Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
WS Case 30
Gianni Restano
Nationality: Italy
Certifications:
- National Umpire
- National Judge
1
Hi everyone, am I the only one who believes that Case 30 of the WS Case Book isn't entirely convincing?
It deals with two boats sailing on starboard tack on a run; the trailing one blankets the leading one, causing it to slow down and unintentionally gybe to port. Immediately after, the trailing boat hits the transom of the leading one. The case states that the trailing boat must be penalized for breaking rule 12, for failing to keep clear before the collision. If I get it correctly, there seems to be a moment where – according to the case – the trailing boat is too close to be keeping clear, and this somehow regardless of the subsequent collision.
It deals with two boats sailing on starboard tack on a run; the trailing one blankets the leading one, causing it to slow down and unintentionally gybe to port. Immediately after, the trailing boat hits the transom of the leading one. The case states that the trailing boat must be penalized for breaking rule 12, for failing to keep clear before the collision. If I get it correctly, there seems to be a moment where – according to the case – the trailing boat is too close to be keeping clear, and this somehow regardless of the subsequent collision.
"When B was clear astern of A she was required by rule 12 to keep clear but failed to do so. Her breach occurred before the collision, at the moment when A first needed ‘to take avoiding action’ (see the definition Keep Clear)."
I find it difficult to entirely reconcile this with definitions and rules (mostly because I don’t see which avoiding actions should A take, save from trying to avoid an unintentional gybe), and I also believe it might have unintended consequences if consistently applied on race courses (e.g.: do we want protests from leading boats when another boat is close behind them, without any collision?).
Wouldn’t it be easier to handle this case under Rule 15? In order to do this, we should only consider A’s unintentional gybe not as an action, but merely as a “passive” consequence of B’s blanketing. In such a way, the second sentence of Rule 15 (“unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat’s actions”) wouldn’t kick in, and B should initially give A room to keep clear. Failing to do so would break rule 15.
A couple more things that I find curious about the case:
- the case is built along a continuous obstruction, but the obstruction is irrelevant to the decision. The elements leading to the decision are independent of the obstruction and therefore the case principles would also apply in the middle of the sea;
- admittedly a minor thing, but it might have kept the case outside of the spotlight: in the Case Book, Case 30 is listed among those relevant to Rule 14, 19 and 43, but not to Rule 12. Why, considering it’s mostly relevant to rule 12 and not at all to rule 19?
Thoughts?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Said Created: Today 01:07
These 2 occurrences are then treated as one incident, and dealt with together in the one protest hearing.
A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule. When a boat acquires right of way as a result of her own actions, the other boat is entitled to room to keep clear.
...
The collision occurred almost immediately after AS assumed a close-hauled course on starboard tack. Therefore, BP needed to take avoiding action before AS had borne away to a close-hauled course. At that time BP had right of way under rule 13, and so AS broke rule 13.
When I was staring at this last night, something did occur to me regarding this case and the obstruction to starboard.
Yes, rule 19 is tossed aside almost immediately, so the obstruction as far as rule 19 is not impactful. However, I do note the 1m depth line in the drawing and A’s movement over that line from position 1 to 2.
One way to read the rule 12 breach is to acknowledge that, prior to the gybe and immediate contact, B’s bow was at A’s port-stern-corner. At that point, if A altered course to starboard, the space between B’s bow and A’s stern would increase, but the shoreline prevented A from turning to starboard. At that same moment, had A altered to port, that space would decrease and contact would have immediately occurred.
Therefore, prior to the gybe when rule 12 applied, had A turned to port, B would have made immediate contact with A’s stern. That’s how we can move back-in-time to prior to the gybe to say that B wasn’t keeping clear under RRS 12. B’s immediate contact after the gybe was evidence that B was so close to A’s port-stern-corner before the gybe, that A could not alter course in both directions (i.e. could not alter course to port) before the gybe without making immediate contact with B.
