Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
Starboard Port Starboard Sandwich
Peter Stroia-Williams
0
On a run towards the leeward mark. 1) Blue approaches expecting yellow and green to give way. 2) Yellow refuses claiming green is an obstruction and that they can not give way without hitting green. 3) Blue changes course to avoid imminent collision.
Should yellow have refused to give way?
Created: 23-Dec-08 03:15
Comments
Jim Archer
Nationality: United States
0
From the definition of obstruction:
... However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her. A vessel underway, including a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction.
At first glance it does appear yellow is trapped and that green is an obstruction (yellow is required to keep clear of green). If she was found to have violated rule 10, she could be exonerated because she was compelled to do so by green. Green would seem to be protected from liability by yellow.
This seems clever on the part of yellow; had she gybed she would be leeward to green and then green would have had to keep clear as yellow moved to keep clear of blue. Since yellow is on port she gets to continue on. Green is no threat to yellow since green can't head left without a gybe, and yellow is on track to get the inside lane (until blue came along). But now blue controls the action, especially since she remains on starboard and will presumably by inside.
Created: 23-Dec-08 03:39
Eric Meyn
Nationality: United States
1
I’m gonna answer the question with a question. Shouldn’t yellow see the situation developing and realize that the only way she can keep from getting into this trap is by easing sails and slowing down?
She knows she’s the only port boat and she knows blue will also have right of way over green, so her only recourse is to back out.
Created: 23-Dec-08 05:51
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
1
But isn't blue also an obstruction with respect to yellow and green? So at position 2 is green required to give yellow room to pass the obstruction?
Created: 23-Dec-08 07:48
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
Could you enlarge on that for me: I don't understand. Blue is certainly a large enough object to qualify as an obstruction, and she surely has ROW over both Green and Yellow. My understanding is that a ship five miles away still meets the definition of obstruction even though there are no rules active with respect to it.
Created: 23-Dec-08 11:39
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
At P1, all boats are overlapped. Therefore Green is KC of Blue (R11). Also Yellow is KC of Blue (R10) and Yellow is KC of Green (R10)
At P2, the P1 situation persists, but now Green must take action to KC of Blue. Since Yellow is overlapped with both Blue and Green, the obligation on Green to KC of Yellow now applies.
I think Blue is an Obstruction to Yellow and Green should give Room (R19).
It is my opinion that Green should be aware of her obligations and should luff towards the wind to KC of Blue (R11 with respect to Blue) and give Room to Yellow to KC of Blue (R10 with respect to Blue)
If Green fails to take avoiding action, then Blue should protest Yellow and Green and Yellow Protest Green. If any boat contacted any other then I would expect Green to be disqualified. Yellow cannot simply refuse to do anything, or call on Blue to take avoiding action, unless Yellow calls "Protest" to Green. The point being that Yellow can only call on Blue to take avoiding action if the "Protest" call has been made.
Created: 23-Dec-08 12:35
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
I know this is woulda/shoulda/coulda, but throughout, Y's boom is very close to G's boom, so close that G could well claim that Y was not keeping clear of her.
As diagrammed, this doesn't fly because G does not change course or take any other avoiding action (See Case 50, which covers two conditions: ROW DOES change course, and ROW DOES NOT change course) and , up to @3, there is no contact.
The easiest way for Y to keep clear of G is to gybe. G Will then be required to keep clear of her.
Created: 23-Dec-08 14:11
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
2
Stewart Campbell
Said Created: Today 12:35
At P1, all boats are overlapped. Therefore Green is KC of Blue (R11). Also Yellow is KC of Blue (R10) and Yellow is KC of Green (R10)
Agree
At P2, the P1 situation persists, but now Green must take action to KC of Blue.
Maybe, but @2 G is still nearly a BL away from B, B does not yet need to take avoiding action, but she will have to very soon.
Since Yellow is overlapped with both Blue and Green, the obligation on Green to KC of Yellow now applies.
I think you mean 'obligation of Y to keep clear of G'. They're still P/S, rule 10.
I think Blue is an Obstruction to Yellow and Green should give Room (R19).
Agree
It is my opinion that Green should be aware of her obligations and should luff towards the wind
G is required to take action to give rule 19 room to Y. Whether G is aware of her obligation is irrelevant. Depending on the conditions, G And Y might initially be able to create room by sheeting in their mainsail, which would also avoiding potentially breaking rule 14.
to KC of Blue (R11 with respect to Blue)
@2 B an G are 2BL apart. You can't say G is not keeping clear of B at that distance.
and give Room to Yellow to KC of Blue ...
Yes, that's G' s obligation.
If Green fails to take avoiding action,
Her obligations are to give room and avoid contact.
then Blue should protest Yellow and Green
We'll let my reservations about telling B what she should do go through to the keeper (cricket Britishism, Ang), but yes, Y and G are breaking rules 10 and 19 respectively.
B may not be in a position to see the gap between Y and G: her immediate concern is Y.
and Yellow Protest Green.
Yes.
If any boat contacted any other then I would expect Green to be disqualified.
Provided B, Y, or the protest committee validly protested her.
Yellow cannot simply refuse to do anything, or call on Blue to take avoiding action,
Yes she can: she can, she can hail B that G is not giving her room, and that B needs to avoid contact. That won't prevent Y from breaking rule 10.
unless Yellow calls "Protest" to Green. The point being that Yellow can only call on Blue to take avoiding action if the "Protest" call has been made.
No rule requires Y, or any other boat to protest, nor does any rule make a hail of 'protest ' a condition for anything else, except validity of a protest.
Created: 23-Dec-08 14:19
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
John. No, at P2 I think now Green must keep clear of Yellow since all three boats are overlapped and Green must KC of Blue, and Yellow is between them. Yellow becomes an Obstruction (because no ROW) to Green. The "Protest" call (I think) gives Yellow credibility. It is the only legitimate call she can make. Anything else is just conversation (like calling "water" at a Mark - it has no validity). To declare that another boat is failing to give Room has no validity (though it might avoid damage). But calling "Protest" is telling Blue that although she is not ROW, she is an Obstruction to Blue, "Compelled" to break a rule (43.1(a)) and has now "time-stamped" that declaration.
Created: 23-Dec-08 14:55
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
Judge In Training
1
1) Blue approaches expecting yellow and green to give way. 2) Yellow refuses claiming green is an obstruction and that they can not give way without hitting green. 3) Blue changes course to avoid imminent collision.
Regarding Point (2): Green is an obstruction to Yellow, but is not an obstruction to Blue, therefore Rule 19 does not apply.
As such, Blue simply owes room to keep clear which she has been giving for many boat-lengths before point 3 arrives.
Moreover Blue is an obstruction to both Green and Yellow, and Green must give Yellow room between her and the obstruction.
Created: 23-Dec-08 15:25
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
1
It seems to me there's an unusual amount of unorganized and incorrect analysis going on in this thread.
