Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

When Has a Tack Occurred Fluky Winds?

Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
This relates to Radio Controlled Yacht Racing especially, since close trees, buildings, bankings etc can readily cause big wind shifts of short duration, especially in light winds.
In the drawing, the Blue boat enters the zone (4 boat lengths) first with Mark Room. The wind is light and fluky. Blue boat tries to shoot the Mark (easy for RC yachts in light winds), beginning at P3. A wind shift at P4 (nominally htw) causes the sails to briefly move from the port side to the starboard side and at P5 returns to the port side. Between P4 and P5 Blue's heading does not change. (disregard the sails appearing to be backed - this is just how the Boats Scenario program does it - assume sails momentarily may have followed the boom)
Red claims that Blue was Tacking and has Tacked. Therefore loses Mark Room, and tacks inside the Zone. Red had to go above close-hauled and claimed Blue infringed R13, R18.2(d) and R18.3, maybe R15 also.
Blue denies tacking and claims that Blue still had Mark Room and Red failed to give Mark Room. Blue further claims that Blue did NOT "Pass" Head to Wind - but rather that the wind passed Blue's bow. The example was given that a car passes a lamp post but the lamp post does not pass the car. The regular English definition of "Pass" (which is NOT defined in the Rules) is cited to be " "Pass" (which is the root of "passes") is defined as 3. a: to move in a path so as to approach and continue beyond something : move past". [bold added]. If the bow does not move port or starboard relative to the previous heading, how can it be said that the boat "passes head to wind"?The wind passes the bow, but the boat heading did not move. " (Credit to RCLaser03)
Note that under "Definitions"
1. Tack is " corresponding to her windward side"
2.  "Leeward and Windward - A boat’s leeward side is the side that is or, when she is head to wind, was away from the wind.  - " and " However, when sailing by the lee or directly downwind, her leeward side is the side on which her mainsail lies". (i.e. the mainsail side only applies downwind)

The question is "has a yacht tacked if the wind shifts and causes sails to briefly move to the other side then back again". and "Who should be disqualified"

When is a Tack 230317.png 64.8 KB
Created: 23-Mar-17 01:54

Comments

Johan Bergkvist
Nationality: Australia
0
Blue tacked and then broke R13. The fact that the wind "briefly" changed direction is irrelevant. The "passes" in "passes head to wind" is the direction of the boat RELATIVE the wind direction, not relative ground.

R18.2(d) is not a rule you can break, it just turns off R18, which happened at position 5 leaving Blue without mark-room. R15 did not apply as R13 still did. R18.3 didn't apply before or at position 5 (at position 6 maybe, but that's too late).
Created: 23-Mar-17 03:34
Greig Ebeling
0
The only means available to determine if a boat has tacked is whether the sails "flop over".  Blue claims it was fluky winds, and maybe that is true, but how would Blue prove it?  Also Blue's actions probably should have taken into consideration the conditions (fluky winds), and so realised that she was taking a risk by shooting the mark.  

My view is:
(4) Blue has tacked to port, and so Red has acquired ROW (R13, etc), and so Blue should take a penalty. 
(5) Red is required to give Blue room to keep clear (R15), and so Red may also have infringed.



Created: 23-Mar-17 03:54
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
Hi Johan. Thanks for comment. I said "infringed". I think "infringed", in the context, meant that according to R18.2(d), that Blue lost Mark Room afforded by R18.2(b). Fair point about relative to the wind direction - but the subject (gramatically) is the boat, not the wind. And the boat didn't "pass" (active verb) the wind. That is the crux of Blue's arguement.  Once it has been established whether Blue Tacked or not, the other rules fall into place. If, say a road worker, moved the "Stop" sign past your car, have you infringed the law by "passing" the Stop sign?
Created: 23-Mar-17 04:08
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
Hi Greig. Thanks for comment. I don't think "flop over" applies. Tacking is defined and requires  "a boat passes head to wind". In RC racing, in light winds, waves alone can cause the sails to "flop over" (probably true in big boats too - except the waves would have to be pretty big). If it is established that Blue HAS tacked, then all the other Rules fall into place. I think "proof" is difficult for both parties - but if they agree that Blue did not change direction, and that Blue's boom did swing from one side to the other - did Blue Tack - that is the crux of the matter. (p.s. I am an impartial observer and support neither point of view - but I see both sides and don't know how it would be decided)
Created: 23-Mar-17 04:20
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
1
Hi Greig. Re-reading your comment, you have made a good point with respect to R15.  But since Red gained ROW due to the action of the other boat, she is not limited by R15.
Created: 23-Mar-17 04:32
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
I am reminded of sailing at Datchet Water in the UK, right under the London Heathrow flight path, where on occasion I've experienced transitory wind effects so bizarre that my only explanation was that the trailing vortices from a departing heavy were reaching ground level. I've also sailed up a reservoir arm in northern England where the light wind was oscillating to such an extent that we genuinely tacked several times without changing heading. The point being that its possible for the wind to do such strange things as to defeat any reasonable rule writing. Typically, in my experience at least, I think folk in such places tend to apply the rules with a light hand and will distinguish a genuine attempted tack from the effects of a  wind eddy and pretend the latter didn't happen. 

