| 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 | |
Penalty blue, RRS20.1, last paragraph.
Green shell respond and may protest.
If green doesn't respond also penalty Green, RRS20.2(b)
RRS20 does not apply. See preamble to Section C
Section C rules do not apply at a starting mark surrounded by navigable water or at its anchor line from the time boats are approaching them to start until they have passed them.
But if you set the same situation on the starting line there is a twist you need to cosider; and its hidden in plain sight; in second part of the Preambule…
So you need to establish one more fact in order to reach a conclusion when we are talking about starting line.
Depending on that “missing” fact there can be two possible outcomes; Section C rules doesn’t apply or Section C rules apply…
;)
No green does not need to respond by tacking.
But Green must respond either by tacking or by responding "you tack" and allowing blue to tack and keeping clear. This is regardless of the validity of the original hail for room to tack. If green thinks the hall was invalid, she can protest (and in this case is likely to be upheld), but she must allow blue to tack one way or the other.
Given the closeness of the boats, there's no way short of teleportation that G, responding 'you tack' and B tacking as soon as possible, that G can give B room to tack an keep clear.
and BTW, if G does tack she has no obligation whatsoeve to 'allow B to tack': her obligation if she does not immediately hail 'you tack' is no more than to tack as soon as possible: whether this gives B room to tack is irrelevamt/
However, I would also say that if we are taking practically rather than technically, then the intent of a tack by green is to give room to blue to tack.
Blue is RoW leeward boat 11, Green is keep clear boat and Blue has Mark Room on Green 18.2(b) since they are overlapped on the same tack as they enter the zone of the finish mark. Green could provide Mark Room by choosing either to luff up or by tacking. Thus, Blue could protest Green for not providing mark room unless 18.2(f) applied.
In effect, Blue chose the wrong rule to hail under.
Is that about right?
Blue and Green are approaching the Race Committee Boat at the finish line.
Green cannot fetch the Committee Boat and hails for room to tack (1).
Blue responds “No room!” (2)
Green puts her helm down anyway and collides with Blue as she reaches head-to-wind (3). There is no damage or injury.
Both boats protest: Green under rules 11 and 20 and Blue under rules 20.2(b) and 16.1.
(I admit that this is a trick question because there are other facts that the protest committee would have to find).
I'm just making the same technical vs practical distinction that you introduced.
Technically G must respond by either tacking or responding "you tack" and giving B room to tack. You pointed out that practically G only has the option to tack.
You then pointed out that technically once G tacks, she is not obligated to give B room to tack, to which I've responded that practically the intention of the rule is to allow B to tack.
My point that G must let B tack one way or another is to stress the practical intent of the rule to let B get out of trouble.... even if G doesn't agree that B is in trouble. In this case B is breaking the rule because she wants to tack for tactical reasons. But if there was a swimmer in the water or a marine mammal, or a log, which was forcing B to tack, then the situation would look the same to G. Thus G should first let B tack and then protest if she'd doesn't think 20.1 applied.
This applies to Clarks scenario. "No room" is not a valid response to a hail for room to tack. So the boat hailing that break 20 by doing so. However, the boat hailing for room to tack also breaks 20 as there was no obstruction. She also breaks 14 as she did not avoid contact when it was reasonable for her to do so. Actually the "no room" hailing boat also broke 14 as it was reasonable for her to avoid contact, given that she was warned about the tack.
Yup, except that a hail about mark-room has no effect or meaning under the rules. If the conditions of RRS 18 apply a boat is required to give, and a boat is entitled to be given mark-room. Hails make no difference.
By hailing 'room to tack' Blue switched off her entitlement to mark-room.
I wouldn't say Blue chose the wrong hail: she knew what she wanted to do: it's just that the RRS didn't entitle her to do it, and she broke RRS 20.1 by doing so.
Mark room does not include room to tack in this situation as B is not to windward G (see current definition of mark room).
So no hail or rule allows B to tack without breaking a rule. B can sail high and luff to try to sail to the mark, but if she passes head to wind, she must keep clear of G until close hauled and then initially give her room to keep clear.
So it seems that Blue's only (legal) options are to luff and hope her weigh carries her through the line, or to manoeuver behind Green, either by slowing down or gybing around behind her.
Blue breaks RRS 20.2(c) by not immediately responding 'you tack' or tacking as soon as possible.
Whether or not Green was fetching is largely irrelevant: the test in RRS 20.1 is whether Blue is fetching. While you would usually expect that a boat, to windward of a leeward boat that is fetching the mark, will also be fetching the mark, this is not necessarily the case: suppose that Green was an Etchells, and Blue was a Beneteau Oceanis. A protest committee would need to find a fact about whether or not Blue was fetching the mark.
By the diagram, Blue was not fetching the mark, so, on that basis, RRS 20 applies so as to:
RRS 20.2(a) requires
(a) After a boat hails, she shall give a hailed boat time to respond.
A protest committee would need to find how long after the hail it was when Green put her helm down, and how severe her turn was, but given that by the diagram it appears that Green did not give Blue room to keep clear, Green did not give Blue time to respond.
Blue did not respond to Green's hail as required by RRS 20.2(c). Blue broke RRS 20.2(c).
Green did not give Blue time to respond as required by RRS 20.2(a). Green broke RRS 20.2(a).
Contact occurred 'as Green reaches head to wind'. Therefore Green was on the tack she was on before she reached head to wind (Definition: Leeward and Windward), both boats are on same tack, Blue, to windward does not keep clear. Blue breaks RRS 11.
Alternatively, had Green been past head to wind, Green, while tacking, would have not kept clear of Blue and Green would have broken RRS 13.
If Green did not break RRS 13, then it appears that Green, changing course did not give Blue room to keep clear and broke RRS 16.1.
Green hailed 'room to tack' before she reached the zone, RRS 18 does not apply
At point 3, if Green breaks RRS 16.1 Blue is exonerated for breaking RRS 11 by RRS 43.1(b).
If Green breaks RRS 16.1, it was not reasonably possible for Blue to avoid contact, so Blue does not break RRS 14.
Green could always have avoided contact, so Green breaks RRS 14, but because there is no damage or injury, is exonerated by RRS 43.1(c).
Bottom line: Rules which boats broke and for which they were not exonerated:
Decision: disqualify both boats.
Let´s asume that G hail, B tack and the G tack - no contact.
B protests.
Any rule(s) broken ?
I think our consideration of the matter should be at least flavoured by the way we would apply Definition Obstruction, and the concept of 'may choose to pass ... on either side' in RRS 19.2(a).