The situation is a mixed HC fleet, where a 20ft boat and a 40ft boat are approaching a mark, with the 20ft boat traveling faster and breaking an overlap near the mark.
The longer boat argues the zone began at 120 ft and the boats were overlapped when entering the zone, the shorter boat argues the zone began at 60 ft and the overlap was broken before entering the zone.
Definition state that the Zone is "The area around a mark within a distance of three hull lengths of the boat nearer to it."
A strict reading of the definition suggests the zone begins 60ft from the mark and that's when Rule 18 switches on.
But if the boats were even, or if the longer boat were slightly ahead, would the Zone be from 120 ft?
A prudent race committee will want to resolve the ambiguity in advance, wither through reference to a case, or through local practice, but the question is how?
RRS 86.1 doesn't appear to permit an SI to be written to change the definition of Zone, but perhaps allows a changes to 18.1(a) or 18.2(a).
Any recommendations, please?
If the 40 ft boat reaches the 120 ft zone, overlapped, but before the 20 ft boat, then she is the first of two boats to reach the zone, RRS 18.2(a)(1) applies and whichever boat is outside is required to give the inside boat mark-room, and RRS 18.2(a) last sentence applies
When a boat is required to give mark-room by this rule, she shall continue to do so for as long as this rule applies, even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins.
If the 20 ft boat then becomes advanced and nearer the mark, then, theoretically the zone contracts to 60 ft, but this does not change the entitlement of the boat, overlapped inside at the 120 ft zone, to mark-room.
If the 20 ft boat becomes advanced and nearer the mark at the 120 ft mark, then the zone is defined by her length, as 60 ft, and at that point neither boat is in the zone and RRS 18 does not apply.
If the bows of the boats were level at the 120 ft zone, the protest committee would apply the last point of certainty: Immediately before the 120 ft zone boundary, the bow of the 20 ft boat, overtaking from astern was further from the mark than the bow of the 40 ft boat, so the 40 ft boat was nearer the mark and the 120 ft zone would apply.
There us nothing for a prudent race committee to resolve.
This is a straightforward application of the Definition of zone, RRS 28, and the last point of certainty principle.
Is it possible that because the 120 ft zone is behind them, it can never be the defining zone i.e. once they have passed the 120 ft zone with the 20 boat closer to it at that point in time, the zone will always be the 60 ft zone no matter which boat is nearer to the mark?
I suspect that this is one of those situations where the rule writers would have decided that it wasn't worth the effort to resolve this in the rule in order to keep it simple. After all, neither boat wants to get tangled up with the other boat. The outside boat will likely just give the inside boat room.
I suppose when 40 gets bow out between 60 and 120, the zone leaps back to 120 and you could backtrack to that zone, where 20 was nearer the mark: I think that's looking a bit absurd and convoluted.''
I haven't squeezed the lemon dry, but I suspect that you're right: no matter what, the outside overlapped boat is going to be required to give mark-room, so it's not worth chasing after the corner cases.
It's possible, but I think it would take a Case to do it, otherwise, I think applying the words of Definition Zone causes the 'leap-over'.
This is where you want the sailors to focus on what is important, which is not to be stuck on the outside of another boat and to get into an orderly line so that you have all your options open after the rounding.
Paul, RRS 18.2(3) doesn't exactly get us there. It is a specific application of the Last Point of Certainty Principle that applies when there is doubt about whether or not boats are overlapped.
The more general statement of the Last Point of Certainty Principle is in RRS C2.6
LAST POINT OF CERTAINTY
The umpires will assume that the state of a boat, or her relationship to another boat, has not changed, until they are certain that it has changed.
This is an important principle: judges use it all the time where there is doubt.
I'm a bit amazed that it is not discussed in the Judges Manual
Thank you all.
If 40 was more advanced and reached the 120 ft zone first, then RRS 18.2(a)(1) applied and the outside boat was required to give the inside boat mark-room, and according to RRS 18.2(a) last sentence, continue to do so for as long as this rule applied, even if later 20 broke the overlap by becoming clear ahead.
If 20 was more advanced at the 120 ft zone, then she was nearer the mark at that time and the 60 ft zone applied.
If 20 then drew ahead and reached the 60 ft zone clear ahead, then RRS 18.2(a)(2) applied and 40 was required to give 20 mark-room, likewise, for as long as this rule applied.
If the 20 is bracketed by two 40 footers, one ahead and one behind, but all overlapped, does that mean two different zones when dealing with the two boats beside her?
If 40 then drew ahead and reached the 60 ft zone ahead, then there is no zone defined so R18 cannot apply as at least one boat cannot be in the zone.