If we assume there was a valid protest and all three boats are parties, anyone want to take a stab at facts, conclusions, decision?
Created: 23-Dec-08 17:20
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Judge In Training
0
If Y hails Protest to G, that cannot be undone. Hence, no motivation exists thereafter for G to take any avoidance action.
Created: 23-Dec-08 20:19
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Judge In Training
0
A concurrent Forum seems to raise this obligation on Y to gybe to force G up and thus KC of B: Case 21 The phrase ‘manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way’ has implications ... the inside boat, saying she is not entitled to complain of insufficient space if she fails to execute with reasonable efficiency the handling of her helm, sheets and sails while maneuvering.
Created: 23-Dec-08 20:32
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Phil, I don't understand - how does a hail of protest affect anyone's obligations under the rules?
Created: 23-Dec-08 20:40
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
Judge In Training
3
Tim, as always it's hard to give conclusions without a few more facts, as typical: what kind of boats are being sailed, and in what conditions?
Three overlapped boats sailing off the wind as shown in diagram
Blue (starboard, leeward, Broad reaching)
yellow (port, between, DDW, three boat-lengths to windward of Blue)
Green (starboard, windward, DDW, one boat-length to windward of Green)
After converging for several boat lengths blue changes course to avoid contact
Conclusions
At point 2, Yellow on port failed to keep clear of Blue on starboard and broke RRS 10
just after point 2, Green, the outside boat at an obstruction, failed to give Y room to pass between her and the obstruction, despite being able to do so from the time the overlap began. Green broke RRS 19.2(b)
Edit/ADDING: Yellow is not exonerated by Green's breach of 19.2 because she took no action to attempt to avoid two ROW boats.
Created: 23-Dec-08 20:45
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
-1
OK Tim.
I'm Yellow. I protest Green. My drawing is shown.
At P1, I was KC of G (R10) on Port. G on Starboard.
At P2, B approached on Starboard on collision course. I was KC of B (R10). G was KC of B (R11). B became an Obstruction to me. G failed to allow me room to KC of B. I hailed “Protest Green, R19”. G failed to show any sign of giving me Room to avoid the Obstruction, breaking R19.2(b). I hailed B to say that I had been refused Room and to avoid a collision, B should bear away to Port. B did this and Protested me, Y (R10), and G (R11). I claim exoneration from B's Protest under R43.1 (a)
I am Protest Chairman.
The facts as described by Y and shown in drawing are accepted as the “facts”.
The Committee have decided that B was an obstruction to Y and from P2 that G should have given Room to Y to avoid the Obstruction, B. And that G failed to give Room to Y to avoid the Obstruction (B).
The Committee disqualify G under rule 19.2(b) and exonerate Y under R43.1(a). The Committee acknowledge that B complied with R14 by avoiding a contact with Y.
I (Stewart myself now) think that without the “Protest” call, B would not know that Y was being refused Room (“Protest” is 1 of only 2 required hails in the RRC, plus 1 more in Appendix E). And Y could not then claim Exoneration
Created: 23-Dec-08 20:46
Al Sargent
0
Some analysis:
Rule 17 allows Blue to sail above her proper course within 2 boatlengths of Green, since Blue became overlapped more than 2 boatlengths to leeward of Green.
Rule 10 requires Yellow to avoid both Green and Blue.
Blue is an obstruction to Yellow, due to Rule 10 and the definition of Obstruction.
Yellow and Blue are not overlapped, since they are not on the same tack.
Rule 19.2.b doesn't apply, since the boats aren't overlapped.
Rule 11 requires Green to keep clear of Blue.
I guess if Yellow, once very close to Blue, bore away by the lee to avoid Blue, they could claim that Green should head up in order to keep clear of Blue, per Rule 11. In other words, Green's obligations to Blue transitively "flow through" Yellow. We've seen how obligations under Rule 20 "flow through" multiple boats on the same tack when hailing for room to tack under Rule 20, even though that rule doesn't explicitly mention the scenario of multiple boats close-hauled and sailing towards an obstruction.
So, no, Yellow should not have refused to give way to Blue, but instead should have kept a reasonable distance from Blue, and expected Green to keep their distance from Yellow, due to Rule 14 if for not other reason.
That's the rules analysis. From a practical perspective, if on Yellow, at position 2 I would have slowed down, let Blue pass, and get to the left of them.
Created: 23-Dec-08 20:51
Al Sargent
0
Stewart, it'd be great if 19.2.b applied here (we get into this situation all the time in our local waters of San Francisco), but unfortunately 19.2.b doesn't, since the boats are on opposite tacks.
Created: 23-Dec-08 20:56
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
Al. They WERE overlapped "They apply to boats on opposite tacks only when rule 18 applies between them or when both boats are sailing more than ninety degrees from the true wind. "
R19.2(b) does apply since they ARE overlapped.
On the run, I don't see how Yellow could have slowed down (maybe with an unstayed mast - but that wouldn't have been seamanship)
Created: 23-Dec-08 20:56
Al Sargent
0
Stewart, I stand corrected. Thank you. You're right: Rule 19.2.b does indeed between Yellow and Green, and Green therefore needs to give Yellow room to avoid Blue.
As for slowing down -- yes, it's possible through a number of means: strap in the sails, ease kite or jib out, steer quickly back and forth, put weight back if in light air, don't take steps to surf a wave, etc.
Created: 23-Dec-08 21:03
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
Very often with rules discussions they get diverted into what boats should have done rather than what the rules are. If I put down my understanding of the situation, perhaps you expert people can sort out the rules.
At position 1 G has ROW over Y, RRS10. Y must continue to keep clear of G. G is an obstruction to Y. B has ROW over Y and G. B is an obstruction to Y and G B is not close enough to Y and G for RRS rules to be relevant.
At, or, if you like, shortly after, point 2, B is close enough to Y for RRS rules to be relevant. Y must act in order to continue keeping clear of B by bearing away and/or gybing. Y must also continue keeping clear of G. RRS 19 means that G must give room to Y so she can pass B. RRS 19 also means that B must give room to Y so she can pass G.
At position 3 it seems to me that B has given required room, but G has not. G will presumably say that there was no need to give room since B gave Y enough room to keep clear of both boats. Is that a valid argument? Does B having ROW over G come into it? Also I note that I assume RRS19 applies between B and Y even though G is not an obstruction to B. Is this valid?
Created: 23-Dec-08 21:05
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Here's what I come up with. Comments?
