Rule 18.3 remains in effect as long as one of them remains in the zone for the mark where 18.3 applies. See rule 18.1. Penalize Blue. The overlapping zones does not change how long rule 18 applies with respect to M1. Blue can luff no higher than close hauled as long as one of them is still in the zone of M1.

I base this opinion on the discussion in Team Race Call E15 for how long 18.3 applies.

Sometimes this situation is also covered by SI's which prohibit "overtaking" or certain tactics between the mark and clearance mark. This is done in furtherance of the objective of orderly mark roundings and reducing chaotic jams at the mark and clearance mark by providing separation between the two streams of traffic, one entering and one leaving the mark/clearance mark. (RSYS, Sydney has SI's which cover marks inside Kirribilli Point for some Harbour races). I assume SI's are not relevant here.

18.3 is silent as to when the limitation of not causing the outside yellow windward boat to sail above close hauled ends but also excludes the operation of 18.2 mark room unless the outside boat later gains an inside overlap which didn't happen here.

The four possibilities are that the limitation ends :
1.once the stern extension of the inside boat first passes the mark,
2. when the stern extension of the outside boat passes the mark,
3. when the inside boat has left the zone or
4. when the outside boat has left the zone.

I can't find any specific RRS which makes a boat only subject to the requirements of one zone at a time.

In the given facts if it is 3 or 4 above then the inside boat has breached the requirements of 18.3. This would result in a more orderly rounding of the two marks as one long mark increasing safety by separating incoming and outgoing traffic streams with no use of tactics between the two ends of the mark (ie between the two buoys). and could be commended for consideration to race committees that are concerned with maximising safety and minimising chaos around marks, and they might like to include their requirements in the SI's.

If you prefer to adopt the practices from 18.2 then the extension of the outside boat's stern is irrelevant as 18.2 is concerned with getting the inside boat around the mark, not the outside boat and outcome 2 above would not be adopted and once the inside boat's stern extension was past the mark she could luff the outside boat anytime thereafter (assuming for the moment that 18.2 for the clearance mark does not prevent it - see below).

Why would the inside blue boat want to luff the outside boat in this situation in any event as the inside boat is overlapped inside as it reaches the second zone and so is entitled to mark room under 18.2? Maybe to give assistance to a third boat not shown here eg in teams' racing?

Once blue has touched the zone around the clearance mark (I assume it is a mark of the course under the SI's) she is bound by 18.2. (but is she still bound by 18.3 or has it turned off because her stern extension has passed the mark? - see above) Then the question is whether 18.2 limits the operation of RRS 11 or whether it provides additional rights that apply that can assist in rounding off wind marks where otherwise the leeward boat could push the inside boat to windward of the mark? I believe that 11 still operates and so the leeward boat can luff the outside boat to head to wind unless prevented by doing so through the operation of 18.3 which in my view she is not - see above)

My post was written before I saw Norman's post
I forgot Rule 17!!
The leeward overlap was initiated by the tack which was inside 2 of her hull lengths to leeward of the starboard tack outside boat.
Before the tack by the inside boat blue Rule 18 does not apply because the two boats were on opposite tacks on a beat to windward. (I always assume wind comes from the top of the diagram in the absence of a wind direction arrow.)

As rule 18 does not apply then they are not overlapped until the inside boat completes her tack onto starboard by getting down to a close hauled course and then 17 applies as they are now overlapped established within 2 hull lengths to leeward.
The overlap does not appear to be broken before position 6 which is after the luff.
The luff is not to sail blue's proper course.
Even after a mark, until the overlap is broken, blue cannot luff above her proper course.

If Team's racing case E15 applies outside team's racing then it settles the matter matter: no luffing while either boat is still in the zone. In that case both boats were wholly within the zone when the luff occurred, based on the diagram in the case. Query what happens if neither boat is entirely in the zone. Is a boat in the zone if half of her is out of the zone? If they meant "if any part of either boat is still in the zone" wouldn't the authors of the case have said so?

But why does Rule 17 not apply to X, which tacked in the zone and established an overlap within 2 boat lengths, in case E15?
Doesn't she establish the overlap by getting onto the same tack and not being clear astern at the completion of the tack? (even though she won't become entitled to mark room as she wasn't overlapped as the first boat got to the zone as she was still on port tack then so overlap didn't apply then under the definition).
"Although rule 17 does not apply to X, she breaks rule 18.3(a) which applies as long as one of the two boats is still in the zone (see rule 18.1)."

Paul H .. you might wanna reconsider looking to RRS 17. Read the first 5 words of that rule. - Ang

PS ..

