Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Combining RRS 17 and RRS 18.4 - What it might look like
2
Here's a go at it ..
17.ON THE SAME TACK[OVERLAPPED]; PROPER COURSE
17.1 If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above her proper course while they remain on the same tack and overlapped within that distance, unless in doing so she promptly sails astern of the other boat.
17.2 When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat [is inside the zone of a mark that she] must gybe ata markto sail her proper course, until she gybes she shall sail not further from the mark than needed to sailthat[her proper] course. Rule18.4[17.2] does not apply at a gate mark.
Couple notes:
- I added the condition of being inside the zone of the mark
- Now that "Sail the Course" is a defined term, using the phrase "sail that course" in 18.4 is less obvious. It only costs one more word, so I think swapping "that" with "her proper" makes it much clearer (I've been reading other comments on the forum and I'm not the only one who is swapping "the" for "that" in 18.4).
- Do we want to add a 2 or 3 boat length trigger (like RRS 17.1) for 18.4? As it is written now, technically a boat could break 18.4 and be the only boat in the zone.
When put together like this, it seems to make sense to me. Thoughts?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
I need to read more closely over time, but just as an idea to solve 'that' issue.... have the words 'proper course' only once. Perhaps you don't need the first instance...
I'm happy with where rule 18.4 is - tucked away nicely in Section C - AT MARKS AND OBSTRUCTIONS - just where one would expect to find it.
Cheers, hope you're keeping well.
Now 18.1(b) and MR(c)'s "leave it astern" can't touch it.
Regarding saying "proper course" 2x, it doesn't bother me as the 2 uses are different applications of the term "proper course".
The first use is a conditional test (an if/when) and the 2nd is limitation bounding the course that can be sailed.
PS: Doing fine, thanks! Heading down to the boatyard to do some fairing on my 105. Fun fun.
This seems like a solution looming for a problem to me.
So I do not see any benefit by trying to combine these two rules. And it moves a reference about mark obligations out of R 18.
John
I think the problem is 18.1(b) shutting down 18.4 prematurely, perhaps before starboard's gybe.
(Perhaps that's the rule which needs modifying. instead Ang.) Consider this..
Anyway...
Yes, 18.4 is about marks, but it's connection to mark-room and premature expiry when it is still needed is problematic. It is given way to much weight of importance in discussions, which is in some cases dangerous.
(I'm sure everyone who has ever done a rules lecture on 18.4, has spent 90% of the time trying to explain what the proper course is, and tactical roundings vs seamanlike rounding's, and inside boat having the rights to room, and what mark-room is.
I'm as guilty as the next guy.
But, my points are that 18.4 doesn't confer anything to the port boat - at least that's how it should be taught.)
R17 is generally about proper course and so is 18.4. Also 18.4 is more similar to 17 than any other rule. It's a limitation on RoW, rather than any giving of rights to room. So perhaps Section B is appropriate,
So I can see the reason for Ang's muses. I'm not sure if they'll get anywhere though.
I had actually never considered their similarities before.
To John and Phil's points ... yea 18.4 had to do with a mark ... but our point is it has nothing to do with who is/is not entitled to Mark Room (which is the heart of 18).
On the other hand, 17 and 18.4 both have nearly the same limit on ROW's course ... which is to bound that course by the limits of "proper course" envelope. Is there any other rule in the RRS that does so?
Given that similarity and the fact that 18.4 has nothing to do with who does or does not get mark-room .. it makes sense to me.
Only 17 and 18.4 limit a boat to sail within a proper course... no higher than.. or no further than...
There are numerous other times proper course appears in the RRS, but these are as conditions for a rule...'don't do this unless on pc'... or '23.2 doesn't apply when the boat is on her pc.'
Have you considered just deleting 18.4? I understand 18.4 was developed as a safety rule to protect foredeck crew by setting a limit on an inside ROW boat. 18.4 is a source of confusion among competitors. It applies at a leeward mark, but not a leeward gate. It invokes proper course which adds to the fun.
I believe 18.4 first appeared in the 1997-2000 quad which was a major reorganization of the racing rules. I cannot find the submission which gave birth to it.
If 18.4 is not needed at a leeward gate, is it really needed at a leeward mark?
Precisely.
I've often said that I believed "proper course" was the most misunderstood and misapplied concept/term/rule in the book.
Maybe putting together the only 2 rules that actually use "proper course" to limit a boat's course would turn a light bulb on?
Maybe a better new-rule 17 title would be "Course Limits; Proper Course" with a little "explainer" under 17.0 to hit the point home.
Wow. I think if we had that in the rules ... with 17 and 18.4 combined ..: maybe people would finally understand the only 2 circumstances where the cry "sail your proper course" actually has meaning!
I really like the statement that '..a boat's course is not limited by her proper course, except..'That really establishes the basic idea first, then exceptions 2nd.
You know ... we say that ALL THE TIME ... but it's nowhere in the rules except after a process of elimination ... but it's so fundamental, maybe a rule simply stating it has benefit.
Here it is all together ...
After that, I'm seeing an opportunity to teach proper course in the RRS themselves, by putting in the rules the statement that boats are not restricted to their PC, except is very specific circumstances.
Sort'of a compounding benefits argument.
----------------------------------
Mark,
This thread is the accumulation of a number of other discussions and points raised.
