Forum: 2022 Test Rule 18 - Revision 1 (May 2022)
Proposed Test Rule 18 and (withdrawn) Case 133
Feike Hylarides
Nationality: Netherlands
Certifications:
- National Judge
1
Objective of this post is to consider how the proposed RRS TR 18 works out with respect to the following references:
1. Case 133 (withdrawn for review).
(published in 2015 supplement to the Case Book 2013-2016)
(published in 2015 supplement to the Case Book 2013-2016)
2. New Scenario – 18.2 vs. 18.3 and “Cause”, https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/492-new-scenario-18-2-vs-18-3-and-cause
3. Meat in the sandwich?
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/993-meat-in-the-sandwich
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/993-meat-in-the-sandwich
From what I can see, RRS TR 18 does not yet provide a fully satisfactory and unambiguous solution.
Case 133 (withdrawn for review)
Case 133 has intrigued sailors and jury-members for years, as it considers a situation that is very common, especially in dinghy sailing with large fleets. The case has been withdrawn for review since 2017, apparently for good reason. Now a WS drafting team has published a proposed test rule 18 (RRS TR 18), inviting comments.
As Case 133 resembles closely the other two referenced posts hereinafter, especially ref. 2, Case 133 is not considered separately.
18.2 vs. 18.3 and “cause”.
The diagram below is from ref. 2, the post initiated by Angelo Guarino.
For the sake of argument and to arrive at what IMO is the core of the matter, I leave out the following items that were also part of ref. 2:
- the hails
- consequences when R comes short of fetching the mark (extensively discussed in ref.2).
- any references to RRS 10, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20. Or IOW the assumption is that none of the boats breaks any of these rules.
Then, my facts for this case come down to:
1. Windward mark to be left to port.
2. Directly leeward from the mark R and B, both on port tack, enter the zone in overlap with half a boat-width between them, B outside and one-third boat-length ahead of R.
3. G, fetching the mark, enters the zone on starboard on collision course with R and B.
4. Both R and B, simultaneously, tack to starboard, leeward from G.
5. All three boats in overlap on starboard: R a boat-width below the layline, B ~on the layline, G a boat-width above the layline, all fetching the mark..
6. If G holds her course, there is space for one boat (but not two) to pass between G and the mark.
7. R luffs to pass the mark, B luffs and keeps clear of R, G luffs above CH and keeps clear of B.
8. G protests both R and B because she was caused to sail above CH, citing RRS 18.3..
ANALYSIS UNDER 2021-24 RRS:
At position 4, after R and B both tacked, a new overlap has come into existence.
Between them, RRS 18 applies, 18.2(b) does not apply, 18.2(a) does apply.
B as the outside boat shall give mark-room to R.
Between R and G as well as between B and G RRS 18.3 applies. R nor B shall cause G to sail above CH.
When R luffs at position 5, she changes course. By RRS 16.1 she shall give B room to keep clear, which includes room to comply with B’s obligations towards G under 18.3.
(note that R cannot satisfy RRS 16.1 as long as there is overlap with B).
So, here is the controversy:
- B has to give (mark-)room to R.
- R has to give room to B.
- Precedence as yet unresolved, given that Case 133 is under review for 6 years now.
ANALYSIS UNDER RRS TR 18:
At position 4, after R and B both tacked, a new overlap has come into existence.
Between them, RRS TR 18 applies, 18.2(a) does not apply, 18.2(e) does apply.
B as the outside boat shall give mark-room to R. (this looks like same as above, but… see below under RRS TR 18.3).
Between R and G as well as between B and G RRS TR 18.3 applies. R nor B shall cause G to sail above CH.(same as above).
RRS TR 18.3:
If a boat that has passed HtW in the zone and another boat was fetching the mark at that time,
(a) Rule 18.2 does not apply between them, and…
Does this newly worded rule RRS TR 18.3 form a game change as applied to R and B?
Its first sentence now says ‘If R has passed HtW’ (a ‘perpetual’ condition) while RRS 18.3 uses the words ‘If R passes HtW’ (an occurrence of infinitesimal duration). One now might read this clause as follows for our case:
“If R has passed HtW in the zone and B was fetching the mark at that time, rule 18.2 does not apply between them”.
Note that both R and B tack simultaneously as assumed and B fetches the mark from the moment she passes HtW according to the definition. Also, B is not under the obligation to have been fetching the mark since entering the zone.
Conclusion:
- RRS TR 18.2 is off, no mark-room for R and 18.3(b) prohibits R to cause B to sail above CH.
- R DSQ RRS TR 18.3(b).
- Exoneration for B for causing G to sail above CH.
Question : is this the intended effect of the change? If so, the RRS TR 18 -drafting team might want to clarify this further, especially when B tacks a little later than R, .
While the reasoning above IMHO is not fully satisfactory, there is an argument that supports its correctness. For this, we go back to RRS 2013-2016, where 18.3 says:
“If R passes HtW in the zone and is then on the same tack as B which is fetching the mark rule 18.2 does not thereafter apply between them”.
The problem with this rule is that it does not provide a resolution when the boats pass HtW simultaneously, which is why the rule was adapted for RRS 2017-2020. (see the entry by Rob Overton in ref.2, 19-Dec-11, 15:57).
Now, given the scrutiny by which drafting teams operate, one must assume that the changes in RRS TR: (‘has passed’ i.o. ‘passes’ and ‘was ..at that time’ i.o. ‘is’) have been made deliberately to resolve the problem of R and B tacking simultaneously.
“Meat in the sandwich”.
The diagram below is from the ”sandwich”-post initiated by John Ball, simplified by :
- concentrating on boats Y and G, leaving aside boat Red, that was caused to sail above CH by the manoeuvers of G and Y
- ignoring references to RRS 10, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20, like rabove.
