Funnily enough exactly the same thought occurred to me when I read this rule change. I was so troubled that I posed this as a question to the RYA Racing Rules Committee. The thrust of my question was -
If S tacks on to P at a starboard hand windward mark inside the zone and breaks rule 13 in respect of P who is fetching the mark can S claim exoneration under rule 21 because she is taking mark room from the point she passes head to wind ? Bear in mind that rule 18 only applies from the moment that S passes head to wind and from that point on she does not change tacks. - I think that describes the point in contention here.

The answer I got (with some fairly cutting comments about my possible alternative interpretation) was that S was not entitled to exoneration because she was not sailing within mark room to which she was entitled. The final paragraph of the definition of Mark Room requires S to be to windward and inside P to be entitled to mark room to tack which she isn't. "Tack" is no longer a defined term so it means what is understood by the sailing community in general and according to the RYA this covers the whole period until she establishes herself on close haul on the new tack. The fact that rule 18 only applies from when S passes head to wind is irrelevant she is still requiring room to tack and does not qualify for this being mark room.

In both the cases S is not on a close hauled course when she conflicts with P and so the room she requires is room to tack. Mark room only includes room to tack if certain pre conditions are met which are not in either case. As S is not sailing within mark room to which she is entitled then she can not be exonerated by rule 21 for her breach of rule 13

So there you have it. That is how it should be interpreted by all UK protest committees and how appeals will be decided by the RRC for the next 4 years,

I agree with the interpretations posed in the two links cited, including the entitlement to mark-room and exoneration for the inside boat not yet reached her close hauled course.

I disagree with the RYA interpretation that such a boat is taking 'room to tack', and is thus not sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled.  the phrase 'room to tack' is a hangover from the ancient history of the RRS, and, as discussed by Bill Handley, is to say the least ambiguous and unclear.  I am inclined to the following description/reasoning:

• ordinary english/nautical usage of 'tack' is 'change tacks'.  'tacking', being from head to wind to close hauled was an artefact of the pre 1995 RRS:  it was not an inherent meaning of the word.  Note: The word 'tacking' in the title of rule 13 is irrelevant: titles do not form part of the rules (Definitions:  Rule ( a )).
• A boat changes tacks when she passes head to wind:  once she has passed head to wind she has tacked.

I'd be interested to see if RYA publishes a national Appeal on the subject.

I disagree with Ulmer's critique of non-application at a starboard rounding mark, in particular that race committees should avoid setting starboard rounding windward marks.  All that is necessary is for Starboard to stand on and force P to keep clear (by tacking or ducking, then S has a clear shot at the mark.

Paul Elvstrom has always been a strong advocate of starboard rounding courses (Elvstrom Explains, Explanatory (Red) Section Rule 90.2)

The disadvantage of port rouding is that a boat approaching on port tack, even though she may really be leading ... may not be able to round the mark and can drop many places. Also the tendency is to use only the starboard side of the course.

With starboard rounding, a boat can always get round the mark by standing on a few lengths, but there are usually more protest situations.

In the subject scenario, I think we just go back to the basics:

The boats on opposite tacks windward mark are not overlapped when the first of them enters the zone. - rule 18.1

No part of rule 18 applies between them - rule 18.1(a) & (b)

When S passes head to wind, S is subject to rule 13 and must keep clear.

S will not be entitled to mark-room unless P obtains an outside overlap & entitled to Mark-Room under rule 18.2(a). (Rule 18.2(b) is not applicable because neither S nor P was clear ahead at the zone , nor were they overlapped)

So, S is safe provided:

(a)  she can keep clear while tacking.

(b) she can keep clear if P becomes overlapped to leeward of her and thereby obtains Mark-Room - rule 18.2(a)..

P of course, will be protected from breaking rule 15 & 16 under rule 21provided:

(1)  P is sailing in the Mark-Room to which she  is entitled - rule 21

(2)  S is able to give Mark-Room from the time the inside overlap began. - rule 18.2(f).

To make the matter more complicated, the answer to the question would be very different if Appendix C applied, in which case the boats would be "overlapped" on opposite tacks with S entitled to Mark-Room which includes room to tack and sail a proper course to round or pass the mark.

John Allen, I have a great deal of sympathy with your point of view because it was exactly the one I made in my original question.

I think we would all agree that under the definition of mark room that S is not entitled to room that includes room to tack as she does not meet the requirements of the definition. The key question is whether or not a boat that has changed tacks and has not yet assumed a close hauled course is "tacking".

According to the introduction to the RRS we must interpret tacking "in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use". In this I think the title of rule 13 "while tacking" may be persuasive although as you rightly point out the titles do not form part of "rules" according to the definition.

The RYA have clearly taken the view that in nautical use the word tacking applies to the whole manoeuvre of changing from one close hauled course to another by passing head to wind in which case S is not sailing within mark room to which she is entitled and therefore not entitled to exoneration under rule 21. As this is my governing MNA I have no choice but to follow this view myself, I do not anticipate a Case any time soon as the RRC were most dismissive of my argument. I was told that it had "no merit" and that it took the committee "less than a minute" to decide on it's answer.

John, Bill and Phil ... it seems that there is a fairly stiff disagreement here.

Phil, the basis of your disagreement John, Team NZ and Ullmer is that 18 never turns-on ... thus S is not protected from the arc of head-to-wind down to close-hauled.   My first reading and interpretation aligns with you (and I put same out to my fleet), but then reading NZ and Ullmer, gave me pause.

I think there are 2 issues really ..

1) What do the rules say and what does that mean for orderly STB roundings?
2) What do we want orderly STB rounding to look like and how can we make them happen?

On the #1 ...