Sometimes this situation is also covered by SI's which prohibit "overtaking" or certain tactics between the mark and clearance mark.

Paul you might wanna review Rule 86.1(a) and (b) [Rule ]

Ang, thanks. I agree 17 does not apply until Blue tacks, but once the port tacker blue completes her tack onto starboard, isn't she then overlapped on the same tack, having established the overlap within 2 lengths of her own hull by her tack and therefore now subject to the proper course restriction under 17? Or can an overlap never be established by tacking, or never by tacking in the zone?

Ang, thanks for reference to 86.1. Point taken. I'll take a look an independent look at the sailing instructions if they are still available (I was speaking from memory of my skipper's advice of 4 years ago).

Paul .. first 5 words of RRS 17 .. "If a boat clear astern ....." - Ang

PS ..

It won't be the first time that an OA/RC put out SI's changing an RRS that they don't have the authority to change. See our previous thread: https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/40-rrs-86-1-changes-to-the-racing-rules

Paul,
The overlap was not established from clear astern by Blue, so 17 does not apply. For 17 to apply in this case, Blue would need to complete her tack clear astern and then overlap Yellow to leeward within 2 hull lengths.

Although Team Race Calls do not have the same standing as the Cases do for fleet racing, they are very valid for helping to understand the rules. The one caveat is that you need to be careful that the rule you are looking at was not changed by Team Racing Appendix D. In this case 18.3 is the same in team racing. And rule 18.1 says rule 18 applies as long as one of the boats is in the zone. Also, 18.3 says that when it applies 18.2 does not. So I believe Call E15 is correct that 18.3 applies until both boats leave the zone. This does not mean that Blue can’t luff Yellow above the course to the next Mark. She just can’t go above close hauled while they are still in the zone of M1 or she breaks rule 18.3.

OK Norman .. Blue delays the luff 1-1/2 boat lengths such that both boats' sterns clear the M1 zone, no foul?

Also, if we rely upon the Team Racing Call Book for a non-team event, on what peg to we hang our hat on for that? Certainly RRS 18.3 is not one of the RRS's changed for TR, so that is in its favor. Where should we place TR Calls in the priority list of references in non-team calls?

The publishing of the Call Book is governed by World Sailing regulation 28. This means that it is authoritative for team racing only

Ang

Hi guys.

Seems to me that 18 turns off when yellow has been given the mark room to which she is entitled. That happens at a somewhat undetermined point when she is no longer rounding M1. It’s like the judge said - we know it when we see it. In this situation it is long before yellows stern clears M1 as her course is to the offset. Once 18 is off 11 and 17 control. 17 is off because blue tacked into that position within two boatlengths of yellow. The offset mark doesn’t really seem to be part of the question to me as yellow is inside and leeward and 17 is off. She can sail up to head to wind so long as she allows yellow to keep clear. No rules are broken. No foul. I can’t think of a good reason why blue would do this but I feel she is entitled to luff at any point once 18 turns off.

Hi again Ang,
So, "clear astern" is also a term which only applies to boats on the same tack so a boat on port can't be "clear astern" or "overlapped" if 18 does not apply.
18 does not apply to boats on opposite tacks on a beat to windward.
So if the port tacker is, under the definitions, not clear astern and not overlapped but tacks onto port within 2 boat lengths then she hasn't established her overlap from "clear astern" so then the limitation in 17 does not apply,
So that answers why RRS 17 did not apply in case E15. Thanks
But as 17 does not apply then, if case E15 applies to other than team racing, blue can't luff while either boat is in the zone of the Mark 1 even if it has entered the zone of the clearance mark.

But even under 18.3 and E15 Blue could sail up to close hauled of Yellow until they both were at least partially (query wholly) out of the zone of the Mark 1. Then she could luff up past close hauled to almost head to wind (if there was no overlapping mark zone from the clearance mark.

But then, being being leeward boat the question is whether once she enters zone 2 (clearance mark zone) with an inside overlap she can then luff up to head to wind under 11 or does she lose those rights and is now restricted only to doing a seaman like rounding but can then luff up Yellow if she is still overlapped to windward.

Does RRS 18 turn off RRS 11 for the leeward inside boat when it is overlapped to windward as it reaches the zone or does it give it additional rights? I understood that at the windward mark RRS 18 gave additional rights, not turned off 11 in relation to outside windward boats. Is that correct?

This has been a very interesting and technical case. Thanks for posting.

