Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

Start boat an obstruction

Ben Williams
Nationality: Australia
Apologies. I think there has been a post on this recently but I could not find it. So, my question is that I understand that there is no mark room at the committee boat at stbd end of start line but I recall that if the windward boat is already inside the committee boat it becomes an obstruction and a leeward boat should not psh the windward boat into the committee boat. Is that correct OT have I misunderstood?
Created: 24-Dec-05 11:56

Comments

Nigel Vick
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
5
The relevant rule is 16.1. The leeward boat has to give the windward boat room to keep clear. Since it is not seamanlike to hit the Committee boat she cannot be forced into it. However, the windward boat still has to keep clear,  which might involve pulling in a mainsail, resulting in going forward and over the start line. 
Created: 24-Dec-05 12:14
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
4
Case 146 applies. As the case number indicates this is a recent Case. Before that, only umpires (or at least readers of the Call Books) were aware of this interpretation of RRS 16.1. s.
Reminder, an MR or TR Call is not authoritative for fleet racing, but, to borrow a phrase from the RYA Case Book, they are 'llustrative and persuasive'.
Created: 24-Dec-05 12:22
Warren Collier
Certifications:
  • Umpire In Training
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
1
Also Case 114 Question 3 addresses this situation as well, but it addresses W being exonerated from breach of RRS 31 (touching the mark) by 43.1(b) and L breaks 16.1 since L didn't give W the room she needed to meet her obligation to not break RRS 31. vs. 146 which addresses W breaks RRS 11 because L has to bear away to avoid W and give W room to keep clear as required by 16.1. In this case, W is exonerated from her breach of RRS 11 by 43.1(b) because W was sailing in the room that she was entitled to under 16.1.
Created: 24-Dec-05 14:00
David Knecht
Nationality: United States
0
In Case 146, if L had headed up at position 2 (instead of 3), would W be required to tack to avoid the committee boat or would W still be able to claim mark room?
Created: 24-Dec-05 16:04
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
2
 Rule 18 does not apply at a mark surrounded by navigable water when boats are approaching to start. So W never has mark-room.
However, every time L changes course she must give W room to keep clear under RRS 16.1. At position 2, W has room to  luff and/or tack. At position 3, W does not have room to respond to L's luff and at the same time meet her obligation under RRS 31 not to touch the mark. By not responding W breaks RRS 11 but as she was sailing within room to which she was entitled she is exonerated under RRS 43.1(b)

Created: 24-Dec-05 16:30
John Christman
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Also see case 147.
Created: 24-Dec-05 16:41
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
2
The "rules-of-thumb" that many racers carry with them to help them understand the rules are often framed in a way that it distracts from the important understanding of how the rules actually interact.   Ben has done us a great service (thanks Ben!) by asking his question as he did because it's a great example of this.

Ben wrote: "[..] if the windward boat is already inside the committee boat it becomes an obstruction and a leeward boat should not push the windward boat into the committee boat."

Another form of this I've often heard is ...

"The leeward boat has to close the door before the windward boat gets her bow in". (implying the leeward boat must alter course to preserve her ROW).

Case 146 elaborates on the instance where the leeward, ROW boat is changing course, so no need to repeat that.  Then, importantly, at the bottom of Case 146 it discusses the alternate scenario where the leeward, ROW does not change course.  IMO, that instance is maybe more instructive.

Ben asks if the leeward boat should not "push" the windward boat into the RC.  If the leeward boat is holding her course, and her course with windward are converging such that the windward boat will end up between leeward and the RC with nowhere to go, did leeward "push" windward into the RC?  By the general understanding of "push" .. it's a reasonable interpretation to say "yes".  That's why using "push" is problematic.

No matter how the boats got in the final position, 
  • when it is clear to leeward that windward will not keep clear as required by RRS 11, 
  • and under the new RRS 14,  when it is clear to leeward that windward will not be able to avoid the RC (that's my interp of the new RRS 14), 
  • if it is reasonably possible for leeward to act such that she avoids contact with windward and windward avoids contact with the RC, 
  • leeward shall act to allow those contacts to be avoided.
  • If there is contact and it was possible for leeward to act to avoid the contact between boats and RC and there is damage/injury, leeward is not exonerated for breaking 14.
    • If there is no damage/injury, leeward is exonerated for breaking 14.
  • If it was not possible for leeward to act when those things were clear, leeward does not break 14.

So that's RRS 14 for leeward.  Now, the question goes to what other rules may have been broken by either boat.

