This situation is with 20 meter slow manouevring classic Bargers.
- Blue and Yellow are approaching the downwind Mark.
- Blue knows Yellow is clear ahead and that Blue has inside room and leaves her space for an optimal rounding, allowing Blue also a better rounding herself.
- Yellow makes the rounding, but just after passing the Mark she shoots suddenly straight upwind with full rudder (big braking "door") fiercly slowing her down also.
- No call or notice was given to Blue on her tail "to stay clear, or whatever het intentions were..."
- Blue gets surprised by this windward shoot upwind - on "proper" course of Yellow( Yellow 5 would be Yellow 4), with no upwind shoot she woudl have been rounding clear behind
- Blue tries all to steer leeward hard to avoid collision but her fixed bowsprit hits the rudder of Yellow.
- Would Blue not have tried to clear to leeward she would have flown full into the back of Yellow (putting a rudder at +50 degress equals a good brake...)
- Yellow sets a protest.
There are two scenarios, of which only scenario A was taken into the protest room:
A) Yellow dis not turn further than head to wind (i.e. did not "tack") although the picture may suggest slightly different (sorry for that).
B) Yellow dis go further than head to wind - i.e. "tacked" and would have been subjective to Rule 13.
What is your opinion given scenario A (these are slow manouevrable bargers, despite high speeds with 165m2 sail):
- Can Blue be exonerated on Rule 15? Not being given enough time to stay clear of Yellow despite rule 12?
- Did Blue by trying to steer leeward once she noticed the situation obey to Rule 14, doing all to avoid the collision?
- As a boat clear behind is it "reasonable" that Blue should anticipate, or forsee any sudden move that Yellow might make .. ?
Bear in mind these are not dinghy's or keel-yachts but bargers.
Actually, from the diagram I can't really see how B could have got to close to Y even given the types of boat and Y's manoeuvre, but I can see other scenarios in which I get the point of your description. I'd DSQ B.
The "sad part" is that some boats invented that braking on purpose, and unexpected luffing (rudder almost square behind = full brake) can be used a tactical manoeuvre to force a fellow competitor into error ...
This is practiced particularly when the behind boat stays clear well for a more optimal turn on speed with normally enough room to round clear behind, gaining/kepping a good position for the upwind course. This is why they hit full brake and luff full head to wind - jamming the mark and dropping more that 50% speed within a few seconds..
- Yellow had her mark room and rounded on the inside and was leaving the mark.
- Yellow did not sail outside the zone,
- When Yellow reached upwind course rounding and leaving the mark (proper course?) she suddenly squared her rudder full - luffing head to wind and dropping speed by rudder resistance and luffed sails.
So yes, 16.1 gets into play and hence 15 allowing Blue enough space to stay clear.
Once we get to 16.1 then there seems to be a breach, is she exonerated or not?
She can only be exonerated here is 18.2.a still applies, and to she is within the mark room to which she is entitled.
I think she has had her mark room so no exonerated. In any event by luffing she is outside the mark room she needs so she is dsq.
What if she'd slowed not by luffing but by not pulling the sails in?
It is the change of course that is the issue.
Team racing calls say 16 applies to leeward of a mark if you luff above a proper course.
There she need not go above close hauled, so the luff is outside the mark room she would be entitled to
Either way, she is dsq.
Yellow was exonerated for 16.1 and Blue got DSQ on rule 18.a, 12 and 14. That was the ruling during the hearing.
Should from what has come out it be a rule 2?
No 16 exoneration, had mark room or sailing outside it, which leaves exoneration avaliable to the trailing boat.
As a reminder, we do not allow information regarding PC decisions to be posted, dissected and 2nd guessed on the forum. That is clearly stated as against forum rules.
Please keep the focus of the discussion on applying the rules based on the facts we are given here and not what a PC did, did not or should have done .. or share ANY information from a hearing.
Thanks - Ang
From the RRS Definitions: Proper Course, A course a boat would choose in order to sail the course and finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term.
Second, unlike a modern light weight boat which would quickly decelerate, a heavy boat like this doesn't stop abruptly even when the rudder is turned hard over. The rudder when compared to the mass of the boat has far less effect than a modern boat. As a result, I would be dubious that one can stop one of these multi-ton boats by hauling the tiller hard over.