Please look at 18.3. Neither Blue the inside boat, nor yellow the outside boat has mark-room in this case, all of 18.2 is turned off by 18.3. The only parts of rule 18 that apply here is 18.1 and 18.3, and 18.1 says rule 18 applies as long as one of the boats is in the zone. So, the only conclusion you can come to is that 18.3 applies until both boats leave the zone.

If you take Rule 18 and you cross off all the things that don't apply (and 18.2 is the big one that doesn't apply), then the only conclusion you can have is that 18.3 applies until they clear the zone of M1. It's a bit counter-intuitive to this fleet racer.

From a hearing perspective, determining that one of them was still in the zone would be difficult. It's not like there are lines painted on the water.

Rick, what mark room is entitled to? Isn't she just entitled under 18.3 not to be pushed further than to close close hauled? Yellow never gets overlapped inside Blue so where does any entitlement to mark room come from?

Angelo,
I Agee’s that Team Racing Calls are not “authoritative” for fleet racing. However, they are excellent for understanding the rules. The interprettions are accurate for both Team and Fleet Racing as long as the rule in question is not changed by Appendix D.

As to your question yes there would be no foul if the luff to above close hauled occurred after both sterns were outside the zone of M1.

No boat ever establishes an overlap from clear astern so the conditions for rule 17 to apply are never met and that rule does not apply.

Rule 18.3 is silent on when it ceases to apply but rule 18.1 makes it clear when rule 18 (of which 18.3 is part) applies - as long as one of them remains in the zone.

When blue luffs in position 5 rule 18.3 applies and as she forces yellow to sail above close hauled to avoid contact blue breaks rule 18.3. Rule 11 also applies so if yellow does not keep clear then she breaks rule 11. If blue luffs so hard that yellow can not avoid contact then blue has broken rule 16.1 and yellow is exonerated under 64.1(a).

The definition of Zone says a boat is in the zone when any part is in the zone, so, having read the above posts I now believe that Blue cant force Yellow past close hauled while ever either of them has any part of her hull (not equipment) in the zone.
So now I would answer the questions in the original post
1. Foul by Blue under 18.3 as 18 applies "between boats when they are required to leave a mark on the same side and at least one of them is in the zone." This turns on 18 when Blue passes head to wind onto starboard tack (see Defn of tack) (although she gains no rights until she gets down to a close hauled course)- see RRS 13).. Iin the zone" includes hull partially in the zone by definition. After the tack by Blue Rule 18 applies based on the opening words to 18.1 as both boats are now on the same tack and in the zone. But 18.2 doesn't apply because 18.3 excludes 18.2 from applying. RRS17 doesn't apply either because the overlap wasn't established from "clear astern" as defined so the "proper course" limitation in RRS 17 is irrelevant., Blue couldn't push yellow higher than close hauled under RRS 18.3, limiting Blue's rights under RRS 11. RRS 18.1 doesn't turn on until Blue tacks onto starboard so even though 18 does apply after the tack it hasn't turned blue into an overlapped boat under the definition of overlap as 18 didn't apply while Blue was on port on a beat to windward. so Blue never establishes her overlap from "clear astern" so the "proper course" limitation in 17 doesn't apply.
2. No. The 18.3 restriction applies until after no part of either hull is in the zone of Mark 1 (irrespective of whether either boat is also in the zone of the clearance mark
3 No. As for 2. The boats can be in two zones at once and if so have to comply with the requirements of both zones.

This example shows why it is so important that both an offset mark and gate marks if used, be set with at least 7 boat lengths between them.

As Rick M brings up, we racers have conditioned ourselves to think about the requirements of 18 being "satisfied" once the deference has is given to the other boat (be it mark-room or staying out of the other boat's way).

Since the language of 18.3 is basically about ensuring that a port-tacker tacking in the zone is not impeding a stb-tacker from getting to and rounding the mark, intuition would tell you that once the STB boat does both those things (gets to and rounds the mark) that the burdens of 18.3 on the port-tacker were over (which I think we've been shown they are not over until both exit the zone).

We're used to looking ahead and calling "room/no room" as we enter the 3-boat zone to engage our 18 rights, but not behind us to the 3-boat zone to disengage them.

Ang

PS David W .. I race 10m boats .. I don't think I've ever seen a 70m distance between M1 and M1a. I think 4x ... rarely 5x BL max.

ANG..You are correct. My statement should have limited this to smaller One Design Boats. Your situation would be better if this is covered in the SI.

