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.
Same tack, leeward boat acquires right of way, collision. Rules 11 and 15.
Greig Ebeling
0
RC yachting. Before the start, 30 second before the gun, RED is luffing with sheets loose and helm hard to starboard and near stationary approx 3 boat lengths from the line. BLUE approaches slowly from behind with sheets loose, becomes overlapped immediately to leeward of RED. RED maintains helm hard to starboard. A minor collision occurs approx. 2 seconds after the overlap is formed. An observer calls "Contact #1, #2". Neither boat takes a penalty. Which boat is DSQ?
Looks like Rules 11, 15, and 16.1 should be considered.
When an overlap established (a bit past position 2), there's about a half boatlength gap between Red's transom and Blue's bow. That should give Red enough room to head up and avoid Blue. So, Rules 15 and 16.1 don't seem to apply.
The fact that Red had their helm hard to starboard means they were trying to bear away (correct?) and thus not trying to avoid a collision. So Red was not trying to keep clear of Blue, as required by Rule 11.
I agree that Blue would have a stronger case if they had not luffed slightly between positions 2 and 3. (To take Rule 16.1 out of the picture, it's always good for a leeward to ensure they're on the same ladder rung as a windward boat, so that as they luff, their stern swings away from the windward boat, giving the windward boat room to keep clear.) But even still, you can't penalize leeward Blue when windward Red was attempting to bear away into them ("helm hard to starboard").
But whenever there's contact, isn't at least one boat required to protest (hail or fly a flag, as appropriate for the boat), and if not, BOTH boats shall be disqualified?
I can't find this in the current RRS, so I wonder if I'm thinking of an older version of the rules.
[Edited the first three paragraphs.]
Created: 24-Mar-14 02:16
Doug Bailey
0
Red does not have to assume that overlap will occur until it does occur, at which point she becomes the burdened boat and has to keep clear. With a boat close to leeward and helm hard to starboard, it's not obvious to me what else she could do. Blue is the ROW boat, but has the obligation to allow Red opportunity to keep clear. My call is to toss Blue for forcing a collision and not giving opportunity for Red to keep clear.
Created: 24-Mar-14 02:32
David Allsebrook
Nationality: Canada
0
I would DSQ Blue under Rule 15. When Blue acquired right of way as leeward boat, it was right on Red's leeward quarter. Red had no obligation to anticipate the coming overlap and had no obligation to sail in any particular manner until the overlap was established. Once it was established, Red had no means of keeping clear. It was Blue's obligation to leave Red room to keep clear. Blue did not do so. If Red headed up, its stern would come down into Blue. If Red headed down, it would drag its midships across Blue's bow.
There is no seamanlike action R can take to keep clear.
There is contact.
B has not given R room to keep clear.
R is sailing within the room to which she is entitled and is exonerated for breaking RRS 11 by RRS 43.1(b).
Created: 24-Mar-14 02:49
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
3
Couldn’t Red have pulled in her sheet? OP states her sheet is loose.
Created: 24-Mar-14 02:51
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
1
Al Sargent said .Created: Today 02:16
But whenever there's contact, isn't at least one boat required to protest (hail or fly a flag, as appropriate for the boat), and if not, BOTH boats shall be disqualified?
I can't find this in the current RRS, so I wonder if I'm thinking of an older version of the rules.
Absolutely not.
That was deleted in the 1995 rewrite.
Created: 24-Mar-14 02:52
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
3
Angelo Guarino said Created: Today 02:51
Couldn’t Red have pulled in her sheet? OP states her sheet is loose.
OK, so R is not doing all she could.
Could R trim in her main sheet and accelerate away from B in the 2 seconds after the overlap begins?
That's a question for the OP
Anyone else see B changing course to windward @3 in the OP diagram?
Greig, was that intended?
Created: 24-Mar-14 02:59
Stewart Campbell
Nationality: Australia
0
I'm 100% with John Allan. Angelo, if Red pulls in her sails when the overlap begins (about p2.1 I'd guess) she will initially slide sideways, and unless the windspeed is very low, she will heel and rigs will touch. This can be a common scenario in RC racing when yachts are all hovering towards the line. However, Red should probably have made some sort of move, or hailed that she cannot Keep Clear without immediately making contact.
Created: 24-Mar-14 03:11
P
Benjamin Harding
Certifications:
Judge In Training
3
I said 'Red' because in OP she did not take any action to keep clear. Without an attempt we can't conclusively say she could not keep clear.
Had she sheeted in at the moment of overlap and still failed, it would be different for sure.
But I like to stick to the facts of the original post. At least at first.
Reality is that any other conclusion is an unproved judgement call. Acceptable for discussion, but not part of the facts.
Differences of opinion are inevitable and fine. But if keeping to facts than we can't base conclusion on guesses.
Created: 24-Mar-14 03:15
Greig Ebeling
0
"Could R trim in her main sheet and accelerate away from B in the 2 seconds after the overlap begins?"
No. Any attempt to keep clear by RED would have caused a collision, either with the stern sliding to the left or rigs touching, or both. RED therefore took no action to keep clear, because any action would have had the opposite effect of keeping clear.
RED could have potentially anticipated the incident by sheeting in approx 2 secs prior to the overlap being established. This to me is the crux of the issue. Is RED so obligated to anticipate that BLUE would acquire ROW? If not, why not?
"But if keeping to facts than we can't base conclusion on guesses."
Both skippers agreed to the facts as I have stated them. During arbitration the RO did not ask for any additional facts.
Created: 24-Mar-14 03:48
Bob Lewis
Nationality: Canada
0
First point is that the two seconds after the overlap is enough time for most RC yachts to sail close to two boatlengths. I think we need to have a clear picture of the boats position at the time of overlap. Diagrams should always try to show that. In this case I think we move blue back a little more than 1/2 a boatlength as red is not really moving forward much and we move red back about 1/5 of a boatlength and to windward about 1/2 a hull width. Basically 1/2 the movement from position 2 to 3. At the point of overlap Red is required to maneuver promptly in a seamanlike way to keep clear of Blue. I would say she immediately needs to straighten helm and sheet in to an acceleration mode close hauled. I think there is every likelihood that she might have kept clear. Blue is moving fairly slowly so it should be easy for red to get clear ahead if they start immediately at the point of overlap. On balance I would penalize Red. I think when there is a reasonably possibility of keeping clear if the keep clear boat does nothing then they should be penalized. I’ve heard some judges say that if the keep clear boat makes no attempt to keep clear then they are always in the wrong but that seems a bit too harsh to me when you think of situations where you know nothing could be done to successfully keep clear.
Created: 24-Mar-14 04:30
Greig Ebeling
0
Hi Bob. The diagram in the OP does not need to be adjusted, it is accurate and shows that B is very close to R at overlap. There is about 5 seconds from 1->2, and about 5 seconds from 2->3 and about 2 seconds from overlap to collision.
"At the point of overlap Red is required to maneuver promptly in a seamanlike way to keep clear of Blue".
Is it a valid argument that R should have sheeted in, hit B, and thereby prove that B was too close? Is that not proposing a deliberate collision?
Created: 24-Mar-14 06:21
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
1
See radio sailing call B1 When a boat becomes overlapped to leeward from clear astern, the windward boat must act promptly to keep clear. If the windward boat reacts promptly but cannot keep clear, she has not been given sufficient room. If she takes unnecessary action that causes contact, she fails to keep clear as required.
Assuming boats about 1m long: In this case, Blue becomes overlapped a few centimetres to leeward of Red. The overlap starts at about position 2.5 Most radio sailing boats have deep narrow keels. When you sheet in from almost stationary they will either slip sideways until there is sufficient flow over the keel, or the stern will swing to leeward. In both cases there will be contact.
An observer has hailed contact - Blue has broken RRS 15 by not initially giving room to Red to keep clear. There is no mention of damage or entanglement. Blue should take a one turn penalty under RRS E4.3.