I agree, I think Case 30 could be touched-up to make that clearer and add RRS 12 to its rule-references.
I think the displacement of B from A's starboard transom to her port transom is just an irregularity in the diagram.
The case refers to 'the moment when A first needed ‘to take avoiding action’ (see the definition Keep Clear)'. That tells me that the Case intends to rely on Definition Keep Clear (a), not (b).
Hmmm … well that’s a lot harder to wrap one’s head around when moving back in time before the gybe when RRS 12 still applied between the boats. If that’s what they are saying I agree with Gianni … it’s tough to comprehend.
Sort’a feels like a backdoor rule 15 obligation on B, when 15 doesn’t apply here.
I would read WS Case 88. A boat may avoid contact and yet fail to keep clear. It provides further insight into how to decide when a boat fails to keep clear.
IMO. A boat fails to keep clear when the right of way boat has "a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision" if they continue to sail their course, which is sometime before when a collision is inevitable.
I think what Case 27 and Case 30 are telling us is that when there is contact immediately or almost immediately after a right of way transition, the boat that was initially the give way boat has failed to keep clear.
I find that pretty useful.
If you apply that logic to Case 30, then sometime prior to contact, B the clear astern boat, failed to keep clear and broke 12.
Case 50
I think you are trying to argue by extension from Case 50 and Case 88, which deal with situations where there is NO contact, to support cases where there IS contact.
I don't think that is necessary. I think Case 27 and Case 30, where there IS contact, and the right-of-way boat does not take avoiding action, stand on their own two feet.
Those cases say when there is contact immediately or almost immediately after a right of way transition, the boat that was initially the give way boat has failed to keep clear.
Therefore the breach of the right-of-way rule occurred immediately before there was contact
I don't think we need to go any further.
John, Case 27 relies upon rule 15 which doesn’t apply in Case 30.
Like I said, trying to apply keep clear (a) in Case 30 instead of (b) but looks like we are creating a rule 15 obligation on B that doesn’t exist (to me).
(I’m honestly trying to see what you are saying fellas … )
Case 27 says, flatly
The collision occurred almost immediately after AS assumed a close-hauled course on starboard tack. Therefore, BP needed to take avoiding action before AS had borne away to a close-hauled course. At that time BP had right of way under rule 13, and so AS broke rule 13.
That doesn't rely on RRS 15 in any way.
At the risk of being repetitious, what I'm saying is that Case 50 and Case 88 are about situations where there is NO contact and Case 27 and Case 30, are about situations there IS contact.
I think I'm accurately paraphrasing Case 27 and Case 30, by saying
When there is contact immediately or almost immediately after a right of way transition, the boat that was initially the give way boat has failed to keep clear.
Therefore the breach of the right-of-way rule occurred immediately before there was contact.
Maybe to pull the two areas together:
John … I’m not saying you are wrong and I am right.. I’m just agreeing with Gianni that Case 30 is hard to wrap one’s head around using Keep Clear (a). This situation just makes much more sense under 16(b) to me, as I described previously. - Ang
Boat B breaks rule 12 before the collision.
Ideally, in a protest decision I would rather have that established as an explicit conclusion instead of an implicit one. I believe a panel needs to have that clearly established because if, for example, just after A’s jibe B had the option to choose whether to avoid A or to keep her course in order to “touch” A and DSQ her for breaking rule 10, this could end up differently, regardless of the initial distance (BTW, on the topic of a minimal distance, MR Call B17 more or less states there isn't one). And having that option only takes one additional second, having established that A’s "reasonable apprehension of contact" is off the table, since she didn’t change course at all, and the conditions for rule 15 are not satisfied.
Yes … I am acknowledging that is what Case 30 says. Let me see if I can successfully describe my confusion with the case (speaking for myself).
If we take the gybe out if this scenario ….both boats remain on STB, Boat A holds her course and Boat B just plows into her port-stern quarter, would we step back in time to this moment in question and say Boat B broke rule 12 at this same moment before the contact? I don’t think that would be typical in my experience.
