Rules Question - two boats, starboard, overlapped...a-mark.

We haven't had a decent rules discussion on here in while and I haven't had a chance to investigate this myself. I had a scenario racing monohulls this weekend and I'm not sure what rights we had....looking for (intelligent) input.

Light air race, 1st beat to weather, two boats are approaching A-mark. Prior to reaching the zone at the mark, Boat A (me), on port, was very close to crossing in front of boat B, on starboard, (a slightly faster - similar size boat). We were both clearly outside of the zone. Instead of risking the close cross, we cleanly tacked from port to starboard and leebowed Boat B intending to round A mark in this position. We were overlapped as we both entered the zone on starboard. However, a slight wind shift meant neither boat could lay the mark without a tack - again, both of us are on starboard and we were overlapped inside boat B and neither of us are able to fetch the mark on this tack.

As we approached the mark, we found ourselves hoping that boat B would tack away early leaving us room but this didn't happen and we eventually found ourselves with our bow under A-mark as boat B finally tacked away. We had to bear away, gybe, come back to close hauled, run for a short bit on port, and then tack back for A (naturally, after letting some traffic by that was coming in on starboard).

What should we have done in this scenario to minimize the damage? Did we have any options to request room from boat B to tack onto port to reach A-mark? I do believe that boat B did sail a proper course - they certainly didn't HAVE to tack earlier for any other reason.

No help from the rules, it was a slow down and win scenario. You should have taken his stern.

perhaps, although if I were boat B and saw that, I'd park, too, as long as I had maneuvering speed...

Until a rule expert shows a different strategy, I'd say boat B sailed that pretty smart...

So, Jake, boat A couldn't drive off /gybe before overstanding the mark? Or were you just hoping B would tack away earlier?

That's a good one!

Sure, we could have. By the time we realized we were not going to fetch the mark, we may have better served to peel off at that time and gybe around - or parking the boat, letting him go by, and then tacking. We were just hoping he would tack away - but that was probably a bit naive. The traffic behind, though, wasn't going to make either one of those options pleasant.

Pete, the 20/20 hindsight maneuver would have been to duck him and tack safely on the layline and have starboard, non-tacking, rights on a boat that needed to tack inside the zone - but at the time we made the lee bow maneuver, we could lay the mark and round with inside rights - until the wind shifted.

And that was a winning move... BUT Sailing is Sailing..

The other boat was slightly ahead of you... so you made an agressive move to win.

What did the traffic look like behind you... were you going to find a hole.... or were you going to be screwed no matter what....??

Mind you... everyone else got the knock.... and some would have had to tack for the new lay line as well.

Equally interesting is that you were in a monohull.... your judgement would be different were you on a cat... (luff and tack... or jibe and tack) Switching tactical gears in you head like that just seconds from the 3 bl circle .... tough!

What happened before reaching the zone (the lee-bow) would only matter if rule 17 came into play (which it didn't) What is more important is that the boats were both on starboard tack, overlapped at the zone of a mark that was to be passed to port.

Rule 18 does apply, as none of the exceptions in the preamble or rule 18.1 are met. Therefore, the outside boat (O) is required to give the inside boat (I) mark-room.

If you look at the definition of mark-room, however, you'll see that it says "...mark-room for a boat does not include room to tack unless she is overlapped inside of and to windward of the boat required to give mark-room...". Because boat I was overlapped to leeward of boat O rather than to windward of her, boat O is not required to give boat I room to tack.

Boat I could have gone head-to-wind in an attempt to shoot the mark, or to encourage boat O to tack, and boat O would need to keep clear. Boat O is not under any requirement, however, to let boat I tack.

From the description given, it sounds like boat I sailed into a bad position (albeit by a windshift) and boat O closed the door on her cleanly.

I hope that helps,
Eric

The traffic actually wasn't bad - we could have easily taken his stern and tacked for A without worrying about anyone else had we thought that was the best course of action at the time - we were a gnat's butt from being able to cross him and had positioned ourselves to do it. He was starting to luff up as we got near him. With it being light, I really didn't have a good feel for how much the boat momentum would carry him. I got nervous so I called off the cross. We were pretty much left with the choices to do a hard bear away (probably not a good idea in that light stuff) or go for the lee bow.

If we were a little more decisive with our maneuver, we probably could have bailed out and gotten behind him for the mark without impeding another boat. As it was, however, we waited until it was too late and lost another boat in the process.

With regards to sailing a monohull, I'm thinking about getting more involved in our local racing scene...the luffing/momentum thing was different, but man, there was SOOOO much time to think about the tactics in light air close quarters and you can still maneuver - it's very different. and I really enjoy crewing - it was a lot of fun. We had a pretty good results too.

The other option would have been to tack to starboard as soon as you realized it was going to be a close crossing situation. By tacking early, you would have given yourself clear air and the opportunity to play the shifts. In this particular case, since the wind went left, tacking early would have given you the advantage since you would have been farther left than your opponent when the wind went left.
It sounds like you may have been trying to get out to the starboard layline too early. In monohull racing, you're often better staying away from the laylines for as long as possible in order to be able to take advantage of wind shifts.

sm

I've read the '09-'12 rules and it seems to me that we were just sunk. I don't think boat B owed us anything. The Mark Room rights gained by entering the zone with overlap looks like it evaporates when either one of us tacks. Then it becomes room and opportunity to tack (which we wouldn't be able to give since we were so close) and port / starboard. His proper course was to tack for A-mark but him tacking just short of the mark is a reasonable "proper course" expectation. I think we should have started working on an exit at the point we realized we weren't going to make the mark.

Could we have luffed him into oblivion before we reached A and make him uncomfortable to the point that he would have to tack? It may have taken us both down by letting the traffic behind catch us AT the mark - so probably not a maneuver I would have tried in that instance...but it may be a thought. Can I tack under and inside another boat and proceed to luff him inside the zone since neither of us are fetching the mark? I can't say that this has ever been a real possibility on a cat because you usually get rolled right away when you tack under someone.

We were maybe 10 to 20 feet from the zone around the mark when we tacked to starboard and entered the zone shortly after engaging the lee bow - I wouldn't say we tried to lay the line too early. It was lake sailing at its best. It would not had made sense to tack earlier and intentionally just short of the layline.

After the wind shift... How long did you have to salvage the situation... ie before you got to the port lay line and all hope for him to tack had turned to despair and you had to jibe around..

Could you have escaped without giving up the boat behind you by luffing and then tacking astern of him ... hopefully for a hole.....

Even so... it soundsl ike a luff and tack would have saved you a bit of time... on handicap

hard to say - 1+ to 2 minutes from tacking into the leebow and reaching the mark/point of no return...maybe?

It is amazing how Hope can freeze your decision making process.

At best... you could have followed him around the mark... at worst, you lost a few boats.

I can just see a Stuart Walker stem winder piece explaining what HE would have done in the two minutes....but did not do...

Eric, thanks - I had missed your post. That confirms what we thought was the case (and how we acted to keep clear of the other boat). Basically, we put ourselves in a hero-or-zero position and probably should have reacted sooner to minimize the impact from the zero position we found ourselves in.

If stuck in the same situation in the future, I would probably fall off sharply to get enough separation to tack under his stern. He would probably follow suit and blanket us by tacking with us to port and then I wait for him to tack back for A with us falling in line on starboard and behind....which is better than losing position to a 3rd boat.

I've screwed that situation up so many times I automatically opt for going below if there is any doubt whatsoever.

Could you not have luffed him up forcing him to tack?

I see this a lot in protests, usually at kids regattas, where a port boat will insist that they were "ahead" because they "almost" had enough room to cross. They often miss the fact that they're a tack behind, at best, even if they make the cross.

Fortunately, at least you didn't have that misconception.

Mike

Tony, Yes... he could have luffed to head to wind (time and opportunity allowed)... but he was hoping the other guy would let him out of the box with a more favorable outcome for him. Hope springs eternal in that situation... (don't ask me how I know)...