Created: 24-Mar-14 09:24
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Gordon, based on the diagram, looks to me that overlap occurs at 2.1 where there is ~1 hull width separation.
Created: 24-Mar-14 10:52
Greig Ebeling
-1
Angelo, it was actually about 2-3 cm separation, about a half a hull width. This closed rapidly over the next 2 secs as R dogged sideways, and B advanced in a forward direction with keel digging.
Created: 24-Mar-14 11:28
Jerry Thompson
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
National Judge
Umpire In Training
Regional Race Officer
1
Greig,
Was Blue holding her course? The diagram shows a change of course at position 3.
Created: 24-Mar-14 13:09
Greig Ebeling
-1
Jerry, B did not make any obvious change of course.
Created: 24-Mar-14 13:12
Jerry Thompson
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
National Judge
Umpire In Training
Regional Race Officer
0
Blue broke RRS 15.
Created: 24-Mar-14 13:17
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
The diagram in the OP does not need to be adjusted, it is accurate and shows that B is very close to R at overlap.
It was actually about 2-3 cm separation, about a half a hull width. This closed rapidly over the next 2 secs as R dogged sideways, and B advanced in a forward direction with keel digging.
IMO the diagram is inaccurate if there was half hull width separation at the point of overlap. The diagram depicts an overlap at 2.1 or 2.2 with a little less than a hull width at that point.
Further, the diagram shows that between point 2 and collision at 3, R slid more than a hull width to the side... This seems like it might be enough lateral distance to gain flow over the keel. IMHO, this is not so little distance that an attempt should not be made.
Like others, I have questions about B's course change, as well as about the conditions (waves and wind speed).
Created: 24-Mar-14 13:23
David Allsebrook
Nationality: Canada
0
Some of the commentators would require RED to sheet in after the overlap commences, in order that the commentator can be sure one way or another whether BLUE kept clear. This would require RED to violate Rule 14, “A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible.” It is not reasonable of a protest committee to require that boats risk collisions to resolve right of way issues. If the protest committee is sure RED had room to sheet in safely, there is no need for RED to have done so to prove a fact the committee already knows. If a protest committee is not sure RED could have safely sheeted in, then it was reasonable of RED not to try it in compliance with Rule 14.
I suggest that BLUE is DSQ for violating Rule 15.
Created: 24-Mar-14 15:11
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Judge In Training
0
Best define "hard to starboard." To me that means a turn to windward (not to bear away as Al says) hence R was already doing all in her power to keep clear - even before the overlap occurred. DSQ Blue.
Created: 24-Mar-14 17:00
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
One might argue that leaving the helm "hard to starboard" decreases the lateral resistance, increases leeway and is anathema to avoiding a leeward boat if there is in fact no forward motion. I'm less sure that a competent rather than expert "crew" should be able to execute this.
Again, it's hard for me to pick and choose between the diagram, vs the statements regarding 5 seconds and 2 seconds as well as the differing discussions of distances.
Created: 24-Mar-14 17:18
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Benjamin Harding said Created: Today 03:15
I said 'Red' because in OP she did not take any action to keep clear. Without an attempt we can't conclusively say she could not keep clear.
Had she sheeted in at the moment of overlap and still failed, it would be different for sure.
But I like to stick to the facts of the original post. At least at first.
Reality is that any other conclusion is an unproved judgement call. Acceptable for discussion, but not part of the facts.
Differences of opinion are inevitable and fine. But if keeping to facts than we can't base conclusion on guesses.
I disagree with Benjamin's description of the process of a protest committee.
As Gordon has pointed out in a recent post in another thread, judges are supposed to be experienced sailors with knowledge of the characteristics and performance of the boats concerned.
The capacity of boats to trim sails, accelerate, and turn are not 'guesses' they are facts.
If judges don't have enough knowledge about these things they can obtain that knowledge from witnesses, who may be independent experienced sailors or may be the parties themselves.
Created: 24-Mar-14 20:10
Greig Ebeling
-2
Nicholas Kotsatos: The diagram depicts an overlap at 2.1 or 2.2 with a little less than a hull width at that point.
No, it doesn't. The overlap occurs at about 2.7, and the gap is about 3 cm, or half a hull width.
Created: 24-Mar-14 21:15
P
Benjamin Harding
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Morning. Well, it is important that during deliberations we can always stay open to new info, views and ideas. These may lead to changing of our initial positions .
To kick off the discussion I threw 'Red' out there. Deliberately early based on the raw facts of OP. Deliberately before any deliberation. With the expectation of an interesting requirement to 'extrapolate' beyond the Ops description.
Then we had a deliberation and it's clear the opinion is that 'sheeting in' would not have kept Red clear (or evem could have made things worse). This is different to 'Red failing to act promptly and seamanlike'. (Perhaps I was not clear on differentiating the two early on, which was ultimately the point I was hoping to finish with.)
This conclusion needs knowledge of the boats and conditions, probably more than a 2D diagram and paragraph of text can provide.
If that is so (I'm not familiar with RC), then I would go with the quorum and expertise of my learned friends and change my opinion to 'Blue borke R15'.
'She didn't act' vs 'There was nothing she could do', so she did nothing!'
That distinction is what this boils down to. All along I'm happy with either - so not getting caught up with the minute physics and anathemas!
Thanks.
Created: 24-Mar-14 21:38
Bob Lewis
Nationality: Canada
1
“Greig Ebeling
Nicholas Kotsatos: The diagram depicts an overlap at 2.1 or 2.2 with a little less than a hull width at that point.
No, it doesn't. The overlap occurs at about 2.7, and the gap is about 3 cm, or half a hull width.”
Grieg, we now have interpolations of when the overlap occurred as at 2.1, 2.2, 2.5 and 2.7 and each one with a different separation between the boats. I hope that convinces you that if your diagram had included the point where the transition occurred it would be better as these disagreements would not have occurred.
Also, adding to Benjamin’s comment, I think we need to know the type of boat and wind wave conditions as sliding sideways varies a lot between classes and wind conditions.
You said above, the gap was half a hull width or 3 cm. I’m curious what class is only 6 cm wide. I sail an International One Metre (IOM) which is 18.5 cm wide or 9.25 cm half width. In moderate conditions, an IOM accelerates rapidly from a standstill and I’m totally sure I could sail away from a bow 9 cm’s to leeward on a boat that has sails luffing. I think my drift might be about 1 cm.
Created: Today 14:15
Created: 24-Mar-14 22:40
Doug Bailey
0
One other point to consider is the fundamental concept of fair play and reasonableness - which can sometimes be masked by detailed attention to a diagram or a rule book. Blue sails in, under control, and owns the later contact with a boat that is not under immediate, positive control. I'd probably be trying to understand motivations and tease out intent with respect to "fair sailing", rather than simple analytics. Was Red's intention to leverage her helplessness to create an advantage at the start? Was Blue's intent to "tag" Red to improve their own finishing position by forcing an early race penalty on a competitior? It would be nice if the rules and the pictures permitted a definitive interpretation of events - but I suspect that human values and perceptions, fleet racing culture and sense of fair play would factor heavily in the decision, which would then be justified by reference to whichever rules supported that subjective choice. Personally, I "empathize" with Red, but I like Blue's idea from a simple winner-take-all point of view.
Created: 24-Mar-15 00:30
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
-1
Based on the diagram: At position 2 Red is clear ahead, right of way boat. Blue is required to keep clear. Red has no obligation to anticipate the actions of Blue, and is only required to react when Red acquires right of way. Soon afterwards Red becomes overlapped to leeward so close to Red that if Blue changes course there would immediately be contact with Red. Red is not keeping clear because of the actions of Blue. Blue has broken rule 15 and should take a penalty.
