORT has to make their case...with respect to a forced crash tack that did not result in a collision.

What is offense action by port.... A initiated the tack.

They have to provide evidence that were NOT provided room an opportunity...

You the tacker (A) has to provide evidence that you held up your end of the tacking deal...eg.. provided room and opportunity. AND YOU KNOW YOU HAVE TO COLLECT THIS EVIDENCE because the boat is behind you... you know what kind of room and opportunity that boat is capable of and in your judgment they can bear off and take your sterns... OR they can tack underneath you... or they can cross ahead of you. BUT... your obligation (since you chose to tack) is to have that evidence that the boat had one??? TWO?? of those three options available to them.

I tacked cleanly and I thought they had enough room is weak.... you initiated the when boats meet... you have starboard rights and the obligation... you need to make sure you meet your obligations... or you should be in trouble.

As you stipulate... probably not.

Had GE.... stalled their rudders, plowed the bow and just missed Artemis..... That would hardly be viewed as seamanlike... IMO, they could protest and win.

I don't think "seamanlike" enters into this situation. That phrase only appears in reference to mark roundings when talking about "room" to round the mark. It's just time and opportunity in this case - no?

Jake,
I think seamanlike is NOT a definition in this cycle...
So it is just the ordinary understanding of the word.

Probably better term for me to use would be GE could sail behind Artimis. So, Bow down, rudders stalled would not be my understanding of sailing...

The actions of the crew would be unseamanlike in having to avoid Artemis.

I have NO citation for this one that I can remember though. I will check Perry when I get a chance.

At any rate... the standard to meet is room and opportunity ... I could see the PC judging that Artemis was too close.
irrespective of the words used to describe the near miss.

Agree with all of Eric's points. At the end of the day, it's a judgement call based on the PC's understanding of the performance capabilities of the boats.

There is absolutely no port/starboard issue here, there is no starboard tack parade coming into the mark, these guys were not on suicide port. Guys, please stop making references to situations in other regattas that are totally unrelated to this one.

Tacking too close is tacking too close. The boat behind is in control. One really good defense I have seen is to pinch up like mad and tack right after the mark. Odds are, the boat behind won't be able to follow and stop you from tacking.

A's biggest tactical error was that they came in several boat lengths below the layline, so they weren't able to tack around the mark, using it as a pick. This is one of those situations where you need to commit (you're either pregnant or not, as they say)... Of course, 9 times out of 10, you don't want to be on a layline and get stuck with a shift that you can't take advantage of, so that's a really tough call to make further back on the leg.

Looking at the design of these boats, it amazes me how small those rudders are, relative to the size of the hulls. If we were sailing our beach cats with rudders of a similar scale, we would never be able to turn, either.

Mike

Yes. GE took avoiding action while A was tacking. Even if contact had been avoided, Artemis still broke rule 13. Take a look at RRS 13, and the definition of "keep clear".

Take a look at rules 15, 16, and the definition of "room".

The fact that a single scenario "when boats meet" requires 6 pages of rules is - by itself - ridiculous. Am I to recall and analyze 6 pages of rules and all the countless endless monotonous tedious lethargic coma-inducing examples every time I encounter another boat on the course? You do realize how silly it is that the "rules are only 6 pages" ... for a single "section" of the rules. I played many sports growing up as a kid. Football, Soccer, Tennis, Lacrosse.... NONE of them required me to read a rule book, much less 6 pages of rules.

Whats even more hilarious is that you've rattled off the number of rules that you need to keep in mind when crossing boats. I can't tell if you're trying to be facetious or its just coming off like that because its really hilarious to me. "Please read rules 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.1, 18.1(a), 18.2(c), and the definitions of "keep clear" and "room"." Thats 2 definitions and 9 rules (with all of their implicit definitions) that I need just for when I get close to another boat. Am I to conduct this mental exercise before during or after I'm done with the 10 other things that I need to be doing just to keep the boat from flipping over?

Maybe you can think about all the rules scenarios in your head while you're doing all this. Personally, I've gotten by without hurting anyone by just ... avoiding situations where I know there could be trouble. Often at the expense of a place on the race course. (Thats not to say that I haven't scraped gelcoat before - I'm guilty as charged on that account)

The mere fact that we have an 8 page long thread on which boat broke the rules is in itself hilariously pathetic.