Jake ... would a slow luff to head to wind (giving room and opportunity as you approached the port layine have encouraged him to go a bit early? and get you both through the traffic? (You are not sailing cats after all.... so this kind of move could work)

Possibly - I'm still a little unclear if I had rights to luff him...I think I did...any thoughts?

"Luffing rights" (a term I dislike) are controlled by rule 17. It says "If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above her proper course..."

Here is where the lee-bow part of the story becomes important. While the boats were beating to windward on opposite tacks, they were not overlapped (see the definition of overlap). When the port boat passed head-to-wind, she was either ahead of or overlapped with the starboard boat. The pivotal point is that boat I (inside) did not establish overlap with boat O (outside) from clear astern. Therefore, rule 17 does not apply and Boat I may sail abover her proper course.

In short, as long as she gives boat O room to keep clear (see rule 16.1), Boat I may luff up to head-to-wind at any time. She could have done so before or after reaching the zone. It's a legitimate tactic to persuade the windward boat to tack away.

I hoope that helps,
Eric

It does - thank you.

So.... does anybody have any secret on how to do this move in a cat...
the luff going head to wind must be slow enough to give the boat on your hip time to respond... but.. I usually stall out... meanwhile... the other boat is prepared to tack and just tacks smoothly and walks away..

In catamarans in light air, it's much better to overstand slightly than to short tack at the mark. So - don't get into this position. Port tack boat ducks stbd's stern, goes a boatlength or two, then tacks. Now they're on stbd's hip and in a controlling position.

If you end up in that position, the last thing you want to do is stall out. Slow down, let the weather boat roll you, then tack.

In catamarans, it's almost impossible to force someone on your hip to tack - as long as your boatspeed / pointing angle is comparable. Obviously, if you can point higher (and still keep up speed), then point until they get sucked into your bad air. But that takes a while.

This has gotten long and perhaps someone has suggested this idea....

Just cross his bow and burn him.

Go back to your original story - you are on port but can't clear the starboard boat without "fouling" him. Why not go ahead and cross his bow? You hold your course for the time it takes for him to make the protest and you sail on long enough to get back to windward of the layline. Now do your 360 penalty turn (very quick in a monohull) above the layline.

This seems faster than what you did, "We had to bear away, gybe, come back to close hauled, run for a short bit on port, and then tack back for A (naturally, after letting some traffic by that was coming in on starboard)."

Better yet, since you're right at the mark anyway, tack back onto starboard and wait until after you clear the mark to do your turn. If you wait until you round the mark (as lead boat) before doing your penalty turn you could sail above the mark and do you're turn in clear air, clear of traffic, and you'll foul the air of any traffic as they round and head down and try to launch spins. However, since you were first around the mark you might only lose the one place to the boat you fouled as you do your 360.

Sure, my way is a foul but my way took FAR less time than yours. Racing is to win, not to lose. Doing a penalty turn is playing by the rules, too. Saying you're sorry is better than saying congratulations.

OK, my flame suit on.

I suppose, it isn't what I would do.

David, I'm sure one of the judges will reply shortly, but I can think of at least 3 rules you break with that mindset. Rule 2 is one of them.

Since you're wearing the flame suit... I hope you travel with a lot of rum, although it is unlikely you'd have anyone wanting to hang out and drink it with you if this is your normal approach to racing.

Mike

Not long ago we had a boat destroyed because of that mentality.

The port tacker refused to give way, the starboard tacker hit him. Port was dsq'd starboard was written off as a total loss.

Interesting thought - but that direct approach crosses an ethical line that I prefer not to cross for good sportsmanship...i.e., knowingly foul the other boat. However, if I'm looking at that again and I'm 50/50 on whether or not we can make it, I might just weigh the consequences resulting from each option a little harder.

Also keep in mind, the penalty turn in monohulls is usually a 720 degree turn.

Take another look at rule 44.1, "Taking a Penalty", specifically rule 44.1(b), which says "if the boat... despite taking a penalty, gained a significant advantage in the race or series by her breach her penalty shall be to retire". If the advantage you get by breaking rule 10 "On Opposite Tacks" is insignificant, why do it? If it is significant, then the turns don't exonerate you - you must retire.

Also, reread rule 44.2 "One-Turn and Two-Turns Penalties". It starts "After getting well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible...". You cannot wait until it is convenient to take a one or two-turn penalty. You must do it right away.

And, Jake is right, the penalty for a breach of a rule of Part 2 "When Boats Meet" is usually two turns, not one. It may be customary for the SI's to change this penalty to one turn for catamarans, but if they don't, even cats must do two.

I hope that helps,
Eric

Thanks Eric. 44.1 and 44.2 were the ones I was also thinking of, for those exact reasons.

While rule 10 is obvious, I often go right to 44.1, 44.2 and 2 when people describe these workarounds for putting themselves into such "tactically challenged" positions.

The blood really boils when the excuse is: "I would have had to duck the whole fleet!" Yes, because you chose to put yourself there...

Keep in mind, I love coming in on suicide port. I just don't whine, or especially intentionally foul others, when it doesn't work out.

Mike

Jake was 50-50 whether he could make it. With only fleeting seconds to decide he considered whether he could make it at all. If he had a little more time (which he probably did not) he might have gone a step further and weighed the consequences of crossing Starboard's bow and failing. My contention was that it was worth the risk. The failed attempt left him in a better condition than tacking away, jibing, ducking the fleet, and sucking hind tit.

What if he crossed and crossed cleanly? He'd be in first, justifying the risk cuz that's how God planned it all along! Risk and reward. Sail fast, take chances, safety third. Nice guys finish last. Second place is "first loser". Racing has lots of such sayings that I did not originate. Watch NASCAR. Do you see any nice guys out there winning races? "Excuse me, ma'am, why don't you go on in front of me?" I don't think so. Winners make hard decisions to win, you all know that.

I thought it's 720 only if you make contact. I never suggested risking contact, only that if you're at 50-50 you should roll the dice to get the clean cross but plan for a negative outcome. Winners want the ball and go for it every chance they get. No matter how it comes out, aggressive intimidation wears down the opposition.

Clearly, you don't get it.

Read the rules again. This isn't NASCAR.

Colorful metaphors aside, if you're in the position of ducking the whole fleet coming across on starboard, it's because they followed the rules, planned and sailed better than you to get there.

A 50/50 chance to cross the lead starboard boat in a pack of 10 means you're in 11th place.

It's not about being nice, it's about following the rules.

Mike

Dave,
What wild hair got up your A$$? I know you better than this so I have to assume you are being sarcastic.
Jeff

If you're not sure whether or not you can cross, then clearly you ARE risking contact.




Might be an acceptable tactic for someone persuing an olympic career or a go at the Americas Cup. For the majority of us who like to actually socialize with or at the very least, remain on amicable terms with our competitors after a race, probably not a very good approach. Either way, I hope you carry decent insurance if you plan to race with this mindset.

sm

Actually No.... the insurance is NOT an adequate justification. Insurance covers his dumb a%% for mistakes and accidents. Willful disregard for the col regs gets the police involved.

As for the sport...
The damage this attitude does to the sport and all of the other competitors on the course is NOT covered by HIS insurance premium or his registration fee. I don't care whether he covers his financial butt with insurance. This is just a cop out... (you take insurance to cover YOUR butt... not the guy you foul)

The prescriptions that we all agree to when we register demand that you are RESPONSIBLE... The game is self policed.
There is no mention of insurance or liability.. JUST responsibility ...

If his actions on the water come close to matching his words.... he should be disciplined by the sport (US Sailing)

His insurance company would have reason to deny coverage and make him take them to court to get his liability and property covered.

The victim's insurance company has no reason to cut a deal... and he has given all personal injury lawyers a free shot at his assets and probably drag the host YC into the fiasco as well.

Not having a clue who this guy is... I hope that he was trying to make a point and his attempt at "sarcasm" as orphan notes just failed.