FACTS:
1. Blue, Yellow and Green were overlapped on a downwind leg. Yellow was sailing DDW on port tack, Green was approximately one boat length to starboard of Yellow sailing DDW on starboard tack. Blue was approximately three boat lengths to port of Yellow, sailing on a broad reach on starboard tack and converging with Yellow and Green
2. When Blue was within approximately 1 boat length to port of Yellow, Blue bore away to DDW remaining on starboard tack. If Blue had not changed course, contact would have occurred between Blue’s starboard bow and Yellow’s port beam
3. Blue was an obstruction to Yellow and Green, as they were both required to keep clear of her (yellow by RRS 10, Green by RRS 11)
4. There was no contact, damage or injury
5. No boat took a penalty
6. All boats continued to sail the course and finished
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Yellow on port failed to keep clear of Blue on starboard, and broke RRS 10
2. Green, the outside boat at an obstruction, failed to give Yellow room to pass between her and the obstruction, despite being able to do so from the time the overlap began. Green broke RRS 19.2(b)
3. Despite Green’s breach of RRS 19.2(b), Yellow had options for keeping clear of Blue without breaking RRS 10 [NOTE: Between 1 & 2, Yellow could have headed up and ducked Blue. At any point Yellow could have gybed, acquiring ROW over Green and taking her up to avoid Blue]. Yellow was not compelled to break RRS 10 and is not exonerated for her breach
DECISION:
Green and Yellow are disqualified
Created: 23-Dec-08 21:11
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Tim, I struggle with when to put info such as your fact 3 into the facts or conclusions... Maybe I'm hung up on scientific method observations vs conclusions...?
Created: 23-Dec-08 21:23
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Nicholas, fact vs conclusion is often a debate. In this instance, I'd say that RRS 10, RRS 11 and the definition of obstruction make this an objective fact.
Created: 23-Dec-08 21:29
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
1
How is Green an obstruction to Yellow?
Created: 23-Dec-08 21:32
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Stewart Campbell
Saod Created: Today 14:55
John. No, at P2 I think now Green must keep clear of Yellow since all three boats are overlapped and Green must KC of Blue, and Yellow is between them. Yellow becomes an Obstruction (because no ROW) to Green.
@2, Y on port tack is required to keep clear of G on starboard tack by rule 10.
They are sailing at more than 90 degrees to the true wind direction, so they are overlapped, but that is irrelevant to determining right of way between boats on opposite tacks..
Created: 23-Dec-08 21:36
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Nicholas Kotsatos
Said Created: Today 15:25
Regarding Point (2): Green is an obstruction to Yellow, but is not an obstruction to Blue, therefore Rule 19 does not apply.
Rule 19 does not apply to require B to give Y room to pass between her and G.
OK, phraseology, see your last point.
As such, Blue simply owes room to keep clear which she has been giving for many boat-lengths before point 3 arrives.
Any time before @2 B is not required to give room to keep clear: she is not changing course or acquiring right-of-way.
Moreover Blue is an obstruction to both Green and Yellow, and Green must give Yellow room between her and the obstruction.
Yes, Rule 19 applies between Y and G.
Created: 23-Dec-08 21:54
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Nick, Tim, and other decision writers,
Here are some ideas.
Verbalise all the dimensions you are going to rely on even if you think they are clear from an endorsed diagram.
Don't be afraid of lots of one line one sentence paragraphs, with numbers: that will make analysis and discussion easier.
Quantify, Quantify, Quantify. Express facts in terms of dimensions and times
There's a whole Case about Facts and Conclusions Case 104.
So, a conclusion is generally something that that involves reasoning or judgment.
For purposes of writing decisions, I'd go a step further and say:
A statement of physical fact, even if derived by reasoning, inference or deduction from other facts, belongs in Facts Found.
Simple applications of rules, or definitions (for example: B was on port tack) belong in Facts Found.
A Conclusion in a written decision should state, using the language in the relevant rule, what and how the breach occurred, for example: 'Y on port tack did not keep clear of B on starboard tack.' It should (IMHO) also include a blunt statement identifying which rule was broken, for example 'Y broke rule 10.'
Once you have identified which rules you conclude have been broken:
Go back and check your Facts Found to ensure that you have facts necessary to support every part of every conclusion.
Delete any Facts Found that are not required to support your conclusions.
Created: 23-Dec-08 22:38
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
OK, I can see how the text of RRS 19 is interpreted to mean that it doesn't apply when the object is only an obstruction to one of the two boats, but I find myself very uncomfortable with the concept that a boat may be on a collision course with an obstruction and not be entitled to room to avoid it. Could someone explain the logic and why that's a good thing? I expect I'm missing something.
Created: 23-Dec-08 22:42
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Tim Hohmann
Said Created: Today 21:11
Here's what I come up with. Comments?
I don't think we can reach a decision based on the diagram and OP up to @3. We need to know 'what happened next'
Omitting quibbles about language and nuances.
FACTS:
@2, when B bears away, there is 3/4 boat lengths between B and Y: whether B would have a reasonable apprehension at that distance depends on the existing conditions. Whenever we are going to rely on Case 50 reasonable apprehension, room, or rule 14 reasonably possible, we probably need Facts Found about existing conditions.
1. Blue, Yellow and Green were overlapped on a downwind leg. Yellow was sailing DDW on port tack, Green was approximately one boat length to starboard of Yellow sailing DDW on starboard tack. Blue was approximately three boat lengths to port of Yellow, sailing on a broad reach on starboard tack and converging with Yellow and Green
I'd prefer to express approximate distances as 'within', or 'not less than' or 'not more than'. Or just baldly state the number. Your statement can't be appealed.
2. When Blue was within approximately 1 boat length to port of Yellow, Blue bore away to DDW remaining on starboard tack. If Blue had not changed course, contact would have occurred between Blue’s starboard bow and Yellow’s port beam 3. Blue was an obstruction to Yellow and Green, as they were both required to keep clear of her (yellow by RRS 10, Green by RRS 11)
I'd probably deal with this by bracketing (B, a right-of-way boat) after reference to 'obstruction' in the relevant conclusion
4. There was no contact, damage or injury 5. No boat took a penalty 6. All boats continued to sail the course and finished
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Yellow on port failed to keep clear of Blue on starboard, and broke RRS 10
I think you need a fact about existing conditions to support this conclusion.
Nothing about Y keeping clear of G, a right of way boat with less than 0.5m between the tips of their booms?
2. Green, the outside boat at an obstruction, failed to give Yellow room to pass between her and the obstruction, despite being able to do so from the time the overlap began. Green broke RRS 19.2(b)
If there was no contact and Y didn't change course, how was room not given?
3. Despite Green’s breach of RRS 19.2(b), Yellow had options for keeping clear of Blue without breaking RRS 10
You're moving from a Conclusion to an Explanation.
[NOTE: Between 1 & 2, Yellow could have headed up and ducked Blue.
You're kidding! Y, advanced by about half a boat length is going to try to do a handbrake turn and get astern of B who is less than 2 BL to windward? If she tries that B has her on toast for reasonable apprehension.
At any point Yellow could have gybed, acquiring ROW over Green and taking her up to avoid Blue]
Agree
. Yellow was not compelled to break RRS 10 and is not exonerated for her breach
DECISION:
Green and Yellow are disqualified
Created: 23-Dec-08 23:08
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
1
You're kidding! Y, advanced by about half a boat length is going to try to do a handbrake turn and get astern of B who is less than 2 BL to windward? If she tries that B has her on toast for reasonable apprehension.