Good thing Tad's not on the water much.

Tad, I get your point, but do you see the irony here? All those games you played do have rule books - you just didn't read them, either. While I agree with you sailing is wonderful in that you don't need to read the rules to enjoy it, I'm forced to disagree regarding what's considered ridiculous. There's a level in every game at which there isn't a valid excuse for not knowing the rules. Eric and Mike have passed that level - that doesn't make them better people than you, but they do deserve respect for spending the time to become versed in the racing rules of sailing. The rules can be neither a sword nor shield if you're wearing a bucket on your head.

I say we simplyfy the rules and go with "Thunder Dome" rules at the crossings and mark roundings;

Two boats enter, one boat leaves!

And we're going to need something sharp to put on the ends of our spinnaker poles too...

Someone at Cowes beat you to it!

My experience only goes back to the 1997-2000 rulebook. Although the wording of the rules has changed since then, the basic application has not. The obligations of the boats in this situation are the same. As I understand it, there was a time when "no contact" = "kept clear". Skippers notoriously made no attempt to avoid collision and intentionally rammed other boats just to prove their point. The rules were rewritten to their current form in order to simplify them and avoid carnage. Had this event taken place under the 1993-1996 rules, Groupe Edmond could legally have hit Artemis broadside at full speed and cut her in half.

OK, it looks like nobody went overboard or got hurt- I hope not.

Let's tackle this one.

The monoslug was luffing the chute, I guess to try and slow down?
He couldn't see that tanker coming for at least a 1/4 mile?
I think they were below having sex and forgot about the shipping lanes.
As long as nobody had any physical damage, that driver deserved that. And If nobody was physically hurt, that was hilarious when the chute caught on the anchor and ripped his whole rig down. Anyone know this person on the monoslug?

You know whats funnier?

I went to the Youtube site, and read most of the comments.
There are actually people that somehow think the skipper of the tanker was at fault.

Heeellllooooooo?

I still think something more quantifiable would be better. This still allows for the sea lawyers to use rules as an offensive tool and for protests based on feel and favoritism. Overlap, port/starboard, 3 boat length circles are all quantifiable.

In a situation like this windward boat has a controlling position. On the port layline this promotes people to try and achieve this and in cases like this port boats reaching into A presenting a potentially dangerous confrontation. At the very least for safety, I would like to see in a situation like this where they are coming in at the mark, the first boat inside the 2 boat circle as long as there is no overlap before the circle maintains rights to maneuver. The port layline at A is already dangerous, you have somebody forcing a controlling position and a few starboards coming in and somebody could die real easy in these boats.


Eric - for "room" do they have be able to be clear to go any direction (tack or duck)?

You could simply prohibit port tackers from sailing into the circle.

I think Eric broke down and explained the situation clearly.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the rules that says that a boat has to anticipate what another boat might do!! I hate this idea. They could throw the boat up into the wind like they are tacking and then bear off. They could be going into port with a broken piece. There should never be any idea that a boat needs to anticipate what another boat might do.

This hits close to home because I was told in a protest room that I should have anticipated that a boat would tack and avoided the situation.

Protest room = 50/50 chance. Still does.

Glad they had the photo evidence so they could show they did everything they could and they started much earlier to try to avoid the situation. Could they have crash tacked? I'm not sure but I doubt it. They certainly couldn't have crash tacked from the time the boat went to close hauled on starboard.

The boat ahead could do two things.
A. Bear off and create separation so that they can have room to tack.
B. Pinch up early to try to get above the other boats line. Probably not a good idea unless match racing because of the loss of speed/vmg.

The game has not changed ... what the rule changes tried to do was remove the need for collisions as the means to prove your point. They also did not want to go so far as putting protective bumpers around Yachts as in the Vanderbilt days.

Matt made this point.


This statement was made under a system where ONUS was assigned. The person that tacked had to make the iron clad case that he provided room and opportunity.

So.. Port would walk in and say... Had no choice...of course I hit him.. had no choice.

Now this fellow would have to provide some testimony as to where he was, what he did and what happened to make hitting B unavoidable. The boat tacking still must provide evidence that he DID provide room and opportunity... just as in the good ol days.

I think the balance is appropriate.

A couple of points ... In all of these tacking/jibing to acquire ROW... The boat that initiates the action CAN'T create a puzzle for the other boats that requires a single solution to avoid a collision!

