| 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 | |
Blue is: inside overlapped .....but is not right-of-way boat
18.4 Gybing
When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat
must gybe at a mark to sail her proper course,
until she gybes she shall sail no farther from the mark than needed to sail that course.
Rule 18.4 does not apply at a gate mark.
Conclusions:
Comment: Protest committees are going to be predisposed to believe Red if she claims any course adjustments to turn around the buoy at all and they were not immediately met with a reaction from Blue. Yes, I'm suggesting that I don't believe these facts will almost ever be found.
No. See Catalan's second post. B is overlapped inside, but she's not right-of-way.
I think at the spacing shown at position #2 rhe answer would be "no", but it's close.
One could imagine decreasing the space between Blue and Red another 1/2 boat width and maybe the answer is "yes" at position #3 if that narrower gap was maintained.
Unable to change course without contact belongs to Definition Keep Clear second sentence, applicable only to boats on the same tack.
As diagrammed, R is able to sail her course without needing to take avoiding action. To make breach of RRS 10 stick, R needs to change course towards G, then, having reasonable apprehension, change course away from G as avoiding action.
I agree that's what Case 50 says and that it requires an avoidance course-change by starboard and therefore does not directly apply here. That said, I think the phrase "reasonable apprehension" is a something we can use to convey the same meaning into other situations.
In this case, we are talking about a boom swinging-through .. maybe as an uncontrolled gybe ... something much more indeterminate in space and time than where hulls might contact (and maybe risking head injury on the gybing boat .. or damaging the rigging on Red).
So you are saying to a make a "didn't keep clear" claim "stick", the ROW must alter course and risk the contact they are trying to avoid?
If she's concerned about the boom (or else concerned about RRS 16.1) she can do a quick fishtail before (gradually) coming up on G.
There are 2 components of keep clear and in this instance both apply as the boats are on opposite tacks and are overlapped (rule 18 applying and sailing > 90 deg to the wind).
My questions were meant to explore the 2nd aspect of keep clear and that is being able to alter course without making immediate contact.
Seems the consensus here is that the prospect of an uncontrolled gybe does not meet the immediacy test.
I'm still not sure how to apply that term immediately. They wouldn't immediately make contact, but they might force Blue to gybe to such a position that the boom would then make contact. We might be starting to get into a discussion where we need to ask questions of the boats, and also know what kind they were and what the conditions were.
I continue to maintain that these facts are never found. They may be perceived by one party, but the PC is ready to take any indication from Red that she tried to round the buoy and couldn't.
At 3, Blue is sailing outside the MR she is entitled to.
As drawn, I don't think it's an issue. It looks like there is room for Red to "wiggle" between 2 and 3 and then protest.
However, bring the boats 1/2 width closer and Red protests at 3 and states that she didn't wiggle to starboard because doing so might have caused Blue to gybe her boom in an uncontrolled way, risking contact, damage and injury (depending on wind conditions).
I think the unpredictable transient of the boom adds an interesting wrinkle to think about.
Good get. The test is just overlapped, not necessarily on the same tack. My bad.
So R is entitled to wriggle room, but the test is still 'cannot change course without immediately making contact. I don't think R changing course, B responding then B gybing gets to 'immediately'.
That will depend on what rule R is protesting, and how she perceives and presents her case.
R might be protesting RRS 18.4 or RRS 10, or both.
If it's just 18.4, R may well not lead any evidence about distance apart or make any agument about need to take avoiding action or changing course with immediate contact.
If it's just RRS 10 R might be relying on need to take avoiding action, which she doesn't have, and, as I did, fail to run wth the Definition Keep Clear second sentance.
If R is running on need to take avoiding action, it's absolutely up to R to bring evidence that at some point she was on a collision course within 1 or 2 boat lengths, and that she then changed course to avoid.
BTW, I think you're tending to talk about too fine graduations, you talk about 1 degree and elsewhere about 5%. It would be a brave protest committee that found facts with that degree of precision, and while, if you did, your facts would be unappealable, such unrealistic precision might cause an appeals committee to be a little doubtful about your protest committee's judgement in general. It's often useful to find facts like 'at least' or 'no more than'.
In theh OP scenario, an initial course change of 1 degree to starboard by R is not going to give rise to a reasonable apprehension: the collision point will still be many boat lengths downwind. If S comes up maybe 5 to 10 degrees, that would be getting into reasonable apprehension territory, then a 1 degree bear off would make the grade.
I think you're fighting the problem a bit.
If I'm on a protest committeee I don't 'take any indication' about something: I look for evidence that will prove it to the standard of balance of probabilities.
@3 B has passed the mark and left the mark astern, If she gybes and hardens up the mark will not affect her course: she has been given her mark room and RRS 18 no longer applies at all.
Yes.
Just to recap the two different tests for Keep Clear:
I don't think that B might gybe unintentionally or uncontollably is sufficient The test in Keep Clear (b) is that there will be contact. Not only must there be a possibility that B might gybe, but that has to be more likely than not. Maybe if B had already unintentionall gbed back and forth and obviously needed to be given a wide berth. But you can't just assume that a boat will not be controlled in a seamanlike manner. I think it's good enough for R to argue that if she did not change course there would be contact.
(To John) First, I think I'm with you that the open question and risk of the boom swing in a forced gybe probably doesn't meet the "immediately" test.
That said, from the perspective of Red's skipper experiencing this, they may feel stuck and forgive me .. reasonably apprehensive about what might happen (contact, damage, injury) if he forced Blue to gybe.
Parties say all kinds of things when they come into the room. Those who are rules-sophisticated will put the story in terms of the rules .. a wiggle without response and a breach of rule 10.
Others will just put it in terms of their experience. I certainly could imagine Red describing that they couldn't alter course to starbaord (in the 1/2 BW closer scenario) because they were fearful of the boom swing and maybe about Blue's stern swing (leaving room for Blue to respond).
Now, the gap is wider, so no problem about boom swing clearance of Blue....no problem with rule 10.
In this new case let me know what you think about if blue breaks rule 18.4.
I think that no rule 18.4 is broken because blue is inside overlapped but not right-of-way boat.
Must Blue sail his proper course ?
THANKS YOU SO MUCH !!!
Cata
PS: refining my statement above..
Def: Mark-room uses the term proper course as an if/then test. If it was Blue's PC to sail close to the mark, then Blue's MR includes space to sail to the mark.
However this use of PC in mark-room does not require Blue to sail any course or limit Blue's choices of course, it only informs the mark-room Blue is entitled to.