Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
'Reasonable', 'Reasonably Possible', Rule 14
P
John AllanCertifications:
- National Judge
- Regional Race Officer
1
In the context of RRS 14, or more generally:
- Is it 'reasonable' for a boat to take action in an attempt to avoid contact that is unseamanlike? In other words, is such an action 'reasonably possible'?
- Is it 'reasonable' for a boat to take action in an attempt to avoid contact that breaks a rule other than RRS 14? In other words, is such an action 'reasonably possible'?
I'd appreciate some reasoning and references, not just Yes/No votes.
If the answer is 'maybe', or 'it depends', please expand on the circumstances that would influence the decision.
Here are some cases that refer to 'seamanlike'.
Case 21
The phrase ‘manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way’ has implications for both boats. First, it addresses 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. It also implies that the outside boat must provide enough space so that the inside boat need not manoeuvre in an extraordinary or abnormal manner (see also Case 103).
Seamanlike:
· Executing with reasonable efficiency the handling of helm, sheets and sails [while manoeuvring]
· Not manoeuvring in an extraordinary or abnormal manner.
Unseamanlike:
· Not handling helm, sheets and sails with reasonable efficiency
· Manoeuvring in an extraordinary or abnormal manner.
Case 103
The phrase ‘seamanlike way’ in the definition Room refers to boat-handling that can reasonably be expected from a competent, but not expert, crew of the appropriate number for the boat.
Case 114
Answer 4
Touching … a mark [such as a committee vessel or other substantial object risks damaging either the boat racing or the committee vessel, and taking such a risk is not seamanlike.
It is unseamanlike to risk damaging a vessel or boat.
Match Racing Call Book
General Principles 4. Definition: Room, and meaning of 'in a seamanlike way'
World Sailing Case 21 states that ‘extraordinary’ and ‘abnormal’ manoeuvres are unseamanlike.
However, actions that are not seamanlike in a fleet of many boats may be considered seamanlike in a situation with only two boats. Thus, in match racing some manoeuvres might be considered normal that would be considered abnormal in other racing, and therefore ‘seamanlike way’ will be interpreted somewhat more broadly in match racing.
Any manoeuvre, however, that puts a boat or her crew at unreasonable risk of damage or injury is unseamanlike. The umpires will judge each incident on the basis of the boat's actions in relation to the conditions of wind and water that she is experiencing.
Call D1 (Previously Ump 2: Ump Calls are calls that do not rely on any special to MR rules in Appendix C)
[M]ark L [is] an inflatable buoy. … It is not seamanlike to hit a mark.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/1843
It does not discuss the term seamanlike, but does describe a specific unseamanlike maneuver which is NOT required by rule 14.
At the same time, I can think of specific maneuvers which I believe to be both reasonable and unseamanlike. Beginner sailors learn to put their "tiller towards trouble" and may do so aggressively in light wind conditions. Nevertheless, I wouldn't require an inside boat to do that a leeward mark in order to comply with the seamanlike portion of 18.
Regarding your second question, I imagine a situation where a windward, starboard (SW) boat, choses to avoid t-boning a port boat (P). If her maneuver causes her to get close to a starboard leeward boat (SL) such that she might break rule 11, I think that could be considered reasonable, however if a collision is likely one way or another, I'm not sure we can require helms to make instant trolly paradox decisions.
Seamanlike manner relates to how much room must be given (when room is required to be given). Reasonably possible relates to a boats ability to avoid a collision which may cause damage injury or death.
To address the question:
Question 1. Yes in most situations except some relating to q2. For example if a close hauled starboard boat is suddenly confronted with a boat that tacked onto port right in front it is “reasonably possible” for the starboard boat to avoid a collision by crash tacking without releasing the jib (even though this is unseamanlike).
Question 2. It depends on the consequences of breaking the other rule. Eg, in the example above if the starboard tack boat had another starboard tacker immediately to windward so that it’s crash tack would cause it to infringe either rule 10 or 13 and likely cause a collision then it is not “reasonably possible” to avoid the port tracker because of the likelihood of causing a collision with the other boat
However, if both boats were approaching a windward mark to round to starboard and starboard would hit the inflatable mark as a result of its crash tack (breaching rule 31) (and being unseamanlike) then I think that is “reasonably possible”. What is reasonable must be tested against the consequences, a tbone crash or a race destroying brush with an inflatable mark with access to redress. I don’t think reasonable has to be considered in the context of what is considered seamanlike.