Judges are required to establish facts, and then decide if the facts establish that a boat has broken a rule. The level of proof required is the balance of probability: what, in the opinion of the judges, based on the evidence and their experience as sailors and judges, what is the most likely series of events.
Notions of fair play, the intentions of either party are not facts that judges consider, we seek to establish what a boat did not why. An exception is when a breach of Rule 2, or rule 69.1, have been alleged. However, in this case the level of proof required is far higher: 'comfortable satisfaction' (see WS Case 122).
Created: 24-Mar-15 10:08
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Gordon re:”Soon afterwards Red becomes overlapped to leeward so close to Red that if Blue changes course there would immediately be contact with Red.”
The fact stated above is where people diverge based on the diagram. Once having established that fact, the rest follows as you state.
Doug, there are no facts that Red is not in “control.” The OP facts state she is luffing behind the line 30 sec before the start. To the contrary, it seems to me her skipper is demonstrating excellent control and skill maneuvering the boat. Case 99 discusses the topic of keep-clear boats that lack some control .
Case 99
The fact that a boat required to keep clear is out of control does not entitle her to exoneration for breaking a rule of Part 2. When a right-of-way boat becomes obliged by rule 14 to “avoid contact . . . if reasonably possible” and the only way to do so is to crash-gybe, she does not break the rule if she does not crash-gybe. When a boat's penalty under rule 44.1(b) is to retire, and she does so (whether because of choice or necessity), she cannot then be disqualified
Created: 24-Mar-15 12:49
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
1
Another factor to take in to account. In radio sailing: In radio sailing the boat and the competitor controlling her are usually separated by some, possibly significant, distance. The competitor may not be well placed to view any incident and to rapidly analyse the relative speed, angle and distance between the boats. Therefore, interpretations of the rules should be appropriate to the conditions and should take account of these limitations When the term room, as defined in the Racing Rules of Sailing, is used, manoeuvring promptly includes the time needed by the competitor controlling the boat to analyse the situation and react accordingly. In radio sailing, this time may be longer than the time needed to carry out the manoeuvre itself.
See WS Call Book for Radio Sailing - General Principles
Created: 24-Mar-15 13:31
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
“Greig Ebeling
Nicholas Kotsatos: The diagram depicts an overlap at 2.1 or 2.2 with a little less than a hull width at that point.
No, it doesn't. The overlap occurs at about 2.7, and the gap is about 3 cm, or half a hull width.”
We're both wrong! In drawing this, I learned a lot:
The diagram depicts an overlap well before 2.5 (interpolated point pictured), perhaps at 2.3 or 2.4
Blue makes a significant course change between 2 and 3 which exacerbates the rule 15 question with a rule 16 question
Red is making significant headway even with her sheets loose, indicating that she has significant flow over the keel as is.
That said, I don't know enough about RC boats or the conditions to make a call without further questions. However, in every fleet I sail in, I would expect Red to trim her sails and put her helm to center beginning at the overlap. I would not be worried about rigs colliding, as they are not abreast. I would consider the possibility that Blue broke rule 16.1 even if she did not break 15.
Is it possible that Red breaks 11 AND Blue breaks 16.1? I'm not sure how I would word the conclusions that got me there.
Gordon said “Soon afterwards Red [er Blue] becomes overlapped to leeward so close to Red that if Blue changes course there would immediately be contact with Red. Red is not keeping clear because of the actions of Blue. Blue has broken rule 15 and should take a penalty.”
Although at that point rule 15 seems to have been violated from a literal reading of the rule, “judge made law” has added in the cases that contact must occur before room to keep clear has not been given. Am I correct? See US appeal 119 where the overlap was a few inches on full size boats.
Nicholas, I like your analysis. Certainly blue can break 16.1 and red can break 11. The question becomes is red exonerated, which often follows from red sailing within the room to which they are entitled from the 16.1 course change of blue.
Created: 24-Mar-15 18:50
Greig Ebeling
0
Nicholas Kotsatos: We're both wrong!
Hi Nicholas. Your analysis and diagram makes sense based on the OP, but you are placing too much weight on the diagram over my verbal description. The diagram is not perfectly accurate, in that the rate of Red's sideways slip is somewhat exaggerated, and Blue's change of course at (1) is insignificant, so not part of the facts found. The important point is that the gap at the moment of overlap is about 3 cm, noting I was looking at the boat from a distance, so I surmised the gap based on the rapidity with which the collision occurred after overlap. FYI the RC class is DF65, which has a hull width of 10 cm (I had to go and measure it, because I thought it was less than that). The last minute change of course by Blue is irrelevant, and so 16.1 does not come into play. With regard to wind and wave conditions, it was about 5 knots and smooth water.
Created: 24-Mar-15 21:13
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Gordon and other RC sailors - Point of view, perspective and control area
There's been a bit of heat and light in this thread with attempts to scale a diagram and find facts down to distances as small as 3cm.
That strikes me as unrealistic in any context, but particularly with the point of view and perspective problems that Gordon has described.
Can someone describe a typical orientation of the control area and starting line for radio sailing please?
Created: 24-Mar-15 21:21
David Allsebrook
Nationality: Canada
0
John: A typical radio control race has a control area allowing competitors to sight down a start/finish line and walk alongside the windward/leeward course. This varies when it cannot be accomplished because of the pond layout.
Created: 24-Mar-15 21:25
Greig Ebeling
0
John,
The incident was approx 50 m from the skippers, who were viewing along the start line from the right-hand side as the diagram is drawn. You are correct in thinking that 3cm gap would be difficult to determine at that distance. However I know it was that gap based on the way the boats collided, with Blue's bow striking Red port quarter shortly after overlap was formed.
Created: 24-Mar-15 21:28
Al Sargent
Nationality: United States
0
Given all the issues with the diagram, would it make sense to submit a new one?
Created: 24-Mar-15 21:29
Greig Ebeling
0
Thanks to all those who participated in this discussion. This is actually what happened after the race:
The principal RO met with the skippers of Red and Blue. Both were asked for their view. Both skippers believed they were in the right. The incident was described and both skippers agreed to the facts as detailed in the OP. Blue claimed "windward boat must keep clear" (R11) and Red claimed "insufficient room and opportunity to keep clear" (R15). The RO clarified the manner in which the skippers hailed protest, and determined that the incorrect language was used, the requirement is that one or both boats must hail "[Boat#1] protesting [boat #2]". Hence the judgement was that both boats were DSQ. To avoid time wasted on a formal protest, both boats were asked to retire.
My opinion agrees with the majority here, that R15 applies, and that Red is not obligated to anticipate Blue's actions.
Created: 24-Mar-15 21:44
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Greig, I’m glad to hear that his didn’t go to a protest hearing because if this did and it was also a recent event, it would have been against the forum rules to post it. (Just as a friendly reminder). - Ang
Created: 24-Mar-15 23:44
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Diagrams, evidence and fact finding process.
Let's look at how the fact finding in this thread has progressed.
Greig Ebeling said Created: Yesterday 01:44
RC yachting. Before the start, 30 second before the gun, RED is luffing with sheets loose and helm hard to starboard and near stationary approx 3 boat lengths from the line. BLUE approaches slowly from behind with sheets loose, becomes overlapped immediately to leeward of RED. RED maintains helm hard to starboard. A minor collision occurs approx. 2 seconds after the overlap is formed. Neither boat hails. An observer calls "Contact #1, #2". Neither boat takes a penalty. Which boat is DSQ?image.png15.5 KB
Bob Lewis said Created: Yesterday 04:30
... I think we need to have a clear picture of the boats position at the time of overlap. Diagrams should always try to show that.
COMMENT: Diagrams only show what the person drawing them remembered and thought was important. They may be limited by the drawer's ability to use a diagramming tool or to draw accurately. We are not in the business of giving marks out of ten for artistic impression, and if there's something that we need to know that's not shown in a diagram, we need to draw that out by getting testimony from the parties or witnesses.