If we go with the final scenario interpretations as I originally posted in both cases as correct (i.e. exoneration protection for S from head-to-wind down to close-hauled), it would appear that S can tack to round in the presence of P in most cases except those that P passed clear ahead of S .. the only restriction being that S can't change course into P during S's tack. In effect, it provides 'mark-room' with the addition of 'room-to-tack'.

If we go with Phil's and my original interp, S has to sail past the mark if S can't keep clear of P from the head-to-wind to close-hauled sector.

This is a HUGE difference of opinion.

On the #2 ..

We can eventually come to agreement of how the final scenario would go .. how do we really want it to go. What is the most orderly and fair way for STB roundings to go? .. and how can it be described and understood most clearly?

(JMO here) It's been my opinion that the rules should be changed such that in windward-starboard roundings work exactly like leeward roundings .. the inside boat gets room to round .. i.e. changing 18.1a to ..

"between boats on opposite tacks on a beat to windward,  unless mark is to be left to starboard"

This turns-on 'overlap' then 'mark-room' and then 'exoneration'.

My point here is clearity of understanding.  We all "get" (and most sailing competitors "get") the inside-overlap rules at the leeward mark .. and they are used to setting up for orderly roundings.  Making this change would in effect create the same scenario at the windward-starboard mark.  STB boats would be inside-overlapped of the Port approachers,  Port boats would understand that they would have to approach high of the mark to provide that room.

If we go with Phil and my interp, the STB and Port boats stitch themselves in the rounding with S-boats holding and tacking above.

Great dialog .. hope we can come to consensus.... as this can cause some dangerous encounters if people are sailing under diff understandings.

Hi John, Bill and Ang,

A friend once said to me "the answer is always in the book" . The point is that in the given scenario neither boat can have mark-room until there is an overlap and rule 18.2(a) kicks in.

There is no overlap when the boats are on opposite tacks, on a beat and one has to tack to sail a proper course at the mark - see rule 18.1(a) & (b).

When S passes head to wind and the boats are on the same port tack, there is a chance for one or the other to gain Mark-Room if they become overlapped. - see rule 18.2(a). Whether S or P obtains mark-Room will depend on which boat becomes  the inside overlapped boat.

While S luffs she is simply a ROW boat  changing course and as such subject to rule 16.1. When she passes head to wind and until she completes her tack S is a keep clear boat under rule 13.

Initially, P is a give-way (under rule 10 ) and then P is ROW while S is tacking, because rule 10 does not apply while rule 13 applies - rule 13 - and during the latter period P too becomes subject to rule 16.1..

So the rules are switching on and off during the manoeuvring. 

John & Bill,

Based upon Phil's layout, do you now concur that the NZ and Ullmer's finding of S-boat rights while tacking .. from head-to-wind to close-hauled .. does not exist in the scenario as laid-out?

That the first opportunity for 18 to turn-on for S-boat is only AFTER they reach close-hauled ..

Ang

PS .. since I was looking for info and found the NZ and Ulmer info .. others will as well. If anyone has contact info for Ulmer and Jim Park of NZ would it make sense to point them to this discussion?

Phil - I don't think that anyone has a problem with the rules switching on and off or the fact that S is keep clear boat under rule 13 from the moment that she passes head to wind until she is on a close hauled course. The question is whether or not she can be exonerated for breaking rule 13 if she is overlapped inside P while she is subject to rule 13. Rule 21 says that she can if she sailing within mark room to which she is entitled and by implication can not if she isn't. The definition of mark room states that S is not taking mark room to which she is entitled if she is taking room to tack. So the question becomes what does the undefined term "tacking" mean. We have to rely on what is "ordinarily understood" in nautical use according to the introduction to the rules and in the answer provided to me by the RYA they interpreted this as being the whole time from when a boat sails above close hauled on one tack to the time when she becomes established on a close hauled. In that case S was requiring room to tack and therefore was not sailing within mark room to which she was entitled and therefore not entitled to exoneration.

I guess the acid test would be to show a video of a boat tacking to say 100 random sailors and stop it at the point where the boat has passed head to wind but is not on a close hauled course and ask them if the boat was still tacking at that point. If the consensus is that the boat is still tacking (which I suspect it would be) then the RYA decision is correct. Not a very satisfactory way of deciding things but as you rightly say the answer is always in the book and the book points us in this direction.

Ang - for the reasons given above I agree with your conclusion that S can not be exonerated under rule 21 because she is taking room to tack. I do not agree with your conclusion that rule 18 only turns on for S after she reaches close hauled. Rule 18 turns on at the moment S passes head to wind and according to the definitions both boats are on the same tack and one of them is in the zone. If S becomes over lapped inside P she is entitled to mark room under rule 18.2(a) even though she has not reached close hauled however because she is tacking she is not sailing within the mark room to which she is entitled and therefore is not exonerated under rule 21.

Ang - in answer to your point as what would best for an orderly rounding I think that no exoneration for breaking rule 13 is best. In those circumstances the only way S could tack cleanly would either be to pass behind P and tack or tack so far in front of P that S does not break rule 13. This has to be much more orderly that allowing a boat to break rule 13 and be exonerated.

I have to say that I suspect that answer I got from the RYA may to an extent have been driven by this outcome that they wanted and then the interpretations were filled in later to justify the conclusions - as I said just a suspicion on my part.

Phil and Bill .. this is the crux of the issue (feeling like I'm back where I started :-/)

If 18.2(a) turns on for S as soon as she passes HTW if she tacks slightly below the path of P and P's bow overlaps S's stern as she passes HTW .. but so close that P has to avoid S before she falls to close-hauled,  you both seem to be saying at that HTW-pass moment S is now entitled to room and thus kicks in the 21 exoneration of Section A violation, where 13 lives ... as long as P avoids by going to windward of S.

