Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
OCS incident
Jan Winkler
Certifications:
- International Judge
- National Umpire
0
Hello all,
Here is another interesting scenario.
Feel free to discuss it, find the applicable rules-conclusions-decisions.
Cheers.
.................................................................................................................
Facts found:
Here is another interesting scenario.
Feel free to discuss it, find the applicable rules-conclusions-decisions.
Cheers.
.................................................................................................................
Facts found:
- following the preparatory signal P of fleet race nr. 1, two 470 (green and blue) were sailing near the starting line,
- wind speed was 12 knots, there was a chop of 0.5m,
- 10 seconds before the starting signal, blue was on port tack, beam reaching, close to the pin end starting mark which she left on port and
yellowgreen was on starboard tack, beam reaching, 2 boat lengths above the RC boat; position 1, - at the moment of the starting signal
yellowgreen on starboard was 2 boat lengths OCS while blue on port was sailing parallel course to the starting line; position 2, - following the starting signal X flag was displayed on the RC boat with the sound signal
- immediately after the starting signal green bore away on a broad reaching course aiming astern of blue who was 1.5-2 boat lengths away; position 3,
- after green bore away, blue luffed to a close hauled course and crossed the starting line, on a converging course with green,
- green promptly bore away on a run but there was a contact between blue's bow and green's starboard aft quarter,
- there was no damage or injury,
- both boats protested
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Position 3 - Green becomes the give-way boat when she turns towards the pre-start side of the starting line (RRS 22.1)
Position 4 - By altering course, Blue is subject to RRS 16.1; Green immediately responds and is unable to keep clear.
Blue did not give Green room to keep clear, breaking RRS 16.1
Contact, thus RRS 14 was broken. However, no damage or injury; Green was entitled to room and is exonerated by 14(b).
DSQ Blue.
Thus, P's luff to closehauled is a proper course and allowed.
22.1 boat returning to start shall keep clear.
Sect A & 15 & 16 do not apply.
Thus P has ROOM.
DSQ S.
21 Exoneration, even if violate A, 15, or 16.
Thus, even if P's luff were covered only by acquiring ROW by the starting signal, P would be exonerated.
Ditto P's change of course.
Exonerate P.
14 Avoiding contact (no damage, no injury)
At position 3, P might still expect S to steer clear.
S fails to keep clear and makes contact.
DSQ S.
P with ROW is exonerated.
Thank you Mark for noticing...an obvious errow on my part, sry...
I corrected the post...
To conclude that Blue broke either RRS 16.1 or RRS 24.2 you would need to find that Green was keeping clear at position 3. From the facts we have she is bearing away onto a collision course with Blue. If Blue takes no action Green will hit her amidships.
FACTS
CONCLUSION
DECISION
DSQ Green.
Blue, who was not sailing her proper course, interfered with Green, who was complying with rule 29.1, breaking rule 24.2. In addition, although it was reasonably possible for her to do it, Blue did not avoid contact with Green, thus breaking rule 14.
DSQ Blue (possibly DNE).
Kim
Blue could (should) have luffed at position 2.25 and started cleanly. But, seeing Green still reaching on STBD (still closer to the wind than a beam reach), decided to sail 5-10 seconds further on port reach to pass safely around Green's stern. (Otherwise, why did Blue sail 10 seconds further down the line after the start.)
Green, oblivious to Blue's presence and ignoring Green's own burden (by 22.1) to stay clear of a properly starting boat, just lazily bore away, and thus prevented Blue from executing her planned maneuver to stay clear.
Blue then luffed as the only reasonable maneuver she thought she had.
Green should have either continued on a STBD reach after position 2 so that Blue's planned course would have remained clear of Green, or Green should have turned downwind much, much faster, and even gybed, to remain clear of Blue.
Green DSQ.
... just a thought.
When Green bears away they are two boat lengths above the line and 2 seconds from a collision with Blue.
2. The RRS go to great lengths (even beyond the my list, above) to discourage and punish boats being on the course side of the line at the starting signal.