Wait wait wait...hold on a minute. There are a lot of variables and a lot of unknowns. You don't go into every crossing with 100% certainty that you will make it but you have to weigh consequences of making it or not - is it windy? Is there a chance I could not only foul the guy but cause damage? Am I 90% that I'll make it or am I 30% sure I'll make it? If it weren't for these kinds of decisions, racing wouldn't be exciting.

In the situation I site, we probably would have crossed the guy clean but there was some doubt if we would make it clean - it's not like I would aim at his mast and not deviate course.

Now, that said, it is wrong to approach this situation with certainty that you cannot clear the cross no matter what the variables are. It is, however, OK to approach the situations and weigh the risk/reward and decide to try for the cross even if you are only 70% sure you'll make it.

Do you really think 70% is acceptable? Sailing is not a contact sport(OK college sailing may be, but not for the rest of us). To me the only acceptable time to cross is if you know you can make it. The risk is not to your boat but the boat you are crossing. Personnaly I would like to see the rules changed to an auto DSQ(without the option to use it as a throwout) if there is contact and you are at fault. If damage to the other boat a possible regatta DSQ. Lets get back to sailing skills not sailing risks.

Per RRS 41.1(b), "if the boat caused injury or serious damage... her penalty shall be to retire". Therefore, if a boat breaks a rule and somone gets injured or a boat sustains serious damage, then either she retires, or gets disqualified by protest committee (assuming a protest).

If a boat wilfully breaks a rule, then she break rule 2 "Fair Sailing". Per RRS 2 "a disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat's series score.

If a competitor commits a gross breach of a rule, or sets out ahead of time to break a rule, then that (in my opinion) constitutes "gross misconduct" (see RRS 69.1(a)). The penalty may be (per RRS 69.2(c)(2)) "...excluding the competitor and, when appropriate, disqualifying a boat from a race or the remaining races or all races of the series..."

So, the rules already have a sliding scale of penalties for rule infractions without contact (or with contact but no injury nor significant damage), infractions with injury or serious damage, infractions with bad sportsmanship, and incidents of gross misconduct.

I hope that helps,
Eric

70% acceptable? It depends on a lot of variables but in this case, probably.

But! I'm not talking about 70% might make it vs. 30% chance that I'm going to get hit/creamed. I'm talking about a 30% chance that he may have to maneuver to avoid me....besides, we were moving at the speed of mucus in this scenario.

And 50% chance you will end up in the protest room.

Not if I do my turn(s) and properly acknowledge that I fouled my opponent.

I'm not talking about willfully hitting someone or putting myself in position to get hit. You make risk/reward decisions in every race with every maneuver whether you recognize it or not. This is nothing different. You decide what to risk with how close you get to the start line, how far up you can luff at the start under another boat, how soon you can accelerate, how far to bear away to avoid another boat but lose as little distance up the course as possible, how far to little to ease the mainsheet coming around A mark to keep speed but not capsize...etc. etc. etc. As I said before:

To knowingly go into a situation where you WILL foul someone is WRONG.

To knowingly go into a situation where there is a reasonable risk that a boat will be damaged is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

To continue through a tight crossing that you have a chance to get through clean and without causing the other boat to take avoiding action is RACING.

+1

All the more so since in this case, taking the stern of starboard boat can be turned into a tactical advantage.

and virtually certain to be DSQd....
It's a port starboard for cris sake!....
You are so far over the line ... all you can count on is that Starboard forgets to hail protest.

remember... Starboard does not have to wait and measure the cross in millimeters... He takes action and hails protest and you fail. He is the ROW boat.

"I know I could have made it.. had he just held his course" is a Fail. He was starboard. he is the ROW boat.
"It was soooo slooow that damage would be non existent...and I thought I had it...." Fail
He has no interest in trusting your mental calculations... or your risk reward calculation... or your opinion on love taps .... He is starboard and has right of way. What Port thinks about the cross is irrelevant... Starboard has right of way and will Hail Protest when he judges that the line has been crossed... He will win. it's a port starboard and ROW is fundamental to the game.

Now... if you want to come back and say... well... in this fleet.... we give you (and we count on) the gentleman's wiggle... That is another conversation....(Jake is not making this argument) full of lots of problems.. Notice that the the top of the sport that the GPS systems of the AC45's have eliminated all of this crap... there is no question about the facts and so the racers adjusted and just go racing.... We don't have the gps gear... we have the rules to fall back on to make the game safe and competitive.

Once again... I think these rule discussion veer off into areas that are destructive to the game...
Starboard has ROW ... period.

Eric wears the Judge hat very well... He is not opining on your risk reward calculation.. So... please don't read how he determines and judges the facts and applies the rules as POSITIVE ADVICE...

When he goes racing ... he races as a competitor and not as a judge... He respects the intent of the RRS... Starboard has ROW. He sails clean and tries not to let his emotional attachment to making the cross on that SOB effect his judgment on the stick. But, I am sure he has been caught, like all of us, ...does his turn, AND then he resets the mental line for himself on these situations and races on.

Starboard has ROW.... ROW means A LOT in this game. Starboard makes the call.

Jake, the crossing is not being refereed... This is not the last play of the superbowl... there is no third party judge on the water... Starbord just has to have a reasonable doubt and he will and should call protest... The judgement you make is based on the physics and the mindset of the starbord boat. THIS is racing.

"To continue through a tight crossing that you have a chance to get through clean and without causing the other boat to take avoiding action is RACING".

70% is not a tight crossing. It is a 30% chance of getting the boat in the right in trouble. If I have a crossing boat I am not going to wait till the last minute to take action. I am going to take it as soon as I feel that may be a possibility that we will make contact. It may be something a little as easing the main or a slight course adjustment. I call protest and you say it was a liget cross. You going to do turns?
The problem here is the Cat mentality that we don't like to go to protest. So now I have to decide to let you get away with what you thought you had a 70% chance of doing or going to protest and wasting time.

My other option is to hold course and possibly take your rudders off.

Too far aft, midships, right at chain plate.

We will likely have this type of port tack infringement until starboard boats are relieved of all responsibilty to avoid a collision. Which is a rule change I would favor.

You guys need to take a breath. The boat on starboard is not going to be in trouble. He's not going to hit me and I'm not going to hit him. He might have to duck me slightly if my skipper wiggles the helm or somebody gets a non-favorable puff/shift, or an odd wave. I don't ever intentionally put myself the position where the other boat can't take avoiding action but if I think I have a reasonable chance to cross cleanly in an important crossing situation, I'm probably going to take it. This is tactics. It's racing 101. I do this often as does my competition to me. It's rare that I make a mistake on a crossing but it does happen from time to time.

I'm probably one of the top gentlemanly racers on the race course and have four or five thousand miles of racing under my belt. You can't call every cross with perfection. Some of them are close enough (AND BY CLOSE, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A COLLISION) but to clear without causing the other boat to maneuver differently. If I ended up wrong and the other guy had anything near a reasonable argument that he had to wiggle the helm to avoid, I'm taking my penalty. I'm sorry that you guys can't seem to understand this concept - but it's one that happens every regatta to nearly everyone at the front of the fleet.

Again, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HIT SOMEONE OR BE HIT TO HAVE UNDERTAKEN A RISKY CROSSING AND FAILED. Although I'm not planning on it ever, the starboard boat also has an obligation to avoid contact if possible. If I'm entering a situation where he might not be able to avoid contact, then I have really dorked the donky...we're not talking about this situation. I even take eye contact into account and factor this into how confident I am that they know I'm there when I'm weighing the situation.

I'm finding that I'm repeating myself here - so I'm done with this conversation unless you guys can find some other point you want to belabor.

Jake - I agree with you 100%!!!!!!!

Sounds to me like you don't want to sail by the rules and want special dispensation not to.