So, my facts for this case are:
- RC sailing, 4-lengths zone
- Y and G on port tack in zone of mark to be kept on port (pos. 1).
- First entry into the zone by Y, 2.5 boat lengths windward to G, slightly ahead in overlap.
- R enters zone on starboard tack, collision course with G, fetching the mark.
- G tacks to starboard and fetches the mark, Y remains on port. Collision course: G may potentially touch Y midships (pos. 2 and 3).
- At the mark Y luffs to HtW and tacks..
- G luffs to avoid Y (pos. 4) .
- G causes R to sail above CH.
Question: at position 3-3½ , between Y and G, which boat should give room the other one, presuming there is no room for them to pass the mark together at the same time?
Discussion/analysis based on RRS 2021-2024:
When Y passes HtW, two rules come into play:
(a) RRS 13, requiring Y to keep clear of G. Kicks in “after Y passes HtW”.
(b) RRS 18.2 (a) requiring G to provide mark room to Y. Kicks in “when boats are overlapped”.
Apart from semantics these occurrences are simultaneous.
Discussion:
- Like in the previous case, we have a dilemma:
- Y has to keep clear of G (RRS 13).
- G has to provide mark-room to Y (RRS 18.2(a)
- No conclusion.
Discussion/analysis based on RRS TR 18:
In this case, RRS TR 18.3(a) applies: If a boat (Y) has passed HtW in the zone and another boat (G) was fetching the mark at that time, (a) rule 18.2 (Giving Mark-Room) does not apply between them.
Conclusion: Y is not entitled to mark room and must keep clear of G, first under RRS TR 10 and subsequently under RRS TR 13.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Does this newly worded rule RRS TR 18.3 form a game change as applied to R and B?
I think this is meant to clean up a part of 18.3. As currently worded, there is a problem with using "passes" as you have to read rule 18.3 as if it already applies at the moment the boat goes through HTW, which it doesn't. The entirety of rule 18 does not apply until both boats are on the same tack and that doesn't happen until the boat "has passed" HTW not before or when she "passes" HTW (see definition of Leeward and Windward). At the moment that the boat passes HTW she is still on the original tack. By saying "has passed" you can apply the requirements of 18.1, determine that the rule applies, and then apply 18.3 in the right context.
If it were this simple, the original 'sandwich'-case might not have contained som 86 entries encompassing more than 50 pages of text without coming to a clear conclusion. What it comes down to, is (a) the (assumed) facts say rule 10 and 15 are not violated, and (b) contrary to what most sailors think, the rights of Y start at the moment she passes HtW. She is then overlapped on the same tack with G and this entitles Y to mark room from G. On the other hand Y should keep clear of G under RRS 13. This controversy, unresolved, is the argument central to the post.
Feike
I begg to differ regarding your anlysis of the current RRS. The seeming antinomy between 16.1 (first situation), 13 (second situation) and 18.3 regarding I and M can be solved through 43.1(b):
First situation
I agree that R has to give B room to keep clear (which includes room to to comply with B's obligation towards G under 18.3), and she does not, and therefore violates 16.1. However R sails within the Mark-Room to which she is entitled to versus B under 18.2(a), and is therefore exonerated under 43.1(b).
Note that 43.1.(b) does not vice versa exonerate B (sailing with the room she is entitled to versus R under 16.1), because 43.1.(b) does not exonerate from a violation of 18.2(a). This solves the question of precedence. In other words: 18.2(a) overrides 16.1 because of 43.1(b).
Second situation
I agree that Y, while tacking, has to keep clear of G, and she does not, and therefore violates 13. However, upon establishing overlap with G, Y is entitled to mark-room versus B under 18.2(a), and sails within this mark-room to which she is entitled to, which here includes room to tack (as she is overlapped inside and to windward of G), and is therefore exonerated under 43.1(b).
Note that 43.1.(b) does not vice versa exonerate G, because 43.1.(b) does not exonerate from a violation of 18.2(a). This solves the question of precedence. In other words: 18.2(a) overrides 13 because of 43.1(b).
Situation versus boat approaching on starboard tack
I think the more difficult question is whether the two boats tacking (I, M) violate 18.3 versus the boat approaching the mark on starboard tack (S). The tricky question is, whether the boat in the middle (M), by causing S to sail above clause hauled, is exonerated under 43.1(a), arguably because she was compelled to do so by I. Case 133 had exonerated M under this rule (previously 64.1(a)).
43.1(a), however, only grants exoneration if a boat that compells another boat to break a rule, has broken a rule herself. In our situation, I indeed has broken a rule (16.1, 13 resp.), but is exonerated under 43.2.(b). But still she has broken a rule (16.1, 13 resp.). In my opinion, M may therefore rely on exoneration under 43.1(a).
Conclusion
Under current RRS, I therefore conclude:
Comments are most welcome.
PS: I do not comment on the test rule.
One point to highlight, as always, is the speed this is happening and the requirement to sail in a seaman like manner. If a starboard tack boat alters course 5 or 10 boat lengths out from the mark to avoid a potential collision (in a seaman like manner because of his closing speed) with a port tack boat, is he able to call protest on the port boat he is avoiding, I believe the answer is yes. Does the port boat have the right to sneak into the zone (mark) and tack to claim rights, again no as none of rule 18 is "On".
Please see reply posted in When tacking port to startboard within the zone
This would have been better pursued in the When tacking port to startboard within the zone thread as I hinted above.
The use of the term 'seamanlike way' in the Definition: Room is by way of defining an amount of space that constitutes room.
As long as she remains within the space so defined, a boat entitled to room can sail in any unseamanlike way she chooses and if she breaks a a right or way rule or rule 15, 16, or 31, she is exonerated for her breach.