I thought this deserved its own thread.
Seems many feel that tacking or to tack includes bearing off to a close-hauled course. Personally, given "room to tack" was in def: mark-room all those years could not have meant that ...at least in that context (I hope we aren't saying that "room to tack" meant one thing in def:MR and another in RRS 20).
Anyway ... why endure this mystery? Can't we have a clear definition of this term since it's so basic?
Here's my proposal (draft submission). Upon examination, there are 2 different styles of defining verbs in Definitions. We have fetching and racing, and then we have start and finish, each pair phrased in a similar way. I decided to follow-suit with the fetching/racing style .. but maybe following start/finish could be clearer.
Please make suggestions or comments.
Tack, Starboard or Port; [Tacking/to Tack]
A boat is on the tack, starboard or port, corresponding to her windward side. [A boat is tacking from the moment she passes head to wind until she is on a close-hauled course.]
Then RRS 13 can be simpler (if one wanted to leverage the term).
13. WHILE TACKING
After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course. [While tacking, a boat shall keep clear of other boats.] During that time rules 10, 11 and 12 do not apply. If two boats are subject to this rule at the same time, the one on the other's port side or the one astern shall keep clear.
The benefit ... clarity in the use of the term and clarity in "room to tack"
Or it might be clearer to split the noun & verb into two separate definitions.
Kett
In at least two rules the word tack is used twice with different meanings:
We Jibe, when passing the stern through the wind.
Could we define and use the phrase " coming about" when referencing passing head to wind?
I can't think of very many scenarios where the proper course for a boat would be to sail just past HTW and not continue down to at least close-hauled. So I think we are good there.
That's why I put "to tack" in the definition alongside "tacking". The option there would be to italicize both "to tack" or just "tack" and let the "to" guide to the verb definition.
This brings up the benefit of the other verb-style .. used in "start" and "finish". In those styles, the phasing is "A boat starts/finishes/tacks when, .."
I thought of a couple approaches using that style.
One would be say (noun) and (verb).
You can see above it incorporates both tacks and "to tack". I'm not sure that's clearer. I think I like the first one better.
Another interesting case is a boat that passed HTW, but never gets down to close hauled, but instead passes back through HTW. In this case are they still tacking when they are back on the original tack? I think so as they have effectively tacked twice but not completed the second tack. Thus perhaps this could be clarified with:
A boat is tacking from the moment they change tack by passing head to wind, until they are on a close-hauled course on either tack
Edit: added "change" that I thought was there
Regarding a boat changes tack instantaneously .. yes .. that's correct. In that use, tack is the noun form and "change" is the verb ... so not a problem and that change of tack can be done doing passed HTW or gybing the main.
We use these terms easily all the time, intermixing the noun and verb forms.
The bigger question is whether or not this is the actual correct definition. That "to tack" includes coming down to close-hauled.
Since tacking refers to the verb form and tacking end at close hauled, then "to tack" must be the long form and not the instantaneous "to change tack". I think my proposed form of words is technically not necessary, but makes that distinction clear but using the phrase "change tack" described as a moment.
As for pronouns, either there plural or singular works and the choice of either doesn't require anybody to SHOUT any anybody else!
So I still like:
A boat is on the tack, starboard or port, corresponding to her windward side. A boat is tacking from the moment she changes tack by passing head to wind, until she is on a close-hauled course on either tack.
Anyway ... putting in "change tacks" is unnecessary as that happens automatically when a boat passes HTW .. so it's redundant.
I've interfaced with the Rules Comms with different (insert hair brain) proposals of mine over the years and they are reductionists at heart. They trim and trim until only what is necessary is there.
For historical perspective, there were two main reasons why the proposed definition of "tacking", meaning being past head to wind and not yet on a close-hauled course, was removed from the RRS in 1997: (1) We had a general principle that if a definition only applies to one or two rules, and the concept can be stated briefly, it's better to have the words in the rule itself than in a definition; and (2) More importantly, we try to have definitions that refine the ordinary meanings of words, rather than imposing some artificial meaning*. That allows the reader to get a good idea of what a rule says without referring to the definition; once they have that idea, they can read the definition and refine their understanding. In ordinary terminology, "tacking" is the maneuver that begins with luffing up above close hauled, then passing head to wind, and then bearing off to a close-hauled course. For example, if you're crewing on a racing boat and the skipper says, "Tacking in 3, 2, 1 ... Tacking", they're not talking about when they will pass head to wind -- they're talking about when they will put the helm down to ... well, tack.
The verb "tack" and the noun associated with it are used several times in the RRS, and in the Case Book and Call Books, with the ordinary meaning. For example, match-race Call N6 says that says a boat that passes head to wind and then goes back through head to wind is not tacking, because "tacking" means going from close-hauled on one tack to close-hauled on the other.
