Forum: Rule 18 and Room at the Mark
Material change in RRS 18.3
0
The requirements for 18.2 not to apply have changed:
- Under the previous rule, 18.2 did not apply (only) when a boat had been on starboard tack since entering the zone.
- Under the new rule 18.2 does not apply between her and another boat on starboard tack that is fetching the mark if “a boat passes head to wind from port to starboard tack in the zone”. This does not require that the starboard tack boat has been on starboard tack since entering the zone.
This changes the application of 18.2 when both boats tack in the zone from port to starboard tack and one of them is then fetching the mark:
- Under the previous rules, this scenario was not covered by 18.3 and therefore 18.2 had applied, particularly the old 18.2(a), granting mark-room to the inside overlapped boat.
- Under the new rules, 18.2 does not apply (because the requirements of the first sentence of 18.3 are fulfilled). Also 18.2(c) does not apply. The inside boat cannot rely on mark-room.
Do you agree?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Are you asking if we agree on the accuracy of your synopsis, or if we agree on the motive behind the rule change?
Well, yes and yes for me.
2. If you read the intention behind Submission E07-24 for the rule change, the primary reason for the change was to make the rule easier to read. It does not mention turning off rule 18.2 while 18.3 not in effect. Here is the link to the submission: Submission E07-24 PDF (Pages 10 and 11).
3.Both boats are in the zone, on the same tack, approaching a windward mark. Rule 18.1 applies, so mark-room is required. The question is, which part of rule 18 applies?
If you believe that rule 18.2 does not apply, you end up with rule 18.3 turning off rule 18.2, but not turning itself on. This creates a conflict with rule 18.1, which should not happen.
First, though it is often informative to read the submission ... the lack of something in the submission is not proof of lack of intention or outcome.
We go with what is written. The submissions are not authoritative interpretations of the RRS.
Second, the 1st sentence of 18.3 is a straightforward declarative statement. The 2nd sentence does not contain a "however" statement (or other words to that effect). The 2nd sentence only adds conditions and requirements following and based upon the 1st.
The 2nd sentence only applies when the first sentence is true.
Therefore, 1st sentence of 18.3 IS the declarative test and it is evaluated on its own ... and you only move on to the 2nd if the 1st is "true".
The leeward boat could have luffed subject to complying with 16.1.
The leeward boat breaks 31 for hitting the mark and cannot be exonerated, as it was not entitled to mark room and it has not been compelled to break a rule. It could have gone below.
If no damage leeward as row is exonerated for rrs 14, the windward boat breaks 14.
There is nothing in the rrs that says we should look at submissions for guidance. We have the rule book and the case book and occasionally a dictionary, and equipment rules.
Once both boats have passed head to wind they are both on starboard and fetching the mark. Rule 18.2 does not apply.
As neither boat entered the zone on starboard then the second part of Rule 18.3 does not apply. Interactions between the boats are governed by the rules of Section A and B
The inside boat is entitled to luff. If the windward boat does not respond then she breaks rule 11.
It depends how close to the mark the boats are after outside, windward boat does not respond as to whether the inside boat could have avoided the mark. If she could not then outside boat breaks Rule 14(c)
I agree 99%.
Im intrigued with your reasoning why 18.2 is turned off. You said:
I read the first sentence of 18.3 slightly different to achieve the same outcome.
It starts with "If a boat passes HTW..."
The condition which turns off 18.2 is a boat's action of crossing from one tack to another tack while the other is on stbd and fetching.
I don't read it that 18.2 is off because they are both on stbd and fetching.
This means that all it needs is just one boat to pass HTW while another is fetching to turn off 18.2. That's clarity is important, since it's a crux of 18.3.
OK. Someone may ask, "What if they both were on port tack and tacked to stbd at the same time?"
A fair question.
Well, proving that both boats tacked simultaneously is an infinitely tough case. Logically, in real world one would have passed HTW before the other (even if only a millionth of a nanosrcond before).
Thus, the first line of 18.3 can still be said to apply if two boats tack in what looks to be (to our mortal human eyes) as simultaneously.
Welcome thoughts on this.. Well, it's late. Apologies if I haven't been clear with my explanation.
--------------------------
@Nick, which part of 18.1 affords a boat mark-room? None. Only 18.2 and 18.3 give mark room to boats. In the case that both tacked, 18.2 doesn't apply due to first sentence, and no part of 2nd sentence of 18.3 is relevant.
Net result: No mark-room for anyone, despite 18.1 conditions still being met.
Mark-room went up in a puff of logic.
