Forum: Rule 18 and Room at the Mark
Mark room at the leeward finsih line.
Jerry Thompson
Certifications:
- National Judge
- Umpire In Training
- Regional Race Officer
0
A friend sent me the above hypothetical downwind finish (I understand the finish line is a bit off) scenario and asked me which rules apply. I’m not absolutely sure. A search of the cases and appeals didn’t help me. I have reviewed this RRS post https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/388-mark-room-at-the-finish, but it is at a windward finish and want to present the leeward finish. Position 2 is where I am not sure.
Green established the overlap from clear astern.
At position 1 Red is ROW, rule 11.
At position 2 Red is ROW rule 11, do any other rules apply?
At position 2 which is the inside boat?
At position 2 may Red continue beyond her proper course?
At position 2 Green is not fetching the mark. Must she be fetching to be entitled mark-room?
At position 2 Green must gybe, if she is entitled mark-room, does mark-room include room to gybe? 18.4 doesn’t seem to apply.
At position 3 Red and Green gybe, Green is ROW and entitled to mark-room.
At position 4 Red does not give Green mark-room, Green luffs and manages to avoid hitting the finish mark. Red breaks rule 18.2(a).
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
- Correct.
- As RRS 17 is not "turned on", Red may sail beyond her proper course before gybing. However, what Red can do in the context of one rule may not be the whole story as other rules may impose restrictions on Red. Restrictions are cumulative. They aren't overridden just because another rule says you can do something. When the first boat of the pair enters the zone, RRS 18 "turns on" and starting at that point in time Red is required to give Green mark room.
- No. In this case fetching the mark is not relevant as tacking is not a part of what the boats are doing to pass the mark, see RRS 18.3.
- RRS 18.4 does not apply. The definition of mark room includes the "room to sail to the mark". If a boat needs to gybe to be allowed to sail to the mark then the room includes that room.
- True, however, Green has been entitled to mark room from the time the first boat entered the zone and not starting at Position 3.
- True, but Red actually broke RRS 18.2(a) shortly after entering the zone when she prevented Green from sailing "to the mark".
If Green continued her course past #2 on her own accord, that just means that Red is sailing into room that is not hers .. and she does so at her own risk.
As Case 63 states .. "At a mark, when space is made available to a boat that is not entitled to it, she may, at her own risk, take advantage of the space."
I've shown the corridor in purple.
Can you explain why Green at 1.5 is entitled to Mark Room
Paddy
From that point Green is entitled to sail close to the mark as her proper course at P1.5 would be to gybe over as soon as possible and sail to the correct side of the Committee boat. While Red is ROW under R 11, she is obligated to give mark room, and so any other course discussion for Red is irrelevant.
John
Are you asking, "Why is Green considered inside?" at position #1.5 and thus owed mark-room?
First, I'm estimating that Green or Red's bow crosses the zone at #1.5 and thus one of them enters the zone at that time and they are overlapped.
To further answer the question, you look at the mark in question and what side these boats need to leave the mark on. The answer in this case is they both need to leave the mark to starboard.
OK .. so Red needs to leave the mark to starboard .. so what side of Red is Green on? The answer is starboard again.
As you progress these boats forward, both having to leave the mark to starboard, Green being on the same side of Red as the mark must be left, Green's track will bring her between Red and the mark. Therefore, Green is inside and thus owed mark-room from Red.
None of 18.1's criteria apply, therefore 18.2(b) applies. [Actually, John C's last answer is slightly incorrect, Red break 18.2(b), not 18.2(a)]
Was that what you were asking?
Ang
Thanks for your detailed answer
I fully understand now. Good to follow the track of the boats.
Another tool to consider.
Paddy
Hi everybody, i am thinking it this way:
When both jibe we have a new overlap, so 18.2b is over and 18.2a turns on.
Point to Angelo:
18.2(c) When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b),
(1) she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins;
(BTW .. personally I learn best when challenged this way, so I'm hoping you are finding my questioning-approach beneficial to you).
