Forum: Rule 18 and Room at the Mark
Mark Room at the Finish
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
- International Race Officer
- International Umpire
- International Judge
0
Two boats, Yellow and Blue, close-hauled on port tack, approached the starboard end of the finish line. Neither boat is fetching the Mark. Yellow was clear ahead of Blue when she reached the Zone. Blue became overlapped to windward of Yellow inside the Zone. The wind shifted left 15 degrees. Yellow and Blue tacked simultaneously in the Zone with Yellow becoming overlapped to windward of Blue. Blue finished ahead of Yellow about ¼ of the way down the finish line from the starboard end finish boat.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
2. Don't know, don't care. At no stage in the diagram are boats close enough for there to be any question about room of any kind. In particular @2 when Y hails protest, B is not failing to give Y room. But if B does tack before Y, the instant B passes head to wind, she ceases to be required to give Y mark-room, because rule 18 no longer applies (rule 18.1a or b). B is, of course required to keep clear of Y (rule 13).
3. Once both boats were on starboard tack, rule 18.3 does not apply, rule 18.2b does not apply, so rule 18.2a applies and Y, overlapped inside is entitled to mark-room. Apparently Y did not hit either B or the RC vessel, so B gave her the mark-room to which she was entitled. No boat broke a rule.
“mark-room for a boat does not include room to tack unless she is overlapped inside and to windward of the boat required to give mark-room and she would be fetching the mark after her tack.” Here Y is would be inside, but not overlapped, or to windward, so the tack is not included in her mark-room.
And 19.1.a and def “mark” tells that 19 doesn’t apply here either.
Like john said, after tack, in pos 3 18.2a applies. But if no contact with anything happened, no rule was broken in my view.
Yellow is clear ahead when she gets to the zone and blue owes her mark room but that mark room does not include room to tack (definition).
But both boats tack, and 18(b) and 18(c) cease to apply thereafter, according to 18(d). Rule 18(a) still applies (or applies anew?) and as they pass the mark yellow has mark room on blue. There is no restriction on the timeliness of Yellow's 18(a) overlap after the tack beyond the limitations of 18(f), but the diagram indicates no issues.
So "yes, no (but it's moot), no."
Obviously these were children in Opti equivalents.
A knowledgeable racer protesting at position 2 would be violating RRS 2.
If Y had pinched a little and closed the gap, in either case, her prospects would be much better.
As a side note, if this would be match race, then Y's mark-room would include the tack and B would need to keep clear through out the whole situation :)
There is no principle of sportsmanship that says it is unsportsmanlike to make a mistake in applying the rules.
Case 138 Answer 3 is clear that "A misjudgment [..] is common during a race and is not unfair sailing or an act of misconduct.".
Also .. Case 47 discusses "A boat that deliberately hails “Starboard” when she knows she is on port tack has not acted fairly, and has broken rule 2.". In the OP, yelling "protest" does not do anything to cause avoiding action or confusion on the part of the other boat. A boat can protest another boat, misjudging the situation and the rules, without breaking Rule 2.
Now, if the Yellow had yelled "Room to Tack!", that would have been another story. Blue would have had no choice but to tack or reply "you tack", but then Blue would be in the right to protest Yellow. (see Case 10) and could protest Yellow on 20.1(a). I think only if it was determined by the PC that Yellow knew Rule 20 did not apply and called for room-to-tack anyway, that it could break Rule 2.
Deliberately calling mark room + protest, pretty much in one breath, in such a relationship would deserve a close RRS 2 examination, in my book.
I don't think scrabbling after rule 2 at every opportunity does the game any good.
Could you please state the 'recognised principle of sportsmanship and fair play' to you think is 'violated' by:
Given the cases and arguement Ang has cited, what argument do you present that the 'violation' you allege is 'clearly established' as required by rule 2?
Obviously enough, I don't agree that the behaviour you have describes 'deserves a close RRS 2 examination', or in fact, any examination at all, unless and until a valid protest comes before a protest committee.
And if I were serving on the fantail of the finish line boat and felt a Case 47-style episode occurred, I would file that protest.
The violation of "recognized" principle of sportsmanship I would invoke is "bullying."
Also see your SafeSport guidelines.
PS: The important point above ... “Bullying involves a(n) ..... pattern ...”, and a pattern takes more than 1 incident or element to establish.
We are SO close!
Your job and mine is to report even marginal episodes and let experts diagnose and resolve them.
You have mis-read "or" for "and." A pattern is not required.
Still, RRS 2 is not as specific. And I would apply it in the scenario I described.
Philip, I can agree that a single incident can constitute "bullying", but that single incident would have to be quite significant and overtly abusive .. yelling a derogatory slur, belittling and insulting language, etc.
One opti sailor calling "starboard" when they know they are on port or "room to tack" when they know they aren't entitled to it, does not constitute bullying unless it is part of an ongoing pattern of intimidation. It's just trying to trick someone into doing something instinctively out of a sense of danger/safety, which is simply unsportsmanlike.
I don't think that using the socially-charged-term "bullying" so quickly serves the youth in the sport. IMO it's an unnecessary escalation in the instances sited unless part of a larger picture of behavior.
Warren, looking at the original-post-drawing, would you say Yellow is "tacking to windward" of Blue? ..
What is the test to determine if a boat is "tacking to windward"?
Yea .. that's the first image that comes to my mind as well, but 18(f) doesn't say ... "by tacking to windward [from the opposite tack to the same tack] of the other boat .."
Interesting .. I really hadn't thought hard about how to interpret that phase before. It may be that the other conditions spelled-out in 18.2(f) make it such that our first intuitions are the only cases that satisfy the entirety of the requirements.