John, as it happens last Sunday I was on Yellow in an almost identical situation except that Green was also on port with ROW. We headed up and ducked Blue, no apparent apprehension and no course change by Blue.
So no, I'm not kidding.
Although I'll grant that the feasibility of that maneuver (or at least how early you have to make the decision) depends to a degree on boat characteristics & conditions.
Created: 23-Dec-09 04:02
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Nothing about Y keeping clear of G, a right of way boat with less than 0.5m between the tips of their booms?
Leaving aside that "less than 0.5m between the tips of their booms" is not in evidence, there's no contact and no course change by the ROW boat.
What do you feel should be included in the decision?
Created: 23-Dec-09 04:22
Al Sargent
0
John, depending on the type of boat and wind conditions, Yellow can slow via several means that don't involve a tight turn: strap in the sails, ease kite or jib out, jump up and down to disrupt airflow and waterflow, put weight back if in light air, and don't take steps to initiate surfing.
Created: 23-Dec-09 17:04
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Tim Hohmann
Said Created: Today 04:2
Nothing about Y keeping clear of G, a right of way boat with less than 0.5m between the tips of their booms?
Leaving aside that "less than 0.5m between the tips of their booms" is not in evidence, there's no contact and no course change by the ROW boat.
What do you feel should be included in the decision?
Nothing, I guess.
I think that the distance apart of the boom tips is 'in evidence': it's shown in the OP diagram. You have just not recorded it as a Fact Found, which is OK with regard to potential breach of rule 10 by Y, but is probably relevant to room for purposes of rule 19.
As to keeping clear, I previously said
Created: Yesterday 14:11
I know this is woulda/shoulda/coulda, but throughout, Y's boom is very close to G's boom, so close that G could well claim that Y was not keeping clear of her.
As diagrammed, this doesn't fly because G does not change course or take any other avoiding action (See Case 50, which covers two conditions: ROW DOES change course, and ROW DOES NOT change course) and , up to @3, there is no contact.
In this case G does not change course and there is no contact, so according to Case 50, Y is keeping clear.
But all that it would take would be for G to luff slightly, or sheet in her main as avoiding action, and Y then breaks rule 10.
Created: 23-Dec-09 21:50
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Tim Hohmann
Said Created: Yesterday 21:11
CONCLUSIONS: ... 2. Green, the outside boat at an obstruction, failed to give Yellow room to pass between her and the obstruction, despite being able to do so from the time the overlap began. Green broke RRS 19.2(b) 3. Despite Green’s breach of RRS 19.2(b), Yellow had options for keeping clear of Blue without breaking RRS 10 [NOTE: Between 1 & 2, Yellow could have headed up and ducked Blue. At any point Yellow could have gybed, acquiring ROW over Green and taking her up to avoid Blue]. Yellow was not compelled to break RRS 10 and is not exonerated for her breach
I was uncomfortable with this line of reasoning, and have been trying to spell out a more correct path.
From @1, Y, on port tack is overlapped between G and an obstruction (B on starboard tack).
When Y and G are 'at' the obstruction, G is required to give Y room to pass between her and the obstruction by rule 19.2. EDIT: Room includes space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2, namely to keep clear of B.
Y and G are 'at' the obstruction when G needs to start taking action to give Y room (we've recently discussed this, and I think this statement is uncontentious). EDIT: Which may be when Y needs to begin taking action to keep clear of B.
That will be, let's say, @2, just before B begins to bear away to avoid Y.
A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule.
Between @1 and @2, whatever options Y may have to slow or get out of the sandwich, she is perfectly entitled to stand on on port tack in the expectation that G would comply with rule 19 and give her the room to which she would become entitled.
@2, G does not give Y the room to which she is entitled. G breaks rule 19.2, and compels Y to break rule 10 with respect to B.
Y is exonerated for breaking rule 10 by rule 43.1(a).
Created: 23-Dec-09 22:06
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
1
Jim Champ
Said Created: Yesterday 22:42
OK, I can see how the text of RRS 19 is interpreted to mean that it doesn't apply when the object is only an obstruction to one of the two boats, but I find myself very uncomfortable with the concept that a boat may be on a collision course with an obstruction and not be entitled to room to avoid it. Could someone explain the logic and why that's a good thing? I expect I'm missing something.
I think the logic is that the only way an object can be an obstruction to one boat but not to another is when the object is a boat racing, with right-of-way over one boat but not the other.
Where the 'obstruction' is not a right of way boat with respect to one of the other boats, she is required to keep clear of her, and collision will be avoided, or least fault will be affixed to the boat that fails to keep clear.
Created: 23-Dec-09 22:11
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
1
John, I agree that the issue of whether Y is compelled to break 10 requires a little more analysis and would probably benefit from questions to the parties.
As an aside and re your comments about needing to know conditions (which I agree with):
I'm usually of the school that the jury should defer questions to the parties until after all evidence (parties & witnesses) has been presented. But when I'm scribing I like to ask my "boilerplate four" questions as soon as validity is established, to get them on the record so I don't forget later. Usually I'll ask the parties simultaneously and get their concurrence.
These are: 1. Wind and sea conditions (& current if relevant) 2. Contact, damage, injury 3. Did any boat take a penalty? 4. Did the boats continue to sail the course & finish?
Created: 23-Dec-10 01:37
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Tim,
Absolutely agree about generally keeping PC questions till last, but asking those basic facts questions early.
Created: 23-Dec-10 02:04
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
Assume Yellow saw Blue closing on her and had hailed Green for room to keep clear of Blue and Green did not move. Assume Blue had a reasonable apprehension of a collision when she changed course after Yellow had hailed Green. Assume there is room and conducive conditions for Yellow to gybe.
Does yellow have an obligation to gybe or can she just choose to infringe 10 against Blue rather than infringe 10 against Green and advise that Green forced her to infringe against Blue in defence against any protest by Blue?
What if conditions are not conducive and and Yellow does not believe they could gybe in a way that would avoid infringing one or other of Blue of Green?
Created: 23-Dec-11 04:21
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
1
Paul,
See my post above.
Whether or not Y hails, or has options such as to gybe or miraculously slow and back out of the sandwich, she is not required to anticipate that G will not give her room before @2, and at that time, Y does not keep clear of B but is exonerated because she was compelled to do so by G not giving her room.
If G breaks rule 19.2, why should Y expect her to not also break rule 11 if Y gybes?
Created: 23-Dec-11 13:20
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
John, Don't you think Yellow has to gybe right away after point 1 no matter what? If gybing isn't safe for the entire time between 1 and 2, then either we shouldn't be racing or we need to know when Blue became ROW and decide if Blue in fact gave Yellow room to keep clear at that point.
