Racing Rules: "Right of Way"

This thread brings up an interesting idea, at least for me. As a guy that does not race, but is dabbling with the idea, a thread committed to examples, or challenge questions, would be a lot of fun.

One of the biggest issues for a noob when it comes to racing is not knowing what the hell is going on, so we never bother to try it, well that and the lack of open classes. Pete

Two boats sailing to windward. Both boats are on Port tack. As the windward boat enters the zone, windward is clear ahead by about a boat length and over stood a little. The leeward boat is clear astern and probably on the lay line. The windward boat is sailing slightly slower because of issues on board. Inside of the zone, leeward becomes overlapped to the outside of the windward boat. Mark needs to be left to port. Windward boat begins to turn up to initiate a tack, leeward boat does as well however turns more quickly and leewards port bow touches windward's starboard hull about at the rear beam connection... who was obligated to avoid who? With contact,some rule was broken?

In both cases, you are obligated to tack and round the mark, so if it comes out in a protest that you were sailing to Timbucktoo because your jib was jammed in a cleat, you might have a problem. Wind and sea conditions certainly play into any decision on whether you sailed too far before tacking, which is why I say it really needs to be heard in front of an experienced jury to get a more definitive answer.

Although it may be necessary in order to sail the course, no rule specifically obligates a boat to tack at a mark. A boat (especially a catamaran) clear astern and slightly to windward certainly can prevent the other boat from tacking (provided her action does not break Rule 2). If the boats leave the zone then Rule 18 ceases to apply. If a boat sails beyond the "mark-room to which she is entitled", then she does not receive exoneration under rule 21. Those are important considerations, but a boat may legitimately drive another boat past a windward mark layline in order to gain a tactical advantage.

If you're entitled to mark-room over an outside/leeward boat, you can't sail away from the mark just for strategic reasons.

What rule says you can't?

Definition of mark room.

If you're entitled to mark-room over an outside/leeward boat, you can't sail away from the mark just for strategic reasons.

I'll go you one further and say that even if you AREN'T entitled to mark-room from (and in fact, even if you owe mark-room to) an outside/leeward boat, you CAN drive her beyond the mark. She can take you head-to-wind, but you are not obligated to tack, nor to give her room to tack.

Can you provide a case citation to defend your interpretation?

ISAF Case 15.

In that case, the outside boat was entitled to mark room and is prevented from tacking by a windward boat.

CASE 21
Definitions, Mark-Room
Definitions, Room
When a right-of-way boat is obligated to give mark-room to
a boat overlapped inside her, there is no maximum or
minimum amount of space that she must give. The amount
of space that she must give depends significantly on the
existing conditions including wind and sea conditions, the
speed of the inside boat, the sails she has set and her design
characteristics.
Question
When rule 18 requires a right-of-way boat to give mark-room to an inside
boat that overlaps her, what is the maximum amount of space that she
must give? What is the minimum amount of space that she must give?
Answer
In this situation, the definition Mark-Room states that the inside boat is
entitled to room for four manoeuvres:
 Room to leave the mark on the required side.
 Room to sail to the mark, but only if the inside boat’s proper
course is to sail close to the mark.
 Room to round the mark as necessary to sail the course.
 Room to tack, but only if these additional conditions are met: the
inside boat is overlapped to windward of the outside boat, the tack
is part of the rounding necessary to sail the course, and the inside
boat would be fetching the mark after her tack.
The definitions Room and Mark-Room do not include any reference to a
maximum or minimum amount of space, and no rule implies that the rightof-
way outside boat must give a maximum or minimum amount of space.
She must give the inside boat the space she needs in the existing
conditions to carry out those manoeuvres promptly in a seamanlike way.
In addition, the inside boat is entitled to space to avoid touching the mark
and space for her to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2
with respect to the outside boat as well as any other nearby boats.
The term ‘existing conditions’ deserves consideration. For example, the
inside one of two dinghies approaching a mark on a placid lake in light air
will need relatively little space beyond that required for her hull and
properly trimmed sails. At the other extreme, when two keel boats, on
open water with steep seas, are approaching a mark that is being tossed
about widely and unpredictably, the inside boat may need a full hull length
of space or even more to ensure safety. A boat with a spinnaker flying
often needs more space than one with her spinnaker stowed. A boat that is
planing or surfing may require less space to turn than a boat that is
climbing a steep wave. The ‘existing conditions’ also include
characteristics of the inside boat. For example, a boat with a long keel or a
multihull may require more space to round a mark than a more easily
turned monohull. A boat with a large rudder may need less space to turn
than a boat with a small rudder.
The phrase ‘manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way’ has implications
for both boats. First, it addresses the inside boat, saying she is not entitled
to complain of insufficient space if she fails to execute with reasonable
efficiency the handling of her helm, sheets and sails while manoeuvring. It
also implies that the outside boat must provide enough space so that the
inside boat need not manoeuvre in an extraordinary or abnormal manner
(see also Case 103).