I've typed up several snarkey personal-attack style responses but I'm just going to let it go with this point:

There are very few things that you know with 100% certainty beyond our own mortality. You have to weigh the risks and rewards and make a decision in almost everything you do, not only on the race course, but through life in general. With regards to racing, if you choose to make all of your decisions based on a certainty level of 100%, you will always be late to the start, you will always sail too far into a bad shift, you will always have too much room between you and your competition, and you will always finish at the back of the fleet.

But you also know that starboard has right of way. Why argue the point and look for ways to evade the rule?

Most of the top racers that I know personally and read in their advice columns would judge your strategy as being foolish.

They advise me to sail cleanly and coach you to do the same... the RISK that you accept and argue for and feel is "racing" ... they find completely unacceptable to winning (and good sportsmanship).

I think it was Torben Grael who ranted that he really hated all the rule changes and really had not read up on them... Why... such a cavalier attitude?.... because he KNOWS that winning is about staying out of the room and managing risk on the race course. Risk does not involve ROW PS issues.

Orphan nailed it... Catamaran sailors SHOULD call protest and not give that little stick wiggle up... Jake apparently counts on it as part of his racing strategy.

Jake, I hear you and we've all had close crossings that we've misjudged.

However, the rules are crystal clear that if you blow the cross, do a circle and still end up ahead of boats you should have ducked, you're out.

Mike

Who in the hell is saying anything different besides my detractors? I totally agree. I've been in a protest room once since I started sailing 13 years ago and I initiated the protest. I understand rules. I understand risk management. I understand and hold myself to very high values of sportsmanship. If I foul someone or something, I pay my price due even if it was questionable. I am an engineer, math is kinda my thing. I look at a race course in percentages of risk and reward. Go left =45%, go right=55%. If I'm behind a guy and only have a 15% chance of passing him and a 64% chance that I won't get passed, I'll gamble the 10% of going left to try and get lucky. When I put a percentage on a crossing situation and its more than 50%, it's my nerdy way of saying "Jake's pretty sure he has this cleanly". If I got it wrong and fouled the starboard boat, I'm doing my turns pronto and we laugh about it later. I'm not sure where you guys get this idea that I'm a cheat.

I think David's post got me fired up. Mainly because I see it happen far too often.

Mike

Not trying to evade anything. If I think I have a 60% chance of making it - I have a better chance of crossing cleanly than not making it. I think you are getting caught up on my percentages. Consider, for instance, the phrase "50/50". This generally means it could go either way. If I determined that I had a 50/50 chance of clearing a boat on a cross, I have determined that I have an equal chance of making it as not making it. I probably wouldn't take that chance. 70% means that I have a very good chance of making it....I probably would go for it if the other consequences were low.

The thing is that you don't seem to understand is that this IS part of the rules. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for the rule. This is also the very commonly accepted way to race. I understand if someone really wants to get across my bow and they're close that they may go for it. If they don't make it, I steer down, hail "protest sucker" while grinning. As I mentioned in the other thread, this isn't some huge "HOLY ****!" event...it's not a big surprise and I don't consider this normal type of close crossing hazardous. I don't think I misjudge more than one, maybe two crosses a year...and I do a fair amount of racing and a lot of crossing. I get crossed a lot and my competition doesn't always make it clean. It's how it works. There hasn't been a protest or collision from any crossing event that I have been involved with in 10 years.

Who says you are a cheat...? The morality play is not appropriate and part of the general problem with protests in cat sailing.

You decided to write about pushing the ROW rule to the edge and arguing that it is part of the racing game. Your use of percentages ignores the fact that this is black and white rule, The way you write gives the impression that you believe this game is more like a refereed game where the ref's judgment is determinative. In your world, the starboard boat has some judgment to make about your possible foul... for example.. .. they could have given your more time to cross before calling foul.. You state that you give people a pass on their cross and the evidence that you are correct on this whole cross etiquette thing is that you don’t have any collisions or protests found against you. This is not an argument.

In your characterization of racing ... That 70% chance affords you that little bit of wiggle room that you get and that you use carefully as a cushion for your possible error is in your view ... part of racing and you are happy to risk needing that bit of room ...confident that starboard will give it to you to avoid a collision and hail protest (or not hail protest).... So, if you make it... great. Essentially you put the onus of sailing by the RRS on ROW sailing onto Starboard.

That is the fundamental problem.

The logic of sailboat racing and the RRS is constant... a PS cross is the same as a mark rounding... If you touch the mark .. you foul... you do the circle... ASAP. Nobody calls you on it... you self enforce. The onus of the rule is on you and you alone. The ROW rule is the same thing. If you foul... You self enforce! The onus of the rule is on you. It’s your responsibility to make the call on yourself...

The RRS are self enforced and if views differ…. STARBORD registers a PROTEST as a last resort… He doesn’t JUDGE it a foul (like a ref or a judge) … he calls YOUR ACTIONS into question with the hail…if there is any dispute… down the line… the Protest committee does the judging. There is no local etiquette in this game. There is no morality play either.

So... what is s a foul in a cross?
You call your own... The foul doesn't depend on whether the other guy hails protest... (just like touching a mark) The rest of the fleet is your competition as well.

Now... to keep the game civil... The RRS put the protest hail in... the competitors on the course have recourse if they see the world differently than you do. That mark touch by your transom or stick that you don’t see…. They can call protest. The ROW cross is your call but they can register their point of view…

The RRS try to make this point...Self Enforced.. You don't get to the room unless you meet the standard... Hail Protest in a timely fashion... Notice the language… the word is Protest…. Not foul…… … You have the same responsibility to call the foul (ROW violation) on your self before they said a word… Now after the hail Protest… you are reminded that opinions differ but the recourse is left completely up to you…The RRS are SELF ENFORCED.. or a Protest committee deals with it down the road.

With your view of the racing game you are avoiding the onus of making the call on your own and you leave the foul up to Orphan to decide.... and in your view you reserve the right to agree or disagree with Orphan’s opinion of the cross and do your circle or carry on to the protest room. That is not the RRS.
You argue... "This is also the very commonly accepted way to race"
Sadly, this is true… in cat racing.

But you can’t escape the logic of the RRS The rules are self enforceable... you should do your circle no matter what starboard says about the cross if you judge it a foul or too close… because the RRS about ROW are self enforceable.
As a matter of racing strategy.... the pro's tell you Don't push it…… In your terms… your call should be 100% cross or do something else.
As a matter of safety... the bright line of ROW is critical in how safety on the course is managed.

Obviously, I completely disagree with your mindset of using the percentages , it is a slippery slope which caused ORPHAN to do something other sail on starboard and be the ROW boat… (he has to judge your actions and avoid you) Take the approach of… I can cross… 100% sure and I call my own fouls when mistakes or circumstances happen and the game will be better.

Wow, I step away from my computer just long enough to earn a living and a $hit storm erupts. I guess I gave you guys something to do in winter (while we sail on in sunny Florida).

Thanks, Jake, for understanding my point exactly. I did not ever mean to even slightly risk a COLLISION, only accepting the risk of a protest.

Jake said,
"To continue through a tight crossing that you have a chance to get through clean and without causing the other boat to take avoiding action is RACING."

Exactly. Move the bar of a successful cross to 90% certainty you'll pass without a PROTEST. Is that enough to chance that the starboard boat will not have the ROW, that is, he's too far away to claim rights? How about 95% certainty...how about 99% sure you're clear? When do you gamble to get ahead?

Which one of you has NEVER run a "very" yellow light (not red, just yellow)? Did you risk death? Well, maybe, but you ALL have run a yellow and so you all risked DEATH, not just a DSQ. Ever have your wife squeal about your agressive driving? Her level of risk is different than yours.

My point is, when do you challange the odds to get ahead in a boat race (remove any serious chance of collision)? And do you plan not only IF you should cross, but do you carefully plan on what you'd do after if you do get protested?

" Essentially you put the onus of sailing by the RRS on ROW sailing onto Starboard.

That is the fundamental problem."