Many people now agree that Artemis tacked to close to allow Baron to bear off and duck. BUT... they now argue that Baron Could have and SHOULD have tacked..
Had they tacked... No foul.. no collision. So... you should still flick Baron..

Of course you can't know how this would work out... BUT... the rules don't allow you to put Baron in this box with ONLY one way out. He has to be able to duck or tack in a seamanlike manner.

Had Artemis been further ahead... Barron could have ducked or tacked and that is the fair way to play the game. You can't force the boat to solve your puzzle to escape the box you put him in..

Second point. The natural tendency is to look at the "leading" boat and say... they earned that spot.. they are winning.. they are entitled to certain advantages over the guys they are beating. As a NA Lightning champ and now cat sailor explained at a clinic... The course is dynamic, a wind shift will instantly change leading and trailing. The nature of the rules when a tack/jibe or rounding is involved will dominate the leading/trailing judgment. Winning is determined at the finish line.

Finally, I think people read statements like Port need not anticipate when the Tacker will be on his new course and then have to take seamanlike actions to keep clear misunderstand what anticipate means.

Of course they anticipate the options they will have available a few seconds in the future. ... BUT... they don't have to actually change course (ie anticipate)... until the rule says... The CREW has to be seamanlike in getting the boat ready to change course as needed... The boat initiating the tack or jibe has to factor in the type of boat and the reasonable seamanlike actions that the boat can actually do.

In a way, Tad is right. You don't HAVE to read the rule book, just sail really, really fast and stay in front, or prepare to go around everyone else at every boat-on-boat situation. That should keep you out of the room...


Just a few points to (hopefully) clarify some other things:

A definition:

Mark-Room: Room for a boat to sail to the mark, and then room to sail her proper course while at the mark. However, mark-room does not include room to tack unless the boat is overlapped to windward and on the inside of the boat required to give mark-room.

My opinion is that A broke the second half of the Mark Room definition, as well as Rule 13 (tacking too close).

That might help clear up some of the recent posts here about the lead boat having impunity.


As for anticipation, that is another concept that causes lots of discussion.

First, can someone show me where the word "anticipate" exists in the RRS? I did a search and did not find it.

So, while no rule requires you to anticipate, common sense (and good seamanship, as Mark mentions) requires you to do so.

Conversely, there is no rule that says you do not have to anticipate. I think some people over-read Rule 14, and it is often discussed at seminars. Here is Rule 14:

14 AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room
(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and
(b) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage or injury.

My take-away is this:
--If you are ROW, you need to anticipate and be ready to maneuver promptly, but do not have to start your maneuver until the other boat creates the problem.
--If he creates the problem at a point that you can no longer avoid him, he has broken a rule.
--However, any time there is damage, you run the risk of a PC tossing the ROW boat too.

I think people have a tendency to replace the words "act to avoid contact" with "anticipate" which is really bad in practice.

Hope this helps.

Mike

The rules don't prevent you from sailing into an untenable position.

The rules don't define "avoiding action". Nor do they stipulate how a boat must choose which actions to take. Check the definition of "keep clear", as well as ISAF Case 50 for clarification.

The argument that Artemis kept clear because Groupe Edmond could have waited for Artemis to complete her tack, and then have room to tack (in a seamanlike way) herself is a real stretch here. I don't believe it would prevail in a protest hearing. All GE has to say is that she had a reasonable and genuine apprehension of collision (validated because she could not avoid contact despite having taking prompt action), and that her snap decision was that a crash-tack was too risky so she attempted a bear-away.

Actually, RRS 18.2(e) implicitly requires an outside boat to anticipate the mark-room needs of an inside boat. That, however, is a different discussion.

Perhaps we're getting bogged down in the semantics of the word "anticipate". Of course, one should attempt to forsee upcoming encounters and plan ahead. Rule 14(a), however, makes it quite clear that "...a right-of-way boat or one entitiled to room or mark-room need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room...". ISAF Case 27 also explicitly states "a boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule".

In fact, ISAF Case 27 is a very close match to what happened between Artemis and Groupe Edmond. I encourage everyone here to look it up. It involves a port-tack boat that tacked onto starboard inside the zone in front of an oncoming port-tack boat. The only difference is that Groupe Edmond tried to avoid contact but the boat in the case did not. The case concludes "...while it was obvious that AS would have to tack to round the mark, BP was under no obligation to anticipate that AS would break rule 15, or indeed any other rule".

