Firstly, I'm not convinced that there wasn't a change of course by L; albeit that the helmsperson may not have induced it. My (assumed) findings subject to a clearer answer to the above : L (ROW) lost control of her mainsheet and suddenly altered course and heeled quickly to windward. There was contact between the mast tops of W and L that caused damage. W failed to keep clear of L. L failed to avoid contact with W. My conclusion : W was keeping clear of L until L lost control of her mainsheet. In not keeping clear of L, W broke RRS 11 and 14. L failed to avoid contact with W and broke RRS 14 (and probably 16.1). My decision : The contact with W was caused through no fault of her own (not having time to avoid the contact, albeit not ROW boat, thus need to find on 16.1) and L broke a rule of Part 2. W is exonerated (RDG) for breaking RRS 14 (and probably 11). L is DSQ for breaking RRS 14 and possibly 16.1 as well.
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a). 2. L did broke 14 as she caused contact but exonerated under 43.1(c) as no damage or injury. 3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
There is a third alternative. 14 states "If reasonably possible". It would appear that it was not reasonably possible for W to avoid contact, so no breach of 14 by W. Whether or not it was reasonably possible for L to avoid contact would depend on why the heel (with no change of course) took place. If the PC found that it was not reasonably possible for L to avoid contact, then W would be in breach of 11 and there does not appear to be any basis for 43.1(c) to apply to W.
If W was unable to avoid contact: if L immediately heeling to windward caused the contact then can L be penalized? Then again how is W unable to avoid contact? W could have changed course to windward. Since W is not the ROW boat there should be someone watching L's moves. Avoiding contact is the most important act a skipper can take other than avoiding human injury.
Ah ! That is the trap Chin. If it was not reasonably possible for L to avoid contact with W, nor cause contact between them, then L would not have broken 14, so 43 does not apply at all. Very unfair in these apparent circs, but who ever said RRS were fair ?
I think Matt is correct. It's unlikely that L changed course, especially to windward, given the heel and associated weather helm. This may be one of those unfortunate situations for W that isn't covered by the rules. W was obviously quite close to L. Maybe less than a boatlength to allow this to occur.
W kept clear by definition. L did not change course. W exonerated of contact. L should have taken a turns penalty. Who hailed Protest? Who would dare take the 50-50 shot in the room and file? L should offer over beers to pay for repairs.
Phil- Please 'splain how W kept clear 'by definition'. And when you write the conclusion in the hearing, under what rule would you penalize L? I read the definition of keep clear, and I don't think W kept clear. L was indeed sailing her course, but while doing so, she inadvertently dropped her mainsheet (I know about that!) At that point she would have had to take avoiding action to prevent contact with W, so by the definition it seems to me that W was not keeping clear. I think 'tough luck' for W. And this likely happened in about a second, and L did not break 14.
"b) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact."
Going back to the original post: "J24, lateral separation between boats is 1 hull Length".
If the windward boat is 1 boat length abeam of the leeward overlapped boat, it seems to me that the leeward boat has plenty of room to change course in both directions without immediately making contact, right? How did the windward boat not keep clear?
This seems like an ideal example where Case 77 would apply. In the case, the give way boat didn't violate Rule 14 since it "was not reasonably possible for B to avoid contact with A".
Yes Will More, I consider case 77...that is come to my conclusions as below:
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a). 2. L did broke 14 as she caused contact but exonerated under 43.1(c) as no damage or injury. 3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
This one is dirt simple: Rule 11. Every PC I've ever been involved with, on either side of the table, would penalize W and exonerate L.
I don't see how Case 77 applies as a boat can sail at whatever heel angle she pleases. I.e., heel angle does not have an "equipment in normal position" component.
Furthermore, a windward boat sailing over a leeward boat must certainly anticipate L "standing up" in her wind shadow (been there!). In this case, it supposedly happened because of L mishandling the mainsheet. So what? What if L had just decided that it's time to sail flat? Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule11!!!
Kett, If you want to apply 11 in this case you are saying that W always has to allow space for L to act in this unpredictable way. If this is the case, then start lines would need to be at least three times longer that they are. It could also lead to people deliberately dropping their mainsheet to initiate contact which would be rule 2 imo but almost impossible to prove. The fair result for me in this case would be L broke 14 as she caused contact with another boat but, as she was RoW and there was no damage or injury, she is exonerated under 43.1(c). W was compelled to break 11 by L breaking 14 and is exonerated under 43.1(a). I appreciate the rules are not always fair, but this does not prevent them being applied fairly when necessary.
" The fair result for me in this case would be L broke 14 as she caused contact with another boat but, as she was RoW and there was no damage or injury, she is exonerated under 43.1(c). "
In the description of the incident there was damage, which changes the situation
If there is contact between boats one of them needed to take action to avoid the other, so one of them has not kept clear and a right-of-way rule must have been broken.
With about 1 hull length separation between boats, W is keeping clear until she isn't.
A give way boat can always sail as close as she likes to a right-of-way boat, but she takes the risk that she will fail to keep clear.
I also think that if there is contact (and no room or mark-room applies) it is always reasonably possible for a give way boat to have avoided contact by keeping clear as she was required to do.
Ant, I'm not convinced that there wasn't a change of course by L; albeit that the helmsperson may not have induced it.
I don't think that's a very good line of argument.
As a judge you may not be convinced, but until a party brings evidence that you can evaluate on balance of probabilities that the boat changed course, you can't find that as a fact.
And until one of the parties advances the proposition that the boat changed course, I think a judge asking whether a boat changed course would be impermissibly leading.
John, you've got to my point. Helm says I did not do anything to alter course. Next question to L : Did the boat change its heading after the mainsheet was released ? Then : Once L had regained control of the mainsheet, what was the distance between the hulls ? What actions did W take after the contact occurred ? Releasing the mainsheet changes the centre of effort on the sails significantly. In 15 knots of wind I don't see that there wouldn't be a change of course. Judges are required to use their own sailing experience to help come to a determination of what most probably happened.
All the rules make the assumption that the boats are handled in a seamanlike manner. Suddenly releasing the main sheet is not seamanlike. No foul on w as the incident was caused by L.
Facts (from your sketch) Both boats are on the same tack. L is the leeward right-of-way boat under Rule 11. W is required to keep clear. They are sailing at about 15 knots. L did not alter her heading, but suddenly missed the mainsheet, causing the boat to heel rapidly to windward. As a result, the windward side of L rose into contact with W. There was no serious damage.
Rule 11 W must keep clear of L. The definition of Keep Clear requires that L be able to sail her course and, while overlapped, change course in either direction without immediately making contact. If W was sailing so close that a sudden but unusual heel of L caused contact, I would ask whether W was, in fact, keeping clear.
Rule 16? Probably not. Rule 16.1 only applies when a right-of-way boat changes course. If the committee finds that L's heading did not change, only her angle of heel changed because the mainsheet was briefly released, then Rule 16.1 is not engaged. A boat can heel substantially without changing course.
Rule 14 Both boats had a duty to avoid contact if reasonably possible. If the contact was instantaneous and caused solely by the unexpected heel, it may not have been reasonably possible for either boat to avoid it.
Relevant(ish) Case Law The most relevant authority is Case 74:
"There is no rule that dictates how the helmsman or crew of a leeward boat must sit. Contact with a windward boat does not break rule 2 unless the helmsman's or crew's position is deliberately misused."
Although Case 74 concerns crew position rather than heel, it reinforces the principle that a leeward boat's normal movements do not, by themselves, constitute unfair sailing.
Also relevant is Case 91, which states that a keep-clear boat must keep clear of another boat's equipment when it has been out of its normal position long enough to have been seen and avoided. While this case concerns equipment rather than heel, it illustrates that the keep-clear obligation extends to foreseeable movements of the right-of-way boat.
I would make the following findings:
L remained the right-of-way boat under Rule 11.
L did not change course, so Rule 16.1 did not apply.
The rapid heel did not remove W's obligation to keep clear.
If the heel was an ordinary consequence of sail handling, W failed to keep clear and broke Rule 11.
L would only be penalised if the evidence showed that she could reasonably have avoided the contact under Rule 14 and failed to do so.
Windward boat (W) is disqualified for breaking Rule 11.
My new thought after aware there are damaged.. 1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a). 2. L broke 14 as she caused contact and not exonerated under 43.1(c) because there are damage. Penalized L. 3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
One could argue that her action (suddenly and unexpectedly releasing the main sheet causing L boat to stand up) didn't give W opportunity/time to stay clear, thus causing the rigs to collide, and her action was not seamanlike
Rene said Reply to: 21970 - John Standley It could also lead to people deliberately dropping their mainsheet to initiate contact which would be rule 2 imo but almost impossible to prove.
That would then be a Rule 14 violation.
Agree, 2025 RRS 14(b) causing contact between boats.
Now I'm starting to think that even inadvertently dropping the mainsheet would cause the contact, so L breaks RRS 14(b), whether deliberate or not.
Would it have been reasonably possible for her to not drop the mainsheet?
I think we have to remember that rules 14 to 17 are limiting rules. A seasoned defence lawyer will exploit this endlessly. I don't think examining Rule 14 first or in isolation is helpful. Rule 11 was broken - did not keep clear.
Christian One could argue that her action (suddenly and unexpectedly releasing the main sheet causing L boat to stand up) didn't give W opportunity/time to stay clear, thus causing the rigs to collide, and her action was not seamanlike
No rule requires a boat to sail in a seamanlike way.
W was keeping clear in situation 1 to 3, as L, the right-of-way boat, could sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and also change course in both directions without immediately making contact (see defnitio Keep Clear). Therefore, W did not break RRS 11.
L did not change course. Therefore, RRS 16.1 did not apply.
It was not reasonably possible for W to avoid contact with L. Therefore, W did not break RRS 14(a).
It was reasonably possible for L to avoid contact with W. Therefore, L broke RRS 14(a). The diagram states: "Not a serious damage". If this means that the contact caused damage (no need to be serious), L was not exonerated under 43.1(c). Penalize L for her breach of RRS 14(a).
However, if the contact did not cause damage or injury, L was exonerated under 43.1(c) for her breach of RRS 14(a). No penalty.
I’ve just lost a draft post with detail on heel angles and distances….
With a hull width of 9 feet, air draft of 35 degrees and maximum upwind sailing heel angle of 12 degrees the boats can be separated by no more than 2.75 feet (less than 1/3 of a hull width) for this scenario to occur.
L would have to heel to windward by 26/27 degrees to hit W who has a 5 degree normal heel if they were one hull width apart.
She can’t do that if she’s got a legal weight crew aboard. And she’d be slipping sideways at a rate of knots!
But reimagine the scenario with credible distances and W ain’t keeping clear.
If you look at the situational drawing, the boats are heeling about 30-35 degrees - not 12. At 30ish degree heel the masthead will shift ~20-25 feet to leward which means that if the boats are separated by ~15 feet will have ww's masthead directly above the center line of leeward boat with a good chance of the rigs colliding if leeward boat suddenly stands straight up
I’ve just lost a draft post with detail on heel angles and distances….
With a hull width of 9 feet, air draft of 35 degrees and maximum upwind sailing heel angle of 12 degrees the boats can be separated by no more than 2.75 feet (less than 1/3 of a hull width) for this scenario to occur.
L would have to heel to windward by 26/27 degrees to hit W who has a 5 degree normal heel if they were one hull width apart.
She can’t do that if she’s got a legal weight crew aboard. And she’d be slipping sideways at a rate of knots!
But reimagine the scenario with credible distances and W ain’t keeping clear.
I’d say no John. Firstly I don’t think it would happen that way….then If the waves were coming in at a size to do that from a normal direction then:
1. No-one should be racing. 2. The waves would be travelling at a speed such that both boats would be heeled by them before contact occurred. 3. If the waves were that big then at one hull width (even without considering rigs) W wasn’t keeping clear.