Another good example is two boats on same gybe downwind with the leeward one broaching causing almost immediate collision. The windward one has two choices, turn up hard and flog the kite, or do an uncontrolled gybe and try and get behind. Both manoeuvres are reasonable in the context of an imminent nasty collision but neither are seamanlike.
Case 99 disagrees with me stating “to crash gybe which risked considerable damage” was “equivalent to, not reasonably possible”. This was in “difficult conditions” involving 20 knot breeze and perhaps the answer is different in less wind.
The important thing is that they interpreted “reasonably possible” against the likelihood of considerable damage rather than any consideration of seamanlike conduct.
You may be required to do something “unseamanlike” to avoid a collision but you are not required to risk considerable damage.
Another point is that in many emergency situations the preferable action may be contrary to our instincts or reflexes. This is why fire services, para-medics, pilots and military etc spend so much time training, so that they automatically do the 'right' thing which may, for instance, put themselves in danger, or seem contrary to logic. For instance, in the trolley paradox quoted, most people would instinctively save the group of 5 people, whereas the more logical thing to do would be to save the worker if he was in a position to stop the runaway trolly. We should bear this in mind when discussing what is reasonable.
Is it 'reasonable' for a boat to take action in an attempt to avoid contact that is unseamanlike? In other words, is such an action 'reasonably possible'?
I take WS Case 99 to mean that if it is found that the only action available to avoid contact is to execute a manoeuvre that risks damage to the boat that is avoiding then it is possible, but not reasonably possible, to avoid contact.
Is it 'reasonable' for a boat to take action in an attempt to avoid contact that breaks a rule other than RRS 14? In other words, is such an action 'reasonably possible'?
A boat manouevring to avoid contact with a boat that is breaking a rule, and in doing so breaks another rule would be exonerated under RRS 43.1(a). Which means that she has broke the rule but will not be penalised. So there is no reason for her not to break a rule if by doing so she avoids contact.
Finally a boat that sails in such a way that another boat suffers, or is likely to suffer, damage or injury is, according to Case 138 Answer 1.5, 'acting recklessly or in a manner that does, or is likely to, cause damage'. If the reckless action directly affects the competition then the protest committee should consider penalising under RRS, Fair Sailing. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues are reluctant to use this rule. My personal opinion is that we should apply the rules to prevent boats getting broken!
Thanks for the thoughtful replies.
I have some comments/responses to each as shown below.
NIck, Thanks for the reference to Case 99.
Firstly, could everybody just do me a favour and stop referring to 'crash-gybe' and 'crash-tack'. They are emotive terms that cannot be accurately defined. What is the difference between a very quick tack when a boat wants to tack or gybe quickly and a very quick tack when she doesn't want to?
OK Case 99 gives some meaning to 'crash-gybe'
[T]he only action available to S was to crash-gybe, which risked considerable damage to S.
So a 'crash-gybe' is a gybe that risks considerable damage. A 'crash-tack' would have the same meaning.
But let's just talk about 'risk of considerable damage', not 'crash-tack' or 'crash-gybe';
My take-away from Case 99 is
An action that risks ‘considerable’ damage is not an action that is ‘reasonably possible’, that is, not reasonable.
Just to highlight some of things I can extract from the cases
Case 21
It is unseamanlike to manoeuvre in an extraordinary or abnormal manner
Case 114
It is unseamanlike to risk damaging a vessel or boat.
Match Racing Call Book
An action that risks ‘considerable’ damage' is not an action that is ‘reasonably possible’, that is, not reasonable.
So, linking up Cases 99 and 114
It is unseamanlike to risk damaging a vessel or boat.
An action that risks ‘considerable’ damage' is not an action that is ‘reasonably possible’, that is, not reasonable.
So an action that risks any damage to a vessel or boat is unseamanlike,
and
If the damage is 'considerable', the action is not 'reasonably possible'.
Nick describes an avoiding action that is a sudden luff and a tack past head to wind without releasing the headsail sheet, and suggests that this is unseamanlike.
I don't agree that such a manoeuvre is necessarily unseamanlike. Seamanlike depends on the characteristics of the boat and the existing conditions. For boats with fragile rigs, in heavy conditions it may be useamanlike, but for many types of boats in normal conditions it is perfectly seamanlike to tack all standing into a hove to configuration.