Personally I'm not troubled by Greig's diagram.
In this case I think we move blue back a little more than 1/2 a boatlength as red is not really moving forward much and we move red back about 1/5 of a boatlength and to windward about 1/2 a hull width. Basically 1/2 the movement from position 2 to 3.
COMMENT: Yes, but I'm quite happy to make that interpolation mentally or with a pencil on the original diagram.
Greig Ebeling said Created: Yesterday 06:21
Hi Bob. The diagram in the OP does not need to be adjusted, it is accurate and shows that B is very close to R at overlap. There is about 5 seconds from 1->2, and about 5 seconds from 2->3 and about 2 seconds from overlap to collision.
Angelo Guarino said Created: Yesterday 10:52
... based on the diagram, looks to me that overlap occurs at 2.1 where there is ~1 hull width separation.
Greig Ebeling said Created: Yesterday 11:28
Angelo, it was actually about 2-3 cm separation, about a half a hull width. This closed rapidly over the next 2 secs as R dogged sideways, and B advanced in a forward direction with keel digging.
Nicholas Kotsatos said Created: Yesterday 13:23
IMO the diagram is inaccurate if there was half hull width separation at the point of overlap.
The diagram depicts an overlap at 2.1 or 2.2 with a little less than a hull width at that point.
COMMENT: That's how I see the diagram.
... Like others, I have questions about B's course change, as well as about the conditions (waves and wind speed).
COMMENT: See posts below
Jerry Thompson said Created: Yesterday 13:09
Greig, Was Blue holding her course? The diagram shows a change of course at position 3.
Greig Ebeling said Created: Yesterday 13:12
Jerry, B did not make any obvious change of course.
COMMENT: So Greig never meant to show that B changed course.
Greig Ebeling said Created: Yesterday 21:15
Nicholas Kotsatos: The diagram depicts an overlap at 2.1 or 2.2 with a little less than a hull width at that point.
No, it doesn't. The overlap occurs at about 2.7, and the gap is about 3 cm, or half a hull width.
Bob Lewis said Created: Yesterday 22:40
Grieg, we now have interpolations of when the overlap occurred as at 2.1, 2.2, 2.5 and 2.7 and each one with a different separation between the boats.
I hope that convinces you that if your diagram had included the point where the transition occurred it would be better as these disagreements would not have occurred.
COMMENT: Maybe showing exactly when the overlap began would have focused Greig's mind in the gap between boats, maybe not.
Suffice that we have inconsistency between the diagram and the evidence that Greig is now giving. That's not unusual: it's the protest committee's job to resolve inconsistencies.
... You said above, the gap was half a hull width or 3 cm. I’m curious what class is only 6 cm wide. I sail an International One Metre (IOM) which is 18.5 cm wide or 9.25 cm half width.
Nicholas Kotsatos said Created: Today 14:34
Blue makes a significant course change between 2 and 3 which exacerbates the rule 15 question with a rule 16 question
COMMENT: No, see above, that was an inadvertent slip in Greig's diagram.
Nicholas Kotsatos said Created: Today 14:34
We're both wrong! In drawing this, I learned a lot:
The diagram depicts an overlap well before 2.5 (interpolated point pictured), perhaps at 2.3 or 2.4
COMMENT: You were right the first time, overlap at about 2.2. Looking at your interpolation diagram, make a further interpolation between @2 and @2.5, that's about @2.2, and that's where the overlap begins, and boats are about 1 hull width apart.
This is inconsistent with Greig's later evidence that
The overlap occurs at about 2.7, and the gap is about 3 cm, or half a hull width.
Greig Ebeling said Created: Today 21:13
Hi Nicholas. Your analysis and diagram makes sense based on the OP, but you are placing too much weight on the diagram over my verbal description.
The diagram is not perfectly accurate, in that
the rate of Red's sideways slip is somewhat exaggerated, and
Blue's change of course at (1) is insignificant, so not part of the facts found.
The important point is that the gap at the moment of overlap is about 3 cm, noting I was looking at the boat from a distance, so I surmised the gap based on the rapidity with which the collision occurred after overlap.
COMMENT: This is evidence based on 'reconstruction' (and it's a good example): that is, Greig did not 'see' the distance apart of the boats as '3 cm', but as 'something between about half a hull width and a bit less than half a hull width'. Afterwards, he then thought about this, went and measured the hull width and (logically enough) deduced that 'it must have been 3cm'. The give away words are 'it must have been'. Evidence based on reconstruction is not as good evidence as direct evidence: it is less contemporaneous, and is liable to be shaped or coloured by what the witness wants to believe, but in this case it is the best evidence we have.
I would usually prefer a party's testimony in an hearing to a diagram on a protest form that may have been prepared in some haste, may have drafting inaccuracies, and may not have been designed to show things that the protest committee is interested in.
FYI the RC class is DF65, which has a [LOA Of 65cm and] hull width of 10 cm (I had to go and measure it, because I thought it was less than that).
The last minute change of course by Blue is irrelevant, and so 16.1 does not come into play.
With regard to wind and wave conditions, it was about 5 knots and smooth water.
Created: 24-Mar-16 00:08
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John I appreciate all the comments about not relying on a single drawing in a hearing, etc. Agree 100%.
That said, it is the modus operandi of the forum to accept the drawing for a new scenario as something equivalent to an endorsed drawing by the PC and go from there. Therefore, I wouldn’t fault anyone for looking at the drawing and running with it here on the forum.
Being in a hearing is as you mention a different matter.
Created: 24-Mar-16 02:46
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Angelo, Endorsed diagrams I've never seen the slightest suggestion of a convention of accepting OP diagrams as endorsed diagrams in rrs.org, and, from the recurrent debates over facts from diagrams that happen in nearly every thread, its obviously not observed by posters.
I don't think such an assumption is necessary, or as this thread demonstrates, wise.
If we want a convention, where its not obvious from the context, i suggest that an OP could be treated as a diagram and description on a protest form.
If an experienced judge posts a scenario, he or she will probably either make the diagram unambiguous, or qualify or state its status.
I'm not trying to fault anyone.
What I'm trying to do is to set up this scenario to demonstrate tha diagrams have limitations, just as verbal evidence has limitations, and demonstrate the process of gaining and weighing evidence.
Created: 24-Mar-16 03:28
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Umpire In Training
Regional Judge
0
Thanks to all those who participated in this discussion. This is actually what happened after the race:
From the description given it sounds like a protest would have been invalid due to improper hail and neither boat would be penalized in a hearing.
If it were valid then Red certainly broke 11 but if Blue also broke 15 or 16 Red is exonerated. I don’t see how you get to both boats being DSQ, it seems like it would be one or the other..
Created: 24-Mar-16 23:46
Al Sargent
Nationality: United States
0
For the judges and umpires on this thread, what should Leeward Blue do in order to comply with rule 15 ("initially give Windward Red room to keep clear")?
My assumption is that, in positions 1 and 2, Blue should steer a course such that, when an overlap is established with Red, there is half a boatlength between Blue's bow and the leeward corner of Red's stern.
With half a boatlength of guage, a windward boat has enough room for their stern to swing to leeward while heading up to keep clear.
And then, to comply with rule 16.1 do not head up until both Leeward Blue and Windward Red are on the same ladder rung.
If Leeward Blue took these actions, then would they have been clearly in rules compliance, even if Windward Red slide sideways into them due to lack of flow on their foils?
Asking another way, how much space should a right of way boat like Leeward Blue give to a give-way boat, e.g., Windoward Red, that is arguably not being sailed in a seamlike manner?
Created: 24-Mar-17 00:01
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
0
Although at that point rule 15 seems to have been violated from a literal reading of the rule, “judge made law” has added in the cases that contact must occur before room to keep clear has not been given. Am I correct? I would rephrase this as: if contact does not occur then room has been given- as long as the newly keep-clear boat had room tomanoeuvre promptly in a seamanlike way.