OF COURSE ANGELO !!!...I agree !!!....and thanks you !!!
...i do not want the answer for free !!!
She is of course constrained by 16.1. It is 18 that gets her into this position.
It’s not clear that is the case and Green could have felt forced into that corner by not being given room to sail directly to the mark at #1.5.
There are not facts found either way from just the drawing.
Green does. 18 -> 21 -> 15/16 exoneration for Green.
I´d like to stop for a minute and think about "HOW WE BREAK AN OVELAP"
In the first case, Blue is faster than Red, and in position N°1,5 the overlap is broken.
In the second case:
N°1 Yellow and Green are overlapped
N°2 Green gybes ....is this A NEW OVERLAP ???
And in the last case,
At position N°1 both are overlaped
At position N°2 is this a NEW OVERLAP ??
Looking at the definition of Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; Overlap and looking at your Blue and Red #1, you say they are overlapped ...
Next looking at your Yellow/Green #1 and #2 ...
What is your explanation of why Red and Blue are overlapped (using the definition's terms)?
They overlap when neither is clear astern.
Does it matter that they are on the same tack? Why or Why not?
NO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Questions ....
Can boats be overlapped based upon more than 1 criteria at the same time?
NO
a) Same tack
b) Opposite tacks
Is there more than 1 overlap criteria between your Blue and Red?
If so what are they?
a) "They overlap when neither is clear astern. /same tack"
------------------------------------------------------------
Go back to the top to Jerry’s original drawing ...
How many different criteria of overlap are met at position #3?
ONE,
"They overlap when neither is clear astern. /same tack"
How many at position #1?
"They overlap when neither is clear astern. /same tack"
Position #2?
"They overlap when neither is clear astern. /same tack"
What are they?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next looking at your Yellow/Green #1 and #2 ...
Are Yellow/Green #1 overlapped for the same reason that Blue/Red #1 are overlapped?
YES
"They overlap when neither is clear astern. /same tack"
Does that reason change in your Yellow/Green #2 when Green flips her main to the opposite side?
YES
"They overlap when neither is clear astern. / OPPOSITE tacks"
"......boats on opposite tacks only when rule 18 applies between them or when both boats are sailing more than ninety degrees from the true wind. "
When I think about determining "overlap", I break it up into 2 parts. The first part is the first half of the definition [emphasis added]..
So, an overlap is established when neither is clear astern or they have a boat between them that overlaps both.
Next, the definition lists a series of conditions detailing when you can apply the term.
[I know the above seems a bit awkward. The definition clearly states that "...boats overlap when neither is clear astern.", then next they say that though they overlap, you can't apply the term "overlap" except in certain circumstances .. but that is how it is written.]
Next the definition lists the 'application-conditions' (below). At least one of these conditions must be satisfied for the term "overlap" to "apply" between 2 boats.
It is easier for me to see these conditions as not mutually exclusive. Since Overlap always applies between boats on the same tack, that means it also applies to boats on the same tack >90 deg TW and on boats on the same tack when 18 applies (this is just how my mind organizes it).
Therefore, once you determine that 2 boats overlap (neither is clear astern or there is an overlapping boat between them), you can only apply the term "overlap" in the rules if at least one of these possible conditions exists:
Looking back at Jerry's original drawing below ..
So, as long as there is at least one application condition satisfied while they are overlapped (neither becomes clear astern of the other or loose the common overlap of a boat between them), the application of the term "overlap" between the boats is not broken.
When it comes to 18.2(b) vs 18.2(a), there is never a condition that turns off 18.2(b) in this scenario. Once you have 18.2(b) applying, you should look at the conditions in 18.2(d) (which turns off 18.2(b) specifically) or the conditions in 18.1 (which turns off 18 entirely). The conditions of 18.2(d) nor 18.1 are satisfied, therefore 18.2(b) still controls at positions #3 and #4.
This is the key for me:
".......So, as long as there is at least one application condition satisfied while they are overlapped (neither becomes clear astern of the other or loose the common overlap of a boat between them),
the application of the term "overlap" between the boats is not broken."