John Mooney,
Could you explain why you impliedly think that the ruling in Team Race Call E15 as to how long 18.3 applies governs the situation. I appreciate that the situation here is not teams racing, but my understanding is that the teams rule for this situation is not modified from the standard rule and so the case should be very persuasive if not definitive. ( http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/TheCallBookforTeamRacing2017digital-[21946].pdf at p61 of the pdf. The relevant sentence is "Although rule 17 does not apply to X, she breaks rule 18.3(a) which applies as long as one of the two boats is still in the zone (see rule 18.1). "

John M.

I would suggest first starting with Matt's reply above. He puts focus on the last sentence of 18.3 first. Below is a more verbose version of what Matt offered.

When this rule applies between boats, rule 18.2 does not apply between them.

Therefore, we can toss out considering if yellow was given "mark-room", because the 2nd condition of 18.3 is never satisfied (yellow never obtains an inside overlap).

... and she shall give mark-room if that boat becomes overlapped inside her.

So, as Matt suggests, remove all the language of 18 which does not apply (BTW, that's my favorite way to walk others thru rules, take a photo copy of the pages and start redlining what doesn't apply). Here's what's left ...

18.1
When Rule 18 Applies
Rule 18 applies between boats when they are required to leave a mark on the same side and at least one of them is in the zone.

18.3
Tacking in the Zone
If a boat in the zone of a mark to be left to port passes head to wind from port to starboard tack and is then fetching the mark, she shall not cause a boat that has been on starboard tack since entering the zone to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact.

Ang

Mark-Room does not survive until the boats leave the Zone.
This matter was settled by the change to include "has been given that room, OR...leaves the zone."
Note the RRS study version:
.
A submission from the Chairman of the Racing Rules Committee
Purpose To provide answers to questions about rules 18.2(b) and 18.2(c) that are often asked by competitors and race officials.
Proposal
Change the last paragraph of rule 18.2(c) as follows:
However, when if the boat entitled to mark-room has been given that room, or if she passes head to wind or leaves the zone, rules rule 18.2(b) and 18.2(c) cease ceases to apply.
Reasons
Two questions about rule 18.2(b) and 18.2(c) are frequently asked:
‘If a boat is entitled to mark-room under rule 18.2(b) or 18.2(c) and she has received that room while still in the zone, do those rules still apply?’
‘If a boat in the zone becomes entitled to room under rule 18.2(c)(2), when does she cease to be entitled to that room?’
The proposed addition to the last sentence of rule 18.2(c) answers both those questions.
In 2013 the Q&A Panel was asked to answer a question about an incident involving two catamarans at a windward offset mark. In order to answer the question, the panel was, in essence, forced to answer both of the above questions. Their answer is in current Q&A B 005. At the time that the Q&A Panel answered that question, members of the Q&A Panel suggested that a change be made in rule 18.2(c). The change they suggested was very nearly the same as that proposed in this submission."
.
So although leaving the mark astern is a really good safe-harbor indicator that mark room is over, just coming to the new course to the next mark is the gold standard - plus room to not hit the mark itself.
In our case initial mark room ends when the boat comes to the course to the offset. A new zone begins three boat lengths from the offset mark.

Phillip, there's one problem with your analysis - 18.2, in it's entirety, does not apply in this instance.
Please note the last sentence of 18.3 - "When this rule applies between boats, rule 18.2 does not apply between them."

Paul Hanly, as you observed, TR calls are not authoritative for fleet racing, and in this case, the call governs a situation that doesn't come up in a fleet race (in a fleet race, there's no reason not to sail toward the next mark, as there is in a mark trap in a team race). In TR E15, X makes B sail above close-hauled, and that's why she is penalized. 18.3 obligated X not to make B sail above close-hauled, but it does not stop her from being a leeward, right-of-way boat, nor does it require her to bear away after the mark. X is not breaking the rule until pos. 6 of the diagram in the call book, because no part of 18 requires X to give mark-room to B unless B becomes overlapped inside X, which she doesn't. Importantly, when X takes B above close-hauled, it is highly unlikely that B has rounded the mark and assumed a course to the next mark.

In the present case, B bears away and allows Y to assume a course to the next mark, even though she is under no obligation to do so. I think what's important about B having done so is that Y has met the requirements of mark-room (Y has rounded the mark), so no part of Rule 18 applies. Now, the two boats are just two boats overlapped on the same tack; M1 is behind them and Y has been given all the room to which she is entitled at M1. B's overlap wasn't established from behind, so there is nothing that prevents her from luffing above her proper course (17 doesn't apply). When the boats enter the zone for M1a, B is inside overlapped boat and ROW boat, so she has both rights (11) and room (18.2b). Her room doesn't include more than room to sail to the mark, but her rights include the right to luff as she pleases, as long as she doesn't break 16.1.