True, but that describes a very different case, in which the outside boat was the one with the mark room.

Actually, there was no "inside" or "outside" boat, it was a clear ahead/clear astern situation

In the case we're discussing, it's the inside boat that is entitled to mark room, and is therefore limited per the definition of mark room. This is 100% verified by ISAF Case 21

Think of it this way - why would you ever go into this situation as the windward boat with an overlap?

Btw, that is 6 or 7 rules that came into play, in the span of 4 boat lengths, or roughly 90 feet, or roughly 16 to 17 feet per second, or about 6 seconds worth of elapsed time... ijs!

What options are available for the outside boat...?

If the inside boat (already pointing lower) overstands the mark, is the outside boat at their mercy all the way to Timbucktoo?

I can guess that the parade of starboard boats would really turn this in to a ...

I'm not sold that mark room entitles you to sail off the course. ... I don't think they can continue on past the mark room space, and expect to be able to keep the leeward boat from tacking. At some point, mark room ends, and the leeward boat can head the windward to up beyond head to wind

please view this debate as normal and healthy. This is why we have multiple judges and closed deliberations, it ultimately results in better decisions.

Hope this helps.

Mike

Eric, regarding Case 15 here, I continue to respectfully disagree that it applies to the original case of this thread.

Put it this way, if I'm outside and leeward, you're inside and windward, the seas are flat, the breeze is moderate and no one else is around. As soon as you pass the lay line, I'm heading you up to tack. I'll follow the rules and keep clear while turning, but what rules are going to be on your side if you don't respond?

Looking back, the only place above that I mentioned "obligated to tack" was in reference to taking too much room to tack due to issues on the boat.

I will agree that "obligated to tack" doesn't appear in the rules, but stick to the interpretation that mark room does not give a boat ROW, and is limited per the definitions.

A boat in a controlling position may drive another boat beyond the mark, out of the zone, and all the way to the edge of the racecourse to gain a tactical advantage.

An outside boat is not obligated to allow an inside boat to sail her off the course. Nothing said here by you or Matt has convinced me otherwise.

I will agree that unless L luffs to force the tack (and keeps clear, etc.), they can sail away and W isn't "obligated to tack." But, L is not obligated to allow this to happen once the point of reasonable mark room has passed.

What rule would keep L from doing exactly what I describe above?

I've been looking for that all day. I thought there was a more descriptive rule about luffing rights, and was pretty sure that if L can luff hard enough (while keeping clear and not passing head to wind), and W has to tack to keep clear, L didn't foul. I couldn't find it in the cases or appeals, either.

But, at least we're moving away from the mark room defense here?

I'm saying that under rule 11 and 16.1, L can luff W such that W has to tack to keep clear...

I'm really just having an issue with the idea that you and Matt stated that mark room entitles a windward boat to travel well off the course.

...I'm saying that under rule 11 and 16.1, L can luff W such that W has to tack to keep clear, then L can tack and sail to the mark. I contend that per the definition of mark room and Cases 21 and 103, mark room is a finite (condition-based) entity, and L is free to perform this maneuver as soon as W has passed that point.

I'm not talking about any contact, so let's keep that off the table.

Mike

You'll see that the windward boat can prevent the leeward boat's tack because of rule 13. It doesn't matter if L has right-of-way due to rule 12 or rule 11.

So when does Rule 11 and 12 reapply?

If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above her proper course while they remain on the same tack and overlapped within that distance, unless in doing so she promptly sails astern of the other boat.

Proper Course
A course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term.

I know a picture is worth 1,000 words. Has anyone used "Boat Scenario"? I found it on the web looking for diagrams.

If you do use it, can you cut/paste/insert it here somehow?

As for that video, ... who wants to walk through the rules and obligations?

The problem with using Boat Scenario is that the time scale is hard to get right between different tracks. This diagram illustrates that perfectly.

For example, between positions 1 and 2, blue moves almost two boat lengths, whereas yellow moves just a bit more than 1 - meaning that blue is moving twice as fast as yellow, even though yellow is sailing a lower course and should be going significantly faster.

Also, the little S curve in blue's track between positions 4 and 5 is unrealistic - unless there was a current going from left to right.