From the description given it sounds like a protest would have been invalid due to improper hail and neither boat would be penalized in a hearing.
An established fact is that an observer hailed contact, and that neither boat took a penalty. Under E5.1(c) the observer is obliged to report an unresolved incident to the race committee at the end of the heat. The RC may then protest one of both boats;
Our problem in judging this incident is that the key fact has not been established: what was the distance between the boats when Blue became overlapped? The outcome of any hearing depends on this fact, as it is this that enables to PC to reach a conclusion as to whether Blue initially gave room.
Created: 24-Mar-17 10:59
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Gordon re: separation at overlap .. The OP author has later described that distance as 2cm, though the drawing (assuming a 1m RC w/beam of 23cm) implies a separation closer to 20cm.
PS: Also the OP drawing shows an alteration in course by Blue toward Red between 2-3 of 18 deg (yea, I measured it). The OP author has since stated that this course change did not occur.
Created: 24-Mar-17 13:31
Greig Ebeling
0
Angelo, I stated that the gap at overlap was "about 3 cm", and the boat width (DF65 class) is 10 cm. I did not say that Blue did not change course, I said that it was insignificant to the facts found, i.e. both skippers agreed that R16.1 was not relevant.,
Created: 24-Mar-17 18:40
P
Nicholas Kotsatos
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Judge In Training
1
Guys, we should close this thread. The scenario keeps changing and is no longer possible to discuss given the uncertainty between the diagram and the constant updates to the facts presented. image.png7.17 KB image.png10.4 KB
To resume: Blue becomes overlapped 20 cm to leeward of Red - penalty Red Blue becomes overlapped 2 cm to leeward of Red - penalise Blue
No course change by Blue - no change to decision Course change by Blue - Blue must give Red room to keep clear
Created: 24-Mar-18 14:24
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Gordon Davies said Created: 24-Mar-17 10:59 Our problem in judging this incident is that the key fact has not been established: what was the distance between the boats when Blue became overlapped? The outcome of any hearing depends on this fact, as it is this that enables to PC to reach a conclusion as to whether Blue initially gave room.
Gordon, can I temp you with
Time = Distance , Distance =Time?
So the witnesses were looking down the starting line, in a 'wing' position relative to the boats. No one was looking into the gap.
Evidence is the contact occurred 2 seconds after the overlap began, and the wing position had good observation of when the overlap began.
We could do some elementary motion equations
v = a*t + v(0) v=d/t, d=v*t
to calculate values for the distance apart.
But, by experience, allowing say half a second for reaction time, if the mains heat was all the way out and the main flapping, could anyone sheet in and accelerate from almost stopped 2 seconds?
I certainly couldn't on Sydney 38, I don't think a Laser could do it.
Could you do it in a RC boat?
My feeling is that if it could be done it would require expert handling, beyond 'competent but not expert'.
Created: 24-Mar-24 12:03
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Al Sargent said Created: 24-Mar-17 00:01 For the judges and umpires on this thread, what should Leeward Blue do in order to comply with rule 15 ("initially give Windward Red room to keep clear")?
Umpires and judges aren't the best people to ask for tactical advice. That's a job for coaches.
Cos the 'rules' answer to your question is just 'not be there'.
I think this is a particular radio sailing problem, with the sight line and point of view problems that have been discussed. On an ordinary boat the helm can see just fine whether they are giving room or not.
My assumption is that, in positions 1 and 2, Blue should steer a course such that, when an overlap is established with Red, there is half a boatlength between Blue's bow and the leeward corner of Red's stern.
Normally half a boat length would be more than enough, although note in this scenario, because R is sidestepping about as fast as she is advancing, the boats are actually on quite sharply converging courses,
In the radio sailing scenario, the problem is not
'how much space to give'
but
'how to judge the amount of space being given'
Maybe the radio sailors here can suggest some tricks for doing that.
The only thing I can suggest is to give 'plenty' of space and don't cut it at all fine.
With half a boatlength of guage, a windward boat has enough room for their stern to swing to leeward while heading up to keep clear.
Yes, prolly less if the boats don't have appreciable overhangs.
And then, to comply with rule 16.1 do not head up until both Leeward Blue and Windward Red are on the same ladder rung.
Yes
If Leeward Blue took these actions, then would they have been clearly in rules compliance, even if Windward Red slide sideways into them due to lack of flow on their foils?
You can't run the argument that 'I gave you x metres of space therefore you had plenty of room'.
Case 21tells us there is no maximum or minimum amount of space. If a boat can't manoeuvre in the space given, she has not been given room.
Consider a boat that changes course onto a collision course with a boat that has passed head to wind and is in irons, say 100m away, if the boat in irons hasn't been able to get control and manoeuvre to keep clear, then the other boat will break RRS 16.1, even though she hasn't changed course for 100m.
Asking another way, how much space should a right of way boat like Leeward Blue give to a give-way boat, e.g., Windoward Red, that is arguably not being sailed in a seamlike manner?
I don't agree for one minute that R is not sailing in a seamanlike way. She is performing a perfectly normal starting manoeuvre. If it's a characteristic of her boat that it sideslips at low speed , then so be it.
No rule requires R or any other boat to be sailed in a seamanlike way.
The phrase 'manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way' is used in Definition room to define an amount and shape of a space, it places no obligation on any boat.
The question is:
Starting no sooner than when the overlap began, could a hypothetical boat with the same characteristics as R, with a competent but not expert crew (Case 103) manoeuvre to keep clear?
B must give R that much space.
Created: 24-Mar-25 00:19
Al Sargent
Nationality: United States
0
Thank you, John. I appreciate the guidance.
Created: 24-Mar-25 00:40
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
0
1.The phrase 'manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way' is used in Definition room to define an amount and shape of a space, it places no obligation on any boat. See Case 24: When a boat becomes overlapped to leeward from clear astern, the other boat must act promptly to keep clear. When she cannot do so in a seamanlike way she has not been given room to keep clear as required by rule 15.
2.See also WS Radio Sailing Case Book:
GENERAL PRINCIPLES 1 Limitation on Interpretations In radio sailing the boat and the competitor controlling her are usually separated by some, possibly significant, distance. The competitor may not be well placed to view any incident and to rapidly analyse the relative speed, angle and distance between the boats. Therefore, interpretations of the rules should be appropriate to the conditions and should take account of these limitations.
2 Definition: Keeping Clear A boat is keeping clear if a right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action. In accordance with WS Case 50, a right-of-way boat needs to take avoiding action when she has a genuine and reasonable apprehension of a collision. If, in such circumstances, she does not take avoiding action and there is contact, the right-of-way boat will break rule 14.
3 Definition: Room, meaning of 'manoeuvring promptly' When the term room, as defined in the Racing Rules of Sailing, is used, manoeuvring promptly includes the time needed by the competitor controlling the boat to analyse the situation and react accordingly. In radio sailing, this time may be longer than the time needed to carry out the manoeuvre itself.
4 Definition: Room, meaning of 'in a seamanlike way' WS Case 21 states that 'extraordinary' and 'abnormal' manoeuvres are unseamanlike. Some actions that are abnormal in larger boats may be considered normal, and therefore seamanlike, in radio sailing. However, any manoeuvre that puts a boat at risk of damage is unseamanlike. It is also unseamanlike to hit a mark, a pontoon, a bank or a patrol boat.
3. The issue of a boat that is stuck in irons is an interesting one in radio sailing: - getting out of irons is a skill that radio sailors develop with experience and practice, so the notion of competent but not expert crew applies - boats may have difficulty getting out of irons because they are using a rig that it too big for the existing conditions. Choosing the correct rig for the conditions is an act of seamanship (like taking a reef, or changing headsail). If a boat chooses (takes the risk) to sail with a unsuitable rig may be sailing in an unseamanlike way.