  • If the leeward boat altered course toward windward as the boats converged, after windward could no longer act to avoid the RC or leeward, and leeward makes contact with windward or windward with the RC, then leeward breaks RRS 16.1 and is not exonerated.
  • If the leeward boat DID NOT alter course toward windward as the boats converged, and while holding course there was a moment where the windward boat could have acted to avoid the RC, and leeward makes contact with windward, or if windward forces leeward to alter course, then windward breaks RRS 11 and is not exonerated.

It's all about if leeward is holding course or altering course. If altering course, when and what options did windward have at that moment.
Created: 24-Dec-05 20:44
John Standley
Certifications:
  • International Judge
1
Angelo
You state 'If there is contact and it was possible for leeward to act to avoid the contact between boats and RC and there is damage/injury, leeward is not exonerated for breaking 14.'.
Whilst the statement is correct and leeward would not be exonerated under rule 43, she would be exonerated if she took a penalty in accordance with rule 44 unless there was 'injury or serious damage'. My emphasis.
Created: 24-Dec-06 01:05
Rob Overton
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • International Umpire
2
I have nothing substantive to add, but I'd like to (once again) encourage everybody to use the words in the rules exactly as they appear in the rules, and not to paraphrase.  The race committee vessel cannot "become an obstruction" (Ben's words).  It either is or it isn't an obstruction. An object is an obstruction solely because of its size and shape:  If a boat sailing toward it and one of her hull lengths away from it could not pass it without changing course substantially, or if it's defined in the SIs as an obstruction, then that's it -- it's an obstruction.  Race Committee boats are surely always obstructions because they're big.  The issue Ben raises is whether rules 18, 19 or 20 apply when boats are approaching the RC vessel to start, and the answer is, of course, no.  
Created: 24-Dec-06 02:22
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John S .. thanks for that addition.   That is a good point that a penalty at the time of the incident might be available (and the serious damage threshold for exoneration). 

I have gotten into too many circular discussions with people when they tell me  "I exonerated myself" when they mean to say "I took a penalty".  So personally I only use "exoneration" to mean that which falls under RRS 43 and "take/took a penalty" for stuff that falls under RRS 44.   It's easier for me to keep it straight that way, but I know using "exoneration" more broadly has a history and is still common. 
Created: 24-Dec-06 03:40
John Standley
Certifications:
  • International Judge
1
Angelo,
Yes, this is a better way to look at it. Exonerate means to absolve or free from blame. Taking a compliant penalty would mean a boat would not be subject to a further penalty under the RRS but she may still be found responsible for the costs of damage for breaking 14.
Created: 24-Dec-06 06:24
Andrew Alberti
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • National Umpire
0


Case 146 applies. As the case number indicates this is a recent Case. Before that, only umpires (or at least readers of the Call Books) were aware of this interpretation of RRS 16.1. s.
Reminder, an MR or TR Call is not authoritative for fleet racing, but, to borrow a phrase from the RYA Case Book, they are 'llustrative and persuasive'.

Gordon I found your answer above interesting.  i had taught this interpretation of Rule 16 at the signal boat for years.   I guess I started in the rules game as an umpire so for me to say that this interpretation of rule 16 was not new doesn't help.  I went back to some of my reference books.  The 1997-2000 edition of "The Racing Rules for Sailors - A Complete Guide" by the late Mary Pera (Chair of the RYA Rules Ctee and Vice Chair of the ISAF Rules Ctee) said under her description of rule 18.1(a) "L is always subject to rule 16 so cannot luff W into the committee boat without giving her room to keep clear, but she can sail a straight steady course which will not let We in and will force her to go the wrong side of the committee boat"

In the original question above, as several have said the committee boat doesn't "become an obstruction".  She was probably always an obstruction.  The obstruction rule (19) doesn't apply since the boats are approaching to start.  Rule 16 does apply and requires the right-of-way (leeward) boat to give "room" when she alters course.  The definition of "room" includes "manoeuvering promptly in a seamanlike way" and seamanlike does not include hitting a committee boat.  It also includes "space to comply with her obligations under" "rule 31".  Hitting the signal boat would break rule 31.  
Created: 24-Dec-07 02:29
P
John Allan
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Rob Overton, I've been caught with this one before.  A boat that gains right of way 'becomes' an obstruction.
Created: 24-Dec-07 08:49
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Andrew ... and in 2002, Dick Rose describes it when responding to a question in Sailing World ... from a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed reader :-)

Sailing World: Same Tack Scenarios at the Start

PS: I enjoy Dick's rule-reductionist approach at the beginning of his response. Emulation-worthy for sure. 
Created: 24-Dec-07 12:59
Hugh Wylam
Nationality: United Kingdom
1
An incident that made this all much clearer to me took place in the Solent.
As a puddle sailor it looked pretty odd to me but my tidal umpires where clear about penalising Blue in this situation.

image.png 207 KB




Created: 24-Dec-08 16:14
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more