Short of that, I don't see any way to excuse yellow from gybing here. Green is not keeping her from doing so; as a gybe would have in fact instantly given her more room to work with (boom on other side), as well as made her ROW over Green.
Created: 23-Dec-11 18:04
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
But by what rule does yellow *have* to gybe? If she can keep clear of blue without gybing, even if it means sailing ridiculously by the lee, then surely that's all that's required of her. Some boats with unstayed rigs can sail a very long way past dead downwind.
Created: 23-Dec-11 18:33
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Yeah, I hear what you're saying Jim, and I don't completely disagree. I'm not much of an ILCA / non-stayed sailor, but I always wonder what happens to these boats if/when they reach an angle where a gybe must finally be made. If they cannot then gybe without first bearing away, should they be able to claim "room to keep clear" at that point after choosing not to gybe when the room was earlier available?
However in this case, I think there is a reason Yellow needs to gybe if she wants to claim there's not enough room for her to keep clear of the obstruction: Simply that she can begin turning by doing so. If she doesn't gybe, then she doesn't turn at all, and therefore doesn't attempt to avoid the ROW boat and therefore should be penalized. In the end, I don't care what Yellow does, but she must work to take some avoiding action or she should be penalized (likely along with G), and gybing seems like the obvious one.
Created: 23-Dec-11 19:02
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Nicholas Kotsatos
Said Created: Today 18:04
John, Don't you think Yellow has to gybe right away after point 1 no matter what? If gybing isn't safe for the entire time between 1 and 2, then either we shouldn't be racing
I agree with Jim,
In suitable conditions, Y could sail by the lee to 20 or 30 degrees to starboard (AWA -160, or -150) of her diagrammed course without gybing/
Gybing would have tactical advantages for Y, but is not necessarily necessary <g>.
Nothing in the RRS says that Y shall gybe. All she is requited to do is keep clear of right-of-way boats, subject to exoneration, and avoid contact.
'right away after point 1', say advance B and Y half a BL, there's still more than 1BL between them. Y is keeping clear of B at that point.
What do you mean 'we shouldn't be racing'? Are you forgetting RRS 3?
or we need to know when Blue became ROW and decide if Blue in fact gave Yellow room to keep clear at that point.
Not quite.
We know when B became ROW: it was whenever, way back down the course either B or Y changed tack so that they cane to be on opposite tacks.
Before B reached @1, she was a long way apart from Y, and if she changed course then, before the diagram began, she gave Y room to keep clear.
From @1 to @2, B does not change course: she has no obligation to give Y room to keep clear.
@2 plus delta, B, having a reasonable apprehension, changed course to avoid Y, at that time Y broke/was breaking rule 10 without being entitled to room to keep clear so is not exonerated because she is sailing within the room from B she is entitled to. Her exoneration will come from being compelled to not change course by G not giving her rule 19 room.
Short of that, I don't see any way to excuse yellow from gybing here. Green is not keeping her from doing so; as a gybe would have in fact instantly given her more room to work with (boom on other side), as well as made her ROW over Green.
Rule 19.2 requires G to give Y room to pass between B and herself in a seamanlike way. G must take Y as she finds her. Y is not required to make or increase that room by trimming in her mainsail, or gybing.
Created: 23-Dec-11 22:03
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
John Allan said:
When Y and G are 'at' the obstruction, G is required to give Y room to pass between her and the obstruction by rule 19.2. EDIT: Room includes space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2, namely to keep clear of B.
Y and G are 'at' the obstruction when G needs to start taking action to give Y room (we've recently discussed this, and I think this statement is uncontentious). EDIT: Which may be when Y needs to begin taking action to keep clear of B.
That will be, let's say, @2, just before B begins to bear away to avoid Y.
A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule.
Between @1 and @2, whatever options Y may have to slow or get out of the sandwich, she is perfectly entitled to stand on on port tack in the expectation that G would comply with rule 19 and give her the room to which she would become entitled.
@2, G does not give Y the room to which she is entitled. G breaks rule 19.2, and compels Y to break rule 10 with respect to B.
Y is exonerated for breaking rule 10 by rule 43.1(a).
I can buy that line of reasoning. But I kind of hate the idea of exonerating Yellow when she apparently made no attempt to avoid Blue. For Yellow's chosen course of action (maintain course and make Blue alter to avoid) Yellow didn't need and never attempted to take advantage of room from Green.
For the record, I acknowledge that sometime the rules lead us to a result we don't like, but we have to go with it.
And I'd still say that the smartest play for Yellow would be to bail out at 1 by heading up & ducking Blue so she doesn't have to rely on Green giving room. Her second-smartest play would be to come right, possibly gybe and possibly hail (yes, I know the hail isn't required but it's also not prohibited and would have promoted a better result) Green for room to help support her case that Yellow tried to avoid a breach but Green compelled it.
Created: 23-Dec-12 06:21
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
It seems to me that as soon as a PC starts including what Y *should* have done in a protest hearing rather than what did Y do, then they are going to end up with spectacularly muddled thinking. Surely PC deliberations have got to start with “bearing in mind the actual course G sailed, what could Y have done to give room to B once she was required to by the rule". If it starts getting into “Well if Y had done so and so G would have sailed differently“, haven't the actual facts been thrown out of the window?
Created: 23-Dec-12 06:55
Adrain Law
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
Yellow needs to gybe, as blue approaches, in time so he can give green time to avoid him. There is plenty of room as drawn for that to happen. If it is very strong winds to make that manoeuvre dangerous , yellow should not be that close to green.
Created: 23-Dec-12 15:50
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Jim, I agree that we shouldn't go too far down the "woulda, shoulda, coulda" path in a hearing. But I think it is worth considering whether a boat had an opportunity to avoid breaking a rule and declined to take it, especially if the boat is claiming exoneration.
And I think it's useful to discuss alternative possible actions in threads like this.
A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule.
...
I can buy that line of reasoning. But I kind of hate the idea of exonerating Yellow when she apparently made no attempt to avoid Blue.
But that's the very thing Case 27 and 'need not act until it is clear in rule 14 tell us she is entitled to do.
For Yellow's chosen course of action (maintain course and make Blue alter to avoid) Yellow didn't need and never attempted to take advantage of room from Green.
Yes, she did: Y stood on into a position where G was required to give her room to pass between B and G. IMHO that's 'taking advantage'. But why are we discussing 'taking advantage' at all?
Yes, it would have been nice if Yellow had gone in there bawling like a bull, 'Hey, Green, I need room for a boat outside me, you've got to give me room', but the stuff about 'hailing will support her case', was deleted in the 1995 rewrite. Green is required to keep her wits about her and give rule 19 room when she is required to do so, without any reminders or hails.
Created: 23-Dec-12 21:56
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Jim Champ
Said Created: Today 06:55
It seems to me that as soon as a PC starts including what Y *should* have done in a protest hearing rather than what did Y do, then they are going to end up with spectacularly muddled thinking.