Very rarely though a situation like this is bound to get through. What is a PC to do? We are, AIUI, required to be comfortably satisfied as to the facts found, and then apply the rules. If we stuff up our rule interpretation then an appeal can sort it out. Are there guidelines for when a PC is unable to reach that level of certainty about what occurred on the water? 
Created: 23-Mar-17 06:20
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
Hi Jim. Thanks for you comment. I believe there used to be a rule in the distant past where "unavoidable contacts" could be exonerated. But that rule has been discarded, so strictly speaking, someone has to take the hit or both will be disqualified. Perhaps PC can dismiss a protest under explanation that there was insufficinet evidence to determine the facts?
Created: 23-Mar-17 07:42
Johan Bergkvist
Nationality: Australia
0
Stewart, I think it's always about the relative change of direction and here's why: Image the wind-shift to the left that caught Blue remained (i.e. a header). I think Blue would have been quite happy finding himself suddenly on port tack well to windward of Red and carried on on port tack. He certainly would not have tried to claim that he didn't tack and was on starboard tack or head-to-wind.
Created: 23-Mar-17 08:46
Aldo Balelli
Nationality: Italy
Certifications:
  • National Race Officer
  • National Judge
2
Steward, "insuficient evidence to determine the fact" should never be on a protest PC decision. The standard of proof to apply in a hearing is  ""balance of probabilities"", not "evidences". So a PC has to  determine what most probalbly happened (not what has been proved to happen) 64.1 a); 49% possibility it happened one way.  and 51% the other way? : so the other way (51%) is to be taken as "fact found" . Even though the PC is not so happy about it.
Created: 23-Mar-17 08:47
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
Hi Aldo. Thanks for that clarification.
Created: 23-Mar-17 09:10
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
Hi Johan. I think your scenario where a boat continues to sail on the new tack is clear cut - I am considering the scenario where it is a monentary "flip-flop" due to either wind turbulance or sudden ceasation of wind but the boat continues making way (when apparent wind might become relevant) and the "tack - tack", if it occurred, introduced new ROW, Limitation and Mark Room considerations. I don't agree nor disagree with your take on the "passing" relative to the wind and not the "passing" relative to the ground/water. But I do think the concept of "passing" is relevant too. So, since the "passing" refers to the boat's bow direction, and here it is the wind change which "passes" the boat's bow - then maybe it is not a tack?  I'm hoping someone can come up with definitive answer based on Cases/Calls or some other precedent.
Created: 23-Mar-17 09:30
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
I want to bump Aldo’s observation. We determine what happened, sometimes on the narrowest of balance-of-probability.  Once that determination is made, that is the fact.

Also, was there damage?  Between 4-5, Red doesn’t seem to have responded to Blue’s luff before the sail flopped and Blue passed HTW at 5.  15 doesn’t apply, but 14 still does.  IMO Blue doesn’t change course in such a way that Red couldn’t have anticipated the need to avoid contact, so if there was damage, Red’s possible exoneration under 43.1(a) and 43.1(c) needs scrutiny.

