Forum: Rule 18 and Room at the Mark
New Scenario - 18.2 vs 18.3 and "Cause"
P
Angelo GuarinoCertifications:
- Regional Judge
- Fleet Measurer
0
- no boat takes an OTW penalty
- that both Blue and Green fulfill their protest filing requirements [edit added: Blue v Red and Green v Blue]
- there is no contact between boats or marks
- that the PC decides to hear Green's and Blue's protest together
What is the analysis and decision?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
18.3 says that 18.2 doesn't apply when red and blue tack. So, we have rule 10 vs 18.3. For sure, red causes blue to cause green to sail above close-hauled. Red breaks 18.3.
Blue's turn causes green to sail above close hauled, so blue breaks 18.3 as well.
Blue cannot be exonerated under rule 21 because she is not sailing within room or mark-room to which she is entitled. Even if you did some mental gymnastics to say blue was sailing within room under rule 19 or 20, rule 21 can only exonerate breaking rules in Section A, rule 15, rule 16, and rule 31. It cannot exonerate 18.3.
You could argue that Rule 64.1(a) says blue shall be exonerated because as a consequence of red breaking rule 18.3, blue was compelled to break 18.3.
I view this as a perfect case for an appeal or question because rules 21 and 64.1(a) are seemingly in conflict.
If I was the protest committee, I would consider immediately submitting this to the appeals committee for review because I view the decision to disqualify blue as 50/50.
That is true that Blue is in danger because GW from Red who answered Blue "room to tack", and enfringed 18.3 with Green....
To be exonerated under 64.1, Blue would have to show that she wouldn't have broken 18.3 in the absence of Red. For grins, if the facts found match the diagram here, it appears that Blue wouldn't force Green above close hauled had Red not been to leeward of her (note the diagram as Green appears to be bearing off below close hauled). The conclusion in this case would have to be that Blue breaks 18.3, but only because Red compelled her to by breaking 18.3 herself, thus both Red and Blue break 18.3, but only Red is DSQ.
Conversely, if the facts conclude that Blue would have broken 18.3 regardless of the presence of Red, then you'd DSQ both Red and Green out for breaking 18.3.
As for a conflict, there really isn't one, as 21 simply doesn't apply in this case.
Between @4 and @5 B changes course to windward, herself sailing above close hauled, and causes G to sail above close hauled. B breaks rule 18.3.
Between @4 and @5 R changes course to windward and deprives B or room to comply with rule 18.3 with respect to G. R breaks rule 16.1.
R overlapped inside B on the same tack is sailing within the mark-roomto which she is entitled by rule 18.2a. Red is exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 in acccordance with rule 21.1a.
Notwithstanding that R is exonerated for breaking rule 16.1, she certainly did break that rule. R's breach of rule 16.1 did compel B to break rule 18.3. B is thus exonerated for breaking rule 18.3 in accordance with rule 64.1a.
Red, by causing B to change course to windward, caused G to sail above close hauled. R broke rule 18.3. Red is not exonerated for this breach.
Penalise Red
'Cause' means 'cause'. Don't muck around with 'proximate', 'immediate', 'ultimate' and other insurance mumbo jumbo.
R was leeward ROW and entitled to mark room when 18.1 turned back on between B & R after their tacks. Absent G, R was entitled to cause B to sail above close-hauled. Absent B, R would not have caused G to sail above close-hauled (I don't think, but it's hard to say from the diagram). But was R entitled to luff B if doing so caused G to sail above close-hauled? From an 18.3 perspective I think yes.
However, R was ROW and changing course at 5, so she was obligated to give B room to keep clear which includes room for B to meet her obligation not to cause G to sail above close-hauled. But as R was sailing within mark room she was entitled to she's exonerated under 21(a).
So I don't think R broke 18.3. I think she did break 16.1 but is exonerated by 21(a).
B broke 18.3. B was compelled to break 18.3 by R breaking 16.1, so I'm thinking B is exonerated as well by 64.1(a) - even though R was exonerated for her breach.
Yes Ross .. I think as I drew it, at position 4 Blue is sufficiently above the layline to pass the mark on its correct side without touching it .. without any need to alter course .. and thus Green likewise should be happy on her hip.
I agree that this is what it comes down to. Does "cause" display commutative properties in the rules? If so, do we have any Cases/Appeals which talk about "cause" having that property?
If A causes B .. and B causes C .. does A cause C?
This is, I think, simple, but the answer depends on an important feature of the rules: It's possible to foul another boat even if that boat isn't alongside you. In this scenario, Red tacks inside the zone and Green doesn't. All the other requirements of rule 18.3 are met by Red and Green. By sailing the course she did, Red caused Green to sail above close hauled. So Red breaks rule 18.3 with respect to Green. She is not exonerated for that breach under rule 21 because Green does not owe her room or mark-room.
So, that's it for Red. Now let's look at Blue. When Red luffs between positions 4 and 5, she compels Blue to break rule 18.3 with respect to Green. Red is herself breaking a rule (as determined above), so rule 64.1(a) applies and Blue is exonerated for that breach. It looks as if Green keeps clear of Blue, so she breaks no rule. Penalize only Red.