If the waves were from an abnormal direction (change of wind) maybe then
1. Definitely no-one should be racing.
I say that based on real J24 experience….including the French J24 Nationals at Port Crouesty in the early noughties. A F7-8 blowing straight into a mighty ebb out of the Gulfe De Morbihan produced the conditions that I would most and least want to experience again.
I did the geometry work because I wanted to understand how the question was so polarising….and how anydody could think this was anything other than a W not keeping clear issue.
I think the reason that L can’t hit W with heel unless the gap is much smaller than specified.
Thus if you look at the gap as one hull width W must be keeping clear.
But if you look at what happens W can’t be keeping clear.
I be interested to know from the OP if this was set-up deliberately….
The artificial paradox created makes for some interesting my view unhelpful attribution of fault to L.
I understand your concern about the artificial nature of the scenario, Matt.
However, I do not see this as an attribution of fault to L, but simply as applying the rules to the assumed facts.
If W satisfies both parts of the definition of Keep Clear, she does not break rule 11 merely because L subsequently heels rapidly to windward and contact occurs. Rule 14(a) needs to be considered separately for each boat.
If the geometry is changed so that W no longer satisfies the definition of Keep Clear, then of course W breaks rule 11. However, that would be a different set of facts.
On those revised facts,
W is penalized for breaking rule 11. She does not break rule 14(a) because it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact with L, and
L is penalized for breaking rule 14(a) because it was reasonably possible for her to avoid contact with W. Since the contact caused damage, L is not exonerated under rule 43.1(c).
Hmm or L doesn’t break 14 (a) because she isn’t looking behind her and therefore doesn’t know that W isn’t keeping clear….so doesn’t need to act to avoid contact - the last ‘However’ paragraph.
I find it difficult to envisage how W’s wind shadow, given the relative positions shown, could cause L to heel so rapidly to windward that contact occurred.
Could you explain the relative fore-and-aft positions of the boats and how W’s wind shadow would reach L and produce that effect?
If that were established as a fact, it would of course need to be included in the rule analysis and the conclusion might be different.
Yes. There was a case some years ago - as best I remember in an OG in the 470 class. Jury decided that the windward boat hadn't kept clear because it could reasonably expect the leeward boat to 'stand up' as it passed. Both boats were under spinnaker at the time.
A. Gear failure. B. A wave (maybe what John A was getting at). C. Dropping the mainsheet while wrestling the tiller with both hands while attempting to bear away in order to increase separation.
Reply to Adrian Question, it can happen if W is big Yacht and sailing faster. She may overtake L to Windward and her shadow will block the wind... L may heel to Windward as Sue said...
Reply to Adrian Question, it can happen if W is big Yacht and sailing faster. She may overtake L to Windward and her shadow will block the wind... L may heel to Windward as Sue said...
W knows the risk of being so close and that any contact occurring would be attributed to not allowing enough room to keep clear. Having done similar many times one knows and accepts the risk being taken. It's a classic case of risk/reward. In this case W lost.
Adrian said If W satisfies both parts of the definition of Keep Clear, she does not break rule 11 merely because L subsequently heels rapidly to windward and contact occurs.
I think if contact occurs then the right of way boat necessarily needed to take action to avoid any the give way boat will always break a right of way rule.
I do not think this contact leads to that conclusion.
I understand “suddenly missed a mainsheet” to mean that L accidentally lost control of the mainsheet, allowing it to run out. As a result, L suddenly lost sail pressure and heeled rapidly to windward without changing course.
Even though W was not keeping clear, this contact occurred because L lost control of the mainsheet and suddenly heeled to windward, not because L needed to take action to avoid W.
Matt Hmm or L doesn’t break 14 (a) because she isn’t looking behind her and therefore doesn’t know that W isn’t keeping clear….so doesn’t need to act to avoid contact - the last ‘However’ paragraph.
RRS 14 doesn't work like that
However, a right-of-way boat, or one sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled, need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear
clear that clear that the other boat is not keeping clear' means clear to the protest committee, having found relevant facts about relative positions and speeds of the boats. It doesn't mean 'not clear to the boat because she wasn't keeping a proper lookout' (Case 107)
Yes I know that I was stretching it I’m a J24 with 4 crew facing out. But in a sitting out dinghy? Helm and crew can’t have eyes in the back of their head
Rene I think we have to remember that rules 14 to 17 are limiting rules.
The only thing that makes RRS 14 a 'limiting rule' is the title of Section B.
RRS Definition Rule provides that rules are
The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals, Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices, but not the Basic Principles or titles.
In what way do you say that RRS 14 limits any other rule?
Rule 14 – Avoiding Contact - Limitation: A right-of-way boat cannot deliberately allow a collision simply because she has right of way. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules. Rule 15 – Acquiring Right of Way - Limitation: A boat that suddenly acquires right of way must initially give the other boat room to keep clear. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules. Rule 16 – Changing Course - Limitation: A right-of-way boat may change course, but only if she gives the other boat room to keep clear. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules. Rule 17 – On the Same Tack; Proper Course - Limitation: A leeward boat that gains an overlap from clear astern within two hull lengths cannot sail above her proper course. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules.
Think of the rules in two groups.
Rights Rule 10 — Port keeps clear of starboard. Rule 11 — Windward keeps clear of leeward. Rule 12 — Clear astern keeps clear of clear ahead. Rule 13 — While tacking, keep clear. These rules determine who has right of way.
Limitations Rule 14 — Don't cause avoidable contact. Rule 15 — Don't exploit newly acquired right of way immediately. Rule 16 — Don't change course without giving room to keep clear. Rule 17 — Don't use a newly acquired leeward overlap from astern to sail above your proper course. These rules determine how the right-of-way boat may exercise that right.
In simple terms, Rules 10–13 answer the question, "Who has right of way?" Rules 14–17 answer the question, "What are the limits on exercising that right?"
The concept of keeping clear requires more than simply avoiding contact under normal circumstances. A boat keeps clear only when the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action. This necessarily includes allowing for the ordinary and foreseeable movements of a sailing vessel.
Consider the analogy of sailing past a large navigation channel marker. The marker is as high as the mast and fixed firmly to the seabed. A skipper may believe they are safely "clear" as they pass alongside it. However, a sudden gust causes the boat to round up violently, the mast swings towards the marker, and the rig becomes entangled around the pole. No reasonable person would argue that the skipper had successfully kept clear of the marker simply because, moments before the gust, there was a narrow gap between the boat and the pole. The boat was not sufficiently clear to allow for the possible effects of sailing, including gusts, waves, steering corrections, and heel.
The same principle applies under the Racing Rules of Sailing. A leeward or right-of-way boat is not required to be insulated from every movement of the keep-clear boat. Wind shifts, gusts, waves, changes in heel and minor steering corrections are all inherent aspects of sailing. If the keep-clear boat leaves so little margin that one of these events results in contact or forces the right-of-way boat to take avoiding action, it cannot reasonably be said that she was keeping clear.
The test is therefore not whether the keep-clear boat was separated by a few centimetres at a particular instant. The question is whether she left sufficient room for the right-of-way boat to continue sailing, without concern that the dynamics of sailing would immediately create a collision risk. If a gust or wave converts a seemingly safe situation into contact, this strongly suggests that the keep-clear boat had not left an adequate margin and therefore had not been keeping clear within the meaning of the rules.
In essence, "keeping clear" is not a static measurement of distance; it is a practical assessment of whether a boat has remained safely clear despite the possible movements that occur while sailing in a 15-knot wind.
Rene, put briefly, I absolutely disagree with your line of argument. You are importing [quite well known] COLREGS case law into the RRS. It's not applicable.
You said
The concept of keeping clear requires more than simply avoiding contact under normal circumstances.
Logically if keeping clear requires more than avoiding contact, it requires at least avoiding contact.
A give way boat can always avoid contact by keeping clear (except in the Case 77situation.
Depending on the source of your information a J24 in 15kts has an optimal heel angle of 10 degrees or probably a little less. At 10 degrees her mast head would be less than 350mm downwind of the leeward gunwhale (based on the published dimensions of the J24).
For reference for an S80: LOA = 7320mm Beam = 2710mm Mast = 9750mm above waterline
Even if both boats were heeled at 30 degrees in opposite directions there would still be more than 250mm between their mast heads if there was actually 1-boat-length between them (ie. between their gunwhales).
If we are talking about 1-boat-length between the centre-lines then at 20 degrees each way their mast heads would still be around 650mm apart.
The 'facts found' in the original poster's message/subject (including the diagram) are dubious at best.
This is the feeling I came to also. If we were on an actual PC, presumably the L boat would be stating a different distance apart for the PC to consider.
However, if they didn’t for some reason, how much can the PC rely on their own assumption here, or question either party to clarify? Or need they just accept presented and un-argued ‘facts’, even if implausible / impossible?
L would presumably still have the headsail sheeted in. Can’t see it healing to windward enough to make contact unless W was very close or very heeled themselves, to start with. Thus, I’d find it hard to say W was keeping clear to a point L could manoeuvre without immediate contact.
John - forgive my hasty ‘owls’ response. Are we not at risk here of conflating ‘a proper look out’ with ‘perfect situational awareness’. A boat naturally has a priority of zones in her look out….perhaps what’s in front…what’s in her ‘keep clear’ direction…what’s to windward….what’s behind her.
She can’t be expected to look everywhere at once. Especially if (as is the case here) it would require her to be scanning 360 horizontal and 180 vertical concurrently.
The 'facts found' in the original poster's message/subject (including the diagram) are dubious at best.
I don't think it matters for the sake of this discussion if the OP scenario was mechanically plausible.
The issue, in general terms is whether a windward boat keeping a sufficient distance between hulls so that the leeward boat need not act to avoid and can change course in either direction, fails to keep clear if the leeward boat suddenly changes attitude, without changing course and breaking RRS 16.1, and makes contact.
It doesnt matter if it's a J24, or say a modern Moth that can do a reverse capsize.
In my opinion any contact implies that a right-of-way rule is broken, so once there os contact the distance between hulls is hardly relevant.
I think the simper example of two boats, heavily heeled, so that the top of the rig of the windward boat is vertically about the deck of the leeward boat and the leeward boat suddenly 'stands up' and there is rig contact leads the way. In thcase we would have no hesitation in concluding the the windward boat does not keep clear, although had there been no contact we may conclude that she was keeping clear.
I don't think the fact that the leeward boat counter heels in order to make contact makes any difference.
Matt Michael said
how much can the PC rely on their own assumption here, or question either party to clarify? Or need they just accept presented and un-argued ‘facts’, even if implausible / impossible?
When discussing rules problems on a forum we usually need to make some assumptions. In a real protest hearing we should not make assumptions, although we can rely on our knowledge and experience.
If something a witness describes is implausible we can certainly ask probing questions.
But, as I said to Ant above, in this scenario, although we might think it was implausible for the leeward boat to accidentally start her mainsheet and stand up without changing course, because that would introduce a whole new rule (RRS 16.1) into play, i think that asking the leeward boat whether or not she changed course, by the protest committee without it ever having been suggested by a party, would be an impermissible leading question.
John, I see a big difference between : When the mainsheet was released, did your boat, whether intentionally or nor, change course ? and, When the mainsheet was released, your boat changed course. Can you say by how much ?
When the mainsheet was released, did your boat, whether intentionally or nor, change course ? and,
When the mainsheet was released, your boat changed course. Can you say by how much ?
I agree.
Number 2 is a 'When did you stop beating your wife' question and starts with an assertion of an unproven fact.
My problem with either is that, if there is no other evidence that the boat changed course, the judge is planting an idea in the hearing that was not there.
