Forum: Rules 2 and 69
Reneging on 'Waving Port Through' or 'Tack or Pass?'
P
Angelo GuarinoCertifications:
- Regional Judge
- Fleet Measurer
0
We have Case 47, "A boat that deliberately hails “Starboard” when she knows she is on port tack has not acted fairly, and has broken rule 2."
Though the RRS (in fleet racing) only describe 3 pieces of verbal communication, "Protest", "Room to Tack", and "You Tack", the cases and appeals include examples of non-required verbal communication that is used by competitors as part of their process to try to avoid contact and to keep-clear. "Starboard" from a starboard boat to one on port, "I'll need to give Inside room at the mark" from Middle to Outside, "I have no way" from a boat in irons unable to maneuver are just a couple examples.
Then we have a separate class of communication which are negotiations to avoid contact in which the ROW boat seemingly voluntarily waives their ROW, the most common of these being the "Wave Through" and the "Tack or Pass?".
Given: Port and Starboard are in the middle of the windward leg on opposite tacks, both on beats to windward. They are on a collision course that puts Starboard's bow impacting Port amidships if neither boat alters course.
Scenario #1:
Though the RRS (in fleet racing) only describe 3 pieces of verbal communication, "Protest", "Room to Tack", and "You Tack", the cases and appeals include examples of non-required verbal communication that is used by competitors as part of their process to try to avoid contact and to keep-clear. "Starboard" from a starboard boat to one on port, "I'll need to give Inside room at the mark" from Middle to Outside, "I have no way" from a boat in irons unable to maneuver are just a couple examples.
Then we have a separate class of communication which are negotiations to avoid contact in which the ROW boat seemingly voluntarily waives their ROW, the most common of these being the "Wave Through" and the "Tack or Pass?".
Given: Port and Starboard are in the middle of the windward leg on opposite tacks, both on beats to windward. They are on a collision course that puts Starboard's bow impacting Port amidships if neither boat alters course.
Scenario #1:
- When the boats are 3 BL's apart, Starboard starts calling to Port, "Keep going, you can make it!", while simultaneously gesturing with her free hand and arm for the Port to sail through.
- Port nods and waves her arm in acknowledgment and holds her course.
- Starboard closely ducks Port and hails "Protest".
Scenario #2:
- When the boats are 3 BL's apart, Port starts calling to Starboard, "Tack or Pass?" .. "Tack or Pass?"
- Starboard replies "Pass"
- Starboard puts her bow down to duck Port and Port slam-dunks Starboard.
- Starboard hails "Protest".
- Rule 2 thoughts? "recognized principles of sportsmanship"?
- In Scenario #1, what about the stress, confusion, indecision this might cause Port as they decide whether to do turns or wait to see if a protest is actually filed.
- Did Port actually break a rule in this instance?
- Is Starboard's actions "fair sailing"?
- In Scenario #2, does it make a difference that the request was initiated and made by the give-way boat?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Scenarios #4
Facts : As Described
Conclusion : S breached a recognized principle of sportsmanship and fair play by inducing P to believe they were encouraging P to think they were crossing and waving for her to cross and then hailing protest.
S breaks Rule 2
P breaks Rule 10
Discussion: Was P compelled by S's breach of rule 2 to attempt to cross S? Can P be exonerated from her breach of Rule 10 by Rule 64.1 (a).
Scenario #3
Warning this rules rabbit hole has been explored by pages of discussion on SailX moderator pages. Have at it :)
My argument is that Starboard, once she waives port through, has indicated to Port that she has chosen "her course" to be that, as she approaches Port, she will fall off and duck Port [added later: , and that Port will keep clear of Starboard if Port holds her course].
Therefore, Starboard's alteration in course does not constitute an "avoiding action".
I think this get closest to capturing the reality of this back-and-forth and does not require getting mired in 64.1(a)'s "compelled" as exoneration isn't necessary.
Facts Found:
1. Port and Starboard are in the middle of the windward leg on opposite tacks, both on beats to windward. They are on a collision course that puts Starboard's bow impacting Port amidships if neither boat alters course.
2. Starboard puts her bow down to duck Port
Conclusion:
Port failed to keep clear of Starboard
Decision:
P breaks Rule 10.
Regarding Rule 2, we do not have enough information to determine if it has been "clearly established" that the principles of sportsmanship and fair play have been breached. If P tacked after S altered course, because there was a left shift, or they suddenly saw pressure right, or they realized they were on lay line, it might NOT be a breach of rule 2. If when they hailed "Tack of Cross", they did so with a plan and intention of inducing S to duck and then placing a slam dunk and a pin, that they would not otherwise have been able to achieve, then it would rise to a breach of Rule 2.
However, in practical RW terms, if P is not crossing S, then it is far more likely to succeed by placing a lee bow vs a slam dunk. Trying to slam dunk a Stbd boat that is ducking you is unlikely to end well tactically. You are subject to 13 during the tack, so you cannot start tacking too early. You will likely end up lee bowed and pinched out.
I would dsq on 10 and need some convincing on 2. But with evidence that clearly establishes the premeditated plan, then 2 would come into play.
Elegant, but I dont think it works. S chose to alter course...but S still alters course.