+1

Mark...stop, please. You're looking like a fool. If I say I'm 70% sure we can make this clean. It means I think I can make it without impeding starboard. It's not a morality play - it's a percentage play. Morality never even comes into question.

Please read this carefully so you understand what I mean: my 70/30 proposition does not mean "I think the only 70% of my boat is going to clear and the last 30% of my boat is going to get hit of starboard doesn't take avoiding action". Also note that I would never go into a crossing situation, while on port, with confidence that we could not clear cleanly. Please also note that if I misjudged I would ALWAYS err on the side of my fault and take the penalty turns.

Things are not black and white on the race course. In some tight crossings, you can't possibly KNOW for certain that you will make it because of the odd puff, wave, nerves, etc....I choose to grade my level of certainty and use that to make a judgement - that's how I think. I do this the right way. I don't get snarled at on the race course, my competition respects me, and hell, even Ding doesn't call me out on this...and he's crotchety on this stuff.

You've just stated, unequivicolly, you don't accept that starboard has right of way and you are willing to challenge that right of way.

Circumstances on the race course may not be black and white but this rule is.

Once again, you're building a case to evade the rule. What you're doing is a little like creative accounting to evade taxes. Of course you're willing to pay the penalty IF you get caught. How kind of you.

Show me where I stated this....even in a fuzzy manner, much less unequivocally. Starboard always has right of way in this situation. I'm only challenging the level of my own certainty upon which I can cross without fouling starboard.

If you go back and read my first post, you'll see that I elected to not make the cross because I was unsure that we would clear them. Later, our competitor said he thought we would have crossed clean.

I think you guys are confusing me with Dave who stated (and I paraphrase) "foul them, the turns penalty hurts less than the situation you ended up in". <---this wasn't me.

Anytime your certainty is less than 100% you're challenging the rule.

nope. Nothing is certain.


(I'm trying a new argument tactic with you - philosophical debates kept under 5 words each).

Jake don't fall into the Pete/Mark vortex unless of course it's a slow day at work and you're bored. You've made your point and your point and your point the rest of us get it, you'll never change the direction of Pete or Mark.

"the rest of us" That's a little grandiose.

The victim in the port/starboard encounter I've alluded to was considering violence for a time and there was talk of black listing the offender from the club.

Jake's attitude moves the onus of the rule from the port tack boat to the starboard tack boat. I doubt that has unanimous support.

Jake,
I hear what you are saying. But I think you have the percentages wrong. The way you explain it it sounds more like you are talking 98 percent sure you will make it and only 2 that you will not. And you are taking in considerations for speed wind angles other boats etc.
It really sounds like you only take the cross if you feel you have a really good chance(98%) on making or it you do not it will be without any real impact on the right of way boat.

The problem is how other sailors might interpret what you are saying.

Dave you are not only wrong buy way out in left field. The actions you are endorsing will get you or another boat in real trouble or someone really hurt.

It's a slow day.

Only you assert this position.


this five word thing is tough

50%+ = better than average chance clean.

Not quite, a similar opinion was offered last evening.

At least you're having fun.

Does a contraction count as one word or two?

It counts as one - and numbers/symbols don't count at all.

From the outside, it looks like there is several different conversations/discussions going on at the same time. some of the latest posts have nothing to do with the initial one. Somewhere a tangent evolved, albeit loosely, and I think several of you guys are on different pages.

Just sayin,

Huh.... using plain language you would say... I Can or I Can't cross.... no probablities matter here..

That is exactly how you set this situation up... You made a No GO decision.

You infered that I called you a cheater.... that is morality
I assert that your mindset and language violate the RRS.

OK... You keep saying two different things....
70/30 is risk that you will take and break the rule.. (not hit the last 30% of the boat.)
vs
100% that you will not break the rule.

The game requires the second standard. (standards are pass/fail)


Never a question that if you were at fault or challanged ... you would do your turns.

However... you ignore the principle of the rule... or simply don't accept it... (petes point)



I completely agree that the REALITY on the water can make your 100%... "I will cross Orphan" cleanly go sideways.

At that point... (Follows in time and as a consequence of your decision to cross) the rules require starbord to avoid collision and allow you to take a penalty turn.... HISTORICALLY.... you would have been DSQd from the race....

The RRS are set up so that you accept responsiblity to call your own on the PS ROW. and ROW is absolute.

These are absolute requirments and set the standard for behavior on the race course.

The mindset you use 70/30..... risk reward, collision or not... is simply a violation of the rules... falls below the standard... What you count on is the local etiquette of crossing ... However, the chronic low level violations day to day on the race course violoate the standard.

Orphan is being nice to you... the issue is more then language you are using.

Try this.
So... this is a call your own sport.... (we agree on this correct?)

If the penalty of a foul in a cross was DSQ for you .... AND you agree that you and you alone make the call on your possible foul of Starbord... on the water

How would you describe the descion making process?

This is the standard of the RRS... (Standards are pass fail)

"At that point... (Follows in time and as a consequence of your decision to cross) the rules require starbord to avoid collision and allow you to take a penalty turn.... HISTORICALLY.... you would have been DSQd from the race.... "

I'd like to see the historical rule reinstated.

Same. 30% weighs heavier on consequence.

I'd have to +1 to Jake for being a very nice dude to sail with/against. Good grasp of rules and not going to do anything really stupid (we'll let that sailing with the beach wheels thing go for this comment, but...)

I think I first got to know Jake at one of the races in the Keys. I think he did so many turns that weekend he was dizzy... I think we've all been there at some point. Alex schooled me a few times on some of the finer points of RRS

And I'm sure we've all made "questionable" crosses. Some worked, some involved crash-bear aways/ crash-tacks. I can't think of any in my limited sailing that involved collisions. And I REALLY can't think of any that involved INTENTIONAL damage... But I don't race professional.

I'm sure someone said before that it's probably the STB tacker's obligation to enforce the rules by noting a protest (NOT HITTING THE OFFENDER) and altering course to avoid collision.

[sarcasm] OMG! The unbelievable lack of ethics! [/sarcasm]

Balls of steel, and a program with a fat enough wallet to pay for it.

Still not legal, even in a small fleet.

Mike

Do what!? It's perfectly legal if they made it clean and nothing said there indicates otherwise.

So, are you now judging by perceived level or "confidence" of making it clean and NOT by the actual situation regarding whether they caused starboard to deviate course? Good luck with that! I don't want to be on your race course.

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone over here.

5 words or less Jake.

Twilight Zone happens here first (5)

Jake... the AC45s are USING ON THE WATER JUDGES and a modified rule set....very different game.

The sport we play under the RRS is very clear... Each Sailor calls the fouls on themselves.

It's perfectly legal makes no sense in the RRS game.

the rule is... HONOR the right of way of starboard... this leaves the judgement up to PORT..... did the reality of the cross meet his standard of HONOR the rights of starbord.

YOU can't escape your responsibility to make the call on your self and apply your understanding of the word HONOR.

As Starbord... I am not JUDGING anything.... All I get to do is PROTEST... So.. Yes...Sailors call protest when their "percieved level of confidence" drops.... But in the RRS game... it is still your call... you judge your own actions.

I started this, so I'm going to try and figure out why you think I'm doing something illegal. Whether there are on the water judges or not has no bearing on the rules in this case - I don't know why you would imply this. The rules are the rules. They still have the same port/starboard right of way rules. And, Ding, apparently I don't regard any rules, including my own.

I'm preparing to cross a starboard boat while I am on port, as I approach it, I determine that I have a 70% chance of making it - which means that I believe I can make the crossing clean. To provide reference for my 70% determination, had I determined I had a 50% chance, otherwise referred to as "50/50 chance", I consider that I have an equal chance of not making and an equal chance of making it - it could go either way...I probably wouldn't cross in this situation...but that's not what we're talking about. To reiterate, here I am, having determined that I have a 70% chance, better than average, likely to get through, chance of crossing clean... Two things happen:

Scenario 1) I make it clear and the starboard boat does not have to make any effort to avoid me. I don't do any penalty turns and I continue racing normally.

scenario 2) for some reason, I don't make it clear, starboard has to make a slight course change to avoid me, I do penalty turns as soon as I can get clear of other boats, and I resume racing.