I agree. Let's talk in terms of "act" and "react". When, for example, a right-of-way boat changes course (acts), a keep-clear boat must react promptly, and in a seamanlike way. The keep-clear boat is not required to react before the right-of-way boat acts, regardless of what she may anticipate.

Regards,
Eric

Matt, this is EXACTLY the type of post that has turned this into a 10-page discussion, filled with red herrings. These two boats were the leaders in the fleet, there were NO boats coming in on starboard. If there were starboard boats, that would be a different situation; and other rules, obligations and options would need to be considered, but that is NOT the situation here.


Eric, we're on the same page, I don't see a real need to break down my post, it was really just in response to the prior posts about PCs stating that a boat should anticipate the actions of another boat.

It's ALL about semantics in this thread. My point was, that while the word "anticipate" doesn't appear in the rule book, it is still likely to be discussed (and have merit) in a protest.

Mike

There is a HUGE control disparity between tacking and ducking with the Extreme 40s. It was too risky to bear-away. Most footage that I have seen, confirms that they tack on a dime and are beast when bearing away and thus the question was "room" required to either direction.... I don't think so.

The phemonena is similar to when first learning to fly the chute on a beachcat but in the inverse way. Most instictively headed-up not bore away when the chute heated up. We are applying our own beachcat experiences that are not typical of the Extreme 40s. I don't believe GE had a choice, he needed to tack but it would have been iffy to make the mark so he tried to duck expecting A to be out of the way in time. Most beachcats duck without loosing control, rudders are more in proportion to the boat and the main can be unsheeted in an instant. Accordingly, we think that ducking was a safe option..not on an Extreme 40. It's a whole paradigm shift, just like when first learning to fly the chute.

Could Groupe Edmond have tacked safely? Maybe.
If GE had tacked, would she have avoided contact with Artemis? Maybe.
If GE had tacked and avoided contact, would A have broken all the same rules? Other than rule 14 (Avoiding Contact), Yes.
Would GE have broken any rules? No.
Would the outcome of the protest hearing been any different? No.

There no red herrings here, but you are building a strawman argument.

This is not a business meeting of USS. There is no published agenda to adhere to nor is it an ad hoc discussion. Why are you trying to regulate it?

No agenda, no formality. Was just trying to keep the discussion on topic, because the tangents were getting nuts, including people suggesting rule changes.

Two boats came in, alone, on port. We don't need to start asking for rule changes because starboard boats might have been there, in another universe, at another time. There are already enough rules to handle that scenario anyway.

Mike

I've lookat this a lot and my view is that they did not have cat sailors on the jury and so did not ask some crucial questions....

1, Sp; you chose to Duck, whay was that
-> Expected answer / reading between the lines - it was the tactical option
2, Why was the jib eased early, before the rudders had gripped and the bear off started
-> Opps we fecked up; cats don't work like that
3, Why did you not dump the traveller quickly; you know these bats do not bear off well
-> Opps we fecked up
4, Why did you not dump more mainsail when attempting to bear off
-> Opps we fecked up
5, Why did you not tack as these boats are difficult to bear off
-> as stated the tactical opt..... Opps we fecked up....

The esecond they chose to bear off they were in trouble; maybe because they are not as "auto experienced" as some cat sailors KNOWING that you dump the main and start to bear off and once the rudders have gripped you dump the jib; maybe they were too dialied into the tactical options and made a bad call.

IF the rudders had not stalled they would have avoided them; if they had tacked they would have avoided them. IF they has sailed the boat properly they would ahve avoided them.

What latitude does a class have to amend the RRS within the class?

None.... but you could always try to learn the ones the rest of us use.

I've pondered that myself. I do believe that it was possible to execute that duck manuever and avoid Artemis if it was carried out more precisely...but, then I fall back to why do all these "ifs" come into play in the first place? Artemis made an "iffy" move and it appeared to me that the other boat made an honest effort to avoid them...and this is really what it boils down to. Not only is enough evidence not usually available but Juries will often lack the experience to say whether or not the steps to avoid the indecent were precise - now you get into grading the ability of someone to sail their boat. The decision has to stay simple; i.e....did they make an honest effort to avoid the collision?