This feature of the rules, that a boat can break a rule with regard to a boat that is not next to her, is critical in, for example, crowded mark roundings. Suppose 6 one-design boats come in abreast to a port-hand leeward mark, all on port tack. The outermost boat (#6) just sails a straight course, with the result that the innermost boat (#1) does not have room to sail to the mark and ends up going to the wrong side of it. She protests the boat outside her (#2), who protests the boat outside of her (#3), and so on. Finally, the next-to-outside boat (#5) protests #6, who, truth be told, caused the whole problem. But #6 has broken no rule with respect to #5. Neither boat is inside the zone, so rule 18 doesn't apply to them; #6 hasn't changed course or acquired right of way, so rules 15 and 16.1 don't apply; and #6 is to leeward of #5 so she has right of way. The key is, assuming she could have given #1 room since the overlap began, #6 breaks rule 18.2 with respect to boat #1 and she should be disqualified. #5, #4, #3 and #2 are exonerated under rule 64.1(a) -- they were compelled to break rule 18.2 by a boat that was breaking a rule.
As to the issues here, Red did nothing wrong - she complied with Blue's hail for room to tack.
The problem happens when Blue tacks into a very narrow space between Red and Green and is unable to give mark room to Red as required under R 18.2(a).
R 20.2(d) requires that Blue tack 'as soon as possible' after Red responds to her hail by (in this case) tacking.but did she tack before it was 'possible' due to the tight space?
But if Blue delayed her tack any longer, she may have hit Green.
So my view is that the real cause of the incident was that Blue hailed too late for room to tack- but there is no rule about hailing too late. So instead, should Blue be penalized (R18.3 relative to Green) for the subsequent incident, while Red is exonerated under R 21 as she was sailing in the mark room to which she was entitled from Blue.
John
Dave Perry’s book has a great discussion on 18.3 (and actually lays out this exact scenario at one point), referencing a now removed Case 133, which is I think the case John was referring to. I can’t find any reference to it (and I don’t remember it), so I’m not sure exactly what it discussed.
On RRS 21; 21 notes “mark room”, which doesn’t apply because 18.2 doesn’t, but also notes room, which may apply here. Room is the space a boat needs to maneuver to comply with her obligations under Part 2 and 31. Specifically here, this means the room a ROW leeward boat is entitled to from the give way windward boat, and a ROW boat giving the give way boat room to keep clear. Given the above, all three boats had room to maneuver, and no boat broke a rule for failing to give another boat the required room to maneuver. Thus, 21 does not apply.
Given that both Red and Blue competed their tacks without breaking 13 or 15, Blue’s hail was timely as was Red’s response to it. We could quibble about whether a boat broke 16 based on boat size, speed and conditions, but for the purposes of discussing the original question, I’m gonna say they didn’t.
So yes, very long and wordy walkthrough here. Hopefully this clears up at least how I see this.
I agree dsq red, but I would dsq blue as well. She called for room to tack and did not have to do so. She then would have broken no rules so she was not compelled to break a rule and cannot be exonerated.
I think the room to tack issue is all resolved with no rule broken by position 4.
At 4, both red and blue are limited by 18.3 with regard to green and Red has mark room on blue in accordance with 18.2a. At 4, blue is unable to give mark room to red without breaking a rule but 18.2f does not apply. When red and blue are both on starboard, it must be a new overlap. One must have passed head to wind a micro second before the other so they went from being on opposite tacks to being overlapped. If blue passed HtW first, then red obtained an overlap by tacking to leeward. If red passed HTW first, then blue became overlapped outside red when blue passed HtW. Therefore the conditions of 18.2f for blue not being required to give mark room to red are not met.
When red luffs to pass the mark, she causes blue to break 18.3 with regard to green and hence red breaks rule 16.1 because she does not give room to blue. Red is exonerated for that breach by 21a.
Also, can u elaborate on your ‘Blue asking for room to tack when she didn’t have to?’ I thought I drew it with Blue clearly on a collision course with Green and I thought ~1 BL from the convergence point was a reasonable and prudent distance.
Charles, you’ve done a nice job providing the alternate analysis I think (Tim making a similar one). Along these lines, Blue knows she must provide Red mark-room, but to do so would require her to sail into Green’s space, Blue’s options were 2.
BUT, on the other hand as John, Rob and others have put forward, both Red and Blue were simultaneously obligated to not “cause” Green to sail above close-hauled. I tried to draw it (and I think I did) such that, in the absence of Blue, Red’s luff would not have caused Green to change course (but let’s at least assume that’s so).
Therefore, if you clearly see “cause” transferring through Blue, then Red broke 18.3 vs Green and since 18.2 did not apply between Red and Green, Red was not sailing within Mark-room vs Green.
So, as I put in the title, I think who one penalizes comes down to how one interprets “cause”. Those who clearly see Red causing Green to sail above close-hauled, penalize Red. Those who do not see that “cause” do not penalize her.