If 18.2(a) turns on, how does 13 withstand 21's Section A exoneration when S ends up the inside-overlapped boat?

I think we are blinked into thinking about this as a mainly mark rounding situation, rather than the rule 10 situation.  When a lot of the time it is purely a port/starboard situation and the port boat can only see he wants to get to the mark and round it, and creates a worsening scenario that yellow is forced into the rule 18 problem..

There are other considerations to think about here and scenarios that may apply: Yellow on starboard r-o-w boat, blue on port give way.  The last diagram of the NZ post.

What happens if blue doesn't give way and yellow is actually forced to tack to avoid a collision (14)? Does the same rules apply, or should yellow protest blue?

 OR yellow is going slower than blue or yellow slows and blue has to tack away, or doesn't and creates the previous situation?

These problems may not happen immediately at the mark, but at any stage leading up to the mark.

18.1a and 18.1b appear contradictory?

David - what do you see contradictory about 18.1(a) and 18.1(b) they are just complementary to cover the situation where one of the boats on opposite tacks may not be on a beat.

Ang - no, what I am saying is that as soon as S passes HTW if she is over lapped inside P she is entitled to mark room - rule 18.1(a). Rule 21 only exonerates S for breaking rule 13 if she is sailing within that mark room to which she is entitled - rule 21. Mark room for S does not include room to tack because mark room would only include room to tack if S was to windward and inside P which she wasn't - definition of mark room. As S is taking room to tack when she breaks rule 13 she is not sailing within mark room to which she is entitled (because she is not entitled to room to tack) and so can not be exonerated under rule 21.

My approach to the Rule 18.3 and Starboard Roundings issue starts with the obvious.

1.  Rule 18.3 does not apply because the mark is to be rounded to starboard.

2.  None of Rule 18 applies until S has passed head to wind and is overlapped.

3.  Rule 13 and 14 apply until S has completed her tack (i.e., is not sailing above close-hauled).

4.  If S can complete her tack while keeping clear of P, then whichever boat becomes overlapped to leeward is entitled to mark room.

5.  If S did not give P room to keep clear after she has completed her tack, S may be exonerated under Rule 21.

Bill Handley said

 ... As S is taking room to tack when she breaks rule 13 she is not sailing within mark room to which she is entitled (because she is not entitled to room to tack) and so can not be exonerated under rule 21

With reference to the scenario  where S passes head to wind overlapped inside P near the mark, this is the crux of the discussion.  The rules transitions are fairly straightforward,  All the conditions for rule 18.2( a ) to oblige P to give S mark-room apply.  The question is what is the 'content' or boundaries, or limitations on that mark-room.

The contrary view to the view that S, between passing head to wind and reaching a close hauled course is taking room to tack, is that when S passed head to wind she had tacked, after that she was no longer 'taking room to tack' and was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled.

If Jim Park started this off with an interpretation about team racing, I wouldn't be surprised to see a TR Rapid Response Call sometime soon

John Allen,

I think RRS 13 is self-defining.  The rule is titled "While Tacking" .. and then goes to say that this rule is in effect until the tacking boat is on/past close-hauled.  It would seem to me that this defines itself that tacking is not complete until on close-hauled.

John Throne,

Very concise layout of the rules ala Phil's earlier and how I did to my fleet (but in more verbose example form).

How I described it was that if you are S, you need to be able to complete your tack before P has to make avoiding moves.  If you aren't far enough ahead to do that, then S needs to hold and complete their tack above P, with enough space that P can round (as now inside boat).

That's what it really comes down to now that 18.3 doesn't apply, as the other scenarios are pretty straight forward.

If we can get that word out, I think it can be pretty orderly.  If there is a sub-segment of sailors that think there is a 21 exoneration, it will get ugly.

Hey Guys,

I'm sorry I missed your correspondence last night. We're in a different time zone down-under and I went to bed...

And I apologize for missing the point about S tacking to leeward of P in the zone. I hadn't considered that scenario. Imagining a scenario in which S is slightly advanced on P and attempts a slam-dunk and misjudges, and as S passes head to wind, P becomes overlapped to windward of S.

In such an incident, the boats are overlapped, with S the inside give-way boat (subject to rule 13). P is outside overlapped with ROW because leeward S is subject to 13.

However, rule 18 applies & rule 18.2(a) requires P to givs S Mark-Room. Mark-Room for S is room to sail  to the mark  As S is now sailing within room to which she is entitled under rule 18.2(a), she will be exonerated for any breach of a rule of Part 2 Section A, rule 15 or 16 as per rule 21(a).

The answer is, therefore, S is exonerated for a breach of rule 13 whether or not her tack has been completed.

,Of course, prior to S passing head to wind, S is a ROW boat altering course and subject to rule 16 and attempting such a manoeuvre  in such a situation is very dangerous.  P's best tactic would be to bear away and establish a leeward inside overlap and so be entitled to mark-room..

It's a lovely cloudless sunny day here in Perth, about 23 degrees C and I'm just about to go down to the club. Have a good one.

.

Phil Mostyn said

... I apologize for missing the point about S tacking to leeward of P in the zone. I hadn't considered that scenario. Imagining a scenario in which S is slightly advanced on P and attempts a slam-dunk and misjudges, and as S passes head to wind, P becomes overlapped to windward of S.

In such an incident, the boats are overlapped, with S the inside give-way boat (subject to rule 13). P is outside overlapped with ROW because leeward S is subject to 13.

However, rule 18 applies & rule 18.2(a) requires P to givs S Mark-Room. Mark-Room for S is room to sail to the mark As S is now sailing within room to which she is entitled under rule 18.2(a), she will be exonerated for any breach of a rule of Part 2 Section A, rule 15 or 16 as per rule 21(a).