They sure did have that protest flag ready though...wink wink.

Sections 86-88 discuss Changes to The Racing Rules

Thanks Kris. A quick look tells me we can do pretty much whatever we want.

Did you miss these Pete?

86.1c Class rules may change only racing rules 41,49,50,51,52,53,and 54.

86.1a places limits on what a "National Authority" may change. I would suggest more than a "quick glance"

Open an account over at http://www.sailx.com/, do some races and file some protests.
It is by far the best way to learn about the rules, rules dont just apply when something goes wrong, they always apply even if might not realise it.

From SA.
Artemis might have been ahead, but GE/Rothschild was in the tactically controlling position. Essentially being pinned by GE/Rothschild, Artemis really only had three options (without breaking the rules):

Pinch/luff hard and try to force GE/Rothschild to start ducking them (GE/Rothschild cannot go inside within the zone) [In hindsight this was probably the preferred option];

Wait for GE/Rothschild to tack before tacking themselves and follow them around the mark (from above the layline); or

Bear away before tacking and again follow GE/Rothschild's around the mark (from behind).

Instead they went for 4. (tack anyway) and, as a result, fouled GE/Rothschild.

The would of... could of... should of (tack or execute the duck flawlessly) of GE ARE MISSING THE POINT....

Art was leading but not winning... If you think you have wiggle room in this situation ....you will naturally push the line. They did and lost...

Tackers Don't have wiggle room.... Tackers have to KNOW they are not going to foul before they tack.
This is a simple rule. ... The language describing it can't be simpler either.

Debating the... would of, could of and should have of GE tend to take the spot light off of Art.

Not flagging racers who do this, (often unknowingly based on the reaction to this thread) and get away with it muddies the bright line and will lead to bad collisions.

How do you interpret 86.1b?

(b) Sailing instructions may change a racing rule, but not rule 76.1, Appendix F, or a rule listed in rule 86.1(a). However, the sailing
instructions may change to ‘two’ or ‘four’ the number of
hull lengths determining the zone around marks, provided that
the number is the same for all marks and all boats using those
marks. If the sailing instructions change a rule or that definition,
they shall refer specifically to the rule or definition and
state the change.

Kris..
Nobody can change part 1 and 2.. (everything discussed here)
The NA can change some things.
The OA can change fewer things
The Class can change even fewer things.

Nobody is changing the game of sailing.... It's like changing baseball on deciding that you run the bases ... third to second to first to home. That is not baseball

ps... have your judge check your F16 NOR/SI's.

86.1a prohibits change to Definitions; a rule in the Introduction; Sportsmanship and the Rules; Parts 1, 2, or 7; Rule 42, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76.2, 79, or 80; a rule of an appendix that changes one of these rules; Appendix H or N; or ISAF Regulation 19, 20, 21, or 22.

All of this qualified by 86.1 A racing rule shall not be changed unless permitted in the rule itself or as follows:

Got it. Thanks Kevin.

I hate it when rules refer back to their own sections that refer to other sections.....Should have drunk my coffee first LOL.

Not having been present, I have no way of knowing for sure what was said or not said in the protest hearing. However, I'm sure both teams have members who are just as knowledgeable about the rules as any of us. If Artemis thought such questions were important, they'd have been foolish not to ask them. It's also a mistake to assume that the jury is not familiar with the boats. The US Sailing Judges Manual states (in section 3.3 - Composition of a Protest Committee): "Every PC member should be qualified as to rules knowledge, racing and race management experience and personal characteristics. ... An ideal PC will have one member who is particularly familiar with the type of boat being raced...". US Sailing and ISAF are very sensitive to this need. They've gone so far as to stipulate that at certain level events, at least one of the jury members be an active racer familiar with the boats. I've had to fill out racing experience questionaires. Given the nature of this event, I'd be very surprised if the jury wasn't quite knowledgable about Extreme 40 boathandling.

Regards,
Eric

Mark,

Well said.

Regards,
Eric

That is an ad hominem fallacy, as you well know.

I don't know Pete. Your statement "Thanks Kris. A quick look tells me we can do pretty much whatever we want." points up your lack of understanding of the rules. There is actually little you can do. Mark's comment might sting, but appears to be accurate, at least in this instance. An ad hominem attack involves truths or untruths that are aimed at the individual but irrelevant to the topic at hand. Suggesting you learn the rules that the rest of us use is completely relevant.