IMO, I think this scenario is worth a Case or Appeal.
- Ang
18,3 is not a part A rule, therefore Red cannot be exonerated by rule 21. Red was not compelled to break 18.3m so cannot be exonerated by rule 64.1(a)
18.3 turns off 18.2 between Red and Green. Therefore, Red is not entitled to room at the mark from Green. Red is taking room to which she is not entitled.
What if all boats were on starboard tack outside the zone. Boat 1 is clear ahead at the zone, 2 and 3 are overlapped astern of and just after 1 enters the zone they both gain an inside overlap on 1. Would 3 be exonerated if she forced 2 to break rule 18.2?
The old case book is here: https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/20132016ISAFCaseBookUpdatedJan2015-%5B18282%5D.pdf
This is ofc a but different because of the room to tack hail, but I don’t know if that changes anything.. Red at least is dsq, since she can avoid causing green to go past close hauled by sailing below the mark. How to dsq blue here is a but more tricky.. If she had ducked green, this would not have happened, but to me that doesn’t matter, since that case was solved with the hails, tacks and there was no incident there. Maybe blue could let the sails go and slow down to get away from the middle and in this way give red mark-room. But if this is not possible with the boats in question, the case basically dsq’d her for being there.. it’s a tough game :)
It is interesting that they make the point that Red was not forced to tack. Interesting to note.
Also that both Blue and Green protest Red, but once combined, all parties and all fair game.
If blue had not tacked (and thus not hailed) then there would have been no incident.
She had the right to go behind green and all would have been fine.
The rules try to persuade boats on port not to tack inside the zone so why should we try to assist them when the rules lead to a different conclusion.
To get exonerated you need here for blue to say you were compelled to break a rule because of the action of another boat. But you chose to set up the scenario by hailing for room to tack instead of taking green's stern.
To me therefore no exoneration and the two boats are dsq.
This follows what the rules were designed to achieve (what certainly I teach) and keeps boats apart. Makes the racing safer.
Yeah, I think it boils down to that. Does "cause" include "cause to cause"? I don't know the answer to that (my inclination is no, clearly others think yes) but it would be helpful to have an appeal or Q&A address it. And while I feel that both R & B are exonerated for breaches of 16.1 and 18.3 respectively, that certainly doesn't feel like a very satisfactory result for G who did nothing wrong and was forced to sail above close-hauled.
For those who see "chained causes", it seems like R's only option, since she was forced to tack below the layline by B, is to go below the mark and come around again. As drawn, I don't see how the "you tack" option would have been available to R at 2 when B hailed for room to tack.
In answer to Murray's last paragraph, both 2 and 3 have to give mark room to 1 and either would infringe (in the absence of the other) if they rounded overlapped inside 1. If 3 leaves the mark to starboard but with insufficient room for 2 to do likewise, I do not think 3 breaks a rule.
Case 133 is interesting. It needs care because it is written for the old rule 18.3. Whilst it goes into detail, there is just the bald statement that both the inside boats broke rule 18.3. The point that I or Red would not have broken 18.3 if M or Blue was not there and vice versa is not addressed.
I believe red breaks rule 16.1 when she luffs because she does not give room to blue to keep clear whilst complying with her (blue's) obligations. That being so, can red's luff also break rule 18.3 if, in the absence of blue, green does not have to sail above close hauled? I think 16.1 covers red's luff so that indirect application of 18.3 is not appropriate.
The change in 18.3 from the 2012-2016 edition to the current one made a change to Case 133 that likely is the reason it's being revised. Specifically:
This means that unlike 2012-2016, RRS 18.3 only applies between the boat tacking and a boat that's been on starboard since entering the zone. Therefore, in our example here, 18.3 does not apply between Red and Blue (because both Red and Blue tacked in the zone), but does apply between Red and Green as well as Blue and Green.
This changes the rules between Red and Blue. While on port, Red is entitled to mark room (18.2). Once Red tacks, per 18.2 d) she 18.2 b) and c) cease to apply, however 18.2 a) still does apply. Red is overlapped to Blue to leeward, and per 18.2 a) is entitled to mark room.
Assuming that I'm interpreting this correctly, Red is entitled to mark room on Blue (but not Green), and has ROW on both via 11. Thus, Red altering course above close hauled doesn't cause her to break a rule against Blue (assuming she complies with 16.1). If Green wasn't in the picture, no rules would be broken here as both Red and Blue complied with 11, 16 and 18.
With Green in the picture, Blue is subject to 18.3, and does break it. But does Red break 18.3 against Green? If Blue wasn't in the picture, would Green have needed to sail above close hauled? We could argue the same logic that I suggested above that exonerates Blue should now exonerate Red.
Thus, both Blue and Red break 18.3. Blue cannot be exonerated under 64.1 because she wasn't compelled to break a rule, she was instead required to keep clear of Red under 11 and 18.2 a). Red however, could be exonerated, since in the absence of Blue she would not have broken 18.3.