The answer is, therefore, S is exonerated for a breach of rule 13 whether or not her tack has been completed.

That's what Jim Park and Butch Ulmer said in the links in the OP, which seems sensible to me.

The RYA, however, has told Bill Handley that while S is between head to wind and close hauled on port, she is taking room to tack, which is excluded from mark-room by definition, and thus S is not sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled, and  not entitled to exoneration by rule 21 for breaking rule 13.

Phil - I think we have boiled this down to a pretty simple question which is "While S is between head to wind and close hauled is she tacking?" If you think she is then she cannot be exonerated because she is not sailing within mark room to which she is entitled as mark room in those circumstances does not include room to tack. If you think she isn't then she will be exonerated because she is sailing within mark room to which she was entitled.

I tend to favour the former view having asked this question of my MNA but I can see merit in the  latter point of view.

Bill,

Seems to me that S is sailing within the room to which she is entitled.

The definition (a) says :"room to sail to the mark when her proper course is to sail close to it". Therefore, regardless of whether S is above close hauled and subject to rule 13, if at that point her proper course is to sail close to the mark, and she happens to breach rule 13 whilst doing so, she is exonerated under 21(a).

I think an opposite interpretation may be reading something into the rules that isn't there. It may seem unfair to some, but in the words of a great GBR judge and umpire, "Who said the rules have to be fair?"

The great thing about the rules to me is being able to debate them with people all over.

Phil - I agree that debating the rules is good for all of us to improve the quality of judging that we provide to competitors. i also agree that we have to apply the rules as written and not as we may like them to have been written whether we consider them fair or not.

You quite rightly quote section (a) of the definition of mark room but you have to look at the whole of the definition and not just part of it. The final paragraph starts with the word "however" which means that what follows may contradict and over ride what has gone before including section (a). The words that follow "however" make it clear that mark room does not include room to tack in the circumstances described even if other parts of the definition such as section (a) are met.

So whether or not S is tacking when she breaks rule 13 is the key point - if you think she is then she is not sailing within mark room to which she is entitled and can not be exonerated according to the wording of rule 21. If you think she is not tacking then she is sailing within mark room to which she is entitled and will be exonerated.

For reasons I have already explored I think a boat between head to wind and close hauled is tacking.

Hi Bill,

It's quite right to draw  attention to the "however" paragraph. You make a good argument.. I guess we'll just have to wait for someone to submit a Q&A for guidance.

Phil .. OK .. so now there seems to be a broader consensus here. If you look at Tim's document .. the last scenario .. that's the issue illustrated.

I'll go back to one of my other points is that I think this is unnecessarily complicated to describe the rights in a windward-STB rounding ... complication causes confusion and confusion will cause dangerous situations.

I would like to suggest that the RRS's be changed to simply provide, in windward-stb roundings .. that inside-overlapped boats get mark-room which includes room to tack.  This is basically the result of the consensus here when you play the scenarios with this last one tossed-in.

. i.e. changing 18.1a to .. "between boats on opposite tacks on a beat to windward, unless mark is to be left to starboard"

It's clear, simple and mimics the rights at leeward mark roundings, so it's already in the behavioral muscle memory of most sailors.  The habit would be then for Port approachers to setup high of the port layline .. .and would make IMO much more orderly roundings with clear rights for the inside-STB boats to tack to round .. thus they would be even more enticed to do promptly.

I've played it in my mind .. and I can't see where this change wouldn't be better .. so I'd like to toss that out to the gallery.

Back to the Q we have in hand though ....

I'm not a judge or anything .. just a little'ole fleet-measurer trying to keep the gelcoat of my fleet in one piece .. so would it be proper for one of you (judges) to submit the question I raised in the OP to Q&A?

Bill ... I'll play along with'ya here ..

Bill wrote: "So the question becomes what does the undefined term "tacking" mean. We have to rely on what is "ordinarily understood" in nautical use according to the introduction to the rules and in the answer provided to me by the RYA they interpreted this as being the whole time from when a boat sails above close hauled on one tack to the time when she becomes established on a close hauled. In that case S was requiring room to tack and therefore was not sailing within mark room to which she was entitled and therefore not entitled to exoneration."

Here is an interesting thought experiment to explore "tacking" if it does not include that span of time a boat goes from HTW until falling off to close-hauled on the opposite-tack ... (channeling my inner Einstein here without using a train approaching the speed of light) ..

If we accept the definition above (tacking does not include HTW to close-hauled), then when is a boat "tacking"?. 

From close-hauled on one tack to HTW .. that's not it ... that's not tacking .. that's luffing.

Being at HTW .. that's not it .. that's being at HTW.

If we take away the time from HTW to close-hauled on the opposite tack ... the ONLY time left for "tacking" to exist is that instantaneous moment .. an infinitesimally small moment-in-time between HTW and the moment just-past HTW.  For those who remember lessons from our Calc-I class .. that moment in time between HTW and not-HTW can be made infinitesimally smaller and smaller in the limit .. to the point that it effectively disappears to nothing ... technically a "mathematical infinitesimal" ... so small it can't be measured or defined.

Therefore, if boat is not "tacking" in that time from HTW to close-hauled on the opposite tack, then there is actually no measurable span-of-time in which a boat is actually "tacking", giving the term "tacking" no meaning.

Since that can't be true .. that "tacking" actually has no meaning, the meaning remaining is that time from HTW to close-hauled on the opposite tack . .. and if that's true .. then the exoneration goes away.  

How you like 'dem apples? :-)

Ang - an unarguable philosophical argument and well beyond a simple west country boy like me.