Case 118 and Case 25 may be of some help here, though they don't address the situation exactly either, because the inside boat isn't the ROW boat. 18.2d gives a clue, but the main reason for my belief is the definition of mark-room, which includes (in relevant part):
"Room for a boat to leave a mark on the required side. Also,
(a) room to sail to the mark when her proper course is to sail close to it, and
(b) room to round the mark as necessary to sail the course...."
Please note the absence of any room for a boat to sail away from a mark she has passed unmolested by a boat of whom she is obligated to keep clear.

As Philip Hubbell notes, this issue is still under some discussion in the rules committee, and I gather that further clarification may be forthcoming.

John Mooney,

I believe you are confusing mark-room in this case. I submit that in the diagram as shown, neither boat is entitled to mark-room. 18.2, which typically defines who gets mark-room, and for how long, is turned off by rule 18.3. So you need to stop thinking about the definition of mark-room and when mark-room has ihas been given, because it is irrelevant to the situation here. So, you are left with 3 rules, 11 which says leeward has right of way, and rule 18.3, which limits how far to windward the leeward boat can luff when she tacks in the zone, and rule 18.1 that tells you when it applies. Don’t even peak at the definition of mark-room, or rule 18.2 they do not exist in the world of the scenario.

I have had much correspondence with the rules writers about how stupid this is in the context of rounding a mark, and they agree, but that is the rule as it is today. My understanding is that they are going to try to fix in the next edition, but until then this is what we have.

It won’t be too hard to fix either. All they would need to add to 18.3 is something like, “...to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact, while in the process of rounding the mark...” or something similar.

John M, no surprise here I’m with Norman’s comments above.

That said, I think there is something here with your comment

“Both parts are necessary to have the rule apply, and I submit that once a boat has reached the required side of a mark and assumed her course to the next mark, she is no longer required to pass it (on any side)”

It might be fun to flush that part out. I could see trying to argue that once the boats passed the mark they no longer have "to leave" the mark on the same side.

“To leave” is something in the future. Having left the mark would then satisfy that and thus would allow 18.1 to turn-off 18.3 once both sterns pass the mark (having left it behind).

I haven't convinced myself that I would actually agree with that argument, but I know I'd have fun arguing it none-the-less :-)

Rule 18 applies between boats when they are required to leave a mark on the same side and at least one of them is in the zone.

ang

Norman and Ang, thanks for your replies. I see what you're saying about the language in 18.3, and Norman's point that neither boat in this scenario is entitled to mark-room is well taken (my reason for involving the definition of mark-room in the discussion is that's what determines when a boat has stopped needing the protection of Rule 18, the Mark Room rule - however, I introduced a lot of confusion in the way I did that, for which I apologize). However, I still believe that the language in 18.1 shuts off 18.3 when a boat has passed the mark, because the boats no longer satisfy both necessary conditions for any part of 18 to apply (in our case, neither boat is still required to pass the mark - they have passed it already).

Norman, please note that the relevant language in 18.1 doesn't say anything about mark-room, it says when rule 18 applies (and by inversion, when it doesn't). My presumption is that means all of 18, including 18.3. That satisfies the common sense understanding of what "Rule 18" means at the beginning of the line, I believe, and it has the additional advantage of being consistent with when the rest of the rule ceases to apply (under 18.2d), as a practical matter.

Gentlemen, you may well be right, but my understanding is that each viewpoint is held by some on the rules committee, and they've been trying to resolve the conflict for some time now. Unfortunately, Norman, the extra phrase you suggest for inclusion doesn't get it done, because what's at issue is precisely when a boat ceases to be "...in the process of rounding the mark." We're gonna need something more specific, but they haven't found a satisfactory answer yet. Meanwhile, we can be grateful that it's pretty rare for boats in fleet races to do "Crazy Ivans" in between weather marks and their offsets! :)

- John

Ang and John M.
John M got me reading 18.3 more carefully.
The words "and is then fetching the mark" lept out at me.
The 18.3 limitation on forcing the starboard tacker above close hauled must end when the former port tacker is no longer fetching the mark. That is when she has already fetched the mark. My guess is that must be no later than her stern extention passed the mark. She cant be in a state of "is fetching the mark" when she has passed it.
So luff to head to wind after the former port tacker has fetched the mark, no matter where to windward the starboard tacker is at the time.