4 This scenario is not limited to radio sailing. It is common in team racing and match racing. Also in some dinghy classes (Oppies and ILCAs come to mind), and also in some keelboat classes. Keelboats that have a narrow fin slip sideways until there is sufficient flow over the foil to produce lift (FF15s).
Created: 24-Mar-25 11:14
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Gordon re: The issue of a boat that is stuck in irons is an interesting one in radio sailing:
First .. great info in post above.
FWIW the boat does not seem to be “in irons” to me. She is holding herself 30 deg off the wind with sheets loose slowly moving forward. She seems to me to be in a controlled “giddy-up and go” orientation.
Created: 24-Mar-25 12:34
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
International Judge
1
I was replying to a comment by John Allan
Created: 24-Mar-25 12:37
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Last Updated
Rules
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2013-2016; Version 6
December 2015
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2017-2020
August 2017
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2021-2024
December 2020
Prescriptions
Australia
July 2017
Canada
November 2019
Great Britain - RYA has declined to grant a license for prescriptions and cases.
November 2019
New Zealand
July 2017
United States
February 2017
Cases
World Sailing Cases
February 2022
World Sailing Q&As
March 2022
Match Race Calls
January 2020
Match Race Rapid Response Calls
October 2018
Team Race Calls
December 2018
Team Race Rapid Response Calls
February 2016
CAN Cases
October 2017
RYA Cases
November 2019
US Appeals
November 2019
Manuals
World Sailing Judges Manual
December 2019
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more
When an overlap established (a bit past position 2), there's about a half boatlength gap between Red's transom and Blue's bow. That should give Red enough room to head up and avoid Blue. So, Rules 15 and 16.1 don't seem to apply.
The fact that Red had their helm hard to starboard means they were trying to bear away (correct?) and thus not trying to avoid a collision. So Red was not trying to keep clear of Blue, as required by Rule 11.
I agree that Blue would have a stronger case if they had not luffed slightly between positions 2 and 3. (To take Rule 16.1 out of the picture, it's always good for a leeward to ensure they're on the same ladder rung as a windward boat, so that as they luff, their stern swings away from the windward boat, giving the windward boat room to keep clear.) But even still, you can't penalize leeward Blue when windward Red was attempting to bear away into them ("helm hard to starboard").
But whenever there's contact, isn't at least one boat required to protest (hail or fly a flag, as appropriate for the boat), and if not, BOTH boats shall be disqualified?
I can't find this in the current RRS, so I wonder if I'm thinking of an older version of the rules.
[Edited the first three paragraphs.]
There is no seamanlike action R can take to keep clear.
There is contact.
B has not given R room to keep clear.
R is sailing within the room to which she is entitled and is exonerated for breaking RRS 11 by RRS 43.1(b).
Absolutely not.
That was deleted in the 1995 rewrite.
OK, so R is not doing all she could.
Could R trim in her main sheet and accelerate away from B in the 2 seconds after the overlap begins?
That's a question for the OP
Anyone else see B changing course to windward @3 in the OP diagram?
Greig, was that intended?
Had she sheeted in at the moment of overlap and still failed, it would be different for sure.
But I like to stick to the facts of the original post. At least at first.
Reality is that any other conclusion is an unproved judgement call. Acceptable for discussion, but not part of the facts.
Differences of opinion are inevitable and fine. But if keeping to facts than we can't base conclusion on guesses.
No. Any attempt to keep clear by RED would have caused a collision, either with the stern sliding to the left or rigs touching, or both. RED therefore took no action to keep clear, because any action would have had the opposite effect of keeping clear.
RED could have potentially anticipated the incident by sheeting in approx 2 secs prior to the overlap being established. This to me is the crux of the issue. Is RED so obligated to anticipate that BLUE would acquire ROW? If not, why not?
"But if keeping to facts than we can't base conclusion on guesses."
Both skippers agreed to the facts as I have stated them. During arbitration the RO did not ask for any additional facts.
I think when there is a reasonably possibility of keeping clear if the keep clear boat does nothing then they should be penalized. I’ve heard some judges say that if the keep clear boat makes no attempt to keep clear then they are always in the wrong but that seems a bit too harsh to me when you think of situations where you know nothing could be done to successfully keep clear.
"At the point of overlap Red is required to maneuver promptly in a seamanlike way to keep clear of Blue".
Is it a valid argument that R should have sheeted in, hit B, and thereby prove that B was too close? Is that not proposing a deliberate collision?
When a boat becomes overlapped to leeward from clear astern, the windward boat must act promptly to keep clear. If the windward boat reacts promptly but cannot keep clear, she has not been given sufficient room. If she takes unnecessary action that causes contact, she fails to keep clear as required.
Assuming boats about 1m long: In this case, Blue becomes overlapped a few centimetres to leeward of Red. The overlap starts at about position 2.5
Most radio sailing boats have deep narrow keels. When you sheet in from almost stationary they will either slip sideways until there is sufficient flow over the keel, or the stern will swing to leeward. In both cases there will be contact.
An observer has hailed contact - Blue has broken RRS 15 by not initially giving room to Red to keep clear. There is no mention of damage or entanglement. Blue should take a one turn penalty under RRS E4.3.
Was Blue holding her course? The diagram shows a change of course at position 3.
IMO the diagram is inaccurate if there was half hull width separation at the point of overlap. The diagram depicts an overlap at 2.1 or 2.2 with a little less than a hull width at that point.
Further, the diagram shows that between point 2 and collision at 3, R slid more than a hull width to the side... This seems like it might be enough lateral distance to gain flow over the keel. IMHO, this is not so little distance that an attempt should not be made.
Like others, I have questions about B's course change, as well as about the conditions (waves and wind speed).
To me that means a turn to windward (not to bear away as Al says) hence R was already doing all in her power to keep clear - even before the overlap occurred.
DSQ Blue.
Again, it's hard for me to pick and choose between the diagram, vs the statements regarding 5 seconds and 2 seconds as well as the differing discussions of distances.
I disagree with Benjamin's description of the process of a protest committee.
As Gordon has pointed out in a recent post in another thread, judges are supposed to be experienced sailors with knowledge of the characteristics and performance of the boats concerned.
The capacity of boats to trim sails, accelerate, and turn are not 'guesses' they are facts.
If judges don't have enough knowledge about these things they can obtain that knowledge from witnesses, who may be independent experienced sailors or may be the parties themselves.
No, it doesn't. The overlap occurs at about 2.7, and the gap is about 3 cm, or half a hull width.
Well, it is important that during deliberations we can always stay open to new info, views and ideas. These may lead to changing of our initial positions .
To kick off the discussion I threw 'Red' out there. Deliberately early based on the raw facts of OP. Deliberately before any deliberation. With the expectation of an interesting requirement to 'extrapolate' beyond the Ops description.
Then we had a deliberation and it's clear the opinion is that 'sheeting in' would not have kept Red clear (or evem could have made things worse). This is different to 'Red failing to act promptly and seamanlike'. (Perhaps I was not clear on differentiating the two early on, which was ultimately the point I was hoping to finish with.)
This conclusion needs knowledge of the boats and conditions, probably more than a 2D diagram and paragraph of text can provide.
If that is so (I'm not familiar with RC), then I would go with the quorum and expertise of my learned friends and change my opinion to 'Blue borke R15'.
'She didn't act' vs 'There was nothing she could do', so she did nothing!'
That distinction is what this boils down to. All along I'm happy with either - so not getting caught up with the minute physics and anathemas!
Thanks.
No, it doesn't. The overlap occurs at about 2.7, and the gap is about 3 cm, or half a hull width.”