Yes, I think so. If you can't say that a boat 'is required [by rule so-and-so]' to do such and such then the remark probably isn't useful in a rules (as opposed to a tactics) discussion.
Surely PC deliberations have got to start with “bearing in mind the actual course G sailed, what could Y have done to give room to B once she was required to by the rule".
But, Shirley, Y is never required to give room to B in any way <g>.
Created: 23-Dec-12 22:01
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Adrain Law
Said Created: Today 15:50
Yellow needs to gybe, as blue approaches, in time so he can give green time to avoid him. There is plenty of room as drawn for that to happen.
Yellow, while she stands on without changing course has no obligation to give time or space for any boat to avoid her. Her obligations are to keep clear of both G and B.
If it is very strong winds to make that manoeuvre dangerous , yellow should not be that close to green.
See JIm's comments about 'should' above, but see Case 50which covers two conditions:
ROW boat DOES change course (having reasonable apprehension),: give way boat has not kept clear, and
ROW boat DOES NOT change course, give way boat only fails to keep clear if there is contact.
Created: 23-Dec-12 22:09
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
I guess all my griping about "Y should gybe" is just me saying I don't believe Y was compelled to break a rule... she had several other options and should also be DSQ.
Created: 23-Dec-13 14:35
Adrain Law
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
Yellow, while she stands on without changing course has no obligation to give time or space for any boat to avoid her. Her obligations are to keep clear of both G and B.
Thanks for guidance John. Much appreciated. In position 2 would Y not need to gybe to KC of B? and as soon as she does that G has to KC of Y?
Created: 23-Dec-13 14:48
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
It seems to me that up to P2 no boat has broken a rule. Y has kept clear of both B and G as required. Y is not required to anticipate that any boat will break a rule, and indeed has no reason to suspect one will.
At/after P2 both G and Y are required to alter course to starboard, Y to keep clear of ROW boat, and G to give Y room to pass the ROW boat as an obstruction.
I can see no rule that requires Y to gybe, although she might or might not need to in order to alter course sufficiently to keep clear of B. If Y does gybe and acquire ROW through her own actions she is required to initially give G room to keep clear.
I think everyone agrees that G does not alter course when she is required to, and breaks RRS19. This is the case no matter which gybe Y is on. Up to this point I suggest Y had every reason to assume that G would alter course as required by RRS19. So, it seems to me, if I understand things correctly, it is only at this point that one may evaluate whether Y had any way of keeping clear of B, or if she is exonerated. Whether she could have gybed or luffed above Bs stern before P2 is therefore irrelevant rules wise. It seems to me that any speculation as to whether G would have been more likely to give room if Y had gybed at P2 is just that, speculation and ought not be considered.
Created: 23-Dec-13 16:29
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Nicholas Kotsatos
Said Created: Today 14:35
I guess all my griping about "Y should gybe" is just me saying I don't believe Y was compelled to break a rule... she had several other options and should also be DSQ.
Yes, but all those options occurred before @2, when Y had no obligation to take them or do anything: she was keeping clear of both G and B.
Only @2 (or thereabouts):
Y ceases to keep clear of B, and, simultaneously,
G becomes required to give Y room to pass between herself and B, which she does not do, thus
compelling Y to break rule 10 with respect to B, and
leaving Y sailing within the room to which she is entitled with respect to G, and thus exonerated if she does not keep clear of G..
Created: 23-Dec-13 21:06
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Adrain Law
Said Created: Today 14:48
Yellow, while she stands on without changing course has no obligation to give time or space for any boat to avoid her. Her obligations are to keep clear of both G and B.
Thanks for guidance John. Much appreciated. In position 2 would Y not need to gybe to KC of B? and as soon as she does that G has to KC of Y?
Y doesn't necessarily have to gybe. In the absence of G, @2, depending on the conditions and characteristics of her boat, Y could bear away, by the lee, by as much as 20 or 30 degrees without gybing to keep clear of B.
The rules generally look at what boats must or must not do, not how they do it.
Created: 23-Dec-13 21:09
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
JA, I guess we disagree about the options still open to Y at point 2. I feel pretty strongly that at least a small course change is possible easily achieved at this point, there is room near her boom, which she could also trim or gybe. In fact, as drawn, there is more space at point 2 (and even more at point 3) than at point 1, indicating that Y is in fact comfortable sailing closer to G than she ends up doing, and that G has given a tiny bit of room (though probably not enough).
... However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her. A vessel underway, including a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction.
At first glance it does appear yellow is trapped and that green is an obstruction (yellow is required to keep clear of green). If she was found to have violated rule 10, she could be exonerated because she was compelled to do so by green. Green would seem to be protected from liability by yellow.
This seems clever on the part of yellow; had she gybed she would be leeward to green and then green would have had to keep clear as yellow moved to keep clear of blue. Since yellow is on port she gets to continue on. Green is no threat to yellow since green can't head left without a gybe, and yellow is on track to get the inside lane (until blue came along). But now blue controls the action, especially since she remains on starboard and will presumably by inside.
She knows she’s the only port boat and she knows blue will also have right of way over green, so her only recourse is to back out.
Yellow cannot simply refuse to do anything, or call on Blue to take avoiding action, unless Yellow calls "Protest" to Green. The point being that Yellow can only call on Blue to take avoiding action if the "Protest" call has been made.
As diagrammed, this doesn't fly because G does not change course or take any other avoiding action (See Case 50, which covers two conditions: ROW DOES change course, and ROW DOES NOT change course) and , up to @3, there is no contact.
The easiest way for Y to keep clear of G is to gybe. G Will then be required to keep clear of her.
Agree
I think you mean 'obligation of Y to keep clear of G'. They're still P/S, rule 10.
Agree
Yes, that's G' s obligation.
B may not be in a position to see the gap between Y and G: her immediate concern is Y.
Provided B, Y, or the protest committee validly protested her.
No rule requires Y, or any other boat to protest, nor does any rule make a hail of 'protest ' a condition for anything else, except validity of a protest.
The "Protest" call (I think) gives Yellow credibility. It is the only legitimate call she can make. Anything else is just conversation (like calling "water" at a Mark - it has no validity). To declare that another boat is failing to give Room has no validity (though it might avoid damage). But calling "Protest" is telling Blue that although she is not ROW, she is an Obstruction to Blue, "Compelled" to break a rule (43.1(a)) and has now "time-stamped" that declaration.
If we assume there was a valid protest and all three boats are parties, anyone want to take a stab at facts, conclusions, decision?
Hence, no motivation exists thereafter for G to take any avoidance action.
Case 21
The phrase ‘manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way’ has implications ... the inside boat, saying she is not entitled to complain of insufficient space if she fails to execute with reasonable efficiency the handling of her helm, sheets and sails while maneuvering.