Bearing in mind that when the main is started, unless someone falls on the tiller, the boat is going to bear away, if anything, I guess a smart answer would by 'You betcha, we bore away to avoid the windward boat because we had a reasonable apprehension that we were going to collide.'
Matt: RRS 63.5(a) tells us the basics of how to find 'the facts', but if you want to know more then it is well worth reading section F.5 of the WS Judges Manual which includes 2.5 full pages explaining the application of rule 63.5.
If there is conflicting evidence then the PC can always ask additional questions (of the parties or witnesses), weight the evidence, and may ultimately need to rely on the balance of probabilities. And if there are irrecooncilable differences of opinion between the the members of the PC then it can alsways be put a a vote.
Akin to a car tailgating me and me wrongly reacting to what I thought was something on the road and hitting my brakes. My mistake, but we still expect the car behind me to have left the space for that.
Car behind / boat to windward should maintain separation appropriate for the conditions including their reaction time. Any closer is simply a risk of a penalty if it goes south. The rules do not allow them to put both in danger by being too close.
That is not a good analogy since traffic regulations and RRS are very different. And if you are brake checking a car behind and there is a collision you will not get off scott free anyway ;-)
Thanks guys. I’ll read 63.5 and F.5. In the mean time. I agree with it being rule 11. Boats can change heal for numerous reasons. For instance, if there was a crew member to leeward (to use a mounted VHF, check jib trim, grab a water bottle or checking blind spot for crossing boats) when windward sail over the top or drop down too close, then the crew came back to windward, perhaps in lighter wind than OP situation, causing the boat to stand up straighter, it would be clear rule 11. The prevailing conditions meaning W has a heavy heal on is only muddying the water. They weren’t far enough to windward to avoid colliding. Weather hulls or rigs, no distinction is made in the rules to my knowledge other than gear in proper position, which the mast was - can’t not be unless broken I suppose. I can’t accept there was a hull length of separation between them. They must have been much closer according to math, which I find more reliable evidence than W’s testimony. If L dropped the main sheet intentionally, say to reef the main, causing the boat to stand upright, and the rigs hit, would we be blaming L or saying W was too close?
I can’t accept there was a hull length of separation between them. They must have been much closer according to math, which I find more reliable evidence than W’s testimony.
Matt emphasises a good point here.
There are two different sorts of evidence:
evidence about distance apart of hulls, which necessarily is an estimate, and an approximation, and
evidence about contact which is (usually) incontrovertible.
We should prefer incontrovertible facts over estimates.
Can we not add the evidence or inescapable reality of physics and math to our consideration of evidence presented? The masts are ~10m above waterline, centerlines at one boat length between chines claimed to be ~10m apart. OP said contact at masthead. The contact almost can’t have been masthead to masthead unless both boats were healed 60 degrees toward each other. W’s masthead must have been very close to above L’s hull before L lost their main sheet. W’s masthead must have contacted further down L’s rig, as W would be healing more than L. I guess the question really is if there is a point at which a boat’s sudden heel to windward would make them at fault. Say a laser which can roll further and faster than the J in OP’s scenario. Or say a narrow hulled moth, foiling or not. Maybe a near capsize to windward, saved by a tiny margin, causing contact the same as in OP. Would it be different if caused by a lull in the wind, responded to better by W than L, making it still a boat handling error, same as dropping the main sheet.
Can we not add the evidence or inescapable reality of physics and math to our consideration of evidence presented? The masts are ~10m above waterline, centerlines at one boat length between chines claimed to be ~10m apart. OP said contact at masthead. The contact almost can’t have been masthead to masthead unless both boats were healed 60 degrees toward each other. W’s masthead must have been very close to above L’s hull before L lost their main sheet. W’s masthead must have contacted further down L’s rig, as W would be healing more than L. I guess the question really is if there is a point at which a boat’s sudden heel to windward would make them at fault. Say a laser which can roll further and faster than the J in OP’s scenario. Or say a narrow hulled moth, foiling or not. Maybe a near capsize to windward, saved by a tiny margin, causing contact the same as in OP. Would it be different if caused by a lull in the wind, responded to better by W than L, making it still a boat handling error, same as dropping the main sheet.
Sorry for the long post - but here goes. I think sometimes we lose a bit of focus through these long conversations and maybe miss some significance in some of the responses.
To help the mathematicians I would suggest that even if the boats were a bit closer (say ¾ boat length) I would suggest most of us would find W met the definition of keep clear in most conditions. It is not unusual for two well matched boats to sail some distance that far apart and there is never any shouting or protests as this is accepted as normal.
Also, where the contact occurred is not really relevant. We should just accept it happened.
So who broke a rule?
There was contact so W did break rule 11.
There was no change of course or change of relationship so L did not break 15 or 16.
This brings me to rule 14.
Does a boat break rule 14 by simply being there?
If a boat gets caught in irons while tacking and is stuck in dirty wind at the top mark and is there for a minute and is then hit by another boat and there is damage. Would it be fair to make that boat responsible for the contact or damage? I think not.
I accept that the rules are not always fair but I do not see why we should not interpret them in a way that is fair to each competitor depending on the circumstance.
So in regards to rule 14 should we not be deciding responsibility (as any insurance company or court of law is likely to do) by asking ‘Who caused the contact’.
In this case, by losing her mainsheet L performed an entirely unexpected action which caused her mast to swing towards W and CAUSE the contact.
Sue Reilly asks ‘Would you think differently if a boat sailed on top of another and it was thew wind shadow that caused L to stand up. The answer is yes as in this case W should have expected that would happen as it was within her control so it was W that caused the contact.
Was it reasonably possible for W to avoid contact in this case? I would suggest not.
Therefore, I don't not think W broke 14.
Did L break rule 14? Well, she caused contact by her actions that were within her control so my answer would be yes.
Now we come to exoneration.
L broke 14. If there was no damage then she is exonerated under 43.1(c). If there was damage then she cannot be exonerated.
For W to be exonerated we would have to find she was compelled to break a rule by another boat breaking a rule.
If we determine that W was keeping clear (by definition) then her breach would in my opinion, be caused by L not complying with 14 so she could be exonerated.
When I started sailing (in the 1950’s) I recall we had a rule entitled ‘Misleading or baulking’ or something similar. This would cover this case nicely!
So in summary there are two possibilities for me that comply with the rules and give a fair outcome
1 W exonerated for breaking 11. L exonerated for breaking 14 (if no damage or injury)
2. W exonerated for breaking 11. L DSQ for breaking 14 (if damage).
This is, imo, a reasonable interpretation of these particular facts and I readily accept that a small change in the facts, along the lines of Matt Michel's latest post, would likely find W would be disqualified and L exonerated if no damage but both DSQ if there is damage.
John S, thank you for your thoughtful and elegantly written post. It's helped me advance my understanding of right-of-way, room, and contact.
I have a few responses that I hope people will find helpful.
So who broke a rule?
There was contact so W did break rule 11.
There was no change of course or change of relationship so L did not break 15 or 16.
I agree.
This brings me to rule 14.
Does a boat break rule 14 by simply being there?
If a boat gets caught in irons while tacking and is stuck in dirty wind at the top mark and is there for a minute and is then hit by another boat and there is damage. Would it be fair to make that boat responsible for the contact or damage? I think not. ... Was it reasonably possible for W to avoid contact in this case [OP case where L deliberately counter heels)?
I would suggest not.
Therefore, I don't not think W broke 14.
Up to now, I would have said that
it is always reasonable possible for a boat required to keep clear to avoid contact, simply by keeping clear; but
it is not reasonably possible for a boat that is not given room to keep clear as required by RRS 15 or 16 to avoid contact.
I think (1) is right, as long as boats are manoeuvering and moving 'normally'.
John S' examples are of two cases where boats are not moving 'normally'.
The boat caught in irons, is a case where her movements are in slow motion.
The windward/leeward rig touch, including the OP scenario is a case where movements are unexpectedly fast.
In each case, I think it is indisputable that the give-way boat broke the right-of-way rule, because the right-of-way rules have no condition of possibility or practicability, and the contact conclusively proves the breach.
What we have to consider, for RRS 14 is reasonable possibility.
In the 'in irons' case, the starting point is that the give-way boat is initially keeping clear. Assuming that the give-way boat is, as umpires would say, 'doing all she could' to get out of irons, regain steerage way and keep clear and avoid contact, but is unsuccessful, then I think we should conclude that it is not reasonably possible for her to avoid the contact. In other words, the give-way boat is acting promptly and in a seamanlike way and there is still not enough space for her to keep clear and avoid contact.
Furthermore, for the right-of-way boat, under full control, approaching the give-way boat in irons, stopped or drifting, it certainly is possible, from the time it is clear that the give-way boat is not keeping clear, to avoid contact. But for her failure to avoid contact, the contact would not have occurred.
In the 'sudden counter heel' cases the starting point is that the give-way boat is initially keeping clear. There is then a sudden and unexpected motion of the right-of-way boat resulting in contact. There is nothing the give-way boat can do or not do that would avoid or prevent the contact. The give-way boat, acting promptly, say when the right-of-way boat begins to counter heel, and in a seamanlike way is unable, and has insufficient space to keep clear and avoid contact. I think we should conclude that it is not reasonably possible for her to avoid the contact.
In each of these cases, it has been possible to describe the reason why it was not reasonably possible for the give-way boat, using the language of RRS Definition Room 'promptly and in a seamanlike way', to avoid contact, although there is no rule requiring room to be given.
I suggest we can usefully state a 'rule of thumb':
If a give-way boat is initially [and clearly] keeping clear, and either boat manoeuvres or moves with extraordinary speed or slowness, so that there is insufficient space for the give-way boat, manoeuvering promptly and in a seamanlike way, to avoid contact, then it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact and she does not break RRS 14.
In other words, regardless of whether there is any obligation under RRS 15 or 16 to give room, if there is not enough room for the give-way boat to avoid contact it is not reasonably possible for her to do so and she does not break RRS 14.
[in the OP case] Did L break rule 14?
Well, she caused contact by her actions that were within her control so my answer would be yes.
I'm not too keen on the 'cause' language unless we're relying on RRS 14(b).
Certainly in OP case, there was an action (counter heeling) by L. If she had not done that, contact would not have occurred.
I'm happy that it would have been reasonably possible for L to have avoided the contact by not counter-heeling and that L broke RRS 14.
If the 'stand-up' was not deliberate, say it was caused by a breakage in L's mainsheet system, then I'd be inclined to say it was not reasonably possible for L to avoid the contact.
Does anyone want to argue that the breakage was the fault of C because she failed to maintain her gear? My inclination is that to approach that we would need to get into some murky waters.
Sue raised a different, slightly simpler example of a 'stand up' to which John S replied:
if a boat sailed on top of another and it was thew wind shadow that caused L to stand up. The answer is yes as in this case W should have expected that would happen as it was within her control so it was W that caused the contact.
That makes sense to me.
When I started sailing (in the 1950’s) I recall we had a rule entitled ‘Misleading or baulking’ or something similar.
Wow. Good memory. But that title lasted only for one quad, 1960 to 1964. I don't have my rule books with me, I know that 'baulking' was deleted, thus permitting 'false tacks', but I don't know what happened with the rest of the rule.
My original point in raising the geometry was trying to explain the spectrum and polarisation of views.
It’s clearer to me now that although the scenario / facts found deepen the polarisation there are underlying rules based reasons.
I said something earlier about attributing fault to L….a view came back that she failed to avoid contact. The rabbit hole that followed looked at different reasons for the roll to windward but without any real attempt to say what difference those might make.
Perhaps that’s because if you hold that L was responsible for not avoiding contact then it necessarily holds that it doesn’t matter how it was caused (if L caused it). For example if it’s a wave L should have adjusted balance….