PS so I think E15 is wrong on this point.
The point about 18 itself finishing when either boat has passed the mark because it is no longer the case that "they are required to leave a mark on the same side," because at least one of them has already passed it, as raised by John is also quite persuasive.
This concept of rules losing applicability as the course is sailed and manoeuvres performed and restrictions coming into effect and turning off is something I have to get more ingrained - you sort of have to watch the video in your head and constantly ask whether rules are triggered or lose applicability and whether certain restrictions have arisen through the process defined and been triggered and also whether some change has occurred that turns the restriction off. I'm learning that you have to do it in a much more fine grained way than I previously realised.

Paul, this may seem like nit-picking, but I would respectfully suggest that while TR E15 isn't an applicable guide for the present case, it isn't wrong on its own, because neither boat has passed the mark on the way to the next mark (which I think we can safely assume to be downwind of the mark in the diagram). In order to continue sailing the course, both boats must still pass the present weather mark in the diagram on the same side, and I submit that means the rule still applies, since at least one of them is still in the zone (both of the conditions in the first line of 18.1 are met).

This is the problem with simply saying a boat has passed a mark when her stern clears it - her stern can clear it in any direction, and some of those directions still leave the mark as something both boats must pass on the same side. My understanding is that's why the discussion about the course to the next mark is relevant in the study edition of the rules, and part of what's been tying the Rules Committee in knots for so long. It would be interesting to ask someone's Appeals Committee what their view is - it might even produce a case, and then we'd have a definitive interpretation of the rule. Sadly, that hasn't happened yet. Stay tuned... :)

Thanks John, I wans't clear in my comment about E15,
I was referring to the last part of the last sentence "she breaks rule 18.3(a) which applies as long as one of the two boats is still in the zone (see rule 18.1).
The part which I think is wrong are the words "which applies as long as one of the two boats is still in the zone". This might be true about 18 still being alive, but may not be true on the limitation in 18.3
I now (and this is about my 4th change in this thread alone) think that the restriction on the former port tacker from forcing the windward boat higher than close hauled finishes when the former port tacker no longer "is fetching the mark" because she has already fetched it.
Case E15 might be right in its finding but the closing words might not translate to the current hypothetical in relation to the restriction on luffing the windward boat past close hauled. IE 18 might still apply but the restriction in 18.3 doesn't, perhaps leaving 18 as hollow after the former port tacker has fetched the mark in the current case.

Ang,

This exercise has been pretty interesting and there is something that has been bothering me about the ‘conclusion’ that Blue broke 18.

Some conversation called on Team Race Call E15 as the answer. That call is not a good guide since we no longer have Rule 18.3.a.

John Mooney made some interesting points and I would like to propose the following:

Checking R 18.1 tells us not only when to rule applies, but more importantly, when it does not.

R 18.1.b is one of the exceptions.

(b) between boats on opposite tacks when the proper course at the mark for one but not both is to tack,

Since in your example the course of Blue fulfills this requirement, R 18.1.b takes out the …while one of them is in the zone.

R 18.3 is on and R 18.2 is off.

Blue satisfied R 18.3. When both boats pass the Mark 1, the rules of Section A (which were in force always), allows Blue to change course (no R 17 restriction) to the course she sailed, provided she satisfied R 16, which it appears that she did, and Yellow was able to keep clear.

My answer to your Q 1) No foul

Q 2) This one has an element of Blue Satisfying R 16. If by Blue’s luff Yellow makes contact with M1, then Blue most likely did not give room to Yellow to Keep clear. Some talk about exoneration for Yellow will happen.

Q3) No. Blue is the inside boat that has room to sail to the mark, and room to round the mark as necessary to sail the course.

Ang,

There was a question when the mark-room ceases to apply.

If the conditions (exceptions) of R 18.1 cannot be applied, then the R 18.1 is clear: “ …as long as one of them is in the zone”. For another look at it, we can read R 18.2 d.

Makes me wonder if there is a little bit of dichotomy here. Maybe the rule makes clean it up a bit next time around.

Kim

John M,
Perhaps the test for having passed, fetched or left a mark should be that the most aft part of the boat and its equipment in a normal position, or its extention perpendicular to the keel line, has passed the mark towards the next mark. ie past a perpendicular to the rhumb line which runs tangential to the current mark on the side of it closest to the next mark.