THANKS !!!!
Ang,
To answer your question, "Yes, this is really different". Like my answer earlier about who cares about 18 in this situation. 18 is the answer as to why this is different and important.
In USA119, it is the windward [keep clear] boat that gets room [from the ROW boat to leeward]... room to keep-clear of leeward first by 15 and then by 16.
In our scenario, it is the leeward [ROW] boat (Green) that gets mark-room, which includes room. Because Green gets mark-room and room, she is exonerated for breaking 15 and 16 in incidents with Red by Rule 21 (in complete contrast with US119) . [This exoneration is available when Red is "sailing within the room she is entitled to", which in this case is a corridor from where Green entered the zone directly to the mark on the proper side]
Many threads ago, John Allan pointed out (and it stuck with me) when you think "room" or "mark-room", think Rule 21 (he said it more eloquently .. but that's how I stored it).
Also read Case 118 as well. Green is owed the corridor I drew early in the thread. Green is exonerated for incidents with Red involving Section A, 15 and 16 when she sailing within that corridor. Red enters that room at her own risk.
PS .. also Case 75 says it directly. "The mark-room that P was required to give S was the space S needed in the existing conditions to sail promptly to the mark in a seamanlike way. .... That space was a direct corridor from S1 to a position close to and alongside the mark on the required side."
As far as our discussion regarding OP (my zone-pic below), I'll copy your points and put my responses inline (all of course just being my opinion).
Yes, my important point is exactly that. Rule 21 applies to Green, NOT Red. Rule 21 applies to Green while she is sailing within room or mark-room she is entitled to. That room she is entitled to ... [from Case 75] " .. was a direct corridor from
S1[position #1.5] to a position close to and alongside the mark on the required side."Rule 21 potentially exonerates Green for breaking ...
No, not when Red first touches the zone ... we assess it each moment after that. IMO we don't have enough information regarding the communication between the boats, their speed, the conditions, the performance characteristics regarding speed of turning, etc. We are assuming that this is NOT an umpired event, where officials can be making these calls in real-time. Though there is no required communication between the boats, communication between boats is a recognized method of attempting to avoid contact between boats, so we'd want to understand what was actually happening.
At position #1.5, there is ~1/3 BL between the tip of Green's boom to the Red's hull-outline (not accounting for rigging). If Green had a reasonable apprehension that her boom might get caught in a shroud for instance and was calling for and waiting for Red to head down, that would be important info.
Yes, but we can't forget Rule 14 in that statement. This is where Green's apprehension to start heading down into currently non-existing space puts Green at risk.
It's important to note that out of all the "damage" and "injury" references in the rules, Rule 14 has the lowest standard as it is simply "damage or injury" (without qualifiers).
IMO we don't have enough information from the drawing alone to make that determination. Red sails into that space at her own risk.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that Green had a sheet over-wrapped on the winch and thus it was not her apprehension of collision with Red that delays her movement. In that instance, Red can sail into position #2 and maybe further .. but when Green does make her move, Red is sailing in mark-room Green was entitled to.
IMO, at each moment that Red sails further into the zone, the corridor to the mark follows Green. At #3, the corridor extends to either side of Green, the inside of which aligns with stern of the RC. Just before #3, Red still has a chance to harden and leave Green room. Adding to that (being Nigel's main point earlier), at #3, Green also becomes ROW, who will be exonerated for breaking 15 and 16.
By the time we get to #3.5, if I was Green I think I would bail on the line, protest Red and circle and recross. Given the overlap of Red's stern over Green's bow, it might be clear at #3.5 that Red will not be able to provide Green room to avoid a collision with Red, the RC or both.
Mark-room includes room to do the things listed in its definition.
Room is the space a boat needs [to do certain things] and includes space to maneuver and adds to that the space needed for a boat to comply with other obligations under Part 2 and Rule 31.
Words are important. The words we use to describe things shapes how we think and categorize those things.