For me though it seems to be absurd to hold that L failed to avoid contact if the contact occurred inside the plane of her hull as per the OP diagram and pretty much all the facts found
I fully endorse John Standley's summary. And I add this: Neither boat was required to act to avoid contact until it became clear that the other was not keeping clear. There was no action that W could have taken in time before L's contact. And L undoubtedly began trimming her main back in before contact occurred as fast as possible. Hence, neither boat violated RRS 14.
It was reasonably possible for L not to have lost control and caused contact between boats. 14. It was not reasonably possible for W to have anticipated L's loss of control. 14 Penalizing a boat that was keeping clear is a violation of Fair Play and Governing Officials Judging. 2, 5. And sure to be followed by appeal.
If there's a deliberate action by the right of way boat that caused the give way boat to not keep clear, then I think the row boat breaks⁷ RRS 14 (a) or (b), and the risk is all on her whether there is injury or damage that will switch off row's exoneration.
I'm happy that gear failure may make it not reasonably possible to avoid contact.
I'm not comfortable with Phils sweeping assertion that it is always reasonably possible for the right of way boat to avoid losing control. Imagine your just hanging on on a tight reach, and a cross sea makes you rudder let go.
No rule says you should be sailing conservatively so that won't happen.
The indisputable facts are: 1. There was a collision between the masts of the two boats and non-serious damage occured. 2. W was windward and L was Leeward.
The testimony was that 1. The boats were 1 boat length apart. This seems highly doubtful and defies maths. Whatever the distance it was clearly insufficient in the prevalent conditions if the masts made contact when the mainsheet was dropped. 2. The mainsheet was dropped . I find this believable but does not alter the obligation of the windward yacht. 3. The boats were J24s angled at 35+ degrees in 15 knots of windspeed. Any judge with J24 experience would ignore this testimony unless it was caused by huge wave conditions and much higher wind velocity, requiring suitable separation when passing to windward.
W was not keeping clear, prior to the mainsheet being released. W breaks rule 11. L breaks 14 but is exonerated.
Keep it Simple. A windward overtaking boat was hit by a leeward boat when the leeward boat straightened. 99.9% of the time this is a rule 11 breach. For the remaining 0.1% of the time, it is a Rule 11 breach...... so that 99.9% of sailors understand the simplicity of rule 11, that a windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat.
If your mast hits the mast of a leeward boat that dropped its mainsheet, you were not keeping clear.
Any claim that the windward J24 in this diagram is not keeping clear is, at best, suspect, in my view. This would entirely change our sport.j22b.jpg27.8 KB
Further, as your diagram shows; if the mainsheet of L was released, the mast of L would not touch the mast of W.
Thus based on the prima facie testimony of the parties, we would find, as "facts found" W was windward . L was Leeward. The boats were less than 1 boat length apart. Both boats were heeled. When L released the mainsheet , there was contact between the mast of W and the mast of L.
In the case described by the OP, I would find that Rule 11 was broken.
FWIW, a J24 is dog slow sailed upwind at that angle of heel in 15 knots of breeze. I suspect they were heeled considerably less than that but we dont have to determine the angle of heel to decide on an outcome. Nor do we have to precisely determine the distance between the two boats. That part of the testimony will vary depending on the eye of the beholder.
If a Laser, L, going upwind with the helmperson fully hiked, had the mainsheet explode at the transom, and the helm instead of letting his pfd displace in the water, tried to scramble into the boat such that the Laser heeled to windward almost capsizing to windward and the mast hit another competitor to windward.
Then I would strongly recommend that L did some penalty turns.
I would feel differently if they were going downwind.
Justin said If a Laser, L, going upwind with the helmperson fully hiked, had the mainsheet explode at the transom, and the helm instead of letting his pfd displace in the water, tried to scramble into the boat such that the Laser heeled to windward almost capsizing to windward and the mast hit another competitor to windward.
Then I would strongly recommend that L did some penalty turns.
These are J/24's and they are very weight sensitive. It is possible that wave action could cause L to "violently" pitch to the port, having all of the crew on the port rail, and W being pitched to starboard causing contact at the mast head. W took a risk and had the misfortune to be hit by L. One either decides W didn't keep clear, or it is just an unavoidable contact. Without further information, I would suggest that the fairest solution to both sides is to declare no foul.
Robert, there's no rule that allows anybody to 'declare no foul'.
There were two boats, one required to keep clear of the other.
There was contact between the boats therefore, necessarily, the boat required to keep clear did not do so and broke the right-of-way rule.
Whether either boat also broke RRS 14 about avoiding contact if reasonably possible is open for discussion.
The difference between RRS 14 and RRS 10, 11, 12, and 13 (the right-of-way rules) is that RRS 14 is conditioned by 'if reasonably possible'. The right-of-way rules do not have any test of reasonable possibility.
Philosophical moral ethical fairness safety discussion
Who's responsibility is it to account for / anticipate that lack of perfection / bad luck / unforeseen outcome in sailing?
There is the literal interpretation of the word 'cause' (as a direct reason) in R14.
JohnS's interpretation is well reasoned and fits with the rules, and the direct-cause interpretation in rule 14, putting the liability on RoW when they make a mistake and exonerating the keep-clear boat.
Yet, from a practical safety point of view, we know for a fact that there are times when, despite all reasonable precautions, things happen. Who's responsibility does this greyness fall under?
If we are to go with JohnS's interpretation, there leaves a scope of risk which is unacceptably not accounted for...: while we can say under the rules that leeward / ahead boat messed up (dropped the sheet/didn't see the gust- 'caused the collision') and should take the penalty AFTER something happened, there is still always be the risk to safety in sailing due to unforeseen/imperfection/bad luck.
We can't just say to RoW, "Don't make a mistake. Dropping the mainsheet is banned. Don't have bad luck. It's dangerous!"
For safety, this risk must be anticipated BEFORE something happens.
(If this were an air crash investigation, the 'root cause' would be 'the insufficient distance between the boats'. Dropping the mainsheet is an 'active failure' and the wind strength is a 'contributing factor'. Logic tells us to fix the root cause.)
The only logical solution is to put this anticipation into the definition of keep clear. That is 'keep-clear' includes separation to account for RoWs full range of reasonable sailing.
(My feeling is that keep clear includes space needed to accommodate the full range of trim of her sails without warning.)
But this is the crux as I see it. Anticipation is not a thing in RRS. Safety is. Here, they collide and conflict. --------------
Have we reached another dead-end?
When we reach a dead-end it normally means that both sides have a very strong point or are technically correct. Often it needs an official interpretation to tell us which view to follow. Sometimes it needs re-work of the rule.
Either way, I don't think we will get any further here. I think all the possible arguments have been presented.
I don’t know about treating them as separate in this case.
If you accept OP’s view of the event, that they were 1 BL apart, it seems crazy to blame W, all of us have been in W’s shoes in that situation, and would be horrified to be accused of not keeping clear. However, in reality if W was a length to windward of L, they never would have hit, which is why in every other race in history a boat that far to windward has never had this issue, and why those blaming L feel so strongly, as they could see themselves being the windward boat frequently, and believe they were not risking a breach. If OP had started with a plausible / possible separation, like, W was 1.5m to windward of L, maybe even 2m,I think this would have been a much shorter thread. But I agree, that aside from this particular circumstance, a class like foiling moths could achieve maybe a similar situation to OP, but again, the answer will probably be in the specifics of the details. Which doesn’t really help us all understand exactly where rights / obligations start and stop.
Benjamin, I agree we have probably reached a dead end. My only comment, which I raised some time ago, is that if we were to adopt the position that 'keep-clear' includes separation to account for 'RoWs full range ofreasonablesailing.' then start lines would need to be significantly longer than their current length to allow all boats to have a reasonable chance of getting on the line and keep clear when required! I would also point out that the quote from Case 92 is incomplete as it is qualified by the first words which are by "When a RoW boat changes course.......' It is a bit misleading to only partly quote.
Yes. Case 92 is actually relevant to course changes. So does not support JohnS's case as clearly as I purported. (Removed Case 92 from my post. Thanks.)
Long start lines - yes. That's a result of this conflict isn't it. If going by pure risk free then start lines would need to be extra long. But why isn't anyone pushing for this?
Safety is the overall measure of risk, not necessarily 'risk free'. For the number of occasions OPs scenario crops up over the thousand's of starts, the sailing world has accepted the risk of a mainsheet being dropped, and shortened the start lines to be practical.
So the sailing world comes up with a number (something like1.3 X the total length of all boats) as being the recommended length of a start line.
Ben re: "(My feeling is that keep clear includes space needed to accommodate the full range of trim of her sails without warning.)"
I made that point in another thread as well. A ROW that curtails trimming her sails or movement of her boom from side to side in order to avoid contact with a KC boat, IMO has taken "... an avoiding action".
"If this were an air crash investigation, the 'root cause' would be 'the insufficient distance between the boats'. Dropping the mainsheet is an 'active failure' and the wind strength is a 'contributing factor'. "
I differ slightly from Ben in that I do not need a rules change or an interpretation to reach a conclusion. If the boats were J24s , and the mast of the leeward boat touched the mast of a windward boat while they were both going upwind in 15 knots, we can confidently find that W was not keeping clear of L throughout the overtake. W cannot be exonerated from the breach of Rule 11.
Philosophically the discussion can then center around whether an "active failure" triggers Rule 14. Specifically: If reasonably possible, a boat shall.... (b) not cause contact between boats,
It is an interesting topic to delve into under two headings: 1. Unintentional human error is the "active failure" 2. Boat or equipment failure is the "active failure"
Unintentional Human Error
Case 30 ruled that "After gybing, A became the keep-clear boat under rule 10, even though she had not intended to gybe....A did not break rule 14(a) because it was not ‘reasonably possible’ for her to avoid contact." However IMO, Case 30 does not establish clear precedent because the PC also found that B's actions contributed to the unintentional gybe. But its useful.
Case 77 looked at a situation where A made an unintentional error during their spinnaker dowse, and the chute was trailing 20 foot astern and touched B the boat behind them. B was exonerated from rule 12 AND The case rules that "A broke rule 14(a) by causing contact that she could have avoided."
Case 91 distinguished a similar situation from Case 77 by ruling that A's out of control chute had been out of control for long enough that B should have anticipated it and avoided the chute. B was disqualified for Rule 12. That is a fair distinction. However the Appeals committee complicated our understanding of rule 14 by ruling that "A did not break rule 14 because, after it became clear that B was not keeping clear, it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid the contact."
So in 77, the Appeals committee rule that the human error of losing control of a spinnaker is an active failure that "could have been avoided" and in Case 91, a very similar error was "not reasonable possible..to avoid"
Food for an interesting discussion
Equipment Failure
I think that if a ROW boat cannot avoid a KC boat due to unintended equipment failure then it would likely be deemed NOT reasonably possible to avoid contact , but I havent found many cases to support that conclusion.
The closest I found is Case 99 which suggests that in a case when the ROW boat does not avoid contact because they anticipate that the action of avoiding contact would cause equipment failure, then Rule 14 has not been broken: " The only action available to S was to crash-gybe, which risked considerable damage to S. That finding was equivalent to a finding that it was not reasonably possible for S to avoid contact. Therefore, S did not break rule 14."
Good wrap up, Benjamin. In the ethical side, however, I fear that a 70 degree swing of a mast head does not fit “ROW’s full range of reasonable sailing.” I cannot disregard that leap in judgement. The ethical cannot ignore the practical.
When a leeward boat and a windward boat on the same tack contact each other, a rule has been broken. Prima facie, Rule 11 has been broken.