Remind me what I did wrong other than poorly butts my chance to cross if scenario 2 takes place?

I guess I understood Bundy's quote to mean that the port boat fouled them. Why else would he comment on it?

Scenario 2 is only OK if you didn't knowingly try the cross with no hope (RRS 2), and don't come out with a significant advantage (RRS 44).

Mike

Take the possibility of a collision off the table. NO CHANCE, got it?

At what point is it OK for Port to cross Starboard's bow? How about if he's 1000 yards ahead? That ought to be OK. How about 120 yards (20 boat lengths)? Is that too close? What's your comfort zone?

My rule of thumb is using 12 mph as a good sailing speed, you travel 1 boat length every second. If you cross his path a full 10 seconds before he crosses your wake, is that enough clearance? Ten seconds, 10 boat lengths, is 60 yards, pretty close (maybe), but is that enough for him to say you bothered him and warrant a protest? My rule when walking in a crowd, riding my bike in traffic, or sailing a boat is that I am OK if the other guy does not have to "break stride" when I cross in front of him. So it's HIS perception that matters!

A some magic separation distance you have to make a judgement call and when racing, "clean" gets into the eye of the beholder. In American football you can't run into a punter but he'll make a HUGE show of getting fouled if someone even comes near. A Starboard boat might turn up, down, or slow up, whether out of fear or just to establish interference. It's within their power to present the aura of a foul. Without a collision, a "legal" cross is in the fear, confidence, and "gamesmanship" of both players. Winning racers will vote on their prowess and boat speed to go for it while others, like Pete, would back down at the 1000 yard mark and tack away or duck.

A "clean cross" is a decision you have all made (except Pete). My question is, if you are close enough to have to think about it and you decide that absolutely you can make it cleanly, do you still analysis your future responsibility and race position if the other guy calls a protest?

I love it when someone has so little faith in their arguments they resort to ad hominems. It generally indicates stupidity.

"do you still analysis your future responsibility and race position if the other guy calls a protest?"

Move to an unambiguous rule and you won't have the problem.

Scenario 1) I make it clear and the starboard boat does not have to make any effort to avoid me. I don't do any penalty turns and I continue racing normally.

So.... Starboards call by Bundy is... He fouled me...
That is Bundy's perception... and for this case... does not say a word.
Now what should happen...

Under the RRS that we sail under.
Jake has to make the judgement ON HIMSELF... did I HONOR... not... did I clear by 6 inches... 6 feet, 6 yards, etc.
the standard is HONOR>.. If your understanding of honoring Starboards right of way is that I made it.. so I honored starboards right of way... You would sail on.... and vice versa.

Obviously, if Port SEE's Starbord change course then he KNOWS he violated the rule and does his proper penalty turn (your number 2) ..or he chooses to cheat in addition to breaking the rule. (Starbord has not said a word)

So, What does HONOR mean.
Dave Parker uses this interpretation of HONOR
My rule when walking in a crowd, riding my bike in traffic, or sailing a boat is that I am OK if the other guy does not have to "break stride" when I cross in front of him. So it's HIS perception that matters!

I agree... Port has to Judge his actions taking into account starboards perception and the reality on the water.... (Jake cleared by 6 inches)

The standards we use are .. CALL YOUR OWN which means that Jake judges himself and does a turn (or not) based on his HONOR the right of way of starbord.

When your sole benchmark is... I, Port cleared by 6 inches... you are diminishing the standard of HONOR Starbords Right of Way.... so you are violating the rule.

In this case... we know that Starboard has a strong opinion... Bundy says it was a foul... He did not change course...
But he is not the judge.. All he gets to do is hail protest... Jake gets a second bite at the apple now and can reevaluate his understanding of the standard... HONOR Starbords right of way....
Step three of the game is that Bundy files the paperwork and goes to the room.

The evidence he presents is windspeed, wave action, conditions, time and distance.

The PC will judge the standard of Port HONORING Starbords right of way on these facts!

So... your 70/30 calculation MUST take into account the rule.. HONOR starbords right of way. I can make it... it will be close But Starbord perception will be that his right of way was honored is the standard of the RRS.

I will make it .... it will be close... and I don't give a fig about what Starbord percieves about the cross is NOT HONORing Starbords ROW.

Another way to describe this concept is to use the word impecable. EG... I Honor my word MEANS “impeccable “ ... NOT “just enough to count”

OK,you're getting long winded again and I'm going to resort to 5 words by contrast soon.

Bundy never said he was fouled - you guys are assuming that to be the case. Even if so, it did not result in a collision. My point was, even the pros have tight crossings...everyone does. It's a fact of racing and pushing things near the limit and it doesn't result in carnage.

You sort'a have to rely on Starboard to say whether or not you fouled them if it is really really close - there's no other way to know for sure. If I made it that close and I'm not certain whether or not a foul occured, I'm going to bow to starboard's feedback and assume that he is correct (unless, he's really really obviously not correct). So, unless they do some obvious bear away (to which I would do turns whether or not they indicated the foul), the only way for me to know if a foul was committed is for them to indicate that they had to deviate from their course (it's actually written in the rules that the offendee is required to notify the offender by hailing "protest"...i paraphrase).

Dave


I believe you answered this for your self... YES...you analyze the situation from HONOR starbord right of way.
You make the call on yourself.... the other guy can do what ever he wants... but all he gets to do is give you another bite at the apple... Protest... (not foul)and your third bite of course is the protest room.
I liked your analogy of HONOR ROW.


the football analogy fails because the ref calls the foul and the gamesmanship is to convince him of such. In Sailing you call your own.



This is catamaran sailors complete bastardization of the RRS and the sport of sailing.

There is no honor involved when port cuts starboard in half. That seems to be the direction we are headed.

This is Orphans point... YOU shifted responsibility to Starbord... Starbord does not want to accept the responsiblity... He has absolute ROW. it's your responsibiltiy to call your own foul.... don't shift it! His RECOURSE is to hail protest...

So.. You cross with 6 inches to spare... 10 knots standard conditions.... starbord does not change course in the cross. They hail protest.... (AND now they are pissed off that you pushed the ROW that close, put them in the dicey situation AND you forced them to take the responsiblity to call you on it with the hail protest.

Do you expect to win or lose the protest?

No, Pete, I was crystal clear, assume NO CHANCE of a collision. Now consider you are 5 miles ahead on port and look back and see the starboard boat. Do you park and let him cross in an hour or two? How about 500 yards ahead? When does he gain ROW? When he changes course due to his fear of collision or when perhaps when he's pissed you even got near him to be ahead.

So I agree, it gets down to honor, honesty, and sailing judgement. You can cross, foul your opponent, admit guilt, do your turns, and not be a poor sportsman. Jake's original story seemed to have two results, cross and be in first or tack, gybe, duck the fleet and be in last. His decision was a big one.

Harry Callahan summed it up: "You've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky?"

Callahan is a fictional character. The destroyed boat I've cited is not.

umm... pete... if port cuts starbord in half... he should be shot...for being the dangerous idiot that he proved to be.

I think you meant to say... if starbord cuts port in half...

I bolded a particular part above - if the crossing was that close (6") It's a safe bet that starboard doesn't consider that "clean". I wouldn't if it were me. Starboard is obligated to avoid collision and would be reasonably expected to start changing course to avoid that potential collision. There is judgement involved. As a starboard boat, I'm probably bearing away a little toward the end of cross that's only clear by 6" to make sure we don't hit if some other variable comes into play. At that point, I have been fouled and I will make a decision, as the starboard boat, whether or not to cry foul. I don't expect port to do turns unless I indicate foul. I don't expect port to really know if he fouled me unless I indicate foul. I would expect no different as the port boat. If they ended up in the room with a crossing that close, I would expect starboard to win the protest. Starboard has to react in a reasonable manner to avoid contact...so even if you could put a tape measure and video camera on it to demonstrate that you would have been clear by 6", it may not be enough to win the protest.

so what about a boatlength distance on the cross?