I just work on the basis that as the actions under rule 13 are in a rule headed "while tacking" then any boat doing what is prohibited by this rule is probably tacking. I know the headings are not part of the rules but in this case it's a pretty strong clue.

While "tacking" cannot be found in the Definitions, this World Sailing Case 17 makes it clear to me that a boat is tacking from the time she passes head to wind (this should not require a definition) until she is on [or has passed below] a close-hauled course.  Otherwise Rule 13 doesn't make sense.

CASE 17

A boat is no longer subject to rule 13 when she is on a close-hauled course,

regardless of her movement through the water or the sheeting of her sails.

I appreciate & respect both sides of the argument.  I also agree with the comment about there being so many possible similar scenarios with different outcomes.

Say for instance that P established the overlap so close that S was unable to keep clear?

Phil - I think the situation you describe is where after S has tacked P establishes an overlap to leeward and inside her so S becomes obliged to Keep Clear under rule 11. In those circumstances if P does not give S room to initially keep clear then she breaks rule 15. P cannot claim exoneration under rule 21 because rule 18,2(f) states that in these circumstances if S is unable to give mark room (and if she is unable to keep clear then by definition she is unable to give mark room) then she is not required to give it. If S is not required to give mark room the P cannot be sailing within mark room to which she is entitled which is a requirement for exoneration under rule 21. S breaks rule 15 with no exoneration.

Agree .. Case 17 +  Rule 13 itself + my thought experiment = "tacking" is from HTW to close-hauled course.

Then add the "however" exclusion in "Mark Room" definition ...   the exoneration is on shaky ground.

Is it appropriate for one of you all to submit to the Q&A for clarification?

Ang wrote: Is it appropriate for one of you all to submit to the Q&A for clarification?

Serious process question from me here that I would appreciate info on.  Does this issue need to "play itself in the courts" in some sense or once finding a straightforward ambiguity or possible conflict in the rules, can one submit the Q for clarification?  .. and along those lines what category of individual/entity is authorized to submit?

Ang - a National race official can submit a question to their MNA as I did with this to the RYA, An International race official can ask aquestion to WS and have it published as a WS Q&A. If the MNA thinks it is of sufficient interest they can create a National case base just on a question - it doesn't have to be a protest and appeal. The MNA may submit the case to WS for it to become a WS case. If the WS Q&A is thought of suficient importance it can become a WS case also with no need for a protes and appeal - hope that helps.

Bill .. that's just what I was asking .. thanks.

... and until this gets clarified, I guess I have the RYA interpretation that addresses it as "no exoneration" .. and maybe one can think that is the more "conservative" reading of the rules.

Bill, is the actual response you got from RYA something that's shareable without an anonymous dump to Wikileaks? :-)

Ang - Can't think of any reason why I shouldn't share the answer from the RYA, in fact they seem to be asking me to do that in their reply. The question I posed was whether S (yellow) tacking to leeward and inside of P (blue) could be exonerated for breaking rule 13 under rule 21 because she was taking mark room to which she was entitled. This was the answer -

My attention was drawn to this discussion and I have been following it with interest.  I was asked to describe the effect of the withdrawal of 18.3 for starboard roundings before our NZ Team Sailing Nationals.  While doing this I became aware of an anomaly when the starboard boat only took "mark room.  I expected some local comment, I did not expect it to go global!  I have been very surprised that my understanding of "tacking" has been challenged, even by the RYA RR Committee.  I agree that the average sailor may think that "tacking" is from the initial luff to close-hauled, or head-to wind to close-hauled, but I thought all judges would think like me that tacking is passing through head to wind.  I have"therefore had to try and justify this understanding of mine.
Tacking is not defined but I do not think we have to go back to "ordinarily understood".  Surely it is indirectly defined in the definition Tack, Starboard or Port   When a boat passes through head-to-wind her windward side changes and she changes tack.  It is instantaneous.  I agree that the heading to RRS 13 is misleading as "while" suggests a finite time, it would be better if it was "when tacking", but headings are not part of the rule.  I looked to the Call Book for Team Racing for support.  The first call in the book, A1, Figure 3  states  "when B passes head to wind both boats are on the same tack and overlapped".  The summary of A1 states "A tacking boat changes tack the moment she passes head to wind".
You have all seen my argument. S is ROW luffs but is subject to 16.1.  She passes through head-to-wind, is now on the same tack and 18 applies.  She must not infringe 13 before the overlap is established and before she has mark room.  When the overlap is established she has mark room and can be exonerated under 21.
I no longer look at all the submissions for rule changes and I do not know why this change to 18.3 was made.  I would like it to change back.  I think it just adds an unnecessary complication both for sailors and umpires and may encourage a very risky manoeuvre.  If it is any consolation we had 628 races at our nationals and no one attempted this manoeuvre.  If I am wrong with the above it would be good to get a TR Rapid Response Call.  If I am right I am not sure that Rapid Response Calls can change the rules.
Jim Park, NZ Team Sailing Association (Not Team NZ)
 
 

Jim - at the risk of extending an already long thread I have to take issue with your suggestion that  "....we do not have to go back to ordinarily understood".

The Introduction to RRS under "Terminology" states quite clearly that unless a term is a definition or contained in the table set out in that section then it must be interpreted in the sense ordinarily understood - see final paragraph under "Terminology". Tacking is not defined or in the table so it falls into that category. The definition of Rule (a) makes it clear that the Introduction to the RRS is a rule. It follows that the rules say we must use what is ordinarily understood.

i don't think that we can look at the word "Tack" in the definitions as this is using tack as a noun and in the definition of Mark Room it uses it as a verb.