There was a significant proportion of folk who concluded that if the mark is left astern at any time, mark-room ends.
2. Mar-25 - I recently started a thread about 18.4 and the dangers of how this is being coached with too much focus on mark-room and not enough focus on Rule 10.
Out of that discussion is the notion that 18.4 has actually nothing to do with mark-room.
Also out of that came the point that if the mark is left astern and mark-room is 'given' before the gybe (if you agree with that) then 18.4 is off per 18.1(b). Meaning that the limitation to RoW (18.4) could expire before it's served its purpose!
As mentioned, I don't personally believe mark-room is off, but I do agree that 18.4 is not a mark-room rule. Moving it out of R18, could put the focus back on R10 per my original concern. So I'm happy to muse how it would look elsewhere in the book (or deleted altogether). It''s location is not crucial to my original and main concern about the dangers of mis-coaching this rule to beginner sailors, and seems to solve some other issues.
Hope that helps.
Section C Preamble
Section C rules do not apply between boats when the mark or obstruction referred to in those rules is a starting mark surrounded by navigable water or its anchor line, from the time the boats are approaching it to start until they have left it astern.
Does a start line constitute a gate?
If not, I'm trying to think when a start mark would also be a gybe mark. Perhaps at an incredibly biased line?
I don't know.
Downwind start! An easterly wind at the start of the Fastnet Race would certainly lead to some lively hails at the starting mark!
But is the line a gate? Ang's wording says his rule doesn't apply at a gate.
If not a gate mark, does a boat need to gybe at any downwind start mark? (18.4 only applies when a gybe is necessary.). A massively biased start (perhaps constrained by land) I suppose. But it would be rare.
If the rule survives those two hurdles, what is the undesirable outcome?
There may well be some, but I haven't thought about it enough yet. None spring to mind.
I wonder if anyone else can think of any?
But at the end of the day, adding "Except at start marks..." would solve this.
PS: Given that Section B is "General Limitations", it's seems to make sense that "Course Limits" could be found there.
Isn't that the behavior we'd want at a downwind start to get everyone across the line and down the course? If not, we can leave "or starting" in there.
A gate appears to necessitate a preceding mark, which means a start line may not align with the Sail the Course definition.
At a downwind start Yellow is on starboard, Blue is on port. Yellow needs to gybe to sail her proper course. At the starting signal. Does Yellow immediately break the proposed rule 17.2? That would seem like a bit of a game change.
She would not immediately break P17.2 just like a windward boat that just luffed HTW before the gun doesn't immediately break 17 at the gun. She has time to fall off after the gun to assume her proper course.
Without adding "and starting" to P17.2, Yellow would need to initiate her gybe after the gun.
PS: your drawing shows Yellow on port.
Anyway, I think you're right - unforeseen game changes may be undesirable, so Ang's solution to include the words "does not apply at a gate [or starting] mark" easily restores the current order!!
Doc Sullivan,
The event calls are pretty much how I see the rules at the mark. I'm sure any casebook call will be similar. Thanks for sharing. Comforting to know.
Perhaps these calls would be more pertinent in the original discussion of Dec-24 or even Mar-25. The main theme behind this thread is to clearly separate the requirements of 18.4 from 'mark-room' for all sorts of reasons (not only the expiry point.)
I think that the simplicity of the Section A and Section B rules make the rules simpler to read, learn, and apply. Each rule handles one, clearly defined situation. Each rule is short. (Rule 16.2 sneaks in an extra situation, but is so common sensical it is not hard to remember.) The current section also makes learning the rules more approachable. Keep the simple stuff simple.
Putting all of the mark-related rules in one place is also important. The user knows where to go, how to study, etc. Also, if you have a section for "At Marks and Obstructions," and you put Mark and Obstruction rules in other places, that's affirmatively confusing.
Organizing the rules by "when do I need this rule" seems to align with the mental model involved when sailing and using the rules.
So I think 18.4's current location is where it belongs.
Unless, of course, it leaves the RRS altogether... I'm not sure I see a problem with that, actually. It is a strange limitation. It limits the freedom of the right-of-way boat that also has mark-room rights and that hasn't necessarily chosen to be the leeward boat -- a limitation that only appears because of the presence of the mark, it doesn't exist elsewhere on the course. I don't really remember it ever coming up on the water in fleet racing. Anything that would make rule 18 shorter and simpler would be welcome.
(As an aside, I don't like the "Section C rules do not apply" design, because it is a critically important rule, but it is not actually a rule -- rules have numbers -- or a definition, etc. It is placement denotes it as supplementary but actually is is more important and is in active operation at almost every start; it comes up more often than some of the actual A, B, and C rules, like 18.4.)
(Just so you know, my case is more about a port rounding gybe mark, with boats on opposite tack converging at high speeds. That's where the danger lays as coaches are teaching port boats that they can rely on starboard's gybe.
Starboard-rounding rule 11 case not so much of an issue.)
All,
I was trying to think, what the purpose of 18.4 is. Safety? Fairness? Race organisation? Aren't these the normal reasons for rules.
I suspect it's there for 'safety'. If so, I still stress that perhaps it is actually not working.
If for fairness (to stop a boat being sailed off the course) then what's the point? Port/windward should pay more attention next time.
Hmmm..