Cheers!
There is no information about which boat passed HTW first. However, as we know that both of them did, we know that the 18.3 conditions for switching off 18.2 are met. So no need to investigate further.
I'm just trying then to fine tune the wording of the conclusion to be consistent with the condition of the first sentence in 18.3...for the benefit of anyone trying to learn from this.
Perhaps we could settle on this:
Once both boats have passed head to wind they are bothon starboard and fetching the mark. Rule 18.2 does not apply.I do agree though, that the on-the-water application of the first sentence reduces back down to 'if both tacked in the zone'...but the condition still remains met only because one tacked after the other. A subtle but important difference, key to helping people understand 18.3.
---------------
In fact, looking more closely at Reinhard's OP, I would probably suggest his middle sentence needs updating similarly. He said:
Thanks Nick
If a boat tacks in the zone here 18.2 is off.
Secondly is a boat is fetching the mark and has been on starboard then they get certain rights.
I see nothing to link one to the other.
It’s like the rules are playing rock-paper-scissors… with themselves.
If 18.1 did not apply how could we invoke 18.3?
Do you have a link to the rya guidance?
Love to get my head a round this.
Thanks Nick
When the RRS make a declarative statement and then "claw back" the provisions of that statement, the RRS uses either "however", "except" or "notwithstanding" (90.3(e) as example). There may be other words used .. but those are the main 3.
There are many many examples in the RRS of "however". Just start reading the rules under RRS 60 ... however is extensively used. Also RRS 44.1, RRS 32.1 .. etc.
"Except" and "Exceptions" you can read through for the rules of Part 4. Lots there.
In this instance, there are no negating or carve-out statements in RRS 18.3 that negate the effect of 18.3's first sentence.
If the 1st sentence of RRS 18.3 is satisfied, RRS 18.2 is does not apply between the boats ... and nothing later in 18.3 turns 18.2 back on.
Rule 18.1 applies as both boats are on the same tack in the. Thus mark room applies, Then 18.3 1st sentence turns off 18.2 but does not turn its self on.
So 18.1 on, 18.2 off, 18.3 off = goodbye mark-room!
Saying "Thus mark room applies" can be confusing. RRS 18.1 says "Rule 18 applies ... ", not "mark room applies".
Yes ... Rule 18 applies between the boats ... but there is no rule within Rule 18 that conveys MR to either boat if they both tacked in the zone and the starboard boat is fetching the mark.
Thanks for the link to your previous thread. Yes, it did cover most of the stuff.
Looking at your scenario though - Inside & Outside pass HTW simultaneously - I'm not sure.
You state that from POV of each boat when she passes HTW, the other boat is on stbd and fetching.
Well, I asked ChaptGPT the question:
If two boats tack simultaneously, can either be said to have tacked to starboard, while the other is on starboard?
It concluded:
If two boats tack simultaneously, neither can be said to have tacked to starboard while the other is already on starboard tack, because both are in the process of tacking at the same time. Rule 18.3-1st sentence does not apply in such a situation, as it requires a clear distinction between one boat tacking and the other already being on starboard tack.
So that's why I prefer the logical argument that simultaneous tacking just doesn't happen in the real world. One tacks before the other if you zoom in enough.
But the discussion is so moot, that it is only theoretical musing.
Let's look at the specific language of 18.3 .. (emphasis added)
Both "on starboard" and "is fetching" are simple present-tense. This is in contrast to the tense in the 2nd sentence, which is "has been on".
When both boat's pass HTW precisely at the same singular moment, they are each on starboard tack. Passing HTW and being on Starboard Tack in this scenario are the same moment in time.
At the moment each boat passes HTW, each boat asks themselves, "What tack is the other boat on?"
The answer for both of them is "starboard tack". Ipso Facto!
Nothing in 18.1 refers to room is says all of 18 applies if one boat is in the zone.
So 18.2 and 18.3 may apply.
18.3 switches 18.2 off in certain circumatances, but it is always on.
I think that the change to rule 18.3 is in part to resolve Case 133.
I totally see where you are coming from. Just something inside tells me Einstein and his pals would have a great debate on this.
I don't think the rule makers will bother to account for simultaneous tacking given it is infinitely unlikely. Even old Case 133 only gets as close to 'Quick succession'.
Let's leave it at that then. Good stuff! Good chat!
The other point of my input here is my main point.
Any scenario conclusion should revolve around the condition of the rule. In this case, it's that one boat tacked while the other was on stbd fetching.
@Mark,
I believe you're right about Case 133. Thanks for the reminder.