Rule 10. Oh, and rule 14 too. Port was obligated to keep clear and did not. Port was obligated to avoid contact and did not. It was not reasonably possible for S to avoid contact, so she did not break any rules.

I disagree with S not being reasonably possible to avoid contact. They made virtually no attempt to alter course - they waggled a little bit, then t-boned P directly amidships. Deer in the headlights. They could have headed up, just as the boat behind them did (and avoided the situation entirely). Their spinnaker was only 1/2 way up when the collision happened, so that wasn't preventing them from luffing up.

Re: the boat scenario diagram - I knew you put that together quickly, so don't take my criticism personally - I just wanted to point out that even "pretty" diagrams can be misleading. You have to really think about what you're looking at and decide if it makes sense.

I disagree with S not being reasonably possible to avoid contact. They made virtually no attempt to alter course...

Re: the boat scenario diagram - I knew you put that together quickly, so don't take my criticism personally - I just wanted to point out that even "pretty" diagrams can be misleading.

... seems that most people either can't draw (usually self-admitted), or draw something that in no way matches the written description. It's amazing how much different the testimony is as well. All part of the fun of being a judge, I guess!

At time 0:36, M87 (on port tack) turned down to sail in front of H7 (on starboard tack). At time 0:37, they made contact.

In that one second, just how much do you think H7 could have done? Even if she took no time at all to assess the situation, and put the helm hard over, at 7+ kts boatspeed they'd almost certainly still collide.

Remember that a right-of-way boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear. See RRS 14(a) and ISAF Case 87.

Given the video shown, I'd be very surprised if any jury penalized H7. This is about as cut-and-dried as it gets.

I hope that helps,
Eric
US SAILING Certified Judge
Chair, SAYRA Appeals Committee

I drew what I understood the situation to be from the written description provided. Do you think the diagram conflicts with the text in any significant way? If so, how?

However, at 0:33, H7 rounds the offset and M87 (and another boat on port) are already in the frame - about 3 boatlengths away. H7's only way to avoid collision is to head up - and instead, they bear away.

Watch the port boat behind M87 and the two starboard boats behind H7. They managed to avoid a collision, why couldn't H7? Because he had his head in the boat - when there were not one, but two port boats on a collision course.

"Not reasonably possible?" Not when you t-bone someone dead square amidships at a right angle - and when there are other boats that manage to avoid a collision in similar circumstances.

I'm very well aware of 14(a) and Case 87. Take a look at Case 123. This one doesn't pass the sniff test when you look at the video.

DSQ RRS 14(a).

However, at 0:33, H7 rounds the offset and M87 (and another boat on port) are already in the frame - about 3 boatlengths away. H7's only way to avoid collision is to head up - and instead, they bear away.

"Slightly slower" does not equal half as fast. The "squiggle" isn't really significant, but you told me to "please ignore it". Well, if I have to ignore that, then what else should I ignore? (I've heard that before from an IJ).

Boat Scenario diagrams are pretty, doesn't mean they are 100% accurate.

P doesn't have to anticipate S's course change... S was changing course throughout, both in rounding the mark and the "deer" wiggle. P could make a compelling case that under 16.1, S should be DSQ.

P is not required to anticipate S's change of course, but she must respond to it - which she does not do.

Looking over the video yet again, I see boat H7(S) making two course changes. One is when she rounds the mark at time 0:32-0:34. The other is the "wiggle" at time 0:35-0:36.

During the first course change, boat M87(P) is still 2-3 boatlengths away. I believe that P had ample opportunity to keep clear (by slowing down, heading up, or tacking) during that time.

At time 0:35, however, P is committed to the cross and unable to keep clear by luffing. S makes a quick turn to her right but is unable to avoid P. S then turns quickly back left, taking contact on her bow. P is already not keeping clear so there is no possible way for S to give her room. If you insist on applying RRS 16.1 to the second course change, and conclude that S breaks it, then you should exonerate her under RRS 64.1(a).

Regards,
Eric

P is not required to anticipate S's change of course, but she must respond to it - which she does not do.

Looking over the video yet again, I see boat H7(S) making two course changes. One is when she rounds the mark at time 0:32-0:34. The other is the "wiggle" at time 0:35-0:36.

During the first course change, boat M87(P) is still 2-3 boatlengths away. I believe that P had ample opportunity to keep clear (by slowing down, heading up, or tacking) during that time.