Also, Red let herself get very close to Blue in a boat-to-boat orientation bow-to-stern which severely limited Blue’s ability to maneuver in both directions.  Based on the drawing, before the tack at 5, was Red keeping clear under rule 11 (can Blue change course in either direction without making contact immediately before the tack)? How close Red was before the tack, and whether that was too close, also needs determination. 
Created: 23-Mar-17 12:48
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
1
When looking at a changing situation, judges & umpires employ the concept of 'the last point of certainty' which basically states that the state of something has not changed until you are certain that it has.  This is currently specifically included in match racing as rule 7 (see C2.5).  It is also embodied in rule 18.2(e).  I think there is also a move to include this in the part 1 rules in the next quad.

In the case as described, it is not certain the boat went through HTW so it should be presumed that they did not.  So the state of the boats did not change.  I think Red is going to have a lot of problems here as the windward boat and one required to give room as the situation develops.

We have to recognize that the wind is never constant in either velocity or direction nor is a boat's course constant.  This is true no matter the size of the boat.  A boat can be "HTW"  and both the wind and the boat can change direction slightly without being certain that the boat went through HTW and becoming a tacking boat.  It's only when you are certain that it happened that it did happen.
Created: 23-Mar-17 13:51
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
Our pond has become a magnet for light and fluky conditions as Amazon and others continue to build tall buildings in the vicinity.
We see these auto-tack and auto flip-flops on a regular basis now.
Our solution is to recognize that we have no control over this, we expect this, we chalk it up to fate, and we pardon one another.
Sail on. It is radio-sailing. No one got wet or got fingers smashed, and no one's gelcoat got scratched.
What allows us to be so generous is that we have a longstanding one-in-three throw-out policy historically necessitated by frequent encounters with both weeds and our welcome newcomers.
Created: 23-Mar-17 17:13
Russell Beale
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Regional Umpire
  • National Judge
0
Interesting scenario.  A few observations:
  1. whether you pass through the wind, or the wind changes significantly so it passes you, if it goes onto the other side, then you have tacked
  2. frames of reference are relative - if you pass the stop sign, then from a different frame of reference, the stop sign passes you (e.g. the passenger in the car is still - everything passes by the window.....)
  3. protest committees *must* find facts - they may be incorrect in their interpretation, but they have to determine, to the best of their ability and on the blance of probabilities, what happened. Then that is the 'truth' that the rules are applied to. 
  4. if Blue puts herself in such a position that her actions are open to such an interpretation then she puts herself at risk
  5. entering a protest committee hearing is never without jeopardy - protest committees may interpret things differently than how you saw it or thought it to be true.  Different committees may decide different things in the same situation......
  6. the match racing approach of going back to the previous known position is a good default, and if the situation is in doubt, is likely to result in a 'not tacked' decision
  7. given all you said, if the wind changes in a brief period such that the wind is now coming across the other quarter, then you have officially tacked
  8. consider this - if you rigged your boat alongside a pontoon and were on port tack, and a week later when you rigged, in the same position on the pontoon, the wind was coming from the other direction and you were on starboard, you'd not argue you were still on port tack because the boat was pointing the same way. True for 1 hour difference.  True for 5 mins.  True at 5 seconds.  True at one second.....

Created: 23-Mar-18 00:45
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
Thanks Russell. A few good points. Not sure I accept your #2. Once you get into "frames of reference", you can make all sorts of arguements about all sorts of things. If a road worker moves a Stop sign past your car, you have not committed the crime of passing the stop Sign!  In the end you have argued both sides.
Created: 23-Mar-18 01:27
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
John and Russell. I like the "last point of certainty" approach. I'll remember that one for lots of disputes.
Created: 23-Mar-18 01:31
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
Angelo. I understand your point that Red should have kept clear of Blue's luff, and if Blue had not tacked, then Red infringed R11. If the "fact" is that Blue did not tack, then Red is clearly wrong by failing to give Mark Room and infringing R11. Blue would be exonerated even if she infringed R16.1. But if Blue did tack then Red would be in the clear. I don't think she is obliged to "anticipate" Blue might change tack. R14 is rarely invoked in RC racing. But I'm seeing an overwhelming support for "balance of probability" and "last point of certainty".
Created: 23-Mar-18 05:25
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Stewart re: “But if Blue did tack then Red would be in the clear. I don't think she is obliged to "anticipate" Blue might change tack.”