Elegant, but I dont think it works. S chose to alter course to avoid B...but S still alters course to avoid P. S would have to show that she altered course for another reason to avoid 10 applying. (which is the clue in how to distinguish scenario 3 from 4)
Scenario #1: I agree with Ang. Starboard's "chosen course" is to continue on starboard tack, which she knows will involve an alteration of course to duck Port. Therefore, Port has "kept clear" within the meaning of the definition and rule 10.
Scenario #2: Trickier and possibly a rule 2 violation. Starboard should not use the "pass" hail to sucker Port into a disadvantageous situation.
Scenario #3: The same answer as Scenario #1. Port kept clear because Starboard was able to sail her intended course without the need to take avoiding action. Starboard may have chosen to take an avoiding action (ducking Port) for strategic reasons, but had no "need to".
Scenario #4: The same answer as Scenario #3.
All of this is without introducing the additional question of whether in Scenario #3, Port is then obligated to cross Starboard or whether she can tack before Starboard begins her alteration of course, which is usually when the boats are about 3-4 boat lengths apart. Without of specific set of assumed facts, I don't think that Port is obligated to cross Starboard just because Starboard prefers that she do so.
Regards,
I agree that S "chose" to alter course. I think you would be asked to find as fact whether S chose to alter course to avoid P?
Bingo. That would be the route for scenario 1.
Scenario 3 and 4 are more difficult.
Note that “alter(s) course” is not in the def of Keep Clear, but rather that ROW can “..sail her course with no need to take avoiding action”.
(1) We dont have to get into language contortions of trying to persuade an Appeals Committee that "choosing to alter course to avoid P" was not an avoiding action. We don't have to add a distinction of "choice" to defining an avoiding action.
(2) "Through no fault of her own" (Rule 62.1) is a lower hurdle than S "has compelled another boat (P) to break a rule" (64.1 (a)) . The outcome is the same and P would be exonerated.
I think Port would be hard-pressed to say that she entered into this agreement with Starboard at "no fault of her own".
I'm sticking with my first instincts at this point. Starboard told Port that if she held her course, she would keep clear of Starboard and Starboard's maneuvers to sail her (chosen) course were not "avoiding actions".
Port kept-clear of Starboard.
Angelo, I agree that "no fault of her own" is a high standard. However I would be sympathetic to a request for redress in the case of Scenario 1.
Here would be my "one minute justice" rulings:
Is there an intellectual conflict between finding that S was choosing her course rather than taking avoiding action in 1 (for exoneration purposes), and dinging P in 2 for not keeping clear?
I may be missing the basis for Justin’s DQ in 2.
I actually haven't chimed-in on anything except Scenario #1 at this point .. or any of the Rule 2/69 questions in any of the scenarios (other than ask some leading questions). My comments are only addressing Scenario #1 ..
In Scenario #1:
Starboard initiates this communication ... and I'm proposing "Wave Through" has embedded within it:
Based upon these offer 'terms', Port agrees.
Now, these arguments might not hold up. They are offered-up for the hammering of them (and hopefully not me!) :-) I could certainly be convinced otherwise.
One of the reasons I put both Scenario #1 and #2 up there was to explore if being the initiator in the negotiation makes any difference.
I'm suggesting that Case 47 indicates that good sportsmanship and safety relies upon honest communication between competitors on the water. We rely upon these words and phrases to avoid banging into each other and though their meanings and use are not described in the rules, competitors should be able to rely upon their common understanding and honest use on the water.
From there how does the "wave through" and "tack or pass" fit in?
How about below? If Blue wants to lee-bow Yellow. Her chosen course is to tack in front of Yellow. Is Blue's tack an "avoiding action"?
If Blue's testimony at position 2 was that if Blue had not tacked , then there would have been a reasonable apprehension of a collision. If Yellow agrees with that testimony. Then I would find that rule 10 has been broken. The fact that Blue chose to avoid a collision and gain the leebow (the no harm, no foul argument) does not exonerate Yellow for failing to keep clear.
If Blue tacks early enough such that if B had not tacked, yellow had time and opportunity to keep clear then no rule has been broken. If Blue tacked later than that so that if Blue had not tacked, B could reasonably apprehend a collision than rule 10 has been broken.
Its Scenario 3 vs Scenarios 4 for the dip.
Hello Andrew......as I read the facts in 2. I understood that S had already commenced to alter course to avoid P. P had already failed to keep clear. The fact that S "chose" to avoid P is consistent with my finding that Rule 10 does not provide a loophole for P if S chooses to alter course to avoid.
However, I may have misinterpreted Angelo's primary intention which was to see if it mattered who initiated the hail.
I thought the issue was that as S bore away, this allowed P to tack unfairly onto S and thus S was no longer bound by rule 2. I was focused on the fact that P tacked rather than P initiated the hail.
If P initiated the hail. S ducked and both boats carried on sailing but S protested (scenario 2) or third party protested (scenario 4) ......then my findings would be the same as 1 and 4.
I've since gone back to the OP and made the text bold. In both Scenario's, it is the boat that initiated the offer that reneges (S#1, Starboard protesting, S#2, Port tacking on Starboard's air).
[In both situations #1 (the "Wave Through") and #2 ("Tack or Pass?"), one could argue as in Case 47 , the boat "reneging" used a commonly understood sailing term, phrase or action, which is regularly used between boats on a collision course to avoid contact between them, to trick another boat into a disadvantaged position.]
In Scenario #2, I think the common understanding of what "Tack or Pass?" means, when hailed from Port to Starboard, is:
Based upon those "terms", Starboard agrees to "pass".