I can see we definitely need an updated Case 133. Looking at this now, I'm surprised the change to 18.3 had this affect.
Charles, I think the issue there is exoneration. If R broke only 16.1 and did so while ROW and sailing within mark room she was entitled to from B, she's exonerated by 21(a). If she also broke 18.3 she's not exonerated for that.
Case 133 was indeed written for the old rule 18.3, but I'm not sure if the reasoning changes (at least in this scenario) for the 2017-2020 version. So I'm wondering if that's why it was withdrawn or if there's something else being revisited.
OK .. hear me out on this one ...
First, items I think we all agree on .. that by position 4 (and some items between 3-4):
Let's focus on #3 above for a moment. Mark-room includes room, which includes space for Red to comply with RRS 31.
Allow me to drag a couple Cases into the fight (kicking and screaming I'm sure)... [emphasis added]
Case 118 states in its discussion:
Case 21 states in its discussion:
So, here I go (deep breath) ..
Most of the arguments that DSQ Red focus on the idea that Red luffs, then Blue luffs, requiring Green to luff, thus Red breaks 18.3.
I'm contending here that Blue had no choice but to luff at 5, REGARDLESS OF THE ACTIONS OF RED.
This entire discussion, we've assumed that Blue responded to Red's luff. I think Blue, recognizing at position 4 that she MUST provide Red at least a 1+ boat-widths to clear the mark, Blue starts providing that and Red simultaneously follows Blue.
One way to consider this is to look at the alternative .. Blue holding her course (below).
Alt 2: Blue holds her course
Looking at this alternative, I think we'd all agree that Blue breaks 18.2(a) and Red is exonerated by 21b for breaking 31 [added: and neither Red nor Blue fouls Green!].
THEREFORE, after position 3+, Blue has 2 alternatives to provide Red the room that she must provide her:
... and therefore Red does not "cause" Green to sail above her close-hauled course. Blue causes Green to sail above close-hauled because Blue chooses to sail into a position where she must luff-up because of her obligation to provide Red 18.2(a) mark-room.
[edit] Red does not "cause" Blue to luff-up and foul Green. Blue's 18.2(a) obligation to provide Red mark-room (and thus room) does.
[time to take cover]
By not going below and missing the mark he causes the starboard boat to go above close-hauled.
A lot of this scenario depends on timing. Once hailed, it seems to me R's "as soon as possible" tack may be within a several second window after B's hail. In these close quarters even a 5 second delay could make all the difference between B's being able to tack under G or having to duck her.
Of course, B could probably help herself by hailing or "pre-hailing" somewhat earlier so R is clear about her intentions. Seems like B's objective would be to force R to tack far enough below the layline that R can't pinch/luff up to it so B can tack precisely on layline without forcing G to luff.
RRS 64.1 says that "when as a consequence of breaking a rule a boat has compelled another boat to break a rule, the other boat shall be exonerated". To exonerate Red, does Blue meet the criteria of breaking a rule? Yes. Did "as a consequence" of her breaking a rule compel Red to break a rule? Maybe. Does Red break 18.3 on Green? Yes, per the wording of 18.3. If you can conclude from the facts that Green would not have needed to sail above close haul except for Blue's actions, then Red would not have broken 18.3. In that case, her breaking 18.3 is the direct result of Blue's actions, which meets the dictionary definition of compel.
Point is, I don't think you can ignore Blue's actions when it comes to determining if Red should be penalized.
She chooses to put herself in there, so no exoneration.
Here though red does not get exonerated for hitting the mark as there was room for him to avoid it.
I would argue B breaks RRS 2 in that case, since clearly she's gaining a tactical advantage by not having to give Red room to duck Green.
I understand what you're saying, compel meaning essentially is forced to because she has no other choice (Red does in this case). I have a tough time with it, as Red's ROW, and has some limited rights to be there, but OK.... For grins, say a 4th boat (lets call it Yellow) is approaching the port layline, and as such, any attempt for Red to bear away below the mark would result in her breaking 16.1 on Yellow. In this case, since Red cannot head below the mark, could she be exonerated?
If I were on B I think I'd make the argument that when I hailed for room to tack it was my intent to tack as soon as R did, but in the event R took a few seconds longer than I anticipated (and maybe I should have hailed for room a little earlier) so by the time R tacked I was too close to G to tack and had to duck. So my first safe opportunity to tack after R's tack was after ducking G. It wasn't a premeditated tactical choice on my part and didn't give me a tactical advantage as I lost both R and G in the maneuver.
Note also that if G sees this situation developing I think her best move is to foot down to layline before she gets to the zone. That way she closes the door on both R and G and they probably both duck her.
If so I would suggest that
If the intention is to avoid late port tackers from creating mayhem at the windward Mark.
Then when at 2 Blue hails Red to tack to avoid Green
Her options were
Duck Green and make room for Red thus changing nothing tactically between green red and blue.
Hail red to tack who in the absence of blue would have rounded cleanly.
This created the situation that denied green her rights the went against spirit of the rules at the windward mark.