We all agree that a boat remains on her old tack up to the point she is head to wind and the moment she passes head to wind she is on her new tack. If tacking only applies to that split second (or perhaps even less) when the boat changes tack then the final paragraph of the definition of Mark Room becomes meaningless as a boat will never require room for just that split second.

If WS or another MNA takes a different view from the RYA I would be very interested as you can see from the nature of their reply to me they really didn't see any merit in the argument I put forward which by and large was the same one as you make above.

Jim .. welcome to the discussion .. I was hoping early on that someone had your info and would point you this direction.

I would ask you to consider my "thought experiment" post in regards to what "room to tack" (from the definition of mark room) possibly means. If you follow the logic, if "room to tack" is only that infinitesimally small movement as the boat goes from head-to-wind to the new tack ... that moment actually takes 'no time' in that it's an instant, not a span of time that is discernible.

Therefore, if we go with that definition, that "to tack" is ONLY that instant of time, then a boat is not moving in an instant of time ... and thus the "room to tack" is only the space the boat is occupying at that moment  and doesn't include any space beyond her hull and equipment as if she was standing still ...as if in a photograph .. .

... and if that's true, then actually no boat has EVER taken any "room to tack" beyond her rub-rail.

Actually thinking about taking a picture is helpful. Though one thinks of a photo as capturing an "instant", it actually captures a very short span of time .. the shutter opens, stays open for a span of time, and then closes. .. and within that shutter opening and closing a boat goes from HTW to the new tack. Even at a slow shutter speed of 1/100 (at which objects in motion will appear blurred), at 6 kts a boat goes only 3 cm (indiscernible on the water). One could (with my imaginary camera) keep increasing the shutter-speed to infinity .. making the time captured smaller and smaller until the boat comes to a virtual stand-still .. and the room it's taking to tack is just the space it occupies motionless.

I contend that cannot be the case, that for "room to tack" in the mark-room definition to have any meaning, the act it's describing cannot be instantaneous .... and the only other commonly understood span-of-time and observable motion-of-the-boat to hang our hat on .... that is uniquely associated to the tack and takes time and room to execute ... is from HTW to close-hauled .. as going from close-hauled to HTW is luffing.

Bill .. nice point-out on the noun, verb difference, which would allow different definitions as applied.

Ang

PS .. Jim, with your permission, I was hoping to use your PDF as a starting point in writing something customized for my fleet. May I borrow some of your drawings, descriptions and such and incorporate them into a new doc (with proper attribution of course where appropriate)?

Hi Ang and Bill.  Sorry about the delay in responding.
When I read your posts I thought you made very good points.  However, on further reflection I thought the argument that if tacking was only passing head-to-wind, the last part of mark room did not make sense, was a very narrow view.  It assumed that two boats were very close as one was rounding a mark.
Consider a starboard tack boat approaching a windward mark to be left to starboard.  Her track is some two boats to leeward of the mark.  Above her are other starboard boats but they are not overlapped with her.  She enters the zone first so has mark room.  That is room to sail to the mark and room to round the mark.  She sails on, luffs, tacks, bears away to close-hauled on port tack on the starboard layline and claims exoneration if she infringes 13 or 10 because she is sailing within the mark room to which she is entitled.  I suggest that chaos could result if the starboard boats above had to avoid her.  That, I believe, is one reason for the last sentence in the definition of mark room.  It would not cause chaos if our boat was the windward boat.  Therefore, if she is overlapped inside and to windward she may tack.
I had a quick look at the Case Book which is an authoritative interpretation of the Racing Rules.  I think Case 95 makes it quite clear that a boat changes tack when she passes head-to-wind.
On another note, Ang feel free to use my diagrams and notes. You will have to take out the reference to D1.1(b) and change the text for fleet racing.  Do you want it as a Word document?

Jim - please don't apologize for any delay, we all have other sailing lives, only this weekend I wass racing my Falmouth Working Boat in Falmouth Classics and having a sail on Sunday in my Jenneau 32.
I don't think that in the case you describe anyone is suggesting that S would be entitled to exoneration for breaking rule 13 0r 10. Everyone agrees that a boat changes tack when she pases head to wind because that's what the definition says - the issue is what does the word tack used as a verb in the final sentence of the definition of the Mark Room mean ?
In your scenario S entering the zone clear ahead is entitled to mark room and if she luffs to a position along side the mark the boats that were clear astern of her and above have to keep clear of her under rule 12 while they remain clear astern and rule 11 if they become overlapped inside. S is entitled to mark room under 18.2(b) and the other boats have to give it to her under the same rule. Even if her luff breaks rule 16.1 she is exonerated under rule 21 as at that time she is sailing within mark room to which she is entitled.
If S contines and passes head to wind (changing tacks at that time) then everything changes. S has to keep clear of the other boats first under rule 13 then under rule 10. She is not entitled to mark room because 18.2(d) disapplies 18.2(b) and 18.1 (a) and (b) disapply the whole of rule 18. S can not be exonerated under rule 21 as she is not sailing within mark room to which she is entitled. At no point is the requirement of the final sentence of the definition of Mark Room met because at no time is S overlaspped inside and to windward.

If we change things and have S entering the zone as described but with a boat overlapped outside and to leeward (L) then the final sentence of the definition of Mark Room becomes relevant because S is inside, overlapped and to windward of L and so the mark room to which she is entitled includes room to tack. If as S tacks her stern swings out and hits L she has not been given  mark room (including room to tack ) and L has broken 18.2(b). It does not matter if contact occurs while S is luffing, head to wind or bearing away on to the new close hauled course they all constitute "tacking" which is what S is entitled to room to do under the definition.