Is that enough room for STB to not feel they have to alter course to avoid Port?

Let's assume moderate wind 12-15 knots. Upwind direction outside of 3 boatlength circle

I think our boat speeds are often the same level as NFL receivers and D-backs (perhaps not to weather)i.e. enough to cause a violent collision. I'd be less concerned sailing a 4ksb.

Jay

I think the rules are written as HONOR the ROW because the answer to your question is... it depends.

(Types of boats, skills of sailors... lowest common denominator of sailor on the course, etc etc etc)..
Honor ROW and call you own foul handle it...

Of course, there is a culture that develops... that defines the local understanding of what's too close, and how you behave. The feedback in the system that starboard supplies by hailing protest and then enforced by the PC (usually drawn from other sailors at the reggata) does the job of interpreting the RRS.

BUT this does not shift any responsiblity for Honor the ROW of Starbord and call your own fouls on yourself to the starbord ROW sailor.

A while back the one of the Hobie class NA's had a protest on Day 1 of the event that completely redefined the accepted common interpretation of honor xxx rule (I forget the detals).... The sailors complained a lot and then quickly adapted to the standard set by the PC at the championship. The rules did not change... the HONOR the rule interpetation was reset and then enforced at the National level by the the judge and jury. The sailors got an education... like it or not.. The standards of call your own and Honor ROW do not change and the sailors called the game the rest of the regatta....

It would appear that Jake believes that Starbord must call his foul or he did not foul and that is the standard that he uses. I assert that shifing responsiblity to starbord to call him is not the RRS.
We disagree.
YMMV.

+1

I'm not sure I ever said anything like that. However, if I'm on starboard in this situation, I don't expect the port boat to KNOW that he fouled me so I want to make it clear since I am in THE controlling position. How can I expect him to know that he fouled me if I made a very slight change in my course to avoid him? Do I show up at the protest room later and tell them that "he should have known"? I'm pretty sure that won't get me very far in a protest.

very true but You are not responsible here for the rule violation call.. You are responsible for holding port to HIS responsibilities by hailing protest (and to the rest of the fleet as well)... Port already violated the rules.. you are just asking him about the violation with protest...

It is ports responsibility to stay clear .. not to ask starboard ... did I foul you?... really?... oh well sorry here is my penalty. ... Port is arbitraging their risk/reward using the rules... which are absolute and clear.

The game builds the safety margin.. irrespective of the circumstances (that Jay picked out) in writing the rules this way.

by requiring Port to both stay clear AND honor that ROW by calling your own foul on yourself (without even asking starbord) the safety margins on the crosses are bigger.... because you call the foul on your self...

You do not call the foul on yourself contingent on what starbord says, thinks or does..... that is NOT honoring starbords right of way.

I learned this racing Pearson 30s as a kid and was dumbfounded when my skipper crossed another 30 cleanly but very closely and he ordered the two circles.... No hail of protest, no course change by starbord .... He told me to read the rules.... what part of honor did I not understand. It was HIS judgement that he had misjudged the cross and violated starbords ROW.... years later... I had a senior A class sailor do the same thing... cross cleanly and then do a circle.. I later asked why?.. "because I judged that I violated your ROW".

I see it this way.... the rules do not let me arbitrage my risk and responsibility in a ROW situation.

I fight like hell to live up to my responsibility just like those guys and the exact reading of the RRS ... its not easy in the heat of the moment and I push crosses and forget my responsibility to honor starbords ROW.

So... you sail your own race and call your own fouls...
I object to your arbitraging the rules for your tactical advantage. That is what you were doing in the OP (had you decided to push the cross)... You clearly agree you arbitrage the rules for the tactics in all of your calculations of 70 30 etc ... clear to cross. When you count on the Starbord boat to call your foul... you have once again arbitraged the rule for your tactical advantage.

I'm good with that, although sometimes I'm not sure if my cross was as "clean" as I think it was. I usually hope to cross at least one boatlength ahead of STBD in light/moderate wind/water conditions, and more in bigger wind/seas (to allow for faster closing speeds, hiccups in wind, etc).

The "window" method (if STB stays put in your jib window leading up to the cross) gives me a good indicator of the likelihood of a successful cross, but I am a bit more cautious these days and more likely to duck if there's any question...I'm not in the kind of competitive shape or competence to push my luck

And with so many rock-stars in the various fleets these days, if I am lucky enough to be in the mix I can't discount they may have to hunt me a little bit (to maintain their position against other rock stars) rather than let me cross and disrupt their wind

There is a near foolproof way to tell if you can cross or not.

Avoiding Collisions

If the bearings move forward, the other vessel will cross ahead of you; if the bearings move aft the boat will cross behind you. If the bearings remain constaint, you have an issue. Using this method you can see from a long way off what your situation is. You can also tell immediatly if your situation has changed (header/lift). If the bearing is changing slowly you have a close cross, if the bearing is changing quickly then the cross is not an issue.

If you can see the lee side of the other boats sail, you are ahead.

The only way that makes sense is if your going downwind. In that situation once you can see the lee side of their sails you've already crossed regardless of how near or far away you are. Or are you saying port should never cross starboard no matter what?

This was stated first... then

[/quote]

"very true but You are not responsible here for the rule violation call.. You are responsible for holding port to HIS responsibilities by hailing protest (and to the rest of the fleet as well)... Port already violated the rules.. you are just asking him about the violation with protest..."
[/quote]

Is that not opposite? I've been reading this to try to understand what needs to happen but keep getting confused. One assertion is that Port can not cross in front of Starbord at all, then you need to have a couple of boatlengths. Port has to have Honor and not cross because Starb'd doesn't need to tell him he is in the way, then Starb'd needs to tell him he is wrong...


C'mon guys, if someone that doesn't sleep with a rule book is reading this, it is confusing.

On the one hand you need to be aggressive on the course to win, sailors use the rules to their advantage all the time. What is different in this instance? If I am a Starb'd boat and I get crossed by a port boat (a few boat lengths ahead) and it doesn't affect me in any way except it hurt my pride that he is ahead... I can protest him for sailing better than me?

This I gotta read.

C

It does read that way doesn't it.

You can protest anything or be protested for anything. That does not mean you will win or lose in the room. But I beleive the onus is on the port boat to prove that it did not cause the starboard boat to take corrective actions. So if your are going to cross make sure that it will be clean. Not just the way you look at it but also from the perspective of the starboard boat.
As stated before the rules are to be honored. That goes for both the boats. Calling protest should only be used when you HONESTLY feel you have been fouled. And calling Protest when there obviously was no foul is not honoring the rules.

Think about it. If two boats are going to weather on opposite tacks, the boat ahead will be able to see just a sliver of the leeward side of the leading edge, particularly with a rotating mast (or the jib for that matter).

That is something I think we can all agree with and something Jake has stated from the beginning.

Sorry, still not working for me. I'm sticking with the increasing or decreasing bearing rule.

If you can see the lee side of the other boat's sail, you have already crossed and it doesn't matter anymore.

Nope.

Leaners commonly use this observation in coastal racing to determine if they are gaining or losing to competition separated by any significant distance.

The first Basic Principle in the rules reads:

"Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire."

In a hypothetical close crossing, Boat P (port) is expected to keep clear (rule 10).

If P fails in that obligation, then Boat S (starboard) is expected to protest (see rules 60 and 61).

If P honestly believes that she did not foul S, then P may sail on. Otherwise she is expected to take a penalty (see rule 44).

The rules do not place a burden of proof on either boat. A protest committee must find facts and act based on them. If S took avoiding action, then she must have had a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision. If so, then P broke rule 10. If not, then P didn't. See ISAF Case 50.

