Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Rule 44. Two-turn penalty, split into two single turns to avoid stb tack racers.
Douglas McKnight
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
- Club Race Officer
- Club Judge
0
Greetings!
Consider the following hypothetical:
After a very clear foul of a Starboard tack boat, Port embarks on an attempt to perform two penalty turns. Unfortunately, Port was only able to complete one turn before becoming concerned that they would get tangled up with some approaching starboard-tack boats. So, Port reaches for, say, 8 boat lengths to get clear, and then performs a second turn.
I remember discussing this situation with a senior Judge at a Judge training (unfortunately, I can't remember who), and he was very clear that this would not satisfy the "promptly making the required number of turns". What's the justification for this, given that Port might say that he completed his turns as promptly as was possible under these circumstances?
My own answer is that Rule 44.2 starts with the words "After getting well clear.....", suggesting that there's a clear order of events. *First* you get clear, *after* that you promptly perform the required tacks and gybes. The implication is that by doing what Port did in the above example, he failed to get "well clear" so he wasn't ready to start taking the penalty turns.
Is that correct? Are there any cases, or other related matters that might be relevant? (I didn't find much on splitting up the required tacks and gybes, except relating to going around a mark).
Thanks,
Doug
Consider the following hypothetical:
After a very clear foul of a Starboard tack boat, Port embarks on an attempt to perform two penalty turns. Unfortunately, Port was only able to complete one turn before becoming concerned that they would get tangled up with some approaching starboard-tack boats. So, Port reaches for, say, 8 boat lengths to get clear, and then performs a second turn.
I remember discussing this situation with a senior Judge at a Judge training (unfortunately, I can't remember who), and he was very clear that this would not satisfy the "promptly making the required number of turns". What's the justification for this, given that Port might say that he completed his turns as promptly as was possible under these circumstances?
My own answer is that Rule 44.2 starts with the words "After getting well clear.....", suggesting that there's a clear order of events. *First* you get clear, *after* that you promptly perform the required tacks and gybes. The implication is that by doing what Port did in the above example, he failed to get "well clear" so he wasn't ready to start taking the penalty turns.
Is that correct? Are there any cases, or other related matters that might be relevant? (I didn't find much on splitting up the required tacks and gybes, except relating to going around a mark).
Thanks,
Doug
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
"When a boat that is well clear of other boats starts to take a penalty turn, and the actions of another boat cause her to interrupt her turn to comply with rule 21.2, she complies with rule 44.2 if she then promptly completes her penalty."
Thanks for the replies and I'm glad I now know about these rulings.
But, I think these situations are significantly different from the hypothetical I describe.
In both your citations, the actions of another boat cause a boat that was, until then, well clear of other boats to have to interrupt a turn.
In the hypothetical I had in mind (and maybe I needed more description) all the other boats were simply on their beat to windward. My Port tack boat started to take his penalty, then realized he didn't have room to complete them, so reached further out of the way and did another single turn.
I find this interesting because:
A) On the one hand, you can see that my Port tack boat was clearly trying to take the penalty promptly, made sure to stay clear of other boats, and ultimately did complete two turns so suffered the appropriate time/distance penalty.
B) On the other hand, the rule seems quite specific. It starts with the words "After getting well clear of ...: ". Because Port didn't have time to complete the penalty, he wasn't "well clear" of other boats. So, tough luck on him. Next time get well clear before doing your turns...
In this situation where other boats aren't taking actions, beyond just sailing along on their beat, I am of opinion B (but willing to be corrected!).
Thanks,
Doug
If the other boats tacked to starboard (or otherwise altered course) and thus interrupted boat B's turns, then B is okay to get further clear and finish her penalty.
If the other boats were already on starboard and took no ACTION to change the situation then boat B had not gotten well clear.
Thanks
Which of these satisfy 44.2?
1. This is similar to my hypothetical, right. Boat A does some amount of tacking and gybing, delays the turns, gets well clear and completes the turns (meaning a total of only 2 tacks, 2 gybes in the same direction).
IMHO, this does NOT satisfy 44.2. for the reasons above. She did not get "well clear" before starting the turns. No other boat "switched on" 2021-006 by taking an action.
2. I'm not sure I understand the wording in this scenario. If I understand it as the following: boat A starts, but doesn't complete a turn, then sails well clear, then both starts and completes 2 full turns in this new location.
This DOES satisfy 44.2, because after getting well clear she takes 2 turns. I think the question of "did boat A take the two turns "promptly"?" would be settled by her attempt starting before the actions of another boat forced her to break off the attempt and get clear.
3. I think this, too, DOES satisfy 44.2 because, again, she started the turns promptly, and was forced to relocate because of the actions of another boat. Using Q&A 2021-006 for support.
4. I think this too, DOES satisfy 44.2 for the same reasons as 3. There is no Rule against doing another tack and gybe.
What's your interpretation of these scenarios?
thanks,
Doug
Scenario 1 has Boat A misjudging their location as being clear. Other boats didn’t change their path to cause the problem … it’s all on Boat A. This is most similar to your OP.
Scenario 2 - Boat A had a clear spot, but a boat tacked or gybed into her patch of water after she started her turns. Before Boat A completes a single turn, she realizes the change in situation, gets clear again, does her 2 turns together (This is exactly the Q&A).
Scenario 3 - same as above, but Boat A gets 1 turn in before her pause and then does only 1 more turn. This is different than the Q&A in that the turns are separated. (This is the key one … does the Q&A’s application allow for only 1 more turn after the pause?).