Conclusions
I'm Yellow. I protest Green. My drawing is shown.
I guess if Yellow, once very close to Blue, bore away by the lee to avoid Blue, they could claim that Green should head up in order to keep clear of Blue, per Rule 11. In other words, Green's obligations to Blue transitively "flow through" Yellow. We've seen how obligations under Rule 20 "flow through" multiple boats on the same tack when hailing for room to tack under Rule 20, even though that rule doesn't explicitly mention the scenario of multiple boats close-hauled and sailing towards an obstruction.
So, no, Yellow should not have refused to give way to Blue, but instead should have kept a reasonable distance from Blue, and expected Green to keep their distance from Yellow, due to Rule 14 if for not other reason.
That's the rules analysis. From a practical perspective, if on Yellow, at position 2 I would have slowed down, let Blue pass, and get to the left of them.
tacks only when rule 18 applies between them or when both boats are sailing
more than ninety degrees from the true wind. "
R19.2(b) does apply since they ARE overlapped.
On the run, I don't see how Yellow could have slowed down (maybe with an unstayed mast - but that wouldn't have been seamanship)
As for slowing down -- yes, it's possible through a number of means: strap in the sails, ease kite or jib out, steer quickly back and forth, put weight back if in light air, don't take steps to surf a wave, etc.
At position 1
G has ROW over Y, RRS10.
Y must continue to keep clear of G.
G is an obstruction to Y.
B has ROW over Y and G.
B is an obstruction to Y and G
B is not close enough to Y and G for RRS rules to be relevant.
At, or, if you like, shortly after, point 2, B is close enough to Y for RRS rules to be relevant.
Y must act in order to continue keeping clear of B by bearing away and/or gybing.
Y must also continue keeping clear of G.
RRS 19 means that G must give room to Y so she can pass B.
RRS 19 also means that B must give room to Y so she can pass G.
At position 3 it seems to me that B has given required room, but G has not. G will presumably say that there was no need to give room since B gave Y enough room to keep clear of both boats. Is that a valid argument? Does B having ROW over G come into it? Also I note that I assume RRS19 applies between B and Y even though G is not an obstruction to B. Is this valid?
FACTS:
@2, Y on port tack is required to keep clear of G on starboard tack by rule 10.
They are sailing at more than 90 degrees to the true wind direction, so they are overlapped, but that is irrelevant to determining right of way between boats on opposite tacks..
Rule 19 does not apply to require B to give Y room to pass between her and G.
OK, phraseology, see your last point.
Any time before @2 B is not required to give room to keep clear: she is not changing course or acquiring right-of-way.
Yes, Rule 19 applies between Y and G.
Here are some ideas.
Verbalise all the dimensions you are going to rely on even if you think they are clear from an endorsed diagram.
Don't be afraid of lots of one line one sentence paragraphs, with numbers: that will make analysis and discussion easier.
Quantify, Quantify, Quantify. Express facts in terms of dimensions and times
There's a whole Case about Facts and Conclusions Case 104.
So, a conclusion is generally something that that involves reasoning or judgment.
For purposes of writing decisions, I'd go a step further and say:
A Conclusion in a written decision should state, using the language in the relevant rule, what and how the breach occurred, for example: 'Y on port tack did not keep clear of B on starboard tack.' It should (IMHO) also include a blunt statement identifying which rule was broken, for example 'Y broke rule 10.'
Once you have identified which rules you conclude have been broken:
I don't think we can reach a decision based on the diagram and OP up to @3. We need to know 'what happened next'
Omitting quibbles about language and nuances.
@2, when B bears away, there is 3/4 boat lengths between B and Y: whether B would have a reasonable apprehension at that distance depends on the existing conditions. Whenever we are going to rely on Case 50 reasonable apprehension, room, or rule 14 reasonably possible, we probably need Facts Found about existing conditions.
I'd prefer to express approximate distances as 'within', or 'not less than' or 'not more than'. Or just baldly state the number. Your statement can't be appealed.
I'd probably deal with this by bracketing (B, a right-of-way boat) after reference to 'obstruction' in the relevant conclusion
I think you need a fact about existing conditions to support this conclusion.
Nothing about Y keeping clear of G, a right of way boat with less than 0.5m between the tips of their booms?
If there was no contact and Y didn't change course, how was room not given?
John, as it happens last Sunday I was on Yellow in an almost identical situation except that Green was also on port with ROW. We headed up and ducked Blue, no apparent apprehension and no course change by Blue.
So no, I'm not kidding.
Although I'll grant that the feasibility of that maneuver (or at least how early you have to make the decision) depends to a degree on boat characteristics & conditions.
Leaving aside that "less than 0.5m between the tips of their booms" is not in evidence, there's no contact and no course change by the ROW boat.
What do you feel should be included in the decision?
Nothing, I guess.
I think that the distance apart of the boom tips is 'in evidence': it's shown in the OP diagram. You have just not recorded it as a Fact Found, which is OK with regard to potential breach of rule 10 by Y, but is probably relevant to room for purposes of rule 19.
As to keeping clear, I previously said
In this case G does not change course and there is no contact, so according to Case 50, Y is keeping clear.
But all that it would take would be for G to luff slightly, or sheet in her main as avoiding action, and Y then breaks rule 10.
From @1, Y, on port tack is overlapped between G and an obstruction (B on starboard tack).
When Y and G are 'at' the obstruction, G is required to give Y room to pass between her and the obstruction by rule 19.2. EDIT: Room includes space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2, namely to keep clear of B.
Y and G are 'at' the obstruction when G needs to start taking action to give Y room (we've recently discussed this, and I think this statement is uncontentious). EDIT: Which may be when Y needs to begin taking action to keep clear of B.
That will be, let's say, @2, just before B begins to bear away to avoid Y.
Case 27 tells us
A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule.
Between @1 and @2, whatever options Y may have to slow or get out of the sandwich, she is perfectly entitled to stand on on port tack in the expectation that G would comply with rule 19 and give her the room to which she would become entitled.
@2, G does not give Y the room to which she is entitled. G breaks rule 19.2, and compels Y to break rule 10 with respect to B.
Y is exonerated for breaking rule 10 by rule 43.1(a).
I think the logic is that the only way an object can be an obstruction to one boat but not to another is when the object is a boat racing, with right-of-way over one boat but not the other.
Where the 'obstruction' is not a right of way boat with respect to one of the other boats, she is required to keep clear of her, and collision will be avoided, or least fault will be affixed to the boat that fails to keep clear.
As an aside and re your comments about needing to know conditions (which I agree with):
I'm usually of the school that the jury should defer questions to the parties until after all evidence (parties & witnesses) has been presented. But when I'm scribing I like to ask my "boilerplate four" questions as soon as validity is established, to get them on the record so I don't forget later. Usually I'll ask the parties simultaneously and get their concurrence.