See below where Gordon discusses judgements about 'seamanlike'.
But this sort of example is about what is or is not 'unseamanlike', which is not the same as whether 'unseamanlike' is the same as 'unreasonable'.
Stephen said Created: Fri 22:05
That's the very thing that I'm trying to investigate. Whether there is a link between 'unseamanlike' and 'unreasonable'.
Not just causing injury or death: rule 14 applies to any contact.
Whether there is a likelihood of injury, death, damage or serious damage as a factor about what is reasonable or seamanlike is something I would like to investigate.
It is 'reasonable' for a boat to take unseamanlike action in an attempt to avoid contact in most cases (most cases as discussed below).
See comment above: I don't agree that a tack all standing is necessarily unseamanlike, but to apply the meaning of 'crash-tack' from Case 99 a tack all standing that risks ‘considerable’ damage is not an action that is ‘reasonably possible’ and I would agree that it is unseamanlike.
This is the sort of proposition that I'm trying to tease out and vaiidate.
If it depends on the consequences of breaking the rule other than rule 14, surely it should also depend on the consequences of breaking rule 14 itself.
The question then is, does reasonableness depend on the consequences? Always? or Just sometimes?
We've defined 'crash-tack' to mean a tack that risks considerable damage. Agreed?
Case 99 tells us that an action that risks considerable damage is not a 'reasonably possible' action.
Note that this example is an example of an action to avoid contact that breaks another rule, but the conclusion appears to depend on risk of considerable damage, not on whether rule 10/13 are broken.
OK, there is no risk of 'considerable damage'.
I can follow your reasoning, but my questions posit a considerably lower bar.
OK, that's your conclusion in answer to Question 1.
Yes, I think so
See my conclusions to the previous post:
An action that risks any damage to a vessel or boat (or presumably, any other valuable object) is unseamanlike (Case 114),
and
If the damage is 'considerable', the action is not 'reasonably possible' (Case 99).
So, maybe another question is emerging:
Once there is risk of damage, is it reasonable to expect a boat obliged to avoid contact to assess the magnitude of the risk and/or the magnitude of the damage?
2 points;
1. We've defined 'crash-tack' to mean a tack that risks considerable damage. Agreed?
Not really, I agree that a crash tack (sorry for using the term, but it saves a lot of space) is not seamanlike as it is does not meet the definition in case 21 "execute with reasonable efficiency the handling of the helm, sheets and sails while manoeuvering" however I do not agree that it risks considerable damage. I was taught by safety instructors to do exactly that when returning for a MOB. Case 99 refers to a crash-gybe as a risk of causing considerable damage in that particular circumstance, I would agree that a crash gybe is almost always unseamanlike but does not always risk considerable damage.
for clarity i define a crash tack as one in which the tiller is thrown hard down at the same time as yelling "tacking now" as opposed to the more organised "tacking in 3" and a 3 second countdown. The consequences of the "crash-tack" are that the crew are left stuck on the windward rail,the jib is not released so backwinds, then flutters in the wind before a really long slow winch in and lifeine skirt, all with no one on the rail. As opposed to a seamanlike tack which involves crew warning, jib released at the right moment, sheeted on without the need to winch or skirt and crew immediately on the rail. See case 21 "execute with reasonable efficiency the handling of the helm, sheets and sails while manoeuvering.
The point being that it is possible to do an unseamanlike manoeuver without risking serious damage but you can never risk considerable damage while being seamanlike.
2. I think your very last question is a valid question that sailors need to consider.
Consider this situation, the port boat in case 99 advances slightly further forward so instead of its bow hitting the starboard side of the other boat, the starboard boat tbones the port side of the port boat at 15knots causing both rigs to fall down and the port boat to sink (with possible crew injuries). I suggest that a PC may wish to protect the safety reputation of the sport and decide that 'reasonably possible" required the starboard boat to do more to avoid that collision (possibly, including a crash gybe, or broach)
The problem is that "reasonably possible" is a subjective opinion with no real definition.
"risk" is also a subjective opinion
"considerable damage" is also a subjective opinion
So in every different circumstance, the PC opinion of these words may turn out different.