You cannot disregard the leap in credibility that is required to accept the testimony that the mast swung to windward through an arc of 70 degrees on a J24 going to windward in 15 knots with the jib sheeted in.
Nevertheless, purely for rules discussion, the right way and only way W gets exonerated is under Case 77 which ruled: "A boat obligated to keep clear does not break a rule when touched by a right-of-way boat’s equipment that moves unexpectedly out of normal position"
I fear that a 70 degree swing of a mast head does not fit “ROW’s full range of reasonable sailing.”
Perhaps consider what happened on the other end of the mast first.
Full trim > No trim in a short period. - - That is the range of reasonable sailing I'm referring to. What happens as a result is just that.. a result of reasonable sailing.
How does fully releasing the sheet with the knowledge of the result in close quarters fall within the range of reasonable sailing, whether intentional or not?
That's what I am also struggling with. We all go out to race and expect other boats to be sailed competently but not expertly. Fully releasing the main sheet while going upwind and fully hiked doesn't fit in the bucket of "handled competently".
As Christian says, we don't expect boats to be sailed expertly. We all make mistakes. We all have bad luck from time to time. That's a reasonable expectation of sailing. There is no rule against making mistakes or having bad luck. It would not be reasonable to make such rules. (Don't quote 14 here - that's a circular reference.)
As Philip implies, releasing mainsheet in close quarters is problematic. So ROW was restrained from having bad luck or making a mistake (or even freely trimming) by W's close proximity.
You both forget to juxtapose the rule 11. The 'close-quarters' restrained L. That restraint effectively meant that L had to constantly take avoiding action (don't make mistakes and have only good luck). This breaks rule 11.
So your question should now be...
"Does that reasonable bad luck / mistake turn unreasonable when the rule 11 buffer of protection was illegally infiltrated by another boat?"
There was contact between a windward and leeward boat. L did not alter course. Thus prima facie , Rule 11 was breached by W.
Then the question is, can W avoid being penalized for a breach of Rule 11 because Case 77 advises us that " A boat obligated to keep clear does not break a rule when touched by a right-of-way boat’s equipment that moves unexpectedly out of normal position"
If a party goes into the room claiming they kept clear of a leeward boat, that touched them without altering course, and their defense is that they think they were a boat length apart.......Honestly, it is not going to go well for them. They need to make a case based on 77. It is then up to the judges to appraise the credibility of the testimony.
If I may, I'll start with the easier issue - rule 11.
I admit it took me time to link 'need to take avoiding action' with this scenario, until I widened my view of what 'need to take avoiding action' is. We are so conditioned to think that 'avoiding action' is only a course change. It's more than that. Now, the more I look at this, I'm satisfied with rule 11 breach.
Did W break RRS11? Yes; without a doubt.
Any continuous restriction on how RoW can sail is the same as saying RoW has the need to continuously take avoiding action.
All the while W is in that close proximity, L is restricted on how she may trim her sails.
The 'avoiding action' referred to in def. of KC is not always a course change. It may be sail trim, crew weight positioning, hailing (Case 107) or many other 'actions'. In this case for example, L's avoiding action is her need to keep her sails trimmed or only trim them slowly. That's what's required to avoid contact.
L, sailing so close so as to restrict how W may trim her sails breaks rule 11.
I am happy with rule 11.
---------- Now to the tough question - rule 14 - what is 'caused and reasonable'.
How does fully releasing the sheet with the knowledge of the result in close quarters fall within the range of ***reasonable*** sailing, whether intentional or not?
This is where we are getting stuck. Specifically, that word 'caused'. We've discussed this word before. (About every 12 months it seems).
That word has a broad range of use, doesn't it?
For any incident there may be a number of contributory factors, and these are often referred to as causes. Ok, but if we can find a cause to a cause, it is not a root cause. There is usually only one/a few 'root causes'.
A root cause is the fundamental, deepest underlying reason for an issue or event.
Rule 14 must require us to drill down to the deepest level of cause we can find which also has a binding rule which goes with it. Otherwise we are left with a bunch of 'causes' with no real endpoint to address or fix.
RCA#1. Rigs collided. Why? 1. L stood upright. Why? 2. L's mainsheet was not taut. Why? 3. Mistake/Poor Sailing/Broken equipment etc... Why? Root Cause: Bad luck/Training/Poor maintenance/etc
Dropping mainsheet is not a root cause. Additionally, there is not a rule prohibiting bad luck/poor training/poor maintenance. (Don't say r14 - circular reference!). It would be ridiculous for the rules to forbid mistake or bad luck. Imagine this...
Rule 9 ¾ - Bad Luck and Mistakes - A right of way boat shall not have bad luck or make mistakes!
No. These issues are considered to occur within reason in sailing (not reasonably possible to avoid). They are going to happen. They are accounted for in the rules and the interpretations (seamanlike definition, 'reasonable' in rule 14.).
Within rule 14 reference frame then by dropping the sheet, L did not break rule 14.
RCA#2. Rigs collided. Why? 1. L stood upright. Why? 2. L' s trim change was sudden and W did not have time to react. Why? Root cause: Distance between the boats was insufficient for reaction time.
Distance between boats is a root cause. Additionally, there is a rule which requires that the distance between the boats be sufficient to allow RoW freedom of trim, which must take into account reaction time. It was reasonably possible for W to increase the distance.
Within the rule 14 reference frame then, W broke r14.
-------------------- That's my progression through this. It may be wrong. (I have been wrong many times before!)
It may be that in practice at a real event (in absence of any official directive) JohnS's reasoning would be preferred. I'm ok with that. I understand his reasoning. It's not uncommon that there are different interpretations to rules. In absence of authoritive direction (casebook/rule change), either may be applied according to the majority of the jury. That's why we have committees, right?
Surely we should be referring to and following the precedents established in the Case book?
I enjoy all these discussions about "root causes" and I love your analogy about an air crash investigation.
However the case book seems clear. In order not to penalize W for Rule 11 , the jury would have to determine that L's mast was not in its normal position.
That determination is a finding of fact and will depend on examining the testimony. Nobody disputes that W did not expect the leewards boat's mast to return from the heeled position. It was "unexpected" But Case 77 requires that that it must be "unexpected" and "out of normal position".
In Case 77, the equipment was unexpected and out of normal position In Case 91, the equipment was out of normal position, but the KC boat should have expected it.
It is clear to me at least, that when a boat makes an unintentional error, both requirements must be met to exonerate the Keep Clear boat.
So, was L's mast out of its normal position?
Which of course is the same question you are asking.
The mast was in its normal position assuming the forestay and stays were still holding it up in the boat!
Case 77 and 91 equipment is running rigging or sails.
If Case 77 is enough for you, that's great. I personally don't think this has anything to do with equipment not in normal position unless the rig has fallen down. A mast's normal position is attached to the middle of the boat perpendicular to the deck.
If you find that the equipment is in its normal position, and it appears you do, then there is your decision. It might have been "unexpected" on the part of W, but until Case 77 is revised, that is insufficient in defense.
Time to re-read RRS 11 and the definition of keep clear, plus RRS 14. 11 a) W kept clear of L, as L was able to sail her course with no need to take avoiding action. 11 b) W kept clear of L, as L could change her course in both directions without immediately making contact. 14 b) L caused contact between boats.
Time to re-read RRS 11 and the definition of keep clear, plus RRS 14.
Go for it.
KC(a) - not met. + KC(b) - met/not determined? =Did not keep clear. R14 - insufficient distance was the cause.
Notes: 1. Some people wrongly believe that if KC(b) is met it's enough to say W kept clear. However KC(a) must also be met. The two are connected with 'and'. If either one is not met, the boat did not keep clear. My issue is not with KC(b). It's immaterial if KC(a) is not met.
I'm saying that KC(a) was not met.
2. Dropping the sheet is never a problem if the distance is sufficient between the boats. Insufficient distance caused 'dropping the sheet' to be problematic. Insufficient distance caused the contact. Not dropping the sheet.
3. KC(a) - Think of 'need to take avoiding action' as the trigger here. (See above.)
(W failed to keep clear of L, as L was able to sail her course but had need to take avoiding action while doing so.
In fact, to resolve that need to take avoiding action, L would have had to bear away to increse the distance between the boats. So effectively, she could not 'sail her course without a continuous need to take avoiding action'.)
My (assumed) findings subject to a clearer answer to the above :
L (ROW) lost control of her mainsheet and suddenly altered course and heeled quickly to windward. There was contact between the mast tops of W and L that caused damage. W failed to keep clear of L. L failed to avoid contact with W.
My conclusion :
W was keeping clear of L until L lost control of her mainsheet. In not keeping clear of L, W broke RRS 11 and 14.
L failed to avoid contact with W and broke RRS 14 (and probably 16.1).
My decision :
The contact with W was caused through no fault of her own (not having time to avoid the contact, albeit not ROW boat, thus need to find on 16.1) and L broke a rule of Part 2.
W is exonerated (RDG) for breaking RRS 14 (and probably 11).
L is DSQ for breaking RRS 14 and possibly 16.1 as well.
Let the debate begin.
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a).
2. L did broke 14 as she caused contact but exonerated under 43.1(c) as no damage or injury.
3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
This may be one of those unfortunate situations for W that isn't covered by the rules. W was obviously quite close to L. Maybe less than a boatlength to allow this to occur.
L did not change course.
W exonerated of contact.
L should have taken a turns penalty.
Who hailed Protest?
Who would dare take the 50-50 shot in the room and file?
L should offer over beers to pay for repairs.
"b) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact."
Going back to the original post: "J24, lateral separation between boats is 1 hull Length".
If the windward boat is 1 boat length abeam of the leeward overlapped boat, it seems to me that the leeward boat has plenty of room to change course in both directions without immediately making contact, right? How did the windward boat not keep clear?
This seems like an ideal example where Case 77 would apply. In the case, the give way boat didn't violate Rule 14 since it "was not reasonably possible for B to avoid contact with A".
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a).
2. L did broke 14 as she caused contact but exonerated under 43.1(c) as no damage or injury.
3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
What equipment on L is out of its normal position?
I don't see how Case 77 applies as a boat can sail at whatever heel angle she pleases. I.e., heel angle does not have an "equipment in normal position" component.
Furthermore, a windward boat sailing over a leeward boat must certainly anticipate L "standing up" in her wind shadow (been there!). In this case, it supposedly happened because of L mishandling the mainsheet. So what? What if L had just decided that it's time to sail flat? Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule11!!!
If this is the case, then start lines would need to be at least three times longer that they are.
It could also lead to people deliberately dropping their mainsheet to initiate contact which would be rule 2 imo but almost impossible to prove.
The fair result for me in this case would be L broke 14 as she caused contact with another boat but, as she was RoW and there was no damage or injury, she is exonerated under 43.1(c). W was compelled to break 11 by L breaking 14 and is exonerated under 43.1(a). I appreciate the rules are not always fair, but this does not prevent them being applied fairly when necessary.
In the description of the incident there was damage, which changes the situation
If there is contact between boats one of them needed to take action to avoid the other, so one of them has not kept clear and a right-of-way rule must have been broken.
With about 1 hull length separation between boats, W is keeping clear until she isn't.
A give way boat can always sail as close as she likes to a right-of-way boat, but she takes the risk that she will fail to keep clear.
I also think that if there is contact (and no room or mark-room applies) it is always reasonably possible for a give way boat to have avoided contact by keeping clear as she was required to do.
I don't think that's a very good line of argument.
As a judge you may not be convinced, but until a party brings evidence that you can evaluate on balance of probabilities that the boat changed course, you can't find that as a fact.
And until one of the parties advances the proposition that the boat changed course, I think a judge asking whether a boat changed course would be impermissibly leading.
Helm says I did not do anything to alter course.