I hope that helps,
Eric

What took you so long Eric? :-)

And, what?, volunteer for this abuse? ;-)

So they're not crossing but going parallel with each other? What if the other boat trims their sails in or out?

You have a point.

What took eric so long is probably this statement by orphan.



Onus is one of those dated concepts that judges have to deal with and try to get sailors to drop from their vocabulary and how they race..... IMO I think it led to the belief that you can arbitrage the rules and in the worst cases... even the Protest committee. It is the gamesmanship we use in other sports. Good that "Onus" is no longer a term we use.

Eric writes


This is the call your own foul and Starbord had ROW that Jake and I are discussing.

So... what happens when things go sideways.

If port crosses and calls the foul on himself... the situation is resolved.

If port crosses and does not call the foul on himself.


This is Ports Second bite at the apple of Call your own.
It is initiated by Starbords responsibility to hail protest.

If she honestly disagrees... she (in some regattas can go to arbitration)... This would give port a third chance to call their own... and ask to be RAF... retired after finishing if they finally agree with starbord.

If she still honesty disagrees... she can go with a full hearing... and if she loses... she gets the DSQ. I think that Port can pull the plug at any point in the hearing and RAF before the jury makes a finding ....(not sure of this one tho)

As a judge... he correctly ID the notion of ONUS and flagged it...


I don't think he should opine on the tactics of arbitraging the rules for your advantage.... (70/30 to clear... What are the odds that starbord will protest. etc) That gets managed by the fleet. As a working judge... you don't want to be in this position.

The facts that are evaluated by Port at every opportunity and by the judge and PC at the end of the day is this.



so... genuine and reasonable apprehension of a collision .... are the ... It Depends.... of these situations. There are lots of independent judgements made in time. So... back to the beginning we go.

The best analogy that I have would be to play basketball using the RRS. In this game, the DEFENDER would have to call a foul on himself when he contests the shot .....

If he did not call the foul.... the Shooter would have this recourse... "Really.... You are not going to call that foul.... Come ON... my hand is bleeding". which would give the defender a second shot at calling the foul on himself. If the defender honestly believed he did not foul... off it would go to a protest committee... where ... facts are found and the shooters Right to not be fouled is evaluated and supported.

There is no gamesmanship allowed here in this part of the sailing game ... because you call the foul on yourself.... you are not working the ref to make the call ... You are not working the ref for the next call.. ...you are not working your opponent with the rules as a cudgel.

Does it happen... sure!... but that is not the norm or the game I enjoy.

Eric,
Lets say all things are equal when it comes to facts in the protest room. Starboard claims they had alter course. Port claims there was no need. A very close call when you look at all other circumstances. No witnesses. You cannot rule as a tie. What is the ruling? And why?

red herring

Applying the rules is the easy part of a protest hearing. The hard part is figuring out what actually took place on the water. The parties usually give conflicting reports. That doesn't mean anybody's evading responsibility - different people see things from different perspectives and can honestly tell different stories.

When faced with irreconcilable testimony, poor protest committees will often declare that they cannot determine what happened and dismiss the protest. A good protest committee will keep digging until they find something that sways their judgement one way or the other. Rule 63.6 states (in part) "The committee shall then find the facts and base its decision on them". PC must find the facts.

Protest committee can just keep questioning the parties and witnesses until some telling piece of information pops out. Sometimes, it boils down to which boat had the better view of an incident. Other times, one party will simply tell his story more believably than the other. It's very important to present your testimony as clearly and factually as you can.

Protest committees cherish hard data (distances, speeds, times, etc.). The committee can use them to place boats more precisely. Boatspeeds and distances are notoriously difficult to estimate accurately, however, and are hard to get without instrumentation. Times on the other hand, are easier to guage. If you start counting ("one-thousand one, one-thousand two...") as you approach another boat, you can give PC accurate times between maneuvers. The committee can then determine boat speeds (yes, we have a calculator for that) and reconstruct an incident with greater confidence. PC is also more likely to trust you when you say "I counted x seconds" than "I'd guess we were going y knots".

Regards,
Eric

Lots of good points there Eric.

In the absence of witnesses and good data, many (most?) PCs will give it to STBD. It's harder to prove you didn't foul, especially since STBD typically has a much better view of the final half of the crossing.

Mike

purple tuna


and, besides, my post was totally relevant. You are recommending using the relationship of (movable) sails on a boat to determine it's angle and heading. It's a fallible idea - they move in relationship to the boat...

Also a point Jake has made in this thread yet he has been accused of cheating.

Green Goldfish

Is a GPS track considered admissable? At least that would show your altered course. Maybe if both boats had GPS you might be able to determine the closing distance and speed?

oh, wait... you can't use GPS in buoy stuff... Never mind.

Wow, all this about what's probalby the simplest rule to understand too.

Most, not all, sailors I've sailed with, or against have a great deal of integrity, and know for sure if they genuinely had to 'alter course', etc.
Usually if someone crosses ahead of you (cleanly), than it gives the crossed boat something to shoot for (pun not intended) on the next cross or mark rounding.

To me it's simple (LOL), if I'm S, and I had to alter course, I HAVE to hail protest if I expect them to do a circle.

If I'm P, and it looked TOO close and they altered some, etc., I do the cirle- part of the game.

It's about integrity of the self, the spirit.

There has been alot of great discussion here, by alot of very experienced skippers.

Carry on

Go get'em Mark.

For a one-on-one situation, in the situation you just described, I agree with you 100%.

My only issue comes when there was clearly no chance P would make the cross, or any time multiple boats are involved, that would result in P gaining an advantage by crossing instead of ducking the parade. Both of those situations start to smell of Rule 2.

Mike

And in that situaton if anyone feels rule 2 was violated... protest. Like it or not arbitrage (risk management) is very much a part of the game... any game!

If it means anything and I'm sure it doesn't, it's been my experience that the game is run pretty clean on the course even when the douchebag factor is significantly high. This stuff is small potatos boys. I'd be thrilled if I could work the scales without a pro sailor walking up with his soaking wet boat expecting to get weighed. Then instead of getting belligerent just walk away when he is told his boat isn't getting weighed today. Or, when a group of sailors stick a garden hose down their snuffer sock to soak their spinnakers before they come to the scales. Bullsh!t like that should earn them a ticket home IMO.

More excellent points...

Mike

If you witness such behavior, please report it to the protest committee. If PC believes that a competitor may have committed gross misconduct (and I would consider attempting to subvert the weighing procedure to constitute gross misconduct), then it may call a hearing under RRS 69. Trust me, nobody enjoys being involved in a rule 69 hearing.

And in that situaton if anyone feels rule 2 was violated... protest. Like it or not arbitrage (risk management) is very much a part of the game... any game!

I agree... about managing risk in the game.
I agree with Jeff about using the rules as part of the game.
I continue to make the point that arbitraging the rules is wrong. We agree the recourse is to PROTEST....(but if the sailors' mindset is that all of the rules are to be pushed... it will be ugly)
I agree with Todd's simple statement and emphasize the need to protest



And the only solution is to protest... and then for everyone adminsitering the game to grow a pair and toss a few offenders.... AND then send it up the chain to USSA or ISAF. I have also seen how hard that is for even the most experienced race officers with hard proof to go ahead and pull that trigger....

So... it's not easy by any means....

Arbitraging the rules... whether its port pushing the line on starbord... or soaking your spin sock... has a begining somewhere in your sailing career... IMO... it starts on the water and then extends over time to the crap you speak of.

You can count on it my friend!

I'm with you Ding.

I've done my share of weigh-ins and it amazes me the arrogance and crap that sailors try to pull off and then claim ignorance as a defense. Like, leaving wrenches (as in several) in the hulls, or weighing in with hydration backpacks full of liquid, or two jibs rolled up together, etc.

Tossing a team sure would make an example for the others.

THAT's dirty rotten. Rule 69 territory.