For these two reasons, I'd suggest that Yellow could very well be sailing her proper course if that was the fastest way to get the sheets in and start sailing to windward. Blue was clear astern of Yellow, and did not keep clear, breaking Rule 12.
In regards to the rudder - with 1,5 meters width on the foot that is in te water I can assure you that it slows down dramatically with sudden steering over more than 70 degrees angle despite the mass and momentum of the boat. Compared to a boat behind sailing that is relatively like pulling a handbrake.
The only reason why these bargers luff to wind (with less rudder) when rounding a mark is to gain height for clean air when in front of her more boats just rounded. Still this is gliding while maintaning speed, and not angling a hook to block boats behind. In the case I described there was no crowd in front causing bad air, so a jump windward was not to be expected. Het proper course would likely be to take full speed ahead in clean air, versus jumping and braking on leaving the mark (16.1)
But overall - I do agree with you that rule 12 versus 16.1 or 2 remains disputable. That is why I placed this post.
It is the change of course under 16 and possible or not exoneration that matter.
I think the diagram shows her not past the mark, but if we're uncertain we return to the last point of certainty, so she's ROW and blue must keep clear at that point. I can also think of racing scenarios where you luff towards head to wind whilst approaching the mark to ensure you're to windward of the following boat, though the violence of the manoeuvre is less. Which means I still think blue is dsq but it wouldn't take much in the change of circumstances to dsq yellow instead.
Since I think the original point of the question was to see if there's anything that could be done to 'clean up' what appears to some to be a rogue tactic in a fleet, I think having a fleet discussion about the issue and pointing out that the timing would be critical in winning a protest and it would be possible for yellow to be DSQ'd (and we know that going into any protest room becomes a game of odds), that if damage occurs then yellow will be DSQ'd as well, and so undertaking such a sudden braking turn is not advisable. All Yellow needs to do to ensure blue goes below her is to not speed up quite so fast and this would benefit her speed-wise overall as well, instead of putting the brakes on.
Personally, I think getting the PC (or large virtual PC as you have here) to engage with the sailors in discussions about these issues outside the protest room is good for the sport and its development, so I'd tend to use the debate here to show yellow might come out of similar situations less well than blue in a fleet meeting or similar.
FWIW, this is how I see this scenario ...
OK .. so the mark doesn't matter .. and proper course doesn't matter. Let's look at this scenario with those 2 items removed and see what's what .. let's put them maneuvering before the start (no proper course, no mark-room).
The drawing below preserves the boat-boat separation (3/4-1 BL) before the turn.
Who is going to penalize Yellow?
1) B was leeward boat altering to windward.
2) Y did not pass head to wind. (per the original post despite the diagram)
3) Y wasn't given room to keep clear of B.
Penalize B - Rule 16.1 (When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear.)
1- I wonder if you can take proper course out of the eqaution by presenting a startline. The target for the course is the next upwind mark! And not "no man's" land.
2- The key where its starts is a mark rounding and the momen of leaving the mark where 18.a stops (giving mark room).
3- Even without the mark - Y is heading up (the picture of Angelo puts the nose of B leeward, where she was windward and not in contact yet) - Y is gradually turning up, sees Blue getting to her inside closing and then decides to give it a dramatic extra push, blocking B and not allowing her room (time) to stay clear. To me 16.1 comes into play. The sudden extra push of Yellow can be interpreted as a "change of course", diverting suddenly from a gradual turn. It is clearly ment to block B and intentionally force her into error (Rule 2).
Do compare the pictures - Angelo's picture places Blue leeward, where she actually is windward with her bow and stil clear. In Angelo's picture it is a clear rule 12 to me - Blue in error and DSQ.
- At position 2, no overlap
- At position 3, no overlap
- At position 4, contact between the bowsprit of B and the stern of Y (according to the original diagram)
- Both boats are altering course
- B fails to keep clear as the overtaking boat braking Rule 12 (When boats are on the same tack and not overlapped, a boat clear astern shall keep clear of a boat clear ahead.)