OK .. maybe this is a better question …
Let’s take Case 30 exactly as is .. except this time:
Are we going to find that Boat B still broke rule 12 at this same moment and did not keep clear under keep clear (a)?
Yea .. as you can see in my previous post, I was starting to get there myself. For me to get away from this feeling that we're creating a "back-door rule 15" obligation on Boat B, that at the moment (before they gybe) Case 30 says rule 12 is broken, are we saying that Boat B was so close that with her course and speed was such that contact was unavoidable even if the gybe did not occur?
That's a way of explaining it that I can more easily wrap my head around and that would answer the scenarios I had in my last post.
Scenario 1 (no contact)
If I put it that way .. it makes sense to me.
A boat breaks a rule of Part 2 Section A when they fail to keep clear. A right-of-way boat cannot break a Part 2 Section A rule. Only a keep clear boat (starboard, leeward, clear astern or tacking) can break one of these rules and only by failing to keep clear.
Keep Clear has two parts
Case 30 says
I agree boat A never changes course. Where exactly was she supposed to go. If she bears away, she runs aground, if she luffs, she breaks rule 16.
Regardless, I see the reasoning as this:
I don't like this un-fouling, it happens other places too. But at least it's in line with common sense more or less.
thank your for your detailed description, I could definitely live with it.
Mark and John, would you endorse this strict interpretation of the call (that I roughly summarize as: if A doesn't change course to avoid, it's fine to penalize B only if there is a moment in time just before A's jibe where B has no available action to avoid a contact)?
Nicholas,
from my understanding, your intepretation is a bit different. A few comments:
You mention that the un-fouling happens also in other places. Would you please elaborate?
Thank you!
Re: your question about un-fouling... let me find the thread. I'm pretty sure Ang, Mark and John have all disagreed with me there too, but I hold that it's a similarly gray area with slightly unsatisfactory rule wording that nonetheless leads to a common-sense answer we all agree on...
Dunno if you want to discuss here and derail this thread, or back in the old thread, or feel free to email me if that's easiest.
My argument there was that when Green acquires ROW, Red only has room to keep clear because Green changes course. That change of course makes room for Red to keep clear that she wasn't initially given... I'm arguing that Green is un-fouling through the act of giving room. You can see from the thread that Mark and Ang disagreed, but they were never able to satisfy my wording/onus question/curiosity/frustration (even though we all agree that the interpretation/outcome is the right one for the sport).
That thread also mentions Case 146 and TR Call D3 which are analogous in that room is eventually made and not initially given. These in my mind are also situations where we allow ROW boats to "un-foul" after briefly breaking RRS 15 or 16.
Actually, I unconvincedly tried this route in my OP:
but I acknowledge it was a stretch. I believe we cannot ignore that it's A’s jibe is the actual “action” causing B to become ROW, and that excludes rule 15 in this case.
John’s answer on the matter was spot on:
I don't believe there is any un-fouling in the thread you linked. To me the "initially" in rule 15 doesn't mean that as soon as a boat acquires ROW there must be all the room needed by the KC boat to keep clear, but that the ROW boat has a temporary obligation to give the KC room to keep clear (and that room can be given as and when needed to allow the KC boat to keep clear in a seamanlike way). I believe the word "initially" is there just to remind that the KC boat must move promptly, because her right to room will soon expire if not used. I mentioned this here because you referenced it with regards to this case, but I wouldn't continue discussing it here not to derail the thread.
What are the issues raised in this thread?
1. Reasoning/rationale of case not well explained in the case
5. What is the evidence that B failed to keep clear of A?
6. What is the evidence that A failed to keep clear of B?
7. Minor Matters
What does Case 30 tell us directly or by inference
1. There are 2 occurrences:
This group certainly does not have the power nor the ambition to provide authoritative interpretations, but to me a shared interpretation is certainly much better than nothing!