Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
When does Rule 22 turn on?
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
- Umpire In Training
- Regional Judge
0
It's clear when rule 22 turns off but it seems to me less clear when it turns on, and I can see this being a cause for controversy in some incidents.
Rule 21.1 imposes a keep clear burden on a boat "when sailing towards the pre-start side of the starting line or one of its extensions...". When does this obligation commence? Is it when the boat departs from her proper course with the intention of returning to the pre-start side of the line? Or only when her relative bearing to the line is less than 90, such that her motion is toward rather than away from the line? For example, if an OCS boat on starboard tack on an upwind leg falls off to a course parallel to the line, must she keep clear of port tackers under 22.1? Or does she retain starboard right of way until she falls off further?
Likewise under 22.2, at what point is a boat doing a turns penalty "taking a penalty"? Is it as soon as she begins altering course? At the first tack or gybe? As soon as she starts sailing to get well clear of other boats (I think not, since 44.2 says a boat takes a penalty "after getting well clear)?
I didn't see any cases or US appeals dealing with rule 22, which kind of surprised me.
What do you all think?
Rule 21.1 imposes a keep clear burden on a boat "when sailing towards the pre-start side of the starting line or one of its extensions...". When does this obligation commence? Is it when the boat departs from her proper course with the intention of returning to the pre-start side of the line? Or only when her relative bearing to the line is less than 90, such that her motion is toward rather than away from the line? For example, if an OCS boat on starboard tack on an upwind leg falls off to a course parallel to the line, must she keep clear of port tackers under 22.1? Or does she retain starboard right of way until she falls off further?
Likewise under 22.2, at what point is a boat doing a turns penalty "taking a penalty"? Is it as soon as she begins altering course? At the first tack or gybe? As soon as she starts sailing to get well clear of other boats (I think not, since 44.2 says a boat takes a penalty "after getting well clear)?
I didn't see any cases or US appeals dealing with rule 22, which kind of surprised me.
What do you all think?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
It's a pretty straight and literal interpretation 91 and 89 degrees marks the angles when a boat is sailing away from the starting line and extensions or she is sailing towards it.
In 44.2 there are two requirements, the first is to get well clear of other boats, so it is generally a moot point regarding exercising her right of way rules, because she needs to get well clear of other boats and then continue to keep clear while completing the penalty.
Cheers
Ben
Yes, 44.2 obligates the penalty-turning boat to get well clear of other boats as soon as possible, but I don't know that she must *keep clear* while doing that. I could imagine situations where exercising your rights gets you well clear *sooner* than not exercising them.
The other tangent I've wondered about is:
Yes, the penalty-turning boat (S) must get well clear as soon as possible and is breaking a rule of they don't do so. But I don't see anything that turns off the other rules. So if they're starboard and another boat (P) is port, and the port boat doesn't keep clear... I could imagine deciding that both boats broke rules: S for not getting well clear as soon as possible, and P for not keeping clear of a starboard tack boat.
I see this exactly as Ben Fels.
1 A boat returning to restart does not lose their rights until they are "returning" or moving back toward the starting line of extension.
2 A boat getting well clear before doing turns must do so within the rules and must continue to do so while doing turns. If they did indeed get "well clear" doing turns should not interfere with other boats. If it appears they are going to have an issue the boat must get "well clear".
Seems like the answer is yes. Reason: even though boat A has begun to take action to return to the starting line, they aren't yet head towards it.
As Ben Fels has pointed out, rule 44.2 describes two steps:
possible, and
making the required number of turns in the same direction, each turn
including one tack and one gybe.
Rule 22.2 says A boat taking a penalty shall keep clear of one that is not.
Looking at rule 44.2, a boat begins to take a Turns penalty when she begins 'making the ... turns'. While sailing to get well clear of other boats, and before beginning to 'make the turns' a boat is not 'taking a penalty' and has no obligation under rule 22.2. While she is sailing to get well clear of other boats she is entitled to right of way an room, just like any other boat.
I think you have a typo in your rule ref above as there isn’t a 44.2b. - Ang
44.1b. Thanks Ang. Edited in the other post.
The 'proper course' condition in rule 24.2 means that a boat cannot hunt a boat taking a penalty.
Boats Yellow and Green are on a beat to windward well inside the laylines and far from the windward mark. There are no other environmental conditions which favor either tack at this moment.