- DSQ Blue
Are you implying that B has mark room in the original post? I can't find any restriction on the maneuvers of Y either turning or slowing down. One would need to argue that Y broke 14 and caused the contact, and in the original post I don't think B would prevail. (In team and match racing maneuvers like this are quite common and are called "mark traps" here in California)
If 18 still applies then Yellow is exonerated if she breaks 16 as long as she is in the mark room she is entitled to. Blue breaks 12, 14, & 18.2(b). Whether Yellow breaks 16 is moot because she is exonerated for that.
Intentionally slowing down and creating the contact would mean that it was likely reasonably possible to avoid contact, so Yellow would break 14, might be exonerated under 43.1(c), but quite possibly breaks 2 in the process.
If Yellow is sailing outside of the mark room she is entitled to, then it's the same rules as if 18 no longer applies as follows.
If 18 no longer applies because we have decided that mark room has been given then there are more possible outcomes. It is now a question of whether Yellow was changing course at the same time of contact.
If Yellow does not change course while slowing down then she is not obligated by 16 to give room to Blue to keep clear. Blue breaks 12 & 14. The same thoughts on 14 for Yellow apply.
If Yellow is changing course then the question of whether Blue was already not keeping clear comes into play. See Match Race Rapid Response Call 2021.001 Question 3.
If Blue was keeping clear then Yellow breaks 14 & 16. Blue breaks 12 but is exonerated. It's hard to see how Blue could have reasonable avoided contact.
If Blue was not keeping clear then Blue breaks 12 & 14. This is where the case that Blue was going to hit Yellow even without Yellow changing course fits in. The first thoughts above on 14 for Yellow apply.
The point I'm trying to make to you is NOT that I'm "taking proper course out of the equation" .. but rather .. "proper course has no place in your original post or my drawing" (thus they are the same). In other words, you are incorrectly inserting "proper course" into the discussion and into the analysis of the scenario when contact occurred.
It is my opinion that misapplication and misuse of "proper course" is the most common mistake made when people talk about the rules.
"Proper Course" has no impact or meaning between 2 boats unless there is a rule that uses the term which applies between them.
The likely rules that might apply in your OP are:
Therefore, in your scenario, "proper course" has no place in the discussion (since Blue gave Yellow room to sail to the mark).
There is no inherent "right to sail your proper course" nor is there an inherent "obligation to sail your proper course".
We are talking about 20m/20ton boats, right?
I can’t think of any Case or Call that says a boat clear ahead must keep her speed up if a boat clear astern is following so closely that she can not avoid contact if she slows.
I think there might be a combined application of MR RR 2021.001 and Case 30 that ends up saying that Blue wasn’t keeping clear when she turned toward Yellow as the space between them decreased (somewhere between positions 3.66-3.9, before the contact)
I’m focusing on 3-4. From 3 to 4 BOTH Blue and Yellow are constantly altering course to port. Port alters course 100 deg in the direction of Yellow all the while her 20m gap for her 20ton boat decreased to nothing, she just kept turning toward Yellow’s stern until she was so close that she could not keep clear. From 3-4 Yellow alters course 90 deg
The 1BL spearation disappears someplace between 3-4. @3-2/3, Blue is likely approx where Yellow-3 is. So in 1BL, Blue alters course another 30-40 degs toward Yellow (in 1BL of forward travel) as she continues to gain on Yellow.
Blue is not entitled to MR. Blue has no entitlement to room to come up to her close-hauled course at 4 or to sail close to the mark.
I tried to cover all the rule routes that you might go through in looking at the case. I didn't really try to pull out of the OP where I might land if I were on the PC.
No, there is no rule that says a boat has to maintain her speed. 42.1 says "increase, maintain or decrease her speed". Speeding up and slowing down are natural things that happen. A boat is allowed to slow down by easing her sails, making rudder movements (specifically allowed as an exception in 42.3(f)), etc. However, I think that if a boat deliberately decreases her speed to cause contact that this is possibly a violation of rule 2. See Team Race Call A4. Think about a boat clear astern (A) that is luffing up to take the stern of a boat clear ahead (B) and, as the bow of A is passing the stern of B, B deliberately slams on the "brakes" so that contact occurs but does not change course (no 16). A would have kept clear had B not done that. I am tempted to think rule 2 in this situation even though B broke no other rule.