You've been consistent with using phrases with the effect of .. "Green gave her room freely" .. or variations on that.
I think using the terms "give" or "gave" puts an undo element of 'surrender' around our thinking. If one gives something, someone else receives that thing and that thing now belongs to the receiver.
Instead of thinking of Green "giving her room freely", try thinking of it as Green 'not using her room at that moment'.
OK ..
Say I've got $100 in $20's sitting on the table that I'm going to use to pay my bills that night. We are roommates and you are home at 6pm and I'll be back at 8pm. You need cash right now to pay for the pizza your ordered and the delivery man is knocking on the door. You use $20 of my $100, buy your pizza and later go to the corner get $20 out of the ATM and put it back before I get home.
Did I give you that $20 freely? No. It was my money and you used some of it and put it back so that when I needed to pay my bills it was there.
If you went down to the ATM and it was broken, then you try another one and it's out of money and then I can't pay my bills, you are in trouble. You use my $20, money that was not yours, at your own risk.
PS .. look closely at Case 12. The OL boat tries to give the IW boat room when IW turns to around the mar, but OL has put herself in that room and in a position that she can no longer provide it. In Case 12's example, OL needed to provide IW the space to sail into.
Again, my normal caveat, this is how I see it currently. I'm open to correction and open to learning.
I'm glad you reference Case 75, because that is an important data point and it is different from our scenario in a few important ways.
In Case 75, ..
OK, back to our scenario and 'The Story of the Traveling Corridor' ...
As long as 18.2(b) applies between Red and Green .. " .
the outside boat[Red] at that moment shall thereafter give theinside boat[Green] mark-room. ". In Case 75, Outside never sails into that corridor of mark-room. In our scenario, at #2 Red has sailed into that space. At #2, 18.2(b) still applies between the boats. What is mark-room at #2 for Green? IMO, it is the space from #2 to sail to the mark and pass it on its correct side. At #2, that is a corridor from #2.At position #3, now Green is Inside-ROW, but 18.2(b) has applied uninterrupted between the boats. Red has sailed into the corridor from #2 (again, opposite from Case 75). Red owes Green mark-room, which is the space to sail to the mark and pass it on its correct side. At #3, that is a corridor from #3.
Had Red gybed at #1.5 and sailed to starboard of the RC leaving 3/4BL between her and the RC, that mark-room corridor would have been sufficient space for Green to sail to the mark and pass it on its correct side. In that case, there would be no need to reset the corridor as Red would have never encroached upon it [as it is in Case 75].
The original corridor would have been given and sufficient.
[added ... Also, after Green gybes she become ROW and 18.4 will not apply to her because it won’t be Green’s proper course to gybe again to finish. Green will be exonerated for breaking 15 during her gybe and 16 after her gybe, but only as long as she remains within the mark-room she is entitled to. Therefore if Red had provided the corridor at #1.5 and Green gybed and used her rule 11 ROW to take more room than that, Green would not be exonerated if she breaks 16.1 while doing so. ]
In Case 75 at position 1.8, that space has been provided by Outside-Port. If the inside boat was also on port, Outside would have provided sufficient room, though not enough to sail a tactical rounding (see US 20 below).
In Case 75, because Inside is also ROW, she is not limited by the minimum mark-room Outside gives her. In Case 75 she can sail outside the mark-room but when she does she is limited by 18.4 to not sail beyond her proper course and 16 to give Outside room to keep clear.
Also see Case 70 and US Appeal 20. US20 is a corollary to Case 75. Taken together they paint the picture.
The main point and difference between our situation and Case 75 is that in our scenario the boat owing mark-room did not leave it open to the boat entitled to it, therefore the space needed changes over time. In Case 70, 75 and US20 Outside left that space needed open for Inside and the inside boats sailed outside of it.
Now are we agreeing?
It trips me up too, but it’s “Section A of Part 2” not “Section 2”. Also, though I’m guilty of this often myself, try to use the words in the rules. So toss “impunity” and use “shall be exonerated”. Impunity may carry other unintended connotations.