Next question to L : Did the boat change its heading after the mainsheet was released ?
Then : Once L had regained control of the mainsheet, what was the distance between the hulls ? What actions did W take after the contact occurred ?
Releasing the mainsheet changes the centre of effort on the sails significantly. In 15 knots of wind I don't see that there wouldn't be a change of course.
Judges are required to use their own sailing experience to help come to a determination of what most probably happened.
There was damage so L cannot be exonerated.
Both boats are on the same tack.
L is the leeward right-of-way boat under Rule 11.
W is required to keep clear.
They are sailing at about 15 knots.
L did not alter her heading, but suddenly missed the mainsheet, causing the boat to heel rapidly to windward.
As a result, the windward side of L rose into contact with W.
There was no serious damage.
Rule 11
W must keep clear of L.
The definition of Keep Clear requires that L be able to sail her course and, while overlapped, change course in either direction without immediately making contact.
If W was sailing so close that a sudden but unusual heel of L caused contact, I would ask whether W was, in fact, keeping clear.
Probably not.
Rule 16.1 only applies when a right-of-way boat changes course.
If the committee finds that L's heading did not change, only her angle of heel changed because the mainsheet was briefly released, then Rule 16.1 is not engaged. A boat can heel substantially without changing course.
Both boats had a duty to avoid contact if reasonably possible.
If the contact was instantaneous and caused solely by the unexpected heel, it may not have been reasonably possible for either boat to avoid it.
The most relevant authority is Case 74:
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a).
2. L broke 14 as she caused contact and not exonerated under 43.1(c) because there are damage. Penalized L.
3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
RRS 43.1(a) requires that for a boat to be exonerated, she must be compelled to break a rule as a consequence of another boat breaking a rule.
What rule do you say L broke that compelled W to not keep clear?
Agree, 2025 RRS 14(b) causing contact between boats.
Now I'm starting to think that even inadvertently dropping the mainsheet would cause the contact, so L breaks RRS 14(b), whether deliberate or not.
Would it have been reasonably possible for her to not drop the mainsheet?
A seasoned defence lawyer will exploit this endlessly.
I don't think examining Rule 14 first or in isolation is helpful.
Rule 11 was broken - did not keep clear.
Wow, with RRS 14(b) that's looking sort of persuasive.
No rule requires a boat to sail in a seamanlike way.
I’ve just lost a draft post with detail on heel angles and distances….
With a hull width of 9 feet, air draft of 35 degrees and maximum upwind sailing heel angle of 12 degrees the boats can be separated by no more than 2.75 feet (less than 1/3 of a hull width) for this scenario to occur.
L would have to heel to windward by 26/27 degrees to hit W who has a 5 degree normal heel if they were one hull width apart.
She can’t do that if she’s got a legal weight crew aboard. And she’d be slipping sideways at a rate of knots!
But reimagine the scenario with credible distances and W ain’t keeping clear.
I’ve just lost a draft post with detail on heel angles and distances….
With a hull width of 9 feet, air draft of 35 degrees and maximum upwind sailing heel angle of 12 degrees the boats can be separated by no more than 2.75 feet (less than 1/3 of a hull width) for this scenario to occur.
L would have to heel to windward by 26/27 degrees to hit W who has a 5 degree normal heel if they were one hull width apart.
She can’t do that if she’s got a legal weight crew aboard. And she’d be slipping sideways at a rate of knots!
But reimagine the scenario with credible distances and W ain’t keeping clear.
Would some wave action do the trick?
1. No-one should be racing.
2. The waves would be travelling at a speed such that both boats would be heeled by them before contact occurred.
3. If the waves were that big then at one hull width (even without considering rigs) W wasn’t keeping clear.
If the waves were from an abnormal direction (change of wind) maybe then
1. Definitely no-one should be racing.
I say that based on real J24 experience….including the French J24 Nationals at Port Crouesty in the early noughties. A F7-8 blowing straight into a mighty ebb out of the Gulfe De Morbihan produced the conditions that I would most and least want to experience again.
I think the reason that L can’t hit W with heel unless the gap is much smaller than specified.
Thus if you look at the gap as one hull width W must be keeping clear.
But if you look at what happens W can’t be keeping clear.
I be interested to know from the OP if this was set-up deliberately….
The artificial paradox created makes for some interesting my view unhelpful attribution of fault to L.
However, I do not see this as an attribution of fault to L, but simply as applying the rules to the assumed facts.
There was a case some years ago - as best I remember in an OG in the 470 class. Jury decided that the windward boat hadn't kept clear because it could reasonably expect the leeward boat to 'stand up' as it passed. Both boats were under spinnaker at the time.
A. Gear failure.
B. A wave (maybe what John A was getting at).
C. Dropping the mainsheet while wrestling the tiller with both hands while attempting to bear away in order to increase separation.
It's a classic case of risk/reward. In this case W lost.
You mean like this?
We were proabably the only boat not to have a moment like that downwind and therefore won the day’s only race and as a result the championship.
I think if contact occurs then the right of way boat necessarily needed to take action to avoid any the give way boat will always break a right of way rule.
That's my 'offering'. BTW, that's the logo that adorns my Dragon Force RC yachts.
RRS 14 doesn't work like that
clear that clear that the other boat is not keeping clear' means clear to the protest committee, having found relevant facts about relative positions and speeds of the boats. It doesn't mean 'not clear to the boat because she wasn't keeping a proper lookout' (Case 107)
The only thing that makes RRS 14 a 'limiting rule' is the title of Section B.
RRS Definition Rule provides that rules are
The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals, Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices, but not the Basic Principles or titles.
In what way do you say that RRS 14 limits any other rule?
Rule 15 – Acquiring Right of Way - Limitation: A boat that suddenly acquires right of way must initially give the other boat room to keep clear. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules.
Rule 16 – Changing Course - Limitation: A right-of-way boat may change course, but only if she gives the other boat room to keep clear. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules.
Rule 17 – On the Same Tack; Proper Course - Limitation: A leeward boat that gains an overlap from clear astern within two hull lengths cannot sail above her proper course. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules.
Think of the rules in two groups.
Rights
Rule 10 — Port keeps clear of starboard.
Rule 11 — Windward keeps clear of leeward.
Rule 12 — Clear astern keeps clear of clear ahead.
Rule 13 — While tacking, keep clear.
These rules determine who has right of way.
Limitations
Rule 14 — Don't cause avoidable contact.
Rule 15 — Don't exploit newly acquired right of way immediately.
Rule 16 — Don't change course without giving room to keep clear.
Rule 17 — Don't use a newly acquired leeward overlap from astern to sail above your proper course.
These rules determine how the right-of-way boat may exercise that right.
In simple terms, Rules 10–13 answer the question, "Who has right of way?" Rules 14–17 answer the question, "What are the limits on exercising that right?"
You said
Logically if keeping clear requires more than avoiding contact, it requires at least avoiding contact.
A give way boat can always avoid contact by keeping clear (except in the Case 77 situation.
For reference for an S80:
LOA = 7320mm
Beam = 2710mm
Mast = 9750mm above waterline
Even if both boats were heeled at 30 degrees in opposite directions there would still be more than 250mm between their mast heads if there was actually 1-boat-length between them (ie. between their gunwhales).
If we are talking about 1-boat-length between the centre-lines then at 20 degrees each way their mast heads would still be around 650mm apart.
The 'facts found' in the original poster's message/subject (including the diagram) are dubious at best.
However, if they didn’t for some reason, how much can the PC rely on their own assumption here, or question either party to clarify? Or need they just accept presented and un-argued ‘facts’, even if implausible / impossible?
L would presumably still have the headsail sheeted in. Can’t see it healing to windward enough to make contact unless W was very close or very heeled themselves, to start with. Thus, I’d find it hard to say W was keeping clear to a point L could manoeuvre without immediate contact.
Then they need to turn their heads around.
There's just no forgiveness for not keeping a lookout that's sufficient to see what's there to be seen.
She can’t be expected to look everywhere at once. Especially if (as is the case here) it would require her to be scanning 360 horizontal and 180 vertical concurrently.
I don't think it matters for the sake of this discussion if the OP scenario was mechanically plausible.
The issue, in general terms is whether a windward boat keeping a sufficient distance between hulls so that the leeward boat need not act to avoid and can change course in either direction, fails to keep clear if the leeward boat suddenly changes attitude, without changing course and breaking RRS 16.1, and makes contact.
It doesnt matter if it's a J24, or say a modern Moth that can do a reverse capsize.
In my opinion any contact implies that a right-of-way rule is broken, so once there os contact the distance between hulls is hardly relevant.
I think the simper example of two boats, heavily heeled, so that the top of the rig of the windward boat is vertically about the deck of the leeward boat and the leeward boat suddenly 'stands up' and there is rig contact leads the way. In thcase we would have no hesitation in concluding the the windward boat does not keep clear, although had there been no contact we may conclude that she was keeping clear.
I don't think the fact that the leeward boat counter heels in order to make contact makes any difference.
Matt Michael said
When discussing rules problems on a forum we usually need to make some assumptions. In a real protest hearing we should not make assumptions, although we can rely on our knowledge and experience.
If something a witness describes is implausible we can certainly ask probing questions.
But, as I said to Ant above, in this scenario, although we might think it was implausible for the leeward boat to accidentally start her mainsheet and stand up without changing course, because that would introduce a whole new rule (RRS 16.1) into play, i think that asking the leeward boat whether or not she changed course, by the protest committee without it ever having been suggested by a party, would be an impermissible leading question.
When the mainsheet was released, did your boat, whether intentionally or nor, change course ?
and,
When the mainsheet was released, your boat changed course. Can you say by how much ?
I agree.
Number 2 is a 'When did you stop beating your wife' question and starts with an assertion of an unproven fact.
My problem with either is that, if there is no other evidence that the boat changed course, the judge is planting an idea in the hearing that was not there.
Bearing in mind that when the main is started, unless someone falls on the tiller, the boat is going to bear away, if anything, I guess a smart answer would by 'You betcha, we bore away to avoid the windward boat because we had a reasonable apprehension that we were going to collide.'
If there is conflicting evidence then the PC can always ask additional questions (of the parties or witnesses), weight the evidence, and may ultimately need to rely on the balance of probabilities. And if there are irrecooncilable differences of opinion between the the members of the PC then it can alsways be put a a vote.
Akin to a car tailgating me and me wrongly reacting to what I thought was something on the road and hitting my brakes. My mistake, but we still expect the car behind me to have left the space for that.
Car behind / boat to windward should maintain separation appropriate for the conditions including their reaction time. Any closer is simply a risk of a penalty if it goes south. The rules do not allow them to put both in danger by being too close.
Anything deliberate falls under a different consideration to our discussion - I think we can leave out maliciousness.
As for the rest of your response, thanks for your well thought out and constructed points.
In the mean time. I agree with it being rule 11. Boats can change heal for numerous reasons. For instance, if there was a crew member to leeward (to use a mounted VHF, check jib trim, grab a water bottle or checking blind spot for crossing boats) when windward sail over the top or drop down too close, then the crew came back to windward, perhaps in lighter wind than OP situation, causing the boat to stand up straighter, it would be clear rule 11. The prevailing conditions meaning W has a heavy heal on is only muddying the water. They weren’t far enough to windward to avoid colliding. Weather hulls or rigs, no distinction is made in the rules to my knowledge other than gear in proper position, which the mast was - can’t not be unless broken I suppose. I can’t accept there was a hull length of separation between them. They must have been much closer according to math, which I find more reliable evidence than W’s testimony.
If L dropped the main sheet intentionally, say to reef the main, causing the boat to stand upright, and the rigs hit, would we be blaming L or saying W was too close?