The proposed definition is, in my opinion, a step backwards, and not desirable. If we were to have that definition, we would never be able to know what a person means when they say a boat is tacking -- does that mean the boat is tacking, or that she is tacking?
*We don't always succeed, as shown by the definition Obstruction, which does not require that the defined object obstructs anything.
I totally agree that it is technically redundant. However, I believe that it is not functionally redundant, as it adds clarity by using the noun and verb form in the same phrase. Specifically it illustrates the key difference between "changing tack" (a momentary thing) and "tacking" ( a prolonged state). Note that you cannot just say "change tack" there because you can "change tack" by gybing. So it adds further clarity expanding that you do not need to tack in order to change tack. But yes it could be reduced to:
Until this year, the phrase "room to tack" was both in def: MR and RRS 20. Now it's only in RRS 20. (it being in def:MR and the fact that MR turned off after passing HTW created confusion of the meaning of the term).
So, what is "room to tack"? Now that it's out of def:MR, the questions introduced by its presence there are no longer an issue.
I think there is still ambiguity in that phrase. Maybe it doesn't need a def ...but how about proposing a Case to add clarity?
Here are simple Facts/Q's/A's.
If "to tack"/"tacking" .. .
Facts:
port-tack beat to weather, 1 boat width apart, approach a breakwater.Q1:
A:???
Q2: what if L had to pause her turn just past HTW to avoid contact with W, and came to a near stop .. and then protested W. Can W successfully claim that she gave L "room to tack and avoid her" based on the fact that L eventually reached close-hauled and avoided her?
A:????
Q3: what if the contact happens before L reaches HTW, is she sailing within her "room to tack" and therefore is exonerated for breaking 16.1? (if "to tack" includes the maneuver that begins with luffing-up ... ")
A:???
Niko, I like your thinking when you say:
However, I am surprised that no one has gone back to their basic English grammar classes at school. As used in your examples the italicised 'tack' and 'tacks' are both nouns. In the other two cases where the word is used in the infinitive form of the verb ... 'to tack'.
From the Oxford English dictionary we are reminded of the many forms of the word:
We could just go back to language basics and define "tack (n)" and "tack (v)" separately in the definitions which would ensure that all of the different noun and verb forms are covered by the appropriate definition. I note that 'tacking' is an interesting one in that it can be both 'gerund' or a 'present participle' although I sincerely hope no one's brain is bleeding as a consequence of this thought.
Then I look at the definition of 'Start' a couple of lines above and wonder is this the noun or the verb? It is clearly a verb but when we talk about the 'start' in our SIs it is generally a noun. Ho hum!
In a perfect world, we'd change the noun to a different world like "board". So a body could be on starboard board, on port board and they could changed board.
Tacking is just one way to change board. It so happens that we have a crucial rule that switches on halfway through the common usage of the verb taking and ends sometime after three instantaneous change of board/tack.
So it probably is good to define what is meant in the rule rather than the definition. RRS13 is pretty clear. But, as Angelo says, RRS20 is not so clear.
Room to tack had to be more than the RRS13 interpretation of tacking since 13 doesn't consider the luff as part of the tack, but obviously rrs20 room to tack must include room to luff up into that tack.
So I guess rrs20 should get interpreted with the common language meaning of tacking and to tack
That said .. I have a lot of respect for Rob O's opinions on these matters. Over the years, he's been my unofficial reality-checker for the several (insert hare-brained) submissions I've made to the USS Rules Comm. If he doesn't think it's the right approach, it probably won't go far.
That's why I changed to the Case idea. We can get to the same place using a case.
So ... what are the Answers to the 3 Questions posed? Can we apply Rob's asserted general understanding of the term and apply it successfully?
Ang
Q1: In Q1, L begins her tack before and turns faster than W. If in the absence of W this would be her seamanlike rate of turn for a tack in the conditions, does her room include her ability to maneuver at that rate?
Q2: Q2 is exploring the same question in a diff way. W controls L after passing HTW forcing her to hold just-past HTW and stopping her rate of turn. Is this a seamanlike maneuver in terms of tacking? Or, do we adopt a similar framework as in "tactical" rounding?
Is a smooth tack which preserves boat speed and VMG a "tactical tack" ... and something a keep clear boat sailing within "room to tack" does not have the right to? ... and pausing past HTW in the middle of a tack is a seamanlike maneuver?
Q3: Q3 is straightforward. Does "room to tack" include luffing to HTW and if so, does it provide a path to exoneration for breaking 16.1?
So Greg, do you really want to change "tack(n)" to another word? So, what new words would you proposed for say the nouns 'run', 'walk' or 'crawl'?
'tack(n)' is clearly either 'port' or 'starboard'.