Grieg, we now have interpolations of when the overlap occurred as at 2.1, 2.2, 2.5 and 2.7 and each one with a different separation between the boats. I hope that convinces you that if your diagram had included the point where the transition occurred it would be better as these disagreements would not have occurred.
Also, adding to Benjamin’s comment, I think we need to know the type of boat and wind wave conditions as sliding sideways varies a lot between classes and wind conditions.
You said above, the gap was half a hull width or 3 cm. I’m curious what class is only 6 cm wide. I sail an International One Metre (IOM) which is 18.5 cm wide or 9.25 cm half width. In moderate conditions, an IOM accelerates rapidly from a standstill and I’m totally sure I could sail away from a bow 9 cm’s to leeward on a boat that has sails luffing. I think my drift might be about 1 cm.
At position 2 Red is clear ahead, right of way boat. Blue is required to keep clear. Red has no obligation to anticipate the actions of Blue, and is only required to react when Red acquires right of way.
Soon afterwards Red becomes overlapped to leeward so close to Red that if Blue changes course there would immediately be contact with Red.
Red is not keeping clear because of the actions of Blue. Blue has broken rule 15 and should take a penalty.
Judges are required to establish facts, and then decide if the facts establish that a boat has broken a rule. The level of proof required is the balance of probability: what, in the opinion of the judges, based on the evidence and their experience as sailors and judges, what is the most likely series of events.
Notions of fair play, the intentions of either party are not facts that judges consider, we seek to establish what a boat did not why. An exception is when a breach of Rule 2, or rule 69.1, have been alleged. However, in this case the level of proof required is far higher: 'comfortable satisfaction' (see WS Case 122).
The fact stated above is where people diverge based on the diagram. Once having established that fact, the rest follows as you state.
Doug, there are no facts that Red is not in “control.” The OP facts state she is luffing behind the line 30 sec before the start. To the contrary, it seems to me her skipper is demonstrating excellent control and skill maneuvering the boat. Case 99 discusses the topic of keep-clear boats that lack some control .
In radio sailing the boat and the competitor controlling her are usually separated by some, possibly significant, distance. The competitor may not be well placed to view any incident and to rapidly analyse the relative speed, angle and distance between the boats. Therefore, interpretations of the rules should be appropriate to the conditions and should take account of these limitations
When the term room, as defined in the Racing Rules of Sailing, is used, manoeuvring promptly includes the time needed by the competitor controlling the boat to analyse the situation and react accordingly. In radio sailing, this time may be longer than the time needed to carry out the manoeuvre itself.
See WS Call Book for Radio Sailing - General Principles
We're both wrong!
In drawing this, I learned a lot:
That said, I don't know enough about RC boats or the conditions to make a call without further questions. However, in every fleet I sail in, I would expect Red to trim her sails and put her helm to center beginning at the overlap. I would not be worried about rigs colliding, as they are not abreast. I would consider the possibility that Blue broke rule 16.1 even if she did not break 15.
Is it possible that Red breaks 11 AND Blue breaks 16.1? I'm not sure how I would word the conclusions that got me there.
Although at that point rule 15 seems to have been violated from a literal reading of the rule, “judge made law” has added in the cases that contact must occur before room to keep clear has not been given. Am I correct? See US appeal 119 where the overlap was a few inches on full size boats.
Nicholas, I like your analysis. Certainly blue can break 16.1 and red can break 11. The question becomes is red exonerated, which often follows from red sailing within the room to which they are entitled from the 16.1 course change of blue.
Hi Nicholas. Your analysis and diagram makes sense based on the OP, but you are placing too much weight on the diagram over my verbal description. The diagram is not perfectly accurate, in that the rate of Red's sideways slip is somewhat exaggerated, and Blue's change of course at (1) is insignificant, so not part of the facts found. The important point is that the gap at the moment of overlap is about 3 cm, noting I was looking at the boat from a distance, so I surmised the gap based on the rapidity with which the collision occurred after overlap. FYI the RC class is DF65, which has a hull width of 10 cm (I had to go and measure it, because I thought it was less than that). The last minute change of course by Blue is irrelevant, and so 16.1 does not come into play.
With regard to wind and wave conditions, it was about 5 knots and smooth water.
There's been a bit of heat and light in this thread with attempts to scale a diagram and find facts down to distances as small as 3cm.
That strikes me as unrealistic in any context, but particularly with the point of view and perspective problems that Gordon has described.
Can someone describe a typical orientation of the control area and starting line for radio sailing please?
The incident was approx 50 m from the skippers, who were viewing along the start line from the right-hand side as the diagram is drawn. You are correct in thinking that 3cm gap would be difficult to determine at that distance. However I know it was that gap based on the way the boats collided, with Blue's bow striking Red port quarter shortly after overlap was formed.
The principal RO met with the skippers of Red and Blue. Both were asked for their view. Both skippers believed they were in the right. The incident was described and both skippers agreed to the facts as detailed in the OP. Blue claimed "windward boat must keep clear" (R11) and Red claimed "insufficient room and opportunity to keep clear" (R15). The RO clarified the manner in which the skippers hailed protest, and determined that the incorrect language was used, the requirement is that one or both boats must hail "[Boat#1] protesting [boat #2]". Hence the judgement was that both boats were DSQ. To avoid time wasted on a formal protest, both boats were asked to retire.
My opinion agrees with the majority here, that R15 applies, and that Red is not obligated to anticipate Blue's actions.
Let's look at how the fact finding in this thread has progressed.
Bob Lewis said Created: Yesterday 04:30
COMMENT: Diagrams only show what the person drawing them remembered and thought was important. They may be limited by the drawer's ability to use a diagramming tool or to draw accurately. We are not in the business of giving marks out of ten for artistic impression, and if there's something that we need to know that's not shown in a diagram, we need to draw that out by getting testimony from the parties or witnesses.
Personally I'm not troubled by Greig's diagram.
COMMENT: Yes, but I'm quite happy to make that interpolation mentally or with a pencil on the original diagram.
Angelo Guarino said Created: Yesterday 10:52
COMMENT: That's how I see the diagram.
COMMENT: See posts below
COMMENT: So Greig never meant to show that B changed course.
Greig Ebeling said Created: Yesterday 21:15
Bob Lewis said Created: Yesterday 22:40
COMMENT: Maybe showing exactly when the overlap began would have focused Greig's mind in the gap between boats, maybe not.
Suffice that we have inconsistency between the diagram and the evidence that Greig is now giving. That's not unusual: it's the protest committee's job to resolve inconsistencies.
Nicholas Kotsatos said Created: Today 14:34
COMMENT: No, see above, that was an inadvertent slip in Greig's diagram.
Nicholas Kotsatos said Created: Today 14:34
COMMENT: You were right the first time, overlap at about 2.2. Looking at your interpolation diagram, make a further interpolation between @2 and @2.5, that's about @2.2, and that's where the overlap begins, and boats are about 1 hull width apart.
This is inconsistent with Greig's later evidence that
The overlap occurs at about 2.7, and the gap is about 3 cm, or half a hull width.
COMMENT: This is evidence based on 'reconstruction' (and it's a good example): that is, Greig did not 'see' the distance apart of the boats as '3 cm', but as 'something between about half a hull width and a bit less than half a hull width'. Afterwards, he then thought about this, went and measured the hull width and (logically enough) deduced that 'it must have been 3cm'. The give away words are 'it must have been'. Evidence based on reconstruction is not as good evidence as direct evidence: it is less contemporaneous, and is liable to be shaped or coloured by what the witness wants to believe, but in this case it is the best evidence we have.
I would usually prefer a party's testimony in an hearing to a diagram on a protest form that may have been prepared in some haste, may have drafting inaccuracies, and may not have been designed to show things that the protest committee is interested in.
That said, it is the modus operandi of the forum to accept the drawing for a new scenario as something equivalent to an endorsed drawing by the PC and go from there. Therefore, I wouldn’t fault anyone for looking at the drawing and running with it here on the forum.