At time 0:35, however, P is committed to the cross and unable to keep clear by luffing. S makes a quick turn to her right but is unable to avoid P. S then turns quickly back left, taking contact on her bow. P is already not keeping clear so there is no possible way for S to give her room. If you insist on applying RRS 16.1 to the second course change, and conclude that S breaks it, then you should exonerate her under RRS 64.1(a).

Regards,
Eric

This might sound odd, but let's back up and pretend that the wiggle and smash never happened, but just look at it until the point where the wiggle started.

As I see the video, S never stopped turning down. Even if she had, that would have given P only 1-2 seconds to avoid. Either way, that's not enough time for P to keep clear (in those conditions on those boats, etc.).

You can disagree, but that's how I see it.

Mike

S did absolutely stop turning down. You can see them turn sharply to starboard for about 1/2 second upon realizing that P appeared to be intent on crossing. If you can't see it by looking at the boat, look at her wake and use other boat wakes for comparison. You'll also see her start to heel more dramatically (and accelerate) as she turns to starboard to attempt to avoid. I see two distinct sharp turns by H7 (S) - one to starboard to avoid and, upon realizing P changed course, and one sharp turn to port. That's about as fast as you can expect those scows to turn at those angles. I think if you have a video from on board of H7 looking forward, you would have no doubt that they made a significant attempt to avoid P. I'm not sure why several of you don't see H7's actions in this video. With it maximized in HD, I can even see H7's tiller move sharply as he tries to turn both directions.

Once this sequence has happened, if I'm at the helm, I've got two things in my mind. 1) collision is now unavoidable. 2) I'm in the middle of a lot of other boats (including another port tacker trying to cross this mess). As a result, I would try to minimize my maneuvering to reduce the chance that I create more carnage around me with my actions and reduce the chances of hurting anyone...I would just take it square on the bow just like H7 did. I'm blown away by the number of you experienced guys that are holding H7's feet at (partial) fault for the impact. It makes me realize how much of a gamble any protest hearing can be.

Here's the video link again...this time queued up to the moment H7 starts to round the offset.

http://youtu.be/s2mwGyQljgc?t=31s

Back up before the wiggle and calm down. Can't we have an open minded discussion about this without directly or indirectly insulting one another?

My opinion: I see S as changing course (turning down) continuously until she turns up (start of wiggle). To me, she didn't ever straighten her course before turning up to avoid. If you follow 16.1 as written, S cannot do that, as P needs to be able to keep clear. P was sailing a course to the weather mark, and took the stern (kept clear of) the prior starboard boat. S was rounding the mark, and turning the whole time.

It's easy to blame P for the whole thing, but 16.1 is a very important rule.

Mike

When I look at the video, I feel that P could have acted to avoid S at times 0:32-0:34 but did not. Therefore, I conclude that S broke no rules, and P broke rules 10 and 14.

Although you may look at ISAF Cases 60 ("when a right-of-way boat changes course in such a way that a keep-clear boat, despite having taken avoiding action promptly, cannot keep clear in a seamanlike way, the right-of-way boat breaks rule 16.1") and 92 ("when a right-of-way boat changes course, the keep-clear boat is required to act only in response to what the right-of-way boat is doing at the time, not what the right-of-way boat might do subsequently") and place the burden of keeping clear on boat S, you should also look at Case 75, which states "a starboard-tack boat that changes course does not break rule 16.1 if she gives a port-tack boat adequate space to keep clear and the port-tack boat fails to take advantage of it promptly". I believe that M87(P) failed to take advantage of the space that H7(S) gave her. Therefore, H7(S) did not break rule 16.1.

I didn't think I was, but if anyone feels like I was being insulting, I apologize. It was not my intent.

Thanks. Case 75 helps a lot. I think we all agree that P had plenty of water to turn upwind sooner. I am just trying to determine when she HAD to.

FWIW, I've been trying not to let my gut feelings dictate, which are screaming to chuck P at all costs...

Mike

I'm saving up my insults for F18 NAs!

I think we all agree that P had plenty of water to turn upwind sooner. I am just trying to determine when she HAD to.

Let's talk about something else... Barging!
Mike

Let's talk about something else... Barging!

Thanks all for contributing to this learning. I've got another one for ya, probably much simpler, but I'll save that for another time. I've been able to cut down the video to about when windward enters the zone. Admittedly you cant see leeward or the contact directly. You can see/ feel and possible here it. What I'm interested in now is, did I described the situation correctly? When I desribed the situation, I tried to take a facts found approach and was able to get both boats to agree on the facts... mostly. Leeward thought they were overlapped. Incidentally, most people think they are overlapped I'm finding.

Video here: http://youtu.be/5btrp8opIuQ