'to tack(v)', on the other hand, appears to be problemmatic given that it appears to have a different definition in R13 and R20. Perhaps R13 could refer simply to 'tacking' while R20 refers to 'luffing' + 'tacking'.
But of course that ignores the "common usage" of the 'tacking' term(s) as you noted. Ideally the 'common use' understanding should match the RRS and all official interpretations. Maybe this is where we need a new term to describe that part of the tacking manoevure after HTW.
I'm not proposing a new word (because we don't live in a perfect world). I discussed how if we did use "board" instead of "tack" then it is clearer to me the grammatical issues trying to be solved.
I am also embracing Rob's view that you can't defines your way out of this at it is better for individual rules to be clear in their own right. RRS13 is good, but as Angelo had pointed out with this thread, RRS20 is not so clear.
I concluded that the common usage of the phrase "to tack" should apply to RRS20 and I think Angelo 's current suggestion is to use a case to further clarify that usage.
Re R20: My view is that 'room' impies the act of 'luffing' to HTW phase of the manoeuvre. After we have passed HTW we have changed tack and started the 'tacking' phase which ends when a close-hauled course is reached. This could be better described in R20.
That said, it is interesting to note the 'patterns' applied (or not applied) to the rules of Part C. Rules 18 and 19 both start with "When Rule XX Applies" whereas R20 does not. Furthermore, the second sentece of R20.1 and related subclauses effectively describe when R20 applies albeit in the negative (note the "unless") ... which is I am sure as confusing as hell to most punters ;-)
So, maybe we should create a new 20.1 titled "When Rule 20 Applies" based on the 'unless' bit of R20.1.
This would of course mean that existing rules 20.1 through to 20.4 would need to be renumberd which is a pain for anyone responsible for writing SIs!
As far as creating a new 'case' is concerned, I disagree. It is my understanding that the purpose of the Case Book is to determine how the interaction of multiple rules should be interpreted in a given situation. That is to say, if a case involves just one rule and its interpretation then that rule probably needs to be fixed!
The following state diagram might help with some of what I have said previously:
Please note that the each box represents a 'state' that exists for more than just a moment. Below the line in each box is the 'event' which initiates the transition from one state to the next.
Case 21 discusses components of room. We are talking about "room to tack" .. so Case 21 should be applicable. Last sentence of the last paragraph is particularity helpful I think.
Ok ... so can we apply that to answer Q1, Q2 & Q3 assuming that "to tack" is "from a close-hauled course, luffing up to and past HTW and then falling off to a close-hauled course"?
(Scenario Reminder: 2 boats L & W starboard tack beat, 1 BW apart, obstruction ahead. L hails "room to tack". W "you tack". Both boats tack, with L starting her tack before W. )
A1: Yes. L's "room to tack" includes room for her to fall off to a close-hauled course after passing HTW. L's room includes space to maneuver promptly in a seamanlike way, which in this case means in an ordinary and normal manner (see Case 21). Therefore, as long as L's tack-maneuver was not executed in an extraordinary or abnormal manner, she is exonerated under 43.1(b) & (c) for breaking rules 13 and 14 since no damage or injury occurred.
W breaks 20.2(c) and is not exonerwted.
A2: No. W was required to provide L space to maneuver promptly in a normal manner. It is neither prompt nor normal for a boat to stop its tack mid-way when changing tacks on a beat to windward. Therefore W does not provide L "room to tack" and breaks 20.2(c).
A3: The same as Answers 1 & 2. L's "room to tack" includes space for her to luff up to HTW in a seamanlike way. As long as L maneuvers in an ordinary and normal manner during the luff portion of her tack, she is sailing within room she is entitled to and is exonerated by 43.1(b) for breaking RRS16.1 and by 44.1(c) for breaking RRS 14, as long as there is no injury or damage from the contact.
-------
PS: David re: "As far as creating a new 'case' is concerned, I disagree. It is my understanding that the purpose of the Case Book is to determine how the interaction of multiple rules should be interpreted in a given situation. That is to say, if a case involves just one rule and its interpretation then that rule probably needs to be fixed!"
That's not correct. WS Cases are authoritative interpretations of the RRS. (from RRS Introduction: Interpretations). It can be a single rule/definition or even a word or phrase used in a rule (for instance "damage", "serious damage" ... or even "room" here in Case 21).
We have rrs 13 to say you do not get any rights back till on a clossehaulled course. This needed to be specified as tacking is shorter.
In the rrs 20 and the leeward tacking faster. Firstly it should not, but after what i call a tack the new leeward boats right to luff are you taking this basic right away.
How I'm approaching this at this point is ..
1st: make an assumption of what "to tack" means
2nd: apply what I can find about "room" to answer questions regarding what it means to be entitled to "room to tack".