For this reason I would penalize Blue alone. For it was in my opinion an error of judgement by blue that caused green to be denied her rights
Then how can blue use her right under 19.2 a to deny 2 other boats their rights. Does blue's decision not go against the spirit of rule 14 and rule 15 and 16.
DSQ Red for 18.3 vs Green?
Here I'd say no. Just Blue. Here Blue decided to go there, when she clearly had the chance to go below Red or slow down.
Heck, we all work and train to keep our speed up through tacks, it is not skill, known only to top champs, to loose speed coming out of a tack, especially a rule 20 tack which tends to be a quicker flop over.
PS: the test here is still problematic. Red's presence as an 18.2a mark-room entitled boat, [added: who is also subject to 18.3 v Green] causes Blue to luff into Green.
PS PS:
FWIW (and that's not much), after looking at all the scenarios and arguments of how to solve for Red's 18.3 liability v Green, I'm coming down on the side of a "in the absence of other boats" test for "cause" with the additional caveat that Red isn't sailing outside the room she is entitled to. I think it's the most fair, the easiest to test, and for competitors to understand on the water in live situations. I guess we'll see when Case 133 comes back out again.
IMO, the argument that Red doesn't get DSQ'd when she falls off, isn't very bullet-proof. Looking at my Alt 4 drawing, Blue MUST provide Red 18.2a mark-room and to do that, Blue must start heading up just after 4. Red's bow probably doesn't cross the leeward side of the mark until after 4.5, Blue is already providing Red the room that he must. Also, 18.2a still applies between them as no part of 18.1a-d is satisfied. Therefore, even though Red falls away, her presence at 4 and 4+ requires Blue to start making the room for her.
I think, if you are consistent with the "presence" argument, you DSQ Red for 18.3 v Green in my Alt 4 too. It was her presence at 4 and 4+ that caused Blue to luff to make room, even though Red didn't take the room. In other words, Blue has no way of anticipating that Red won't take the room she owes her.
https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/supplement2019final-[24547].pdf
Ang, in your Alt 4, B also has an option to bear down below R and the mark and avoid breaking any rules. It’s always a matter of choosing the best avenue of escape to avoid breaking a rule. Luffing obviously results in a breach, bearing off wouldn’t. This is why I’d flag B :)
The TR Call E8 scenario is significantly different in the 21b exoneration consideration as the middle boat (our Blue in Alt-2), who is overlapped to windward IS 1/2-BL AHEAD .. (not behind as in Alt-2) when the middle boat's bow reaches the mark. Therefore below, the inside boat (Red in our scenario) could see ahead that there wasn't room between the boat ahead and the mark.
PS (hint): After position 4, what boats must Keep Clear of the others (and thus which boats have ROW)?
I realize that there has been some evolution in the definition of obstruction over the years, but there's a big difference in my mind between asking for room to tack because you are approaching land (you can't just bear away and duck San Francisco) and bearing away to duck a moving boat with rights. In my mind either the premise of the original situation is wrong, or else we need to do some serious retroactive tactical rules training because I bet no-one in our fleet would tack when hailed in Red's situation. Did something change and I missed it?
This scenario has been described in Case 3, since 1962.
Red is certainly not 'driving the bus'.
Blue is in control: she is right of way, leeward boat, with the entitlement under rule 19.2a to choose which side of S to pass on, and an entitlement to hail for room to tack and avoid under rule 20.1.
So, to rephrase my previous post - it's Blue who is driving the bus. They decide whether to tack or duck Green. If duck, they need to give Red space to also duck. If Blue wants to tack, Red has to keep clear - whether by tacking or just not being in the way in the first place. Right?
Consider the diagrams in Case 3 and Case 10 Question 2. In these cases PL should be able to tack clear ahead of S, so not necessarily sandwiched.
Yes, Blue gets to decide whether to tack or duck and if she ducks, must give Red room to also pass to leeward of Green.
If Blue wants to tack she needs to hail in accordance with rule 20.1.
If Blue hails, Red is not required, by rule 20.2 to keep clear. Red is required to either:
Facts as stated. Note that at Position 4, Red can bear away and miss mark.
1. Red
Red breaks 18.3 versus Green. Red's luff forces G to sail above close hauled. R cannot be exonerated because G was not required to give R mark room (21 does not help G vs R) and R was not compelled to break 18.3 vs G (R could have ducked the mark.)
Red DSQ
2. Green
Green breaks no rules
3. Blue
Blue breaks rule 18.3 versus Green and 18.2 a versus Red. Blue is exonerated because Blue was compelled to break 18.3 and 18.2 (a) due to Red's breach of 18.3
If Angelo wants to make it interesting and give everyone a headache, then contemplate one slight change to the facts.
What is the outcome if after Red completes his tack, he is NOT FETCHING THE MARK. Red completes his tack and then luffs head to wind to encourage/ force Blue and Green to tack if they want to round the mark.