There are two different sorts of evidence:
The masts are ~10m above waterline, centerlines at one boat length between chines claimed to be ~10m apart. OP said contact at masthead. The contact almost can’t have been masthead to masthead unless both boats were healed 60 degrees toward each other. W’s masthead must have been very close to above L’s hull before L lost their main sheet. W’s masthead must have contacted further down L’s rig, as W would be healing more than L.
I guess the question really is if there is a point at which a boat’s sudden heel to windward would make them at fault. Say a laser which can roll further and faster than the J in OP’s scenario. Or say a narrow hulled moth, foiling or not. Maybe a near capsize to windward, saved by a tiny margin, causing contact the same as in OP. Would it be different if caused by a lull in the wind, responded to better by W than L, making it still a boat handling error, same as dropping the main sheet.
The masts are ~10m above waterline, centerlines at one boat length between chines claimed to be ~10m apart. OP said contact at masthead. The contact almost can’t have been masthead to masthead unless both boats were healed 60 degrees toward each other. W’s masthead must have been very close to above L’s hull before L lost their main sheet. W’s masthead must have contacted further down L’s rig, as W would be healing more than L.
I guess the question really is if there is a point at which a boat’s sudden heel to windward would make them at fault. Say a laser which can roll further and faster than the J in OP’s scenario. Or say a narrow hulled moth, foiling or not. Maybe a near capsize to windward, saved by a tiny margin, causing contact the same as in OP. Would it be different if caused by a lull in the wind, responded to better by W than L, making it still a boat handling error, same as dropping the main sheet.
I think sometimes we lose a bit of focus through these long conversations and maybe miss some significance in some of the responses.
I have been slapped down here for challenging much sketchier scenarios than this.
W knowingly took a risk and it did not pay off. This is an open and shut case. Rule 11; W is DSQ.
Maaaaybe if L altered course, but the OP facts found were that she did not.
I have a few responses that I hope people will find helpful.
I agree.
Up to now, I would have said that
I think (1) is right, as long as boats are manoeuvering and moving 'normally'.
John S' examples are of two cases where boats are not moving 'normally'.
The boat caught in irons, is a case where her movements are in slow motion.
The windward/leeward rig touch, including the OP scenario is a case where movements are unexpectedly fast.
In each case, I think it is indisputable that the give-way boat broke the right-of-way rule, because the right-of-way rules have no condition of possibility or practicability, and the contact conclusively proves the breach.
What we have to consider, for RRS 14 is reasonable possibility.
In the 'in irons' case, the starting point is that the give-way boat is initially keeping clear. Assuming that the give-way boat is, as umpires would say, 'doing all she could' to get out of irons, regain steerage way and keep clear and avoid contact, but is unsuccessful, then I think we should conclude that it is not reasonably possible for her to avoid the contact. In other words, the give-way boat is acting promptly and in a seamanlike way and there is still not enough space for her to keep clear and avoid contact.
Furthermore, for the right-of-way boat, under full control, approaching the give-way boat in irons, stopped or drifting, it certainly is possible, from the time it is clear that the give-way boat is not keeping clear, to avoid contact. But for her failure to avoid contact, the contact would not have occurred.
In the 'sudden counter heel' cases the starting point is that the give-way boat is initially keeping clear. There is then a sudden and unexpected motion of the right-of-way boat resulting in contact. There is nothing the give-way boat can do or not do that would avoid or prevent the contact. The give-way boat, acting promptly, say when the right-of-way boat begins to counter heel, and in a seamanlike way is unable, and has insufficient space to keep clear and avoid contact. I think we should conclude that it is not reasonably possible for her to avoid the contact.
In each of these cases, it has been possible to describe the reason why it was not reasonably possible for the give-way boat, using the language of RRS Definition Room 'promptly and in a seamanlike way', to avoid contact, although there is no rule requiring room to be given.
I suggest we can usefully state a 'rule of thumb':
If a give-way boat is initially [and clearly] keeping clear, and either boat manoeuvres or moves with extraordinary speed or slowness, so that there is insufficient space for the give-way boat, manoeuvering promptly and in a seamanlike way, to avoid contact, then it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact and she does not break RRS 14.
In other words, regardless of whether there is any obligation under RRS 15 or 16 to give room, if there is not enough room for the give-way boat to avoid contact it is not reasonably possible for her to do so and she does not break RRS 14.
I'm not too keen on the 'cause' language unless we're relying on RRS 14(b).
Certainly in OP case, there was an action (counter heeling) by L. If she had not done that, contact would not have occurred.
I'm happy that it would have been reasonably possible for L to have avoided the contact by not counter-heeling and that L broke RRS 14.
If the 'stand-up' was not deliberate, say it was caused by a breakage in L's mainsheet system, then I'd be inclined to say it was not reasonably possible for L to avoid the contact.
Does anyone want to argue that the breakage was the fault of C because she failed to maintain her gear? My inclination is that to approach that we would need to get into some murky waters.
Sue raised a different, slightly simpler example of a 'stand up' to which John S replied:
That makes sense to me.
It’s clearer to me now that although the scenario / facts found deepen the polarisation there are underlying rules based reasons.
I said something earlier about attributing fault to L….a view came back that she failed to avoid contact. The rabbit hole that followed looked at different reasons for the roll to windward but without any real attempt to say what difference those might make.
Perhaps that’s because if you hold that L was responsible for not avoiding contact then it necessarily holds that it doesn’t matter how it was caused (if L caused it). For example if it’s a wave L should have adjusted balance….
For me though it seems to be absurd to hold that L failed to avoid contact if the contact occurred inside the plane of her hull as per the OP diagram and pretty much all the facts found
And I add this:
Neither boat was required to act to avoid contact until it became clear that the other was not keeping clear.
There was no action that W could have taken in time before L's contact.
And L undoubtedly began trimming her main back in before contact occurred as fast as possible.
Hence, neither boat violated RRS 14.
L was the right of way boat. She was not required to keep clear.
W was not entitled to room.
It was not reasonably possible for W to have anticipated L's loss of control. 14
Penalizing a boat that was keeping clear is a violation of Fair Play and Governing Officials Judging. 2, 5.
And sure to be followed by appeal.
Same mechanism - Clear Ahead drops mainsheet and suddenly slows.
If Clear Ahead's forestay parted and her rig fell on Clear Astern, then Yes. Same situation for an innocent victim.
But back to my framing….what if it is sudden slow by Clear Ahead that results in the contact?
I'm happy that gear failure may make it not reasonably possible to avoid contact.
I'm not comfortable with Phils sweeping assertion that it is always reasonably possible for the right of way boat to avoid losing control. Imagine your just hanging on on a tight reach, and a cross sea makes you rudder let go.
No rule says you should be sailing conservatively so that won't happen.
1. There was a collision between the masts of the two boats and non-serious damage occured.
2. W was windward and L was Leeward.
The testimony was that
1. The boats were 1 boat length apart. This seems highly doubtful and defies maths. Whatever the distance it was clearly insufficient in the prevalent conditions if the masts made contact when the mainsheet was dropped.
2. The mainsheet was dropped . I find this believable but does not alter the obligation of the windward yacht.
3. The boats were J24s angled at 35+ degrees in 15 knots of windspeed. Any judge with J24 experience would ignore this testimony unless it was caused by huge wave conditions and much higher wind velocity, requiring suitable separation when passing to windward.
W was not keeping clear, prior to the mainsheet being released. W breaks rule 11.
L breaks 14 but is exonerated.
Keep it Simple. A windward overtaking boat was hit by a leeward boat when the leeward boat straightened. 99.9% of the time this is a rule 11 breach. For the remaining 0.1% of the time, it is a Rule 11 breach...... so that 99.9% of sailors understand the simplicity of rule 11, that a windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat.
If your mast hits the mast of a leeward boat that dropped its mainsheet, you were not keeping clear.
Thank you.
This would entirely change our sport.
Great diagram.
Further, as your diagram shows; if the mainsheet of L was released, the mast of L would not touch the mast of W.
Thus based on the prima facie testimony of the parties, we would find, as "facts found"
W was windward . L was Leeward. The boats were less than 1 boat length apart. Both boats were heeled. When L released the mainsheet , there was contact between the mast of W and the mast of L.
In the case described by the OP, I would find that Rule 11 was broken.
FWIW, a J24 is dog slow sailed upwind at that angle of heel in 15 knots of breeze. I suspect they were heeled considerably less than that but we dont have to determine the angle of heel to decide on an outcome. Nor do we have to precisely determine the distance between the two boats. That part of the testimony will vary depending on the eye of the beholder.
Then I would strongly recommend that L did some penalty turns.
I would feel differently if they were going downwind.
What rule do you say L broke?
There were two boats, one required to keep clear of the other.
There was contact between the boats therefore, necessarily, the boat required to keep clear did not do so and broke the right-of-way rule.
Whether either boat also broke RRS 14 about avoiding contact if reasonably possible is open for discussion.
The difference between RRS 14 and RRS 10, 11, 12, and 13 (the right-of-way rules) is that RRS 14 is conditioned by 'if reasonably possible'. The right-of-way rules do not have any test of reasonable possibility.
1. There's the practical geometric discussion.. whether the physics is actually plausible.
2. Then there's the philosophical moral ethical fairness safety discussion - who's fault and what is safe?
I am only interested in philosophical debate here in this thread. (The question of whether the geometry works can be left to PCs at real hearings.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Philosophical moral ethical fairness safety discussion
Who's responsibility is it to account for / anticipate that lack of perfection / bad luck / unforeseen outcome in sailing?
There is the literal interpretation of the word 'cause' (as a direct reason) in R14.
JohnS's interpretation is well reasoned and fits with the rules, and the direct-cause interpretation in rule 14, putting the liability on RoW when they make a mistake and exonerating the keep-clear boat.
Yet, from a practical safety point of view, we know for a fact that there are times when, despite all reasonable precautions, things happen. Who's responsibility does this greyness fall under?
If we are to go with JohnS's interpretation, there leaves a scope of risk which is unacceptably not accounted for...: while we can say under the rules that leeward / ahead boat messed up (dropped the sheet/didn't see the gust- 'caused the collision') and should take the penalty AFTER something happened, there is still always be the risk to safety in sailing due to unforeseen/imperfection/bad luck.
We can't just say to RoW, "Don't make a mistake. Dropping the mainsheet is banned. Don't have bad luck. It's dangerous!"
For safety, this risk must be anticipated BEFORE something happens.
(If this were an air crash investigation, the 'root cause' would be 'the insufficient distance between the boats'. Dropping the mainsheet is an 'active failure' and the wind strength is a 'contributing factor'. Logic tells us to fix the root cause.)
The only logical solution is to put this anticipation into the definition of keep clear. That is 'keep-clear' includes separation to account for RoWs full range of reasonable sailing.
(My feeling is that keep clear includes space needed to accommodate the full range of trim of her sails without warning.)
But this is the crux as I see it. Anticipation is not a thing in RRS. Safety is. Here, they collide and conflict.
--------------
Have we reached another dead-end?
When we reach a dead-end it normally means that both sides have a very strong point or are technically correct. Often it needs an official interpretation to tell us which view to follow. Sometimes it needs re-work of the rule.
Either way, I don't think we will get any further here. I think all the possible arguments have been presented.
Good discussion.
If you accept OP’s view of the event, that they were 1 BL apart, it seems crazy to blame W, all of us have been in W’s shoes in that situation, and would be horrified to be accused of not keeping clear. However, in reality if W was a length to windward of L, they never would have hit, which is why in every other race in history a boat that far to windward has never had this issue, and why those blaming L feel so strongly, as they could see themselves being the windward boat frequently, and believe they were not risking a breach.
If OP had started with a plausible / possible separation, like, W was 1.5m to windward of L, maybe even 2m,I think this would have been a much shorter thread.