Yellow and Blue (not shown) have a Port/Starboard incident where Yellow, on port, failed to keep-clear of Blue, on starboard. Blue protests Yellow and Green witnesses the incident, the protest and sees Yellow initiate taking turns when Green was also on Port and sailing away from Yellow.
Q1: On a beat to windward well inside the laylines and without any other contributing factors, is a boat's proper course equally close-hauled on either tack?
Q2: Does 24.2 apply to the situation below assuming that Green could have easily delayed their tack to starboard?
Q3: Does the answer change if Green believed she was tacking on a header?
However, as diagrammed, Yellow completes her penalty when she gybes between 7 and 8 and it becomes a port-starboard (Green ROW). By continuing to head up to position 9 Yellow breaks rule 10, but she has the option to continue downwind from 8 and take Green's stern before heading back up to close hauled.
I wonder, though, if the situation would change if it came out that Green intentionally tacked when she did for the express purpose of interfering with Yellow while taking her turns. Possible rule 2?
IMHO. The second sentence says "However, after the starting signal this rule does not apply when the boat is sailing her proper course." Green has a proper course limitation and provided she is sailing her proper course she does not break rule 24.2. A boat can have more than one proper course, for example, either tack may be equally favored for a boat on a windward leg, which tack is the faster one to the next mark can not be determined in advance and is not necessarily proven by one boat or the other reaching the next mark ahead. Case 14 illustrates this fact.
Good catch Tim .. it appears I got carried away a bit with my spins.
The protest committee needs to at least ask the question 'why did you tack at that point'?
Rule 24.2 certainly applies. The question is whether Green broke the rule, which depends on proper course, reasonably possible, and, as Tim has pointed out whether Y has finished taking her penalty.
That's the answer to the question: as soon as Green states a 'reasonable' reason for tacking, tacking is her proper course, unless Yellow can persuade the protest committee otherwise.
But she has already discharged her obligation to sail well clear, and, by beginning to make her turns, has assumed a new obligation under rule 22.2 to keep clear.
I have my doubts about this appeal. I think it robs rule 22.2 of its purpose.
In my opinion, if a boat interrupts taking her penalty turns to the extent unavoidably necessary to comply with rule 22.2, then promptly completes the turns penalty, that does not invalidate her penalty.
If I were applying the Appeal, I would apply it very narrowly: the boat must stop 'turning' and sail a straight line course for some time: there is nothing in the rules about how fast, or how consistently a boat needs to turn while taking penalty turns.
If one formed a view that Yellow did 'stop' taking her penalty, then she has just failed to take her penalty in accordance with rule 44.2, and, on valid protest will not be protected from further penalisation by rule 64.1b. She can NOT 'begin her turns again': that would not be 'promtly' after getting well clear.
To open the door to rule 2, it would need to be proved that G actually did interfere with Y taking her turns, which, as you have cleverly observed, in the first case, she does not do.
Be careful about thought-crime. Mere intention that is not accomplished does not break a rule.
If the scenario is as shown in Angelo's second diagram, where G actually does engage with Y while Y is still taking her turns, then there is some case, but why would you want to go from a simple breach of rule 24.2 to rule 2?
Why this incessant desire to cast our fellow sailors as cheats and bad sports?
I think I could just as easily turn that around. Just because a boat is on a proper course at a given point in time doesn't mean that other equally proper courses don't exist. If proper course on a beat is close hauled, then why wouldn't close hauled on the other tack be proper course as well?
That seems like it could open a can of worms. If the answer is "a header" or "covering a competitor" then obviously proper course would be to tack immediately. But what if the answer is "I liked the left" or "it just seemed like time to tack" or "I figured they'd be done with their turns before we got there"? With those answers it might have been practical to tack slightly earlier or later, but was the boat obligated?
It seems to me that the only wrong answer would be "I tacked to go screw with the boat taking a penalty."
If G engages with Y taking penalty turns while G is sailing a proper course I don't feel G has broken 24.2. But if it was intentional (and I agree with being careful about thought crime) it may not accord with the principles of fair sailing. Or maybe it does, as long as G doesn't break another rule in the process.
Have I given that impression? If so it's not intentional.
My apologies Tim. I was no doubt confusing you with some of the rule 2 enthusiasts who sometimes appear here.