Kim,
I think the only boat entitled to mark room in the current situation is Blue at the clearance mark only. "Mark room" as defined does not come into play in relation to the first, main Mark in the given facts as represented in the diagram. If yellow had to sail above close hauled to fetch the mark (eg if there was a wind shift knock/header after Blue had got to close hauled and was fetching the mark) then blue would not be entitled to any room and could not force yellow to tack or shoot the mark above close hauled to make room for Blue who is not entitled to "mark room" as they were did not have an inside overlap as yellow touched the zone as Blue was a port tack boat to whom 18 did not apply at that time because of exceptions a and b in 18.1.

I eventually agreed that Blue does not breach 18.3 because the luff occurred once Blue ceased to become a boat that "is fetching the mark" (because she had clearly passed the mark in the direction of the next mark) and so the restriction on Blue in 18.3 had ceased.

I don't get your focus on the "in the zone" in this case. Rule 18 (ie including its subparts .1, .2 and .3) only applies if none of the exceptions excludes it. When the relevant exception ceases to apply (after Blue passes head to wind and is on starboard tack) then the exceptions are gone and Rule 18 applies (while ever one of them is at least partially in the zone). As 18.3 applies 18.2 does not. But the limitation in 18.3 ceases to apply if Blue no longer "is fetching the mark"

18 as whole probably no longer applies at all as it only applies "when they are required to leave a mark on the same side" and once Blue has passed the main Mark 18 no longer has to leave it on any side (well not unless the course eventually brings them back to that mark but I'm sure that is not within the contemplation of the rule.)

If it is argued that 18 still appllies even after Blue has passed the mark in the direction of the next mark then I would argue 18 is totally "empty" of requirements for Blue once it has passed the mark.

18.3 does not apply once all it's requirements have been met and its preconditions for application no longer apply, but the boats are still in the zone and so consider whether there is anything left in 18 which applies.
18.2 a is irrelevant beause the inside boat has passed the mark
18.2 b is irreleavnt because they were not overlapped when the first of them reached the zone (because of the interplay of the definition of overlap and rule 18)
18.2 c is irrelevant because 18.2 never gave anyone an entitlement to mark room (Yellow was kept up after Blue's tack by RRS 11, not by 18.2)
under 18.2 d, if b or c ever applied they have ceased to apply because the inside boat has passed the mark
18.2 e is irrelevant in the circumstances as it applies to the situation when the first boat touched the zone and that is not in issue here
18.2 f is irrelevant because Blue's overlap wasn't created in either of the relevant ways.

Paul, I think your most recent take is closer to a working definition, but it still doesn't take into account such things as current or sea state, either of which might make a mark important to a boat that has already left it astern. I prefer a formulation that Paul Z. used in another thread about mark-room; "I think the real question is whether the course of the inside boat is still influenced by the mark, much like the question of whether a boat has cleared the finish line." It seems to me that while that's not as easy to draw on the water, it does have the advantage of being a broadly applicable principle.

Wow .. what a great dialog on this topic. I wanna thank everyone for their courteous contributions, points and counter-points.

This is really what is SO GREAT about what Paul Z built here (queue applause).. where else are you going to get this range of experience (from Int'l judge to lowly measurer) and insights in such a thoughtful and respectful manner?

It's upon all of us to keep this tone and dialog top-notch and inviting to all. We don't want this to become the comments-section of the Post or Times or your crazy uncle's FB page!

As a general comment, we've been here a couple times before on this forum ... that we've reached a collective impasse toward reaching an obvious interpretation of the rules. I think these discussions could be useful in seeing the potholes in drafting something clearer. Who knows, maybe the rule-gods will get word of the dialog and benefit from your contributions.

Back to our scenario ... (and just my opinion)

To summarize where I think we've ended up, we really have 2 camps ..

1. those who hold to what TR E15 describes as applicable ....
2. and those who do not and see a limit to 18.3 based upon either "fetching" language (Paul) or language in 18.1 about 'leave the mark" (John M).

I'm still 75% in camp #1 (pro TR E15).. but I could argue the other side.

In defense of the TR-E15 acceptance camp, I'd offer the following ..

The only RRS 18 changes that TR's Appendix D makes to RRS 18 is deleting 18.4 and changing 18.2, neither of which apply in this situation, therefore my previous reduction of what parts of RRS18 remain (after you remove those sections that do not apply) is common for both fleet and team racing.

That said, there have been a couple arguments as to why that still shouldn't apply (John's points).