Rule 14 is a "shall" avoid contact, ie mandatory and I think that raises the meaning of reasonable to its highest possible meaning in considering what is "reasonably possible".
In some cases it is impossible to avoid contact, eg 2 boats on starboard going directly downwind, the windward one gybes to port hoping to pass behind starboard but due to a misjudgment immediately hits, wiping out the rear stanchion. There is no possible action the leeward boat could take to avoid contact.
case 99 is different because it was possible to avoid contact by a crash gybe but not considered reasonable in the circumstances.
so back to your question:
Once there is risk of damage, is it reasonable to expect a boat obliged to avoid contact to assess the magnitude of the risk and/or the magnitude of the damage?
The easy answer is yes! rule 43 offers exoneration if there is no damage or injury, so sailors routinely assess the risk of damage so as to stay within the exoneration parameters.
But back to the context in which the question as asked, I think that in considering "shall avoid contact" and "reasonably possible" does obligate sailors to consider the magnitude of the risk and of the possible damage. The PC in case 99 have been required to exercise a judgement to assess that there was risk of serious damage to come to the conclusion that a crash gybe was not reasonably possible. It follows that sailors should exercise the same judgement. In that case they did not appear to consider the potential damages to the other boat (or crew) but I think that considering what is reasonably possible does encompass considering the other boat at least to some extent ( in my example above someone could be killed).
Many things are "possible" but less things are "practicable". in other words to do something "reasonably practicable" is less onerous than to do something "reasonably possible". With this in mind it is interesting to read the law relating to reasonably practicable of which there is quite a bit. for example, from NSW health and safety law:
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 2011 - SECT 18
18 What is "reasonably practicable" in ensuring health and safety
"reasonably practicable" , in relation to a duty to ensure health and safety, means that which is, or was at a particular time, reasonably able to be done in relation to ensuring health and safety, taking into account and weighing up all relevant matters including--
So, in this context, the person tasked with doing "reasonably practicable" things is required to: assess likelihood of harm, degree of harm, assess ways to minimize risk, assess costs of minimizing risk and to do all this on the basis of what they "know" or "ought to reasonably Know"
Applying similar standards to your question would result in a yes answer I think.
Rule 1.1 A boat......shall give all possible help to any person or vessel in danger.
there is no "out" due to reasonably possible, its a simple "shall"
in my example above there is no doubt that the out of control vessel (port) is in danger, therefore the obligation on the other boat is not only the rule 14 "avoid contact if reasonably possible" but also rule 1.1 "give all possible help". "help" in my opinion must include not tboning them at 15knots. This includes a crash Gybe, broach, or early anticipation to keep well clear.
Wonderful wise assessments of "reasonable" aplied to sailing.
You state' Rule 14 is a "shall" avoid contact, ie mandatory
However the rule actually qualifies the 'shall' 'A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible.
Case 99 establishes the principle that there are situations in which it is possible to avoid contact, but not reasonably possible.
The protest committee found that, when it became clear to S that P was not going to keep clear, the only action available to S was to crash-gybe, which risked considerable damage to S. That finding was equivalent to a finding that it was not reasonably possible for S to avoid contact. Therefore, S did not break rule 14.
This is an authoritative interpretation. Judges are required to follow World Sailing rules and Cases when interpreting the rules.
I would add that when we are judging these situations we are evaluating a crew's split second decision to analyse an emerging risk to themselves and the other boat. As the trolley paradox shows deciding what to do is not always simple and obvious. We should take this in to account in our decisions.
Couldn't agree more.
But that's about judgements of what is 'seamanlike' and what is 'reasonably possible', it's not about the nexus between the two.
Certainly, but you're now elevating the level of discussion to 'emergency' situations, which isn't always the case with rule 14.
Although I can see this discussion moving towards a spectrum from 'contact with no injury or damage' through 'contact with damage but not serious damage', towards 'collision with serious injury and/or damage', and possibly a similar spectrum of risk or collision, and the separate risk of damage/injury through 'low', 'medium' to 'high'.
I don't really think so. The Trolley paradox is an example of decision making in 'the agony of the moment', where the risk is death of persons, and the decision needs to be instantaneous. That's a special case.
Agreed.
We seem to be coming to a consensus, referring to a 'spectrum' again, that there may be actions that are unseamanlike but
I think this needs to be teased out a bit more.