Being in a hearing is as you mention a different matter.
I've never seen the slightest suggestion of a convention of accepting OP diagrams as endorsed diagrams in rrs.org, and, from the recurrent debates over facts from diagrams that happen in nearly every thread, its obviously not observed by posters.
I don't think such an assumption is necessary, or as this thread demonstrates, wise.
If we want a convention, where its not obvious from the context, i suggest that an OP could be treated as a diagram and description on a protest form.
If an experienced judge posts a scenario, he or she will probably either make the diagram unambiguous, or qualify or state its status.
I'm not trying to fault anyone.
What I'm trying to do is to set up this scenario to demonstrate tha diagrams have limitations, just as verbal evidence has limitations, and demonstrate the process of gaining and weighing evidence.
From the description given it sounds like a protest would have been invalid due to improper hail and neither boat would be penalized in a hearing.
If it were valid then Red certainly broke 11 but if Blue also broke 15 or 16 Red is exonerated. I don’t see how you get to both boats being DSQ, it seems like it would be one or the other..
My assumption is that, in positions 1 and 2, Blue should steer a course such that, when an overlap is established with Red, there is half a boatlength between Blue's bow and the leeward corner of Red's stern.
With half a boatlength of guage, a windward boat has enough room for their stern to swing to leeward while heading up to keep clear.
And then, to comply with rule 16.1 do not head up until both Leeward Blue and Windward Red are on the same ladder rung.
If Leeward Blue took these actions, then would they have been clearly in rules compliance, even if Windward Red slide sideways into them due to lack of flow on their foils?
Asking another way, how much space should a right of way boat like Leeward Blue give to a give-way boat, e.g., Windoward Red, that is arguably not being sailed in a seamlike manner?
I would rephrase this as: if contact does not occur then room has been given- as long as the newly keep-clear boat had room tomanoeuvre promptly in a seamanlike way.
From the description given it sounds like a protest would have been invalid due to improper hail and neither boat would be penalized in a hearing.
An established fact is that an observer hailed contact, and that neither boat took a penalty. Under E5.1(c) the observer is obliged to report an unresolved incident to the race committee at the end of the heat. The RC may then protest one of both boats;
Our problem in judging this incident is that the key fact has not been established: what was the distance between the boats when Blue became overlapped? The outcome of any hearing depends on this fact, as it is this that enables to PC to reach a conclusion as to whether Blue initially gave room.
PS: Also the OP drawing shows an alteration in course by Blue toward Red between 2-3 of 18 deg (yea, I measured it). The OP author has since stated that this course change did not occur.
Blue becomes overlapped 20 cm to leeward of Red - penalty Red
Blue becomes overlapped 2 cm to leeward of Red - penalise Blue
No course change by Blue - no change to decision
Course change by Blue - Blue must give Red room to keep clear
Gordon, can I temp you with
Time = Distance , Distance =Time?
So the witnesses were looking down the starting line, in a 'wing' position relative to the boats. No one was looking into the gap.
Evidence is the contact occurred 2 seconds after the overlap began, and the wing position had good observation of when the overlap began.
We could do some elementary motion equations
v = a*t + v(0)
v=d/t, d=v*t
to calculate values for the distance apart.
But, by experience, allowing say half a second for reaction time, if the mains heat was all the way out and the main flapping, could anyone sheet in and accelerate from almost stopped 2 seconds?
I certainly couldn't on Sydney 38, I don't think a Laser could do it.
Could you do it in a RC boat?
My feeling is that if it could be done it would require expert handling, beyond 'competent but not expert'.
Umpires and judges aren't the best people to ask for tactical advice. That's a job for coaches.
Cos the 'rules' answer to your question is just 'not be there'.
I think this is a particular radio sailing problem, with the sight line and point of view problems that have been discussed. On an ordinary boat the helm can see just fine whether they are giving room or not.
Normally half a boat length would be more than enough, although note in this scenario, because R is sidestepping about as fast as she is advancing, the boats are actually on quite sharply converging courses,
In the radio sailing scenario, the problem is not
'how much space to give'
but
'how to judge the amount of space being given'
Maybe the radio sailors here can suggest some tricks for doing that.
The only thing I can suggest is to give 'plenty' of space and don't cut it at all fine.
Yes, prolly less if the boats don't have appreciable overhangs.
Yes
You can't run the argument that 'I gave you x metres of space therefore you had plenty of room'.
Case 21 tells us there is no maximum or minimum amount of space. If a boat can't manoeuvre in the space given, she has not been given room.
Consider a boat that changes course onto a collision course with a boat that has passed head to wind and is in irons, say 100m away, if the boat in irons hasn't been able to get control and manoeuvre to keep clear, then the other boat will break RRS 16.1, even though she hasn't changed course for 100m.
I don't agree for one minute that R is not sailing in a seamanlike way. She is performing a perfectly normal starting manoeuvre. If it's a characteristic of her boat that it sideslips at low speed , then so be it.
No rule requires R or any other boat to be sailed in a seamanlike way.
The phrase 'manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way' is used in Definition room to define an amount and shape of a space, it places no obligation on any boat.
The question is:
Starting no sooner than when the overlap began, could a hypothetical boat with the same characteristics as R, with a competent but not expert crew (Case 103) manoeuvre to keep clear?
B must give R that much space.
See Case 24: When a boat becomes overlapped to leeward from clear astern, the other boat must act promptly to keep clear. When she cannot do so in a seamanlike way she has not been given room to keep clear as required by rule 15.
2.See also WS Radio Sailing Case Book:
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
1 Limitation on Interpretations
In radio sailing the boat and the competitor controlling her are usually separated by some, possibly significant, distance. The competitor may not be well placed to view any incident and to rapidly analyse the relative speed, angle and distance between the boats. Therefore, interpretations of the rules should be appropriate to the conditions and should take account of these limitations.
2 Definition: Keeping Clear
A boat is keeping clear if a right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action. In accordance with WS Case 50, a right-of-way boat needs to take avoiding action when she has a genuine and reasonable apprehension of a collision. If, in such circumstances, she does not take avoiding action and there is contact, the right-of-way boat will break rule 14.
3 Definition: Room, meaning of 'manoeuvring promptly'
When the term room, as defined in the Racing Rules of Sailing, is used, manoeuvring promptly includes the time needed by the competitor controlling the boat to analyse the situation and react accordingly. In radio sailing, this time may be longer than the time needed to carry out the manoeuvre itself.
4 Definition: Room, meaning of 'in a seamanlike way'
WS Case 21 states that 'extraordinary' and 'abnormal' manoeuvres are unseamanlike. Some actions that are abnormal in larger boats may be considered normal, and therefore seamanlike, in radio sailing. However, any manoeuvre that puts a boat at risk of damage is unseamanlike. It is also unseamanlike to hit a mark, a pontoon, a bank or a patrol boat.
3. The issue of a boat that is stuck in irons is an interesting one in radio sailing:
- getting out of irons is a skill that radio sailors develop with experience and practice, so the notion of competent but not expert crew applies
- boats may have difficulty getting out of irons because they are using a rig that it too big for the existing conditions. Choosing the correct rig for the conditions is an act of seamanship (like taking a reef, or changing headsail). If a boat chooses (takes the risk) to sail with a unsuitable rig may be sailing in an unseamanlike way.
4 This scenario is not limited to radio sailing. It is common in team racing and match racing. Also in some dinghy classes (Oppies and ILCAs come to mind), and also in some keelboat classes. Keelboats that have a narrow fin slip sideways until there is sufficient flow over the foil to produce lift (FF15s).
First .. great info in post above.
FWIW the boat does not seem to be “in irons” to me. She is holding herself 30 deg off the wind with sheets loose slowly moving forward. She seems to me to be in a controlled “giddy-up and go” orientation.