The case where the boat clear astern is so close that a decrease in speed, for whatever reason, causes immediate or nearly immediate contact would seem to indicate that the boat astern was not keeping clear, i.e. the clear ahead boat cannot continue to sail her course (which includes speeding up and slowing down, but not changing course) without needing to take avoiding action. The subtle point is that if the boat clear ahead changes course while the boat clear astern is already in that position then the boat ahead can't break 16 based on Match Race Rapid Response Call 2021.001 Question 3. I think Match Racing Call B6 also supplies some insight into that.
As the keep clear boat there is no limitation on Blue changing course or anything else as long as she keeps clear of and gives room to the boats she has to. So the fact that she is turning doesn't really change things, the only question is 'is she keeping clear at this point?' and 'when is she no longer keeping clear?'. That Yellow, the R.O.W boat, is turning is important as she does have limitations on her because that.
I agree, I think that Blue is keep clear of Yellow and at no point entitled to MR from Yellow throughout this incident.
JC re: “However, I think that if a boat deliberately decreases her speed to cause contact that this is possibly a violation of rule 2.”
That’s a bit of a rub for me. I guess if you have the skipper admit that was their intent in slowing … sure .. but the skipper says he wanted to slow so that be boat behind would have to sail wider around the mark which would put him to leeward.
I guess if the skipper of Yellow is looking back at Blue and realizes that there is no way for Blue to bear off and go to leeward (possibly because she is turning up) and still slows knowing Blue has no option but to hit Yellow, I'd be inclined to be pretty hard on Yellow. I think you could establish that by the questions you ask Yellow. If Yellow says they wanted Blue to go to leeward and then you ask about the distances between the boats and direction that Blue was turning and whether they thought Blue could actually have done something different that hitting her, you can probably get Yellow to admit it without actually saying it.
But the cat’s out of the bag. lol.
But part of your reply is sorta my what’s bothering me … you put on Yellow the direction Blue was turning in Yellow’s 16.1 maneuvering limitation, not just where Blue was heading the moment she turned.
Yes … Yellow is obligated under 16.1 to continue to give Blue room to keep clear as she turned. But Blue has an obligation to use room avail/given to keep clear.
I’d really need to dig really deep into those last seconds when Yellow started to turn above close-hauled.
At that moment,
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. :-)
All excellent questions and things you would want to delve into during a hearing. I think Team Race Call A4 helps us with the notion of how the rules might apply if Yellow intentionally slowed to get Blue to hit her. And while that is a possible rules path, it might be an uphill climb, but I think it is a valid path, even if it is not the most probable.
I'm not advocating any particular result, just what the possibilities are. This is what I might consider before a hearing as I am thinking about what rules apply and what questions I am looking for answers to.
The fact that Blue is turning a given direction is important as she has angular momentum in that direction and may need some additional room to stop the turn before turning away to respond to Yellow's change of course. That has to be a component of the room Yellow is required to give Blue when she changes course, no matter how small.
One thing is that while the rules can be applied on a frame by frame basis, the reality is that we have to account for the actual movement of the boats in real time.
BTW … we don’t have to worry about angular momentum on these 20ton 20m barges … they can apparently spin on a dime baby! :-)
they can not really spin on a dime .... my drawing may have been wider, but there is little room in boats.exe ... When you "spin" them it takes full rudder, which leads to fierce slowdom upwind, loosing drag in your luffing sails. Meanwhile on an upwind turn three crew have to haul in 60 meters of sheet.
Turning towards downwind at an upwind mark with full rudder leaves pressure in the sails, maintains more speed but still the turnradius will be >30m. It takes a lot of force .... so imagine the slow down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YbaRfuDWNA&ab_channel=SkydroneSloten (@1:14 you get a great example of a crowd rounding a downwind mark)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB40xsDF8Pg&ab_channel=SkydroneSloten
* Although I wonder about dragging hands and feet or throwing out a sea anchor. But this is a different topic and we should stay on point.