These are:
1. Wind and sea conditions (& current if relevant)
2. Contact, damage, injury
3. Did any boat take a penalty?
4. Did the boats continue to sail the course & finish?
Absolutely agree about generally keeping PC questions till last, but asking those basic facts questions early.
Assume Blue had a reasonable apprehension of a collision when she changed course after Yellow had hailed Green.
Assume there is room and conducive conditions for Yellow to gybe.
Does yellow have an obligation to gybe or can she just choose to infringe 10 against Blue rather than infringe 10 against Green and advise that Green forced her to infringe against Blue in defence against any protest by Blue?
What if conditions are not conducive and and Yellow does not believe they could gybe in a way that would avoid infringing one or other of Blue of Green?
See my post above.
Whether or not Y hails, or has options such as to gybe or miraculously slow and back out of the sandwich, she is not required to anticipate that G will not give her room before @2, and at that time, Y does not keep clear of B but is exonerated because she was compelled to do so by G not giving her room.
If G breaks rule 19.2, why should Y expect her to not also break rule 11 if Y gybes?
Don't you think Yellow has to gybe right away after point 1 no matter what? If gybing isn't safe for the entire time between 1 and 2, then either we shouldn't be racing or we need to know when Blue became ROW and decide if Blue in fact gave Yellow room to keep clear at that point.
Short of that, I don't see any way to excuse yellow from gybing here. Green is not keeping her from doing so; as a gybe would have in fact instantly given her more room to work with (boom on other side), as well as made her ROW over Green.
However in this case, I think there is a reason Yellow needs to gybe if she wants to claim there's not enough room for her to keep clear of the obstruction: Simply that she can begin turning by doing so. If she doesn't gybe, then she doesn't turn at all, and therefore doesn't attempt to avoid the ROW boat and therefore should be penalized. In the end, I don't care what Yellow does, but she must work to take some avoiding action or she should be penalized (likely along with G), and gybing seems like the obvious one.
In suitable conditions, Y could sail by the lee to 20 or 30 degrees to starboard (AWA -160, or -150) of her diagrammed course without gybing/
Gybing would have tactical advantages for Y, but is not necessarily necessary <g>.
Nothing in the RRS says that Y shall gybe. All she is requited to do is keep clear of right-of-way boats, subject to exoneration, and avoid contact.
'right away after point 1', say advance B and Y half a BL, there's still more than 1BL between them. Y is keeping clear of B at that point.
Not quite.
We know when B became ROW: it was whenever, way back down the course either B or Y changed tack so that they cane to be on opposite tacks.
Before B reached @1, she was a long way apart from Y, and if she changed course then, before the diagram began, she gave Y room to keep clear.
From @1 to @2, B does not change course: she has no obligation to give Y room to keep clear.
@2 plus delta, B, having a reasonable apprehension, changed course to avoid Y, at that time Y broke/was breaking rule 10 without being entitled to room to keep clear so is not exonerated because she is sailing within the room from B she is entitled to. Her exoneration will come from being compelled to not change course by G not giving her rule 19 room.
Rule 19.2 requires G to give Y room to pass between B and herself in a seamanlike way. G must take Y as she finds her. Y is not required to make or increase that room by trimming in her mainsail, or gybing.
I can buy that line of reasoning. But I kind of hate the idea of exonerating Yellow when she apparently made no attempt to avoid Blue. For Yellow's chosen course of action (maintain course and make Blue alter to avoid) Yellow didn't need and never attempted to take advantage of room from Green.
For the record, I acknowledge that sometime the rules lead us to a result we don't like, but we have to go with it.
And I'd still say that the smartest play for Yellow would be to bail out at 1 by heading up & ducking Blue so she doesn't have to rely on Green giving room. Her second-smartest play would be to come right, possibly gybe and possibly hail (yes, I know the hail isn't required but it's also not prohibited and would have promoted a better result) Green for room to help support her case that Yellow tried to avoid a breach but Green compelled it.
Surely PC deliberations have got to start with “bearing in mind the actual course G sailed, what could Y have done to give room to B once she was required to by the rule". If it starts getting into “Well if Y had done so and so G would have sailed differently“, haven't the actual facts been thrown out of the window?
And I think it's useful to discuss alternative possible actions in threads like this.
But that's the very thing Case 27 and 'need not act until it is clear in rule 14 tell us she is entitled to do.
Yes, she did: Y stood on into a position where G was required to give her room to pass between B and G. IMHO that's 'taking advantage'. But why are we discussing 'taking advantage' at all?
Yes, it would have been nice if Yellow had gone in there bawling like a bull, 'Hey, Green, I need room for a boat outside me, you've got to give me room', but the stuff about 'hailing will support her case', was deleted in the 1995 rewrite. Green is required to keep her wits about her and give rule 19 room when she is required to do so, without any reminders or hails.
Yes, I think so. If you can't say that a boat 'is required [by rule so-and-so]' to do such and such then the remark probably isn't useful in a rules (as opposed to a tactics) discussion.
But, Shirley, Y is never required to give room to B in any way <g>.
Yellow, while she stands on without changing course has no obligation to give time or space for any boat to avoid her. Her obligations are to keep clear of both G and B.
See JIm's comments about 'should' above, but see Case 50 which covers two conditions:
Thanks for guidance John. Much appreciated. In position 2 would Y not need to gybe to KC of B? and as soon as she does that G has to KC of Y?
At/after P2 both G and Y are required to alter course to starboard, Y to keep clear of ROW boat, and G to give Y room to pass the ROW boat as an obstruction.
I can see no rule that requires Y to gybe, although she might or might not need to in order to alter course sufficiently to keep clear of B. If Y does gybe and acquire ROW through her own actions she is required to initially give G room to keep clear.
I think everyone agrees that G does not alter course when she is required to, and breaks RRS19. This is the case no matter which gybe Y is on. Up to this point I suggest Y had every reason to assume that G would alter course as required by RRS19. So, it seems to me, if I understand things correctly, it is only at this point that one may evaluate whether Y had any way of keeping clear of B, or if she is exonerated. Whether she could have gybed or luffed above Bs stern before P2 is therefore irrelevant rules wise. It seems to me that any speculation as to whether G would have been more likely to give room if Y had gybed at P2 is just that, speculation and ought not be considered.
Yes, but all those options occurred before @2, when Y had no obligation to take them or do anything: she was keeping clear of both G and B.
Only @2 (or thereabouts):
Y doesn't necessarily have to gybe. In the absence of G, @2, depending on the conditions and characteristics of her boat, Y could bear away, by the lee, by as much as 20 or 30 degrees without gybing to keep clear of B.
The rules generally look at what boats must or must not do, not how they do it.
possibleeasily achieved at this point, there is room near her boom, which she could also trim or gybe. In fact, as drawn, there is more space at point 2 (and even more at point 3) than at point 1, indicating that Y is in fact comfortable sailing closer to G than she ends up doing, and that G has given a tiny bit of room (though probably not enough).