If Rob O is still reading this thread. Why did y'all shift the definition that turns on rule 18.3 to the boat that tacked fetching the mark ? Previously rule 18.3 was turned on if the boat on starboard was fetching the mark. Under that version of turning on rule 18.3, anyone tacking from P to S inside the zone would owe S room. The rule change which turned on rule 18.3 only if P was fetching the mark after tacking opened the loophole of allowing P to tack inside a raft of boats at the windward mark and then luff to HTW.....which from a competitor perspective in crowded fleets is a PITA. Rob...its been a long time, trust all are thriving ...Justin.
In this scenario
We would want to know a little bit more about the RTT hail.
The facts are a bit worrisome because Blue tacks simultaneous with Red immediately to leeward with Green , which suggests that either Blue left her hail very late or that Red delayed her response. If Red delayed his response then this becomes a 20.2 (c) case. Lets assume this was a last minute hail by Blue.
Let us assume that Red responded to the hail as soon as possible and tacked on lay line to the mark, and Blue tacked and completed her tack on layline but clear astern of Red.
Blue is the keep clear boat on Red. Rule 12. Blue owes mark room to Green under rule 18.3
Blue's only option is a lightening fast easing of sheets to try and stay astern of Red, or to bail from the rounding by bearing away astern of red......gybing and trying again. Blue doesnt do either, gains a windward overlap and breaks 11 and 18.2 (a) with Red and breaks 18.3 with green. Blue is toast.
A lot will depend on timing of the hail.
If Red was not fetching the mark after completing the tack, that would mean she would not be able to leave the mark on the required side and pass to windward of it even by shooting the mark by luffing head to wind. In that case, if Green were on the layline, it is hard to imagine her having to tack in order to avoid Red and pass the mark. Perhaps you could provide a revised diagram to illustrate your scenario.
But in this scenario (and maybe even in the original scenario) Red only breaks 18.3 because of Blue's action in establishing and maintaining the overlap and trying to squeeze between Red and Green. Blue can meet her mark room obligations to both Red and Green by slowing and passing clear astern. So I agree Blue breaks 18.2 and 18.3 and I think is not exonerated.
Red breaks 18.3 by being the "proximate cause" of Green having to sail above close-hauled, but only because Blue insisted on keeping her nose in there. In the original scenario, Red could luff to make the mark without driving Green above close-hauled and in Justin's scenario neither Red nor Green would need to sail above close-hauled to make the mark. Red could have bailed out to the wrong side of the mark and protested Blue, but was she obligated to? Wouldn't she be exonerated since her breach was a result of Blue's breach?
And I still say shame on Green for not diving down to the layline as soon as she saw this mess developing. She likely could have rounded clear ahead of both Red and Blue without a protest.
IMHO, Red does not break 18.3 in Angelo's second scenario that I reposted above. Red leaves room for Green to round the mark without sailing above close hauled. It is Blue that forces Green above close hauled. Red did not compel Blue to break 18.3.. As you rightly point out, Blue stuck her nose in where she had no rights.
Its not a common situation in fleet racing .
However, if the starboard layline is jammed with boats coming in on starboard, including boats on layline with boats to leeward of layline who can fetch with a luff.....then if Red is coming in on port R can tack right under the group and start luffing all of them HTW. R is not bound by 18.3. The stbd boats owe R room under 11 and 18.2 a. R cannot round but neither can the boats on his windward hip who are all stuffed HTW. Eventually the windward boat peels off to 2-tack round the mark . IT seems wholly unfair to the stbd boats but for R it is sometimes better than ducking 10 boats.
Occasionally it can work in team racing at the windward mark. on a box port rounding course. The key is not to be fetching the mark when you tack inside but to be close enough to the starboard boats that you can force them to luff to a standstill, then wait for them to peel off in a downspeed tack, and then tack your self to try and pin them, or if you cant get the pin and they can tack back on stbd.....they have to give you room to tack onto stbd as inside boat..
I guess a diagram would be useful..sorry.
https://youtu.be/EQj2wlRmNWo
Justin I disagree with your statement above. If your Starboard boats:
If Red above’s tack is in the zone, as soon as Red’s luff causes the one of them to sail above close hauled, let alone HTW, she has broken 18.3.
The difference in my scenario is that 18.3 did not apply between Red and Blue, and in the absence of Blue, Green would not have had to change course.
That is how the rule used to work until 2016. The 2017-20 rules added a condition that for 18.3 to turn on, then Red (the boat that entered on port and tacked to starboard) has to be "fetching" the mark.
In the post that you quoted we were discussing what happens if
In this situation, Red may not be able to round the mark without tacking BUT if the windward raft of starboard boats fetching the mark are close enough to her, she can luff them HTW. Red is NOT subject to 18.3 if Red is not fetching the mark ...and can luff with abandon as long as she doesnt start tacking until they do.
Red can tack in the zone and luff at her discretion so long as she tacks onto a line that is not a fetch to the mark.
If Red tacks in the zone onto a line to the mark that is a fetch, she may not go between the mark and other boats that entered the zone both on starboard and overlapped with Red after Red completes her tack.