Scenario 4 - is just to contrast to #3 .. if the answer to #3 was “no”.
then promptly completes her penalty.”
IMO …if “her penalty” is a 2 turns penalty, a boat starts to take her [2 turns] penalty by completing 1 turn .. then “is caused to interrupt her [2 turn] penalty” and “promptly completes her [2 turn] penalty” by doing the 2nd turn… I think I’d be inclined to read the Q&A such that #3 was OK and #4’s extra turn is unnecessary.
Thanks
Doug
'[G]etting well clear' in rule 44.2 should not be interpreted as meaning getting so far clear that an obligation to keep clear of other boats under rule 21.2 never arises. That would leave rule 21.2 with no work to do, which would be absurd.
Further, I don't think a heavy onus should be placed on a boat intending to take a penalty to foresee actions of other boats: if she sails from the point of the incident into a space which at that time is sufficient to take her turns penalty, she should be taken to comply with tthe getting well clear requirement: if later other boats sail into that area and she is required to comply with rule 21.2, so be it: that appeaars to be a logical, sequential application of the rules.
Coming to Douglas' 8 boat lengths reaching scenario.
My immediate response is that 8 boat lengths reaching is too far.
A 15 ft dinghy reaching at 4 kts will take 20 seconds to cover that distance: thats a substantial interruption against the 'promptly' reqirement of rule 44.2.
Possibly if there were multiple boats approaching the boat taking the penalty, she would need to go that far to get clear of them and continue her penalty.
OP here. Thanks for joining in. In this hypothetical, I was imagining Port tried to get in her turns before a clump of starboard tack boats arrived, realized that's she'd misjudged the situation and had to sail for a significant distance/time to get clear of that group so that she could do another turn. None of the other boats tacked, changed course, etc. This was all down to Port's mis-judgement of the room required to do the turns.
I wanted to clearly separate the turns in the hypothetical scenario, show that Port obeyed 21.2, and then ask if she'd satisfied 44.2 assuming the whole sequence happened as promptly as possible, given it involved two separate turns.
In the fourth post in this discussion, I choose option "B" and say that she did NOT satisfy 44.2, because the Rule says " *after* getting well clear do the turns" and I reckoned that she was not "well clear" if there was no room to do turns before the starboard tack boats showed up. I think rule 21.2 still has work to do if someone tacked or changed course into the area where the turns were being performed.
I guess I have developed the impression that the Rules don't want to give the boat which is taking the penalty the option of dodging their way through a fleet, sticking together a loose assembly of tacks and gybes as opportunities arise. Instead, that boat is are supposed to, first, get well out of the way then do the turns. But, if another boat *takes some action* to mess up the turns, then the boat taking the penalty can interrupt, then complete the turns.
As you say, she should not be expected to forsee actions (tacks, course change etc) of another boat, but surely she should be expected to presume that a clump of boats sailing a course will continue to do so?
What do you think?
Regards,
Doug
Often there is an expectation that a boat will tack or gybe to sail the course, so by not tacking a boat may be doing something unexpected. It may be that a wind shift has moved a layline further away then when the penalty taker started her turns, or just a different judgement on the non-tacking boat as to where the lay line is. There are also malicious (or stupid asserting rights because they can) cases where a boat might sail beyond where she would be expected tack to give grief to the boat taking a penalty, requiring an interpretation of 23.2, with all the usual difficulties of establishing the subjective "proper course" of a boat.
So for me, the ansewr is "it depends". I would look at two things:
Yes, agreed, and that all makes sense.
So, if we stick with a very simple scenario where
1. demonstrably the penalty-taker wasn't able to get their two turns in before having to reach out of the way,
2. a jury would think it was not reasonable for them to expect to get their two turns in, (given the collection of circumstances)
Would you agree with my view that this would establish that they were not "well clear", and so therefore they didn't satisfy 44.2?
I guess the question I'm trying to wrestle into submission is whether "well clear" is simply satisfied by not breaking 21.2, by doing what my hypothetical two-single-turn boat did?
I think not. I think it makes sense that more is required, otherwise there is no need for the "well clear" language.
Thanks
Doug
The boat still must get well clear "as soon... as possible after the incident."
"Promptly" adds nothing but our confusion to the situation.
On the flip side, match racing rules allow a boat to take a penalty any time before the finish and to avoid it if they can get a penalty back on the other boat. The whole point of match racing is to gas your openent for the rest of the race and there is no fleet to worry about.
So there is a lot of distance between those two extremes and I do wonder what value "prompty" adds to general racing. It makes down wind penalties a lot more punative as turns with the kite up is dangerous and dropping the kite and relaunching is expensive. Also, in many fleets it can take a few minutes for all the situational info to filter through to whoever actually knows the rules to understand they were in the wrong and need to do turns. It would be a bit counterproductive if a boat took a minute or two to realize they were in the wrong, but then also realize that there is no point in taking a penalty because it was not promptly taken. so instead they take their chances in the room or hope the protest goes away. Perhaps it is best to leave "promptly" in the rule, but to have a variable interpretation of "prompt" depending on the fleet: seconds for an olympic fleet and minutes for a club fleet?
However I, too, think that the definition of "promptly" should be interpreted with a degree of context. In a club race with beginner racers, I would argue that they should be given more time to figure out whether they broke a rule and what to do (within reason). At a club level we're trying to grow the sport and, if someone is trying to do the right thing but just a bit slow about figuring it out, I'd be ok with that. (If there was any hint that they were delaying for a tactical reason then, of course, no mercy! )