This was an ISAF Q&A a few years back on this very point where the question posed was "if contact occurs after S has passed head to wind can she claim exoneration as after she has passed head to wind she is on an opposite tack and rule 18 no longer applies. The answer was that the actual failure to give mark room occured before S started tacking so that was the point at which rule 18.2(b) was broken. The fact that contact didn't take place until after S had passed head to wind was not relevant as the contact was just proof that not enough room had been given some time before. It is a basic principle that if there is contact then a rule will have been broken some time before the contact takes place and the contact is just evidence that the rule has already been broken.

Coming right back to the original question in this thread S tacking inside P at a mark is not entitled to room to tack as part of her mark room as she does not meet the definition and while she has passed head to wind and before she is on a close hauled course she is breaking rule 13 with no exoneration because the definition says she is not sailing within mark room to which she is entitled.

Jim ..

First, thanks for allowing me to borrow parts of your work.  My email address is a gmail address with a j105.fleet3.measurer address.  A .DOC file would be great and save me the hassle of converting the PDF.

Furthermore, I would not argue with your scenario as you laid out .. or with the tweaked versions as Bill described.

In both scenarios though, I still think we have a "thought-experiment" problem though .. and I have not heard anyone directly explain how there can be any "room" associated with tacking if tacking is that instantaneous moment going from HTW to past it .. which I think I've clearly shown actually takes "no room" in an instant.  Until we can get past that .. all actions seem to me to be part of some other maneuver.

For instance, Bill .. if you are talking about an L boat being so close that a W boat can't turn up to start a tack .. L boat would not be allowing W room to keep clear (Keep Clear (b)) under W's obligation in 11.  L can't be so close that W doesn't have room to swing her stern to head-up .. so I would content that it's not that   Also if W was falling down onto L such that she forced L to fall-off to provide her room to keep clear as she luffed into the tack.. W waited too long to avoid L and thus it would be W in the wrong.  I don't see how either of those "stern-swing-room" scenarios have anything to do with "room to tack".

I guess one could put a scenario together that W entered the circle with enough room to swing her stern but leewayed herself down into L just before she started her turn that she needed extra room, but that determination of inches and time would seem to be almost impossible for a PC to determine?  Not sure that's what the RRS designers had in mind.

Ang - I think your comments do not take account of the fact that in the scenario described it is W who has to keep clear of L and not the other way round. L has a brief obligation to initially give W room to keep clear clear under rule 15 when she becomes right of way which would be time and space for W to luff but not necessarily tack, and a continuing obligation if she (L) changes course under rule 16.1 (which is not suggested here) but other than that L is under no obligation to give W room to keep clear. If W tacks off and in doing so her stern hits L she has failed to keep clear under rule 11 if she hits up to head to wind and rule 13 if she hits afterwards.

Put simply there is no obligation on the open course for L to give W enough room to be able to tack. When the boats enter the zone as described things change because W now is entitled to mark room under 18.2(b) and because of the final part of the definition this includes room to tack. L must then give W room to tack to the mark and if W's stern hits L as she does so L has failed to give mark room as defined. W would still have broken either 11 or 13 but be exonerated under rule 21 because she is sailing within mark room to which she is entitled as per the definition.

Bill ..

I think your comments do not take account of the fact that in the scenario described it is W who has to keep clear of L and not the other way round.

... thought I did when I wrote ..

" Also if W was falling down onto L such that she forced L to fall-off to provide her room to keep clear as she luffed into the tack.. W waited too long to avoid L and thus it would be W in the wrong. "

I agree that if W was initially given keep clear room, didn't take it and that room disappeared over time with L holding her course, then W's in the wrong.

Ang - remember the point in question here is what does "room to tack" mean in the final sentence of the definition of mark room and how does this make a difference to when a boat tacks that isn't entitled to mark room. We are in danger of furiously agreeing with each other that it has to mean more than the instant that the boat changes tack for all the reasons we have disscused but the question is how much more.

I think we agree that after a boat passes head to wind and before she assumes her close hauled course she is tacking (and therefore entitled to room to do it if she meets the requirements of the final sentence of the defintion of mark room) if only because this action is described in rule 13 under the heading "while tacking". My contention is that she is also entitled to room to change course from close hauled to HTW to start tacking.

In the first situation I described W and L were sailing along with W keeping clear of L as required by rule 11. If W decided to tack and her stern swung out and hit L she breaks either rule 11 or 13 and L is under no obligation to give her room. The second situation is the same as the first except that the boats have entered the zone of a starboard hand windward mark overlapped on starboard tack and therefore both have to tack. W now acquires the right to mark room under rule 18.2(b)  and this includes room to tack because of the final sentence of the definition of mark room. Now if as W tacks her stern hits L then L is in the wrong because she has not given mark room including room to tack. This is the exact opposite of the situation outside the zone.

For all this to work room to tack has to cover the whole time from when W starts the tacking mannoeuvre. 

Bill Handley said

I think we agree that after a boat passes head to wind and before she assumes her close hauled course she is tacking (and therefore entitled to room to do it if she meets the requirements of the final sentence of the defintion of mark room) if only because this action is described in rule 13 under the heading "while tacking". My contention is that she is also entitled to room to change course from close hauled to HTW to start tacking.

Bear in mind that, usually, rule 18, in its entirety will begin to apply or cease to apply when a [potentially] entitled boat passes head to wind.  This will mean, that, on your understanding of 'tacking', room to tack will only apply to EITHER a boat changing course towards the wind preparatory to passing head to wind, OR a boat, having passed head to wind, bearing away to a close hauled course.  Room will not apply throughout the whole manoeuvre.