As we found here on the forum and in our discussions Sunday, some folk think the common use/understanding of "to tack" is going from close-hauled on one-tack, through HTW and then down to close-hauled on the other tack. Others (such as yourself) have a smaller window in mind.
In this first go-around, for the sake of discussion, I assumed that "to tack" included the space to luff up and the space to fall-off. So, given that .. yes, the new leeward boat's right to luff is restricted until they have provided the new windward boat space to come down to a close-hauled course (finish their tack). At that point, the new windward boat has been given "room to tack" and after that is no longer sailing within that room (and not entitled to exoneration for breaking 13 or 14).
When you read RRS 20's "room to tack", what does that mean to you? At what points of sail is a boat that is entitled to "room to tack", sailing within that room? It's a completely different set of answers depending upon how the bounds of that room is defined.
The word "Room" is really misused in "room to Tack" as RRS 20 goes in other directions.
It defines what has to be done, tack or call you tack. Really the use of the word room is misused or redefined for this rule. No where if the hailed boat tacks is an obligation to give room to tack made.
You only get the tack by the windward boat or the hail. With the hail there are other responsibilities on the boat calling you tack.
When tacking up a shore I would hail, wait for the other boat to tack and then tack but coast in the slack water before falling onto a close-hauled course, Is the to be stopped? or controlled ?.
There is really no "Room" at all.
In ordinary speech we call tacking generally when going from close-hauled on one tack to close-hauled on the other. She (a boat) tacks by passing head to wind.
You normally get no additional rights when luffing to head to wind, and RRS 13 takes away any rights falling down to close-hauled.
I see no concept that gives rights to the hailing boat, or tacking boat from beyond head to wind to close-hauled when the hailed boat tacks.
In RRS 20, the word "room" is italicized. It's definitely RRS def: room that is in "room to tack".
So we can also apply your "to tack" being basically "passing thru HTW" .. then "room to tack" is only room to pass thru HTW. As soon as the boat is past HTW her room stops.
Is that what you are saying?
Let me start by saying that RRS need to be clear and concise.
Unfortunately, they often fail in this regard.
Angelo mentions Case 21 as being necessary to explain the detailed thinking behind 'room', 'mark room', etc. I believe that once this is understood and agreed the thinking behind the relevant rules of the RRS becomes easier to understand and interpret.
I think we all need to agree on the various 'states' and 'events' involved.
Being a Case though, it is an authoritative interpretation of those terms.
I am home and have now seen case 21. It will emerge much edited i believe. It's comments on room to tack were based in the overlapped boats in rrs 18 now removed.
Despite the title rrs 20 in responding if the hailed boat tacks no responsibility to give room to tack is imposed on her.
She only has to give this room if she hails you tack. Then the boat has to be able to pass head to wind. I see no requirement to allow her to get to a close hauled course, she is a tacking boat, and other cases say she can be forced to tack back. I have not had chance to consider this today, but the guidance probably lies here.
RRS20 uses the word "tack" both in italics (as defined) and without. This is clearly deliberate and thus the non italic usage should not have the precise definition applied to it. My understanding is that if a word is not defined in the rules then it's common usage would apply.
I believe common usage of "to tack" is a lot more than simply to pass HTW. I would argue that common usage would include the luff up to HTW and the bear away sufficient to sail away on the opposite board.
That common usage also aligns with the intent of rule 20, i.e. to allow a keep-clear boat to avoid an obstruction. If the room was only to pass HTW, then that would exclude being able to luff (if constrained by 17) up to HTW, nor to sail away from the obstruction.
In short, if the word is not in italics, then don't try to put a precise definition on it, and instead look to the intent of the rule.
I think Rule 20 allows for more than just room to do the tacking. It says "A boat may hail for room to tack and avoid a boat on the same tack by hailing 'Room to tack'."
So even a stingy definition of tacking is ok because you still get enough room to "avoid" the other boat.
That's part of why I'd suggest leaving the definitions alone. It only seems to come up in Rule 13 and Rule 20. In Rule 20, it doesn't matter. In Rule 13, it just makes a rule that is easy to read as-is a bit harder, since you have to page over to the definitions to get it.
So, what's my point?
I'm glad you asked ;-)
The rules of section C all involve a complex series of states punctuated by certain events. These rules are not written consistently and are probably the most confusing and misunderstood in the Blue Book.
We could probably start by adding a "When Rule 20 Applies" section but that would probably just be adding a bit of garnish to a dog's breakfast.
It is my belief that all of the rules of section C need to be reviewed and (potentially) rewritten to ensure they cover the full set of events and states completely and in an absolutely consistent manner.
Dan, I think we are away from changing the def and on to a potential case (unless the different ideas of what it means demonstrated by this thread convinces someone that they should simple state what "to tack" means.)
I'd be happy with a case.