John re: "Ang suggested that the 'direct corridor' somehow didn't apply because it only applied when boats were able to "sail directly downwind to a leeward mark". This goes to the sails, conditions, and characteristics of the boats."
What I hoped to suggest is that the words "direct corridor" be put into context of the facts of Case 75 and the surrounding paragraph, which I think I did.
The Case-writers summarize the main thrust of the cases for us.
Here is Case 75's:
When rule 18 applies, the rules of Sections A and B apply as well. When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat must gybe at a mark, she is entitled to sail her proper course until she gybes. 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.
There is nothing above about defining the bounds of MR in a general sense. Yes .. they use "direct corridor" in the case text while describing the scenario and in making points about how the rules apply in this situation.
In Case 75, to help make the point that Sections A and B apply while rule 18 applies, (in summary) they describe how, as ROW, S is not restricted to her mark-room as long as she complied with 18.4 and 16.1. To do that, Case 75 describes what S's mark-room was in this circumstance
so that they can show that S sails outside that mark-room.
What I'm saying is, we know that in the situation of Case 75, Boat S's mark-room was
a "direct corridor".
What I am also pointing out is that Case 75 does not make a more general, sweeping statement such as, "A boat's mark-room is a direct corridor that leads directly from where it enters the zone to a position on the proper-side of the mark
. Therefore S's mark-room was .... ".
I am noticing (honestly looking at this from a new perspective) that the statement is what S's mark-room was in this circumstance.
I am also wondering (aloud for all to read) if perhaps I may have carried that "direct corridor" idea into situations which were significantly dissimilar from Case 75's facts where it was maybe less applicable.That
is what I'm trying
... and speaking of cases that are specifically focused on defining this space ...
Let's look at Case 118
which actually is
focused on interpreting what mark-room is.
Case 118's summary:
In the definition Mark-Room, the phrase “room to sail to the mark” means space to sail promptly in a seamanlike way to a position close to, and on the required side of, the mark.
Here, Case 118 introduces the term "promptly" directly into the summary of it's key point (and the description). Is an asym boat forced to DDW with a collapsed spin going to sail "... promptly in a seamanlike way to a position close to, and on the required side of, the mark."?
Maybe .. maybe not. It depends.
So, is Case 75's "direct corridor" description of S’s MR in conflict with Case 118's "sail promptly to"?
No, I don't think so when we apply Case 118's description of what ‘room to sail to the mark’ “means” on Case 75's description of what Boat S's mark-room was in Case 75’s specific circumstance. Both boats were sailing directly down wind prior to reaching the zone. Continuing in that direct corridor puts S promptly close to the mark on its proper side.
Now .. back to the OP drawing. Is Green sailing promptly in a seamanlike way to be close to and on the proper side of the mark?
I think she arguably is. Green puts forth the case that sailing the VMG course she did put her in the position close to the mark faster than if she headed lower earlier.
Isn't that “sailing promptly”?