If Red tacks in the zone onto a line to the mark that is a fetch, she may not luff other boats that entered the zone on starboard (but not overlapped) above close hauled
As Juuso's video dramatically demonstrates, what line a boat can be on and still be "fetching the mark" is highly variable with current, wind, momentum of boats and skill of the skipper and crew.
Failing to make the mark does not retroactively mean one was not fetching the mark, [because the status between "fetching" and "not fetching" must be determined before the attempt at the mark is made]. Likewise, some leeward boat saying that they weren't fetching that luffs a boat that would otherwise have 18.3 apply between them, doesn't mean they weren't fetching by their say-so.
Assuming this is not an umpired event, let's take this situation off the water and bring it into the protest room where it will inevitably land, as the starboard-since-I-entered-the-zone boat that was luffed HTW by the tacked-in-the-zone-leeward is going to protest via 18.3.
Now it's going to be up to the panel to decide whether or not the luffing boat was bound by 18.3.
Leeward is going to say she wasn't fetching the mark. Windward is going to say she was. The panel will decide on the facts and render a decision, and the facts-found will not be subject to appeal.
I would not want to be the tacked-in-the-zone-leeward-and-luffed-them-HTW boat in that room.
Protest committees can and have found as facts that R (boat that tacked inside the zone from port to starboard) was not fetching the mark. The PC should not concern itself with whether R anticipated being able to fetch the zone or not, merely the fact of whether R was fetching the mark or not fetching the mark.
What usually happens in the situation is the boats on R's windward hip bail out and tack. If R carries on and shoots the mark and rounds it without tacking, then prima facie, she was fetching the mark and is penalized. If R also has to tack then prima facie she was not fetching the mark.
In Jusso's entertaining and enlightening video of the RC 44s, boat # 2 luffs head to wind. She is clearly NOT fetching the mark. She is entitled to luff htw (but no further at first). This eventually causes boat #3 to tack. Boat # 2 subsequently tacks onto port. When Boat #3 tacks back onto starboard, she has to comply with 15.
I think we all understand the rule change to 18.3 in 2016, ( and I acknowledge A's point about the difficulties it might cause in finding facts). The question is why was the rule changed in this respect? What was the outcome that the rules committee were seeking to achieve?, I saw Rob on the thread and thought it would be interesting to discuss.
In the eye of the beholder I guess. I see her trying to "shoot the mark" to round it and failing, over-estimating how far her momentum would carry her.
= Not fetching the mark.
From the video, we dont know if boat #2 tacked inside the zone (I kinda doubt it). But if they did, the fact finding role of the PC would be to determine if Boat 2 could have rounded the mark without tacking at the time when she completed the tack from port to starboard. Intent is not relevant in this determination.(absent some kind of rule 2 issue). If she tacked onto starboard thinking she was set up to shoot the mark but misjudged momentum and current, she is not fetching the mark and is not subject to rule 18.3. If she tacked onto starboard with no intention of fetching the mark but it turns out she could (favorable current), she is subject to rule 18.3.
I am not a huge fan of the language of this part of the revised rule 18.3. However I am always impressed by the depth of thought by the rules committee that goes into every line of the rules, so there may be an outcome I have not considered.
As far as "trying to 'shoot the mark' to round it and failing = Not fetching the mark.", maybe we just agree to disagree there. That said, I've tried to figure out the basis of our disagreement. Below is the result of that exercise.
First, when I look to the definition of Fetching, I see a definition which at its heart is a determination of 'possibility', not 'actuality'. In the 3 places fetching is used, it is used to determine how the rules apply to boats BEFORE the boat referenced reaches the mark.
We are making a determination now how the Rules apply, based upon if something can happen in the future.
Important to my thinking is that 'fetching' uses the phrase, " ... is in a position to .. ". IMO, I think the common understanding of being 'in the a position to' do something is about being situated such that one has a reasonable [or maybe even 'likely'] possibility to succeed at something in the future, but not guaranteed.
I think Mark-Room is the most interesting place to see my point, where we are talking about 'room to tack'. Here, when thinking about 'fetch', we not only have to imagine the final approach to the mark (including any shoot maneuvers that might require), but also need to imagine an entire tack to be executed (again projecting into the future) landing the boat on that final-approach. If we were to take your approach, any imperfection on the execution of that tack which puts them too low to round the mark, could retroactively remove their 'room-to-tack' mark-room-privilege from back before they tacked.
For instance, still on 'room to tack' idea, imagine a mark-room-privileged windward-boat hits a close-leeward boat with her stern as she tacks and her stern swings, and then doesn't make the mark. How can we tell if the hit of the stern changed her tack just enough to cause the miss? If we accept your test, she missed the mark, her room-to-tack is retroactively removed, and she is penalized? What if other boats are on the layline and she gets more dirty air than she thought and misses the mark? Same thing?
I dont think we disagree as much as you think we do.
We disagree slightly on semantics. I think the definition of "fetching" asks the PC to determine the actuality not the intent of the boat or what the boat thought was probable prior to executing the manoeuvre. But its a small difference because protest committee and juries can rarely determine every fact and conclusion with certainty. The PC has to determine as best they can, based on testimony, the most likely or most probable outcome.