But I agree, that aside from this particular circumstance, a class like foiling moths could achieve maybe a similar situation to OP, but again, the answer will probably be in the specifics of the details. Which doesn’t really help us all understand exactly where rights / obligations start and stop.
I agree we have probably reached a dead end.
My only comment, which I raised some time ago, is that if we were to adopt the position that 'keep-clear' includes separation to account for 'RoWs full range of reasonable sailing.' then start lines would need to be significantly longer than their current length to allow all boats to have a reasonable chance of getting on the line and keep clear when required!
I would also point out that the quote from Case 92 is incomplete as it is qualified by the first words which are by "When a RoW boat changes course.......' It is a bit misleading to only partly quote.
Long start lines - yes. That's a result of this conflict isn't it. If going by pure risk free then start lines would need to be extra long. But why isn't anyone pushing for this?
Safety is the overall measure of risk, not necessarily 'risk free'. For the number of occasions OPs scenario crops up over the thousand's of starts, the sailing world has accepted the risk of a mainsheet being dropped, and shortened the start lines to be practical.
So the sailing world comes up with a number (something like1.3 X the total length of all boats) as being the recommended length of a start line.
I made that point in another thread as well. A ROW that curtails trimming her sails or movement of her boom from side to side in order to avoid contact with a KC boat, IMO has taken "... an avoiding action".
But does that help us with whether L breaks 14?
Does failing to curtail trimming constitute failure to avoid?
Does the answer change if L (and W) are rolling in waves?
Or L has been consistently sheeting in and out as wind gusts and lulls?
Or if the ‘choice’ was ease with risk of contact or capsize.
If you answer that L breaks 14 in any of those cases do you think that L breaks Rule 14 if she eases sheet and slows ahead of a Clear Astern boat?
"If this were an air crash investigation, the 'root cause' would be 'the insufficient distance between the boats'. Dropping the mainsheet is an 'active failure' and the wind strength is a 'contributing factor'. "
I differ slightly from Ben in that I do not need a rules change or an interpretation to reach a conclusion.
If the boats were J24s , and the mast of the leeward boat touched the mast of a windward boat while they were both going upwind in 15 knots, we can confidently find that W was not keeping clear of L throughout the overtake. W cannot be exonerated from the breach of Rule 11.
Philosophically the discussion can then center around whether an "active failure" triggers Rule 14.
Specifically: If reasonably possible, a boat shall.... (b) not cause contact between boats,
It is an interesting topic to delve into under two headings:
1. Unintentional human error is the "active failure"
2. Boat or equipment failure is the "active failure"
Unintentional Human Error
Case 30 ruled that
"After gybing, A became the keep-clear boat under rule 10, even though she had not intended to gybe....A did not break rule 14(a) because it was not ‘reasonably possible’ for her to avoid contact."
However IMO, Case 30 does not establish clear precedent because the PC also found that B's actions contributed to the unintentional gybe. But its useful.
Case 77 looked at a situation where A made an unintentional error during their spinnaker dowse, and the chute was trailing 20 foot astern and touched B the boat behind them. B was exonerated from rule 12 AND The case rules that "A broke rule 14(a) by causing contact that she could have avoided."
Case 91 distinguished a similar situation from Case 77 by ruling that A's out of control chute had been out of control for long enough that B should have anticipated it and avoided the chute. B was disqualified for Rule 12. That is a fair distinction. However the Appeals committee complicated our understanding of rule 14 by ruling that "A did not break rule 14 because, after it became clear that B was not keeping clear, it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid the contact."
So in 77, the Appeals committee rule that the human error of losing control of a spinnaker is an active failure that "could have been avoided" and in Case 91, a very similar error was "not reasonable possible..to avoid"
Food for an interesting discussion
Equipment Failure
I think that if a ROW boat cannot avoid a KC boat due to unintended equipment failure then it would likely be deemed NOT reasonably possible to avoid contact , but I havent found many cases to support that conclusion.
The closest I found is Case 99 which suggests that in a case when the ROW boat does not avoid contact because they anticipate that the action of avoiding contact would cause equipment failure, then Rule 14 has not been broken:
" The only action available to S was to crash-gybe, which risked considerable damage to S. That finding was equivalent to a finding that it was not reasonably possible for S to avoid contact. Therefore, S did not break rule 14."
In the ethical side, however, I fear that a 70 degree swing of a mast head does not fit “ROW’s full range of reasonable sailing.”
I cannot disregard that leap in judgement.
The ethical cannot ignore the practical.
Prima facie, Rule 11 has been broken.
You cannot disregard the leap in credibility that is required to accept the testimony that the mast swung to windward through an arc of 70 degrees on a J24 going to windward in 15 knots with the jib sheeted in.
Nevertheless, purely for rules discussion, the right way and only way W gets exonerated is under Case 77 which ruled:
"A boat obligated to keep clear does not break a rule when touched by a right-of-way boat’s equipment that moves unexpectedly out of normal position"
Perhaps consider what happened on the other end of the mast first.
Full trim > No trim in a short period. - - That is the range of reasonable sailing I'm referring to. What happens as a result is just that.. a result of reasonable sailing.
As Philip implies, releasing mainsheet in close quarters is problematic. So ROW was restrained from having bad luck or making a mistake (or even freely trimming) by W's close proximity.
You both forget to juxtapose the rule 11. The 'close-quarters' restrained L. That restraint effectively meant that L had to constantly take avoiding action (don't make mistakes and have only good luck). This breaks rule 11.
So your question should now be...
"Does that reasonable bad luck / mistake turn unreasonable when the rule 11 buffer of protection was illegally infiltrated by another boat?"
I'm not sure it does.
11 was not violated.
There was contact between a windward and leeward boat. L did not alter course. Thus prima facie , Rule 11 was breached by W.
Then the question is, can W avoid being penalized for a breach of Rule 11 because Case 77 advises us that
" A boat obligated to keep clear does not break a rule when touched by a right-of-way boat’s equipment that moves unexpectedly out of normal position"
If a party goes into the room claiming they kept clear of a leeward boat, that touched them without altering course, and their defense is that they think they were a boat length apart.......Honestly, it is not going to go well for them. They need to make a case based on 77.
It is then up to the judges to appraise the credibility of the testimony.
(W sailing so close created a need for L to adjust her sailing so as not to avoid contact.)
I admit it took me time to link 'need to take avoiding action' with this scenario, until I widened my view of what 'need to take avoiding action' is. We are so conditioned to think that 'avoiding action' is only a course change. It's more than that. Now, the more I look at this, I'm satisfied with rule 11 breach.
Did W break RRS11? Yes; without a doubt.
Any continuous restriction on how RoW can sail is the same as saying RoW has the need to continuously take avoiding action.
All the while W is in that close proximity, L is restricted on how she may trim her sails.
The 'avoiding action' referred to in def. of KC is not always a course change. It may be sail trim, crew weight positioning, hailing (Case 107) or many other 'actions'. In this case for example, L's avoiding action is her need to keep her sails trimmed or only trim them slowly. That's what's required to avoid contact.
L, sailing so close so as to restrict how W may trim her sails breaks rule 11.
I am happy with rule 11.
----------
Now to the tough question - rule 14 - what is 'caused and reasonable'.
How does fully releasing the sheet
with the knowledge of the resultin close quarters fall within the range of ***reasonable*** sailing, whether intentional or not?This is where we are getting stuck. Specifically, that word 'caused'. We've discussed this word before. (About every 12 months it seems).
That word has a broad range of use, doesn't it?
For any incident there may be a number of contributory factors, and these are often referred to as causes. Ok, but if we can find a cause to a cause, it is not a root cause. There is usually only one/a few 'root causes'.
A root cause is the fundamental, deepest underlying reason for an issue or event.
Rule 14 must require us to drill down to the deepest level of cause we can find which also has a binding rule which goes with it. Otherwise we are left with a bunch of 'causes' with no real endpoint to address or fix.
RCA#1.
Rigs collided. Why?
1. L stood upright. Why?
2. L's mainsheet was not taut. Why?
3. Mistake/Poor Sailing/Broken equipment etc... Why?
Root Cause: Bad luck/Training/Poor maintenance/etc
Dropping mainsheet is not a root cause. Additionally, there is not a rule prohibiting bad luck/poor training/poor maintenance. (Don't say r14 - circular reference!). It would be ridiculous for the rules to forbid mistake or bad luck. Imagine this...
Rule 9 ¾ - Bad Luck and Mistakes - A right of way boat shall not have bad luck or make mistakes!
No. These issues are considered to occur within reason in sailing (not reasonably possible to avoid). They are going to happen. They are accounted for in the rules and the interpretations (seamanlike definition, 'reasonable' in rule 14.).
Within rule 14 reference frame then by dropping the sheet, L did not break rule 14.
RCA#2.
Rigs collided. Why?
1. L stood upright. Why?
2. L' s trim change was sudden and W did not have time to react. Why?
Root cause: Distance between the boats was insufficient for reaction time.
Distance between boats is a root cause. Additionally, there is a rule which requires that the distance between the boats be sufficient to allow RoW freedom of trim, which must take into account reaction time. It was reasonably possible for W to increase the distance.
Within the rule 14 reference frame then, W broke r14.
--------------------
That's my progression through this. It may be wrong. (I have been wrong many times before!)
It may be that in practice at a real event (in absence of any official directive) JohnS's reasoning would be preferred. I'm ok with that. I understand his reasoning. It's not uncommon that there are different interpretations to rules. In absence of authoritive direction (casebook/rule change), either may be applied according to the majority of the jury. That's why we have committees, right?
I have nothing really more to say.
I enjoy all these discussions about "root causes" and I love your analogy about an air crash investigation.
However the case book seems clear. In order not to penalize W for Rule 11 , the jury would have to determine that L's mast was not in its normal position.
That determination is a finding of fact and will depend on examining the testimony.
Nobody disputes that W did not expect the leewards boat's mast to return from the heeled position. It was "unexpected"
But Case 77 requires that that it must be "unexpected" and "out of normal position".
In Case 77, the equipment was unexpected and out of normal position
In Case 91, the equipment was out of normal position, but the KC boat should have expected it.
It is clear to me at least, that when a boat makes an unintentional error, both requirements must be met to exonerate the Keep Clear boat.
So, was L's mast out of its normal position?
Which of course is the same question you are asking.
Case 77 and 91 equipment is running rigging or sails.
If Case 77 is enough for you, that's great. I personally don't think this has anything to do with equipment not in normal position unless the rig has fallen down. A mast's normal position is attached to the middle of the boat perpendicular to the deck.
11 a) W kept clear of L, as L was able to sail her course with no need to take avoiding action.
11 b) W kept clear of L, as L could change her course in both directions without immediately making contact.
14 b) L caused contact between boats.
Go for it.
KC(a) - not met.
+
KC(b) - met/not determined?
=Did not keep clear.
R14 - insufficient distance was the cause.
Notes:
1. Some people wrongly believe that if KC(b) is met it's enough to say W kept clear. However KC(a) must also be met. The two are connected with 'and'. If either one is not met, the boat did not keep clear. My issue is not with KC(b). It's immaterial if KC(a) is not met.
I'm saying that KC(a) was not met.
2. Dropping the sheet is never a problem if the distance is sufficient between the boats. Insufficient distance caused 'dropping the sheet' to be problematic. Insufficient distance caused the contact. Not dropping the sheet.
3. KC(a) - Think of 'need to take avoiding action' as the trigger here. (See above.)
(W failed to keep clear of L, as L was able to sail her course but had need to take avoiding action while doing so.
In fact, to resolve that need to take avoiding action, L would have had to bear away to increse the distance between the boats. So effectively, she could not 'sail her course without a continuous need to take avoiding action'.)