If a boat is sailed recklessly so as to endanger other competitors or affect the fairness of the competition, then by all means let's consider rules 2 and 69., but I think that's beyond the scope of the 'reasonably possible' issue.
The notion that persons employed as firefighters or para-medics would be trained to put themselves in danger is absolutely contrary to any notion of occupational health and safety responsibilities. They are trained to do what needs to be done to achieve the objective - which may go against basic human instincts, or be contrary to what a reasonable untrained person would do. And sometimes what needs to be done is dangerous, like going in to a burning building. The risk assessment or health and safety plan for a fire service, police force or lifeboat crew would certainly be unacceptable for most other professions The key point is that they have been trained and psychologically prepared to take those risks, whereas most racing sailors have not.
The Trolley paradox is an example of decision making in 'the agony of the moment', where the risk is death of persons, and the decision needs to be instantaneous. That's a special case. There are professions in which trolley paradox decisions are common. That is why they train so hard, so that decisions can be rapid and, if necessary, go against the instinctive reactions of untrained people. The point being that sailors do not have that training.
I think the Americans would have difficulty with that as a general proposition. Doesn't 'compelled' need somethning more than just a rule being broken? RRS 43.1(a) has two distinct steps 'compelled' and 'by a boat breaking a rule'. If a boat takes steps to avoid contact with a boat that is breaking a rule, and in doing so breaks another rule, I would have considerable difficulty in concluding that she was not 'compelled' to break that rule.
I think this needs to be teased out a bit more.
A boat that can avoid contact by breaking a rule should not feel constrained in her actions by a fear that she would be penalised for breaking that rule.
Stephen pointed out early that “seamanlike” is used in def: room, not rule 14. True, but seamanlike encompasses many aspects of what you all are discussing… safety, orderliness and predictability, so I think it’s still useful.
I don’t think “reasonably possible” is to expect a helmsman to execute a maneuver for which the outcomes are unpredictable for the safety of the boat and crew (which
circles us back[is similar] to seamanlike).Predictability would depend upon the boat, speed, sail config, and expertise of the skipper and crew [as well as their athletic ability to respond]. [I think we can again leverage something from “seamanlike” here as our standard of “predictability” shouldn’t exceed what could be “…expected from a competent, but not expert, crew of the appropriate number for the boat”]
An unexpected gybe with a boom swinging across the boat without warning and time to react, risks serious head injury or worse of those it is path and “crash tacks” can end up putting crew overboard.
Example and counter example: Starboard upwind boat changes course and P (ducking) has to adjust course as well; S must allow P room for a seamanlike adjustment...
vs Port boat upwind just crossing S hits a bad wave and slows down; we expect S to put her helm up to avoid the t-bone and duck even if it's not a seamanlike maneuver.
As such, I suggest there are (at least) three levels of potential collision avoiding maneuvers:
most rules require boats to act with a prompt seamanlike response (level 1) but Rule 14 requires us to step up our avoidance to level 2, with the caveats that we can wait til it's necessary, and we won't be penalized for little bumps between cheap boats (both of which allow us to push closer to level 1 in certain situations)
Apologies if I'm repeating myself here. (Edit: Added the bold above)
2 points;
You're turning my line of argument on its head, and trying to re-introduce the terms 'crash-tack', which never appears on any rule or case, and 'crash-gybe' which appears only in Case 99 into the discussion.
You are at perfect liberty to do that, but I don't think it is helpful.
My initial response to that proposition is that it is outrageous to suggest that S should commit to either a harden up or a gybe in conditions where either has a significant risk of becoming uncontrolled, and causing serious damage to herself, and she certainly does not have any obligation to take such an action to 'protect the safety reputation of the sport', nor should a protest committee be concerning itself with the 'safety reputation of the sport'.
But, OK, you're voting that, in your view it is reasonable for a boat with a rule 14 obligation to consider the possible magnitude of risked injury or damage.
No, technically not 'subjective'. Once it goes to a protest committee these matters depend on the judgement of the 'average reasonable sailor', as represented by the protest committee. That's 'objective'.
Yes, different circumstances, different conclusions.
Yes.
I may be wrong, but I don't agree. In light conditions, with small, light boats, and say a beam to beam contact, maybe, but in almost all other conditions no sailor can be confident that contact will not cause damage, and would be very foolish to allow the boat to break rule 14 in the hope of exoneration.