Importantly, we agree that if P factually does not fetch the mark, (ie she tacks again to round it) it does not necessarily mean that 18.3 was turned off. The test occurs when P passes from port to starboard. So if we had the perfectly positioned overhead drone, we freeze the image exactly when P passes HTW and ask ourselves: "From this moment can P fetch the mark if she is reasonably well sailed?" So to use your examples, if we find that P could have fetched the mark but falls off below close hauled course before getting to the mark, or executed a bad tack....such that factually she does not fetch the mark .....then 18.3 still applies.
I think it is reasonably straightforward to determine as facts found whether a boat fetched the mark or did not fetch the mark. Did she pass to windward of the mark on the required side without tacking?. If she did not fetch the mark, the tricky part is determining the conclusion of whether she was fetching the mark when she passed HTW onto starboard a couple of boat lengths earlier.
Sometimes it is obvious. The dinghy tacked onto starboard 2 boat lengths to leeward of lay line and all parties agreed there was no way she was able to round the mark without tacking again. Then we move it to 1.5 boat lengths, 1.25 boat lengths. 0.75 boat lengths etc and eventually we determine that she was fetching the mark....and the fact that she bore away at the last minute to avoid the mark does not mean she was not fetching the mark. Its not always easy.
So my question remains: Why do we have this test in 18.3 that for 18.3 to be turned on, P has to be fetching the mark?
Would it not be more straightforward, easier to understand, remove all uncertainty and create greater simplicity if the rule applied to P whether she was fetching the mark or not.
I might burden S with a test that S is fetching the mark (as per the prior version of the rule) but Im not even sure this is necessary.
As you point out, in the previous version the "fetching" test was on the starboard-boat. It appears from the Submission's "reason" that one of the described benefits of this change was make the tests on Starboard much simpler by reducing it to just 1 .. "has the boat been on starboard since entering the zone?".
As you can see by the edited text itself, "fetching" kind'a remained in place and the wording around it changes to switch it from Starboard to the Boat-That-Tacked (replacing underline with [ ]'s).
So your question seems to be, "If "fetching" was taken out completely from 18.3, what havoc could it cause or would it 'change the game' in some way?" Below is a "game change" example if 'fetching' was gone.
Certainly keeping "fetching" on at least one of the boats, puts 18.3 near the layline. Without it, Blue below would break 18.3 and "fetching's" absence would effectively give Yellow the right to hold her [close-hauled] course, forcing Blue to the edge of the zone.
I thought I’d jump in here with a rules-writer’s perspective on the history of rule 18.3. First, I have to say that the views expressed here are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the reasoning of any other people involved in drafting or approving versions of rule 18.3. Second, I apologize for the length of this comment, but I want to give the complete backgound. Some of the following material is in a previous comment in this thread, but I thought it best to put all the background in one place.
The introduction of rule 18.3 was warmly welcomed by competitive sailors.
The rationale for the revisions of 18.3 for 2016-20 were largely understood. The requirement for S to be on the same tack since entering the zone was a welcome solution to two or more boats tacking from P to s in the zone. Folks spent a bit of time figuring out why 18.3 turns on depending where the boat passes HTW and not where she completed her tack but we worked it out.
The revision which caused a fair amount of discussion was pondering why the rules committee shifted the hurdle from S (boat that has been on starboard tack since entering the zone) to P (boat tacking from p to S inside the zone) to be fetching the mark. This loophole for port boats tacking inside the zone has occasionally created some of those dreaded rafts again because P can luff HTW without fetching the mark and affect a number of boats on P's windward hip. I could probably dig up a couple of protests. If the hurdle is whether S is fetching the mark, rather than P fetching the mark then IMHO, the rule is simpler. As long as S enters the zone on starboard tack, fetching the mark, she knows that no port tacker can luff her above chc.
If a boat in the zone of a mark to be left to port passes head to wind
from port to starboard tack
and is then fetching the mark, she shallnot cause a boat that has been on starboard tack and fetching the mark since entering the
zone to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact and she shall give
mark-room if that boat becomes overlapped inside her
Just a thought humbly offered by someone who has had to rule on 18.3 when P has not been fetching the mark and rafted up a bunch of boats at the windward mark, until they tacked, then tacked as soon as they tacked and was first around the windward mark
I should add also, that in my experience, the fact of whether P is fetching the mark is often not in dispute. It is usually clear that the leeward boat is not fetching the mark, but by luffing HTW they were able to affect the adjacent windward boats, which affected the adjacent windward boat, which most certainly was fetching the mark.
The testimony is made up but it went something like this:
Eg
S " Its not even as if they were going to make the mark . They had no chance, they stuffed themselves in there where they had no right to be, luffed HTW with no chance of getting around the mark without tacking again, forced everyone to luff up and screwed my rounding"
P " I concur".
For me it was just a hypothetical so it was interesting reading your description of how it can play out. Thanks!