First, that there is a TR tactic being applied here that doesn't exist in fleet racing and that there is no support in fleet racing for such a maneuver. Not that I agree that it matters, but a boat in a multi-race fleet-regatta with a toss-out could find themselves in the lead going into the last race and would be assured a win if both their, and their closest competitor's last race, is the tossed-score for each (their last races' scores get tossed, thus freezing the previous standings). Such a boat would be within sportsmanship-sailing to work to worsen both boats' scores in that last race. If the fleet was close behind them, holding both boats stalled above the mark as the fleet passes by could be an effective (and legal) tactic.

Second, that the course change to the offset (or next-mark) has or has-not been made. I don't think that matters in this case either. The way I think about that point is that there are only 3 instances when a non-ROW boat has a right to some-sort'a course to the next mark, those are (not withstanding limits of RRS's 14 & 16):

1. a non-ROW, mark-room-entitled boat has the right to sail a course to the mark once entering zone (RRS's 18.2, 2nd part 18.3, 18.4 .. none of which apply here)
2. a non-ROW, mark-room-entitled boat has the right to come to a course toward the next mark as she rounds the mark (RRS's 18.2, 2nd part 18.3, 18.4 .. none of which apply here)
3. a non-ROW not being taken above a ROW boat's proper course when the ROW boat gained a leeward close-overlap from clear-astern (RRS 17 ..which does not apply here)

Since none of the above apply in this scenario ...other than the limits by 18.3, 14 & 16, Blue is free to sail any course at any time regardless of whether or not she aimed at the next mark at some point.

On the Camp 2 side, we have the "fetching" and the "required to leave ..mark. .. same-side " arguments.

On the "required to leave ..." topic I see two issues.

First is the language of 18.1(c) ..

18.1(c) between a boat approaching a mark and one leaving it, or

There is language within 18.1 which clearly talks about boats approaching marks and leaving marks. If the intent of 18.1 was to turn off 18 when both boats have left the mark, they could have simply said so using similar language.

The 2nd issue is applying the string rule. IMO, 2 boats racing in the same race, on the same course, and on the same legs, are ALWAYS required to leave the marks on the same side. That is because a boat can always double back (or drift-back, see Case ') %>) along the string and be required to keep that mark on the specified side .... thus this "status" doesn't change once a boat simply passes the mark. Therefore, I think for that status to change between 2 boats, they would have to have passed the next mark. For instance, you could have a course which goes around marks A, B, C D. Imagine a course being ... A(p), B(p), A(s) C(p), D .. where mark C is off to the right of the mark B. Depending on what leg of the course you are on, A could be left either to Port or Stb. That is the distinction being made by 18.1 IMO.

To the "fetching" argument, I would draw your attention to the word "then" ...

If a boat in the zone of a mark to be left to port passes head to wind from port to starboard tack and is then fetching the mark ...

If the word "then" was not there, I would agree that it would be a statement of a continuous state of the boat. With the word "then" in there, seems to me it is describing an instant in time which is at the end of the tack described. It is a trigger in time which turns on what follows .. not a description of a continuous state.

I would thus argue that the "fetching" argument wouldn't hold.

So, that's my final 2 cents on this thread. A simple solution would be to copy the TR E15 to the Cases. I would love to see clarification.

Thanks All ... Ang

Thanks Ang. I like your point that "is then fetching" is an instant in time not a requirement of a continuous state.

When you look at the complexity of the rules and their interaction it gets easier to understand why there is so much give and take in the twilight and midweek afternoon races - the give and take other than on the basics is probably driven partly by the time cost and inconvenience and loss of face of bringing an unsuccessful protest. Perhaps it is the inconvenience of the whole protest process that drives the lack of willingness to protest even on the basics.

The easiest place to improve some compliance if the clubs felt so inclined is at the boat end of the start line because the race committee surely has a representative aboard or could make sure it did. That could rapidly eliminate some of the barging and refusal to respond to a luff. The next level of enforcement other than by competitors would be to have a member of the race committee in a boat (with driver) at rounding marks from time to time. Competitors would then have a real incentive to learn the rules and comply. Volunatary self enforcement doesn't even happen for clear breaches at the start boat under the noses of the race committee even when there are multiple boats that could be witnesses. Competitor enforcement is largely a lost cause in cases where there is no contact or injury.
Competitors just vent their displeasure and get on with life, rather than giving up an hour of socialising to lodge a protest and then having to give up a night to go to a protest. Lodging is made needlessly complex and time consuming for yachts that don't go back to the club.

Paul,

Lodging is made needlessly complex and time consuming for yachts that don't go back to the club.

Most SI's allow for an email protest filing (or OA's can sign-up to use Paul's system available here on RRoS.org!). Also I would call your attention to the previous thread here: Exploring the Absolute Min Protest Filing

Ang