John - I think this goes back to the old ISAF Q&A that I quoted a couple of posts ago. Prior to an inside windward boat passing head to wind rule 18 applies and she is entiled to "room to tack". After she passes head to wind rule 18 no longer applies (see 18.2(d)) however if contact ocurs at that point it shows that the outside boat had not given room to tack from the start of the manouvre. The fact that contact takes place after rule 18 ceases to apply is irrelevant as the outside boat broke the rule before the first boat passed HTW, - contact (no matter when it occurs) just proves that room to tack was never given. That was the main thrust of the ISAF Q&A.

Bill, you might like to consider why that Q&A has lapsed and is not now a Case in the Case Book.

Either the Q&A Panel did not consider that it was robust enough to be proposed as a Case;  or

The Racing Rules Committee or Council considered a proposal for a Case and rejected it because it was not a correct interpretation of the rules.

Can you tell us what the Q&A number was?

John - I'm afraid I haven't got the old Q&As so I can't give a number. I remember it very clearly as there were three parts to the question all revolving around mark room including room to tack and all broadly addressing the same point. "If the inside boat entitled to mark room including room to tack makes contact after she has passed head to wind is she sailing within mark room to which she is entitled because having passed head to wind she is now on an opposite tack from the outside boat and 18.1(a) and/or (b) would disapply rule 18 ?"
The answer was that the obligation to give room to tack starts at the point when the inside boat changes course to start tacking and at that point in time the outside boat must give her room to tack which is to change course on to her new tack. If the inside boat makes contact at any time during the tacking manoeuvre then clearly at the outset not enough room had been given so at that point (while rule 18 applied) the outside boat broke rule 18.2(b) even if the contact that proves that not enough room had been given occurs some time later.
I think it is significant that the final sentence of the definition of Mark Room it states that the inside boat must be "fetching the mark after her tack". You could only be sure of that after the boat is established on her close hauled course and that would the point her tack finishes. It is worth considering that another reason that Q&As don't make it into a case is that it is considered that the answer is covered by the rules and does not need any clarification.

Bill

I think it is significant that the final sentence of the definition of Mark Room it states that the inside boat must be "fetching the mark after her tack". You could only be sure of that after the boat is established on her close hauled course and that would the point her tack finishes.

When I first read that, I thought that was a powerful point, but as I mulled it over, it seems to me an unreasonable "anticipation" burden to the keep-clear Leeward boat.  Take the case that W tacks too soon inside the zone, and it turns out that she is short of the mark.  Wouldn't that be tough for L to judge whether or not W will be fetching after a tack in judging whether or not to give room?

Actually, your last point has put into focus my source of angst in including "luffing" maneuvers into "room to tack".

As I understand it, it seems well established in several Cases, that there is no burden of one boat to another to anticipate if the other will break a rule.  It seems to me that adding the first part of a tack, which is indistinguishable from a luff from the POV of other boats at the time of the maneuver, is requiring other boats to "read the mind" and anticipate at the time of the luff, whether or not W will ..

1) complete her tack in a continuous motion .. i.e. .. if she holds at HTW .. isn't that a luff and then a tack .. which would seen to change L's obligations
2) if it turns out she did tack, she left enough room to fetch the mark (which also would potentially change whether or not L fouled during the stern-spin).

In the end though, I think the risk of a stern-bump pales in comparison of the risks for damage and injury illustrated in my OP, which I still do not believe has a consensus.  Seeing these STB-W roundings play-out week after week .. the P-S approach scenario with a close tack at the mark from S happens much more often and is riddled with much more confusion about who has rights and when.

I'm REALLY hoping that one of the International Officials on the thread will submit both Q's to the Q&A.

Ang - I really share your hope that an International Offical gets this in as a Q&A and puts us all out of our misery.

I am sure it will come as no surprise to you that I don't buy in to the idea that giving room to tack before before a boat passes head to wind requires any mind reading. It is well established that a boat does not have to anticipate another boat breaking a rule but that is not the case here, W is not breaking a rule, she is exercising her rights under rule 18.2(b) and L's obligation is to accord her those rights. L's obligation to give mark room (including room to tack because of the relative position of the two boats) starts at the point that rule 18 starts to apply which is when the first boat enters the zone and not, as I think you are suggesting, when W starts to tack. See rule 18.2(b) which states "the outside boat at that moment shall thereafter give the inside boat mark room". That says to me that from the point that the boats enter the zone L must give room for the stern swing that will come a at some time, if she fails to do so she has not "thereafter" given W mark room as defined.

To deal with your point of W tacking and due to an error of judgement finding that she is not fetching the mark, again I see no problem. W will have broken either rule 11 or 13 in respect of L (depending on timing) and will not be exonerated under rule 21 as she is not sailing within mark room as defined. L will still have to avoid W under rule 14 but W will have to take a penalty either on the water or later in the protest room for breaking a rule.

I agree with you that the real danger is as we originally discussed is S trying to slam a lee bow tack on P who is fetching the mark and claiming exoneration of her breach of rule 13. For all the reasons I have already described I do not think S is sailing within mark room to which she is entitled because she is tacking and due to the relative position of the two boats mark room does not include room to tack. In simple terms I will call it exactly as if the mark were not there and this had happened anywhere else on the race course. The only exception is that if P gets a late inside overlap on S she is entitled to mark room although S is only obliged to give it if she is able to - rule 18.2(f).

Must go, Thursday evening racing calls.

Jim Park,

I was revisiting your document (in prep of customizing it) and I noticed a distinction that hadn't landed on me at the time, but has now after this discussion.

You preface your case with .. "If Yellow tacks right on the mark, only taking the room she requires to round the mark, my interpretation is as follows:"

Are you implying that if you took your diagram and slid the entire thing down and to the left along the port layline, such that Yellow-1 is just entering the circle at 8 o'clock on the dial, that your analysis changes?

Ang