I'm satisfied with my understanding of the rules. I've never hit anyone and never been protested, iirc. Do I engage in "gamesmanship" occassionally? Yes.

Have I been blatantly fouled by sailors who should have known better? ABSOLUTELY! And there are is at least one witness who posts here daily.

I have a concern about the current rules and I've identified a simple remedy. I have passed along both to an officer of my class. Will any action be taken? I've no idea but I'm satisified I've done my part in making sailing a little better.

My objection to the ad hominem fallacy stands. We'd have been better off without it.

Isn't that what GE did? Even while they were the stand-on boat?
They tried to duck a boat that recognized its own burdened position and therefore slowed down to let GE pass clear ahead. They tacked and then waited to accelerate? Don't you hate it when a starboard boat unsure of the rules bears off to duck you as you bear off to duck them?

Yeah, I know you were being ironical.

Let's get back to the event for a second.

Their mains were reefed! To me, that equals trying to keep the boat under control of the skip/crew in the conditons.

Perhaps Art. should have also considered that before tacking relativley close to G. If they were going slower, no reef, etc., Less room in needed.

If this was brought up already, SIA.

-Todd B.

This is your suggested change to the rules? This isn't a case of a crazy coming in on port against a starboard tacker, it is about whether A tacked too close or not. What if this incident had occurred in the middle of the course? If I am leeward boat (on the same tack) and you plan to tack accross my bow, you'd better make sure you can make it without fouling me. If we are both on starboard and you're tacking to port, you gotta stay clear of my path. If we are both on port and you tack to starboard, you gotta give me "room and opportunity." That is all this is about. A had GE pinned on port tack until an opportunity for GE to tack into the clear becomes available.

I haven't suggested any rules changes. Whatever conversations I've had within my class are private.

"If I am leeward boat (on the same tack) and you plan to tack accross my bow, you'd better make sure you can make it without fouling me. " Or what?

I was simply going to ignore this... BUT

Pete... your lack of knowledge about the rules of the game are now legend...
Why?... not because you are new to the racing game... EVERYONE here would patiently explain the rule, the principals, the responsibilities involved, the sailing options and tactics that work in the situation, and answer all of your questions.

We even get that a new racer may not completely comprehend a new situation even after studying the rules a bit.

However, Time after Time you simply demonstrate Sheer IGNORANCE.. Followed up with the ARROGANCE that we should change over 100 years of history with the RRS .





Learn the damn rules or don't play the game.

You make these SNARKY comments, of well.... I will acknowledge Eric's judgement on the matter.... BUT.....

Now... you have gone beyond ignorant and arrogant into the blithering A hole status.

It's YOUR responsibility to RACE YOUR BOAT under the RRS. It has NOTHING to do with Eric's opinions.. It's your responsibility to understand the game... He has patiently tried to get you up to speed.



Oh for god's sake.... GE was WINDWARD on the same tack...



I rest my case

Guess I assumed that was the "remedy" you suggested...no wait, I didn't assume, you really DID suggest it. Maybe you've come up with something else since then that no one outside the class is privy to. As for the "or what?" Either I'll avoid you and protest if I'm on starboard, avoid you and sail on if I'm on port, or I won't be able to avoid you, there will be a collision, followed by a protest. Either way, foul me and I'll see you in the room. Don't take it personally Pete, just trying to clarify rights and responsiblities. I didn't actually mean "you and me."

You're right Mark, I misspoke. What I ahould have said was "if you are clear ahead and plan to tack in front of me, you'd better make sure you can make it (without fouling me).

I go to some length to avoid fouls, that's how I've managed to stay out of the room. I don't think I've ever been protested so my screw ups must have been relatively minor. I generally test whatever new "theory" I have in light air, so that helps!

You mentioned baseball. They're still using leather balls and wooden bats. I'm not a fan so I couldn't say whether that's good or bad. I am glad I don't have to deal with cotton sails, so put me down on the side favoring innovation and.....change.

Have a nice day Mark.

wait... if I'm leeward, how is the windward boat going to tack across my bow? I'm having a hard time picturing that...

u r s--l-o-o-w. We covered that already, typo. sorta.

reading isn't my strong suit, Pete. Whining is

winning !!! oh.. nevermind

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/14451827.stm