I’m making a different point. Our assumption is that Blue is holding her course basically when the wind shifts and puts her on port tack?  If so, there is nothing for Red to anticipate, Blue is holding her course and Red, when she was the KC boat, didn’t respond much to Blue’s ROW luff to windward.  Red remained on a converging course with Blue. 

Assuming that it is found that Blue did tack without changing course, Red has gone from a close, converging KC boat under 11 to a close converging ROW boat under 13 with an obligation to avoid contact. 

Blue makes no change of course during this tack, and at 5, it appears it is not possible for Blue to avoid contact, as a turn in either direction puts either her bow or stern into Red. 

Red on the other hand maintained a converging course while KC and had ample room to starboard to avoid contact both when KC under 11 and later when ROW 13. 

It is not Blue’s tack which “compelled” Red to break 14. Blue basically held her course. IMO 43.1(a) is out. So it’s down to 43.1(c) so Blue needs a “no damage” situation to escape 14. 
Created: 23-Mar-18 14:03
Aldo Balelli
Nationality: Italy
Certifications:
  • National Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Angelo just anticipated my point. Mind the world "keep":  to remain or cause (someone or something) to remain in a specified state or condition (Thesaurus dictionary). 
So, to keep something, you should have had it beforehand. 
If blue would have been given the room to keep clear under 11, then, under an hipotetical 13, blue could have been able to keep clear. But with no room to keep, what could she do?
Red just broke 11,and she's clutching at straws to avoid a well deserved DSQ
Created: 23-Mar-20 09:31
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
Angelo, Aldo, I accept your points, but to be honest, I wasn't really looking for an opinion on that aspect - I was looking to find how a wind-caused tack would be judged. Your points came to light because of my failure to isolate the tack/no-tack debate. Nonetheless, I welcome the input. You have raised an issue I hadn't considered. I get your point - which seems to be that Red would have broken a rule if the tack hadn't occurred so that same point applies even though it did occur. (At east I think that's the jist of it?)
Created: 23-Mar-20 11:58
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Stewart … I think so. Boiling it down from my POV (and my opinion). 

  1. I really like John C’s point. When HTW, sails and booms can flop around and winds are never perfectly steady. 
  2. Was Red so close to Blue before the wind-shift that Blue couldn’t respond to it?  If so, the question whether Red kept clear of Blue before the shift and maybe broke rule 11, should be asked. 
  3. If there was a tack while Blue held her course, there was contact and Red had room to avoid the contact, Red’s exoneration for breaking 14 will rely upon 43.1(c) … no damage or injury. (Given the diagram, Blue had no maneuver at 5 to avoid contact) and Blue’s potential rule 13 breach did not compel Red to break 14. 

I’d toss another question out there (as I prepare to duck, run and hide)

Is being head to wind and the wind shifting (momentarily putting you on another tack) .. an “action”?  Did Blue “act” when her tack changed? 

If Blue didn’t do “an action”, then maybe 15 isn’t off the table for Red? 

 If 15 applies then Blue initially gets room, which again means Red has to be far enough away so Blue can fall-off away from Red. 
Created: 23-Mar-20 14:21
Aldo Balelli
Nationality: Italy
Certifications:
  • National Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Right, Steward. I saw many opinions about this wind shift/unwanted tack, and franky I do not think there is a definition of that in the RRS.

The way i look at it: 

- Blue luffs, Red under 11 should keep clear (of course, Blue respecting 15)
- both boats get head to wind wind, Red still under 11
-  wind suddently shifts on the left, then BOTH boats are on port. Do they tacked, according to the rules? Well, I say, who cares? they are now both on port, wether they liked or not. New rules. Now Blue is  under 11. Blue not clear from Red? It means that Red already broke 11 before the wind shift.
 
So, in short: the wind shift, and the boats  get in a different situation, where different rules apply, well,  the new rules must be applied. Regardless on how they get there. 
If the boat losing its ROW,  under the new scenario,  is unable to stay clear, it means there was something wrong before.

So, at the end, for me, no issue


Created: 23-Mar-20 17:19
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
Angelo, Yes, you had me chuckling a little! So not only we have to consider how the definition of "passes" applies to the rules - we now have to consider if it was the boat or the wind which had "acted"!  So does 15 apply? (No! No! - I'm not going there either!!)
Created: 23-Mar-21 02:19
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more