I think that most assessment of risk and severity or potential severity of damage occurs post-hoc, not on the water at the time of the incident.
Yes
Why does it follow?
It's by the by, but for the purposes of the RRS, is there any difference between a boat suffering serious damage and a person being killed?
I'm not sure that non-english speakers would instantly recognise the nuance, and I think once you insert 'reasonably', the difference dissolves.
Whatever case law there may be about this is probably ancient history.
I'd like to see a sailing racing example of the difference between 'reasonably practicable' and 'reasonable possible'.
EDIIT: Sorry, I missed the NSW reference. I should have been able to recognise that legislation.
Just an opening caveat: this statutory definition is a creature of
UKAustralian domestic law, it's not necessarily derived from either logic or natural justice.It relates to persons, or organisations having a duty imposed on them by the
UKNSW Work Health and Safety Act. That may not relevantly extend to masters of racing sailboats, and it posits a fundamental duty to ensure health and safety, which is nowhere to be found in the RRS.I disagree. The meaning of 'reasonably practicable' as defined above applies only to duty-holders having a fundamental obligation to 'ensure health and safety', under the Act, which is an onerous imposition, created to deal with negligent and dangerous employers, and which contains or refers to other included or well-known obligations to formally identify and assess risks, and document and implement risk control measures, and even more onerous and prescriptive obligations in the predecessor Act.
I don't believe that those obligations apply to recreational sailors.
OK, so you're voting Yes.
I don't particularly want to go there, but I don't think any law or rule can validly oblige a person to put their own life or property in peril in order to help another. In other words, I think rule 1.1 should be immediatly read down to 'reasonably possible';.
Sorry, I think that line of argument is a bit fanciful.
In particular, I'm reacting to this...
If I'm not mistaken, the term "seamanlike" shows up only in the definition of Room which itself shows up in many rules.
I've always understood "maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike way" to be mostly limited to using trim, heel, rudder, and sail changes to make the boat respond quickly, rather than any act of good seamanship, which might not apply to racing. Indeed, there are many acts of good seamanship which I would NOT expect a competitor to do to keep clear or take mark-room, including heaving-to, which is typically used to "take a break" (per Wikipedia and my own experience).
Does this jive with all y'alls understanding of "seamanlike" and how it is applied? Am I way off here?
--
To get back to Stephen's original point and the original question, I think a tack without having time to release the jib might be "reasonable" in most conditions (and therefore apply to avoiding contact).
However I would NOT consider that a seamanlike maneuver (except maybe where tactically advisable to tack and duck). Conversely, I would expect a boat subject to 15 or 16 to give enough time and opportunity that the give-way boat could make a tack where they release and re-trim the jib on the new board.
Like Ant, above, I haven't read much of this thread, but a lawyer told me many years ago, that books have been written about the word 'reasonable", and what it means, that it's used so frequently, but is so subjective, that defining it precisely is impossible.
It stands to reason, therefore, that searching for a defining interpetation that can be applied to all sailing circumstances is useless.
Individuals will simply have to do what they can to avoid contact and comply with the rules, and PCs will have to apply there wisdom and wealth of extensive experience on the water to determine "reasonabness" in the given circumstances.
This is what I believe.
Merry Christmas everyone,
Phil.
Since “room” is so core to so many of the RRS and ”maneuvering in a seamanlike way” is so core to room, I think it could make sense (as Nick laid out) to leverage that as a baseline.
In other words, if one would find that a maneuver [at that given moment] would have been seamanlike, then it’s very likely it would also be found to be reasonably possible too.
Beyond what would be considered seamanlike, I suggested to continue to use the “competent but not expert crew” interpretation from seamanlike and bring it forward into the other levels to help the analysis process.
In other words, if the maneuver in question would exceed what could be expected of a competent, but not expert crew, then it might be hard to find that the maneuver in question would have been reasonably possible. That analysis gets us to the bottom edge of impossible (Nick’s #4).
Ant and I both bring up “predictability” (in different ways .. but I think we are saying the same thing here). Thinking about predicability can help in the area between seamanlike and impossible.
It’s all just trying to offer some thoughts and analysis-framework to help, as you say, “ .. PCs [ …] apply there wisdom and wealth of extensive experience on the water to determine "reasonableness" in the given circumstances.”