That means R19 can apply as Rule 19 applies between two boats at an obstruction except when rule 18 applies between them and the obstruction is the mark.
That gives R43 exoneration.
Here is the definition
Zone The area around a mark within a distance of three hull lengths of the boat nearer to it. A boat is in the zone when any part of her hull is in the zone.
There is nothing in the definition about it ceasing to apply when there is a change in the boat nearest to the mark.
As between two boats there will always be a boat nearer to the mark (if boats appear equal, applying the last point of certainty principle explained above), and there will always be a zone as defined.
And, by the by, there was nothing in the OP about the mark being an obstruction.
When a boat is required to give mark-room by this rule, she
If 20 is ahead at 120 ft they are not in the zone because they have not reached it.
If at some point between 120 ft and 60 ft, 40 gets ahead so becomes closest to the mark, how does the zone start, bearing in mind they are not in a zone at that point. Is it at the point 40 gets ahead between 120 ft and 60 ft.
Or is it when they reach 60 ft with 40 still the nearest boat to the mark.
R18,2a requires to know when the first boat reaches the zone.
And somehow, if the zone is vague, boats following them could somehow be in the zone also possibly without knowing
Somehow it doesn't stack up.
In our club on a small lake we have a structure called the hut. It is a platform in the lake, about 14 ft x 14 ft with a wooden shed on it with a good viewing window. It used to be used for the race committee when running races. Later they bought a committee boat, because the hut being in a corner of the lake, limited the directions they could make the first beat.
A few years ago, a big storm came across the Atlantic from the US and blew the whole shed off the platform into the lake. The shed is now gone but the platform still remains. We quite often use it as a mark because the 4 cardinal marks are not always a good line.
Hitting it in a sailing dinghy at speed would do serious damage.
The mark is a mark of the course. It's not an obstruction. It might scuff a nice paint finish but it won't sink a boat.
Here's the scenario I have in mind:
Conditions are benign, no appreciable sea state, wind 10 kts. Wind is down the page, mark to be left to port,
The Yellow boat is 15ft long, Blue is 20ft, Green and Red are 40ft. All are overlapped, the overlaps are not in dispute.
Yellow is <45ft from the mark
There is contact between Yellow and Blue, between Blue and Green, and between Green and Red. Yellow is within 45' of the mark when contact occurs with Blue, and Green is with 120' of the mark when contact with Red occurs.
Each boat protests the boats they make contact with. The PC combines the protests into a single incident.
What facts will the PC find?
What will be the conclusions and applicable rules?
What will be the decisions, and scoring changes, if any?
Here are some more facts and conclusions
Assuming there was no injury or damage.
Facts
3A. There was ample space to windward of Y.
Conclusions
C1. Y did not avoid contact with B when it was reasonably possible for her, acting no sooner than it was clear that B was not giving mark-room, to do so. Y broke RRS 14.
C2. Y, sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled, and contact not causing any damage or injury, is exonerated for breaking RRS 14 by RRS 43.1(c).
C3. B did not avoid contact with Y when it was reasonably possible for her, acting no sooner than it was clear that Y was not keeping clear, to do so. Y broke RRS 14.
C4. B, a right of way boat, and contact not causing any damage or injury, is exonerated for breaking RRS 14 by RRS 43.1(c).
F1. It was not reasonably possible for B acting no sooner than it was clear that G was not giving mark-room, to avoid contact with G. B did not break RRS 14 with respect to G.
F2. G did not avoid contact with B when it was reasonably possible for her, acting no sooner than it was clear that B was not keeping clear, to do so. Y broke RRS 14.
F3. G, a right of way boat, and contact not causing any damage or injury, is exonerated for breaking RRS 14 with respect to G by RRS 43.1(c).
J1. It was not reasonably possible for G acting no sooner than it was clear that R was not giving mark-room, to avoid contact with R. G did not break RRS 14 with respect to R.
F2. R did not avoid contact with G when it was reasonably possible for her, acting no sooner than it was clear that G was not keeping clear, to do so. R broke RRS 14.
C4. R, a right of way boat, and contact not causing any damage or injury, is exonerated for breaking RRS 14 with respect to G by RRS 43.1(c).
Summary
Boats Y and B.
Both boats broke RRS 14 but both boats are exonerated because there was no injury or damage and each one was either a right of way boat or sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled.
Boats B and G
B did not break RRS 14 with respect to G.
G broke RRS 14 but is exonerated because there was no injury or damage and she was a right of way boat.
Boats G and R
G did not break RRS 14 with respect to R.
R broke RRS 14 but is exonerated because there was no injury or damage and she was a right of way boat.