3. It is a fallacy for judges to observe the numbered sequence of movements on the diagram and expect that one boat keeps instantaneous track of another boat's changes. Skippers have other things to do between checks upon the other. By rules, the onus falls greater on the OCS boat (or any give-way boat) to monitor the other and keep clear.
You assumed that both boats are running at those speeds. Not necessarily. The diagram, part of FF, may have a different (closing) speeds depicted.
Maybe we can ask: If Blue had such apprehension of collision, why did she not keep sailing straight? Or maybe bore off?
Turning toward a boat at 16 knots closing speed, as you say, is hardly the best recipe to lessen apprehension.
Kim
Technically, rule 29.1 does not put any requirements on a boat, but puts requirements on the RC based upon the position of a boat. The only "shall" in 29.1 is on the RC.
So .. maybe this instead? .. [pulling the "subject to rule 22.1" language from 24.2]
Given, as Mark noted, a fast closing speed I can see why B might not want to head up and start at position 2 but rather continue parallel to the line for a couple of boat lengths to pass astern of G. But I think Kim is correct that in the absence of G, heading up at the starting signal (at 2) was B's proper course and continuing to parallel the line, although safer, was not.
If both boats hold their courses at 3, there's no problem. B initiated the problem by heading up between 3 and 4. If G had maintained her course then or perhaps headed up, B presumably would not have headed up to a collision course but would have made a course to pass port-to-port with G. By continuing to bear away between 3 & 4, G closed out that option. They were likely too close and too fast at that point for B to avoid contact by luffing HTW or tacking.
So how about this:
G while returning to the pre-start side of the line to start failed to keep clear of B as required by RRS 22.1. G also broke RRS 14 and, since RRS 16 was off, was not entitled to room to keep clear and is not exonerated. G is DSQ.
B, after the starting signal and while not sailing her proper course, interfered with G when it was reasonably possible not to do so breaking RRS 24.2. B also broke RRS 14 but was ROW boat and is exonerated for breaking 14. B is DSQ.
CONCLUSION
DECISION
DSQ Green.
Rule 15 does not disappear anywhere.
15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY
When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat’s actions.
I could posit that, again due to the high closing speed, G may have felt that she was committed to the port turn and it was too late to reverse. Which might not make her right but might explain her action.
Narrative
I like the change.
Thanks,
Kim
i. the FF do not say Blue was slow to come to close hauled, merely that green bore away immediately at the start signal and blue then luffed to close hauled. Any suggestion blue's coming to close hauled was somehow delayed is not consistent with FF. Naturally if she is close to the start line she will come up after the gun so as to not break the start. Nothing untoward about that. Any suggestion she was not sailing her proper course is wrong and in any event she is not required to sail her proper course. Kim your second diagram would appear to have blue breaking the start.
ii. there are three course changes by the boats; green bears away, blue luffs to close hauled, green bears away further. The collision occurred after green bore away a second time and that was the course change that ultimately caused the collision that occurred. Being bound by 22.1 green failed to keep clear; unless blue's course change failed to give green room to keep clear under 16.1 but no such fact was found.
iii we have all been speculating on this point yet really it is a question of fact that must be determined by the PC. The PC have not found that blue's course change by luffing to close hauled failed to give green room to keep clear. This is not even a fact that must be determined one way or the other - rather if it is not found to have been the case, then by the facts, it was not the case. We cannot disqualify blue for having failed to give room when it has not been found that she failed to give room. We are all inventing in our own mind a a further fact (one way or the other) when we are told by the facts that that fact was not found, ie it doesn't exist, ie it is not the fact that blue failed to give room.
iv it is not our place to consider the PC has erred by not expressing one way or the other whether Blue failed to give room. We have the facts before us and they do not include that blue failed to give room. What we do know is Green was bound by 22.1 and a collission occurred between it and another boat that had started correctly and had come to close hauled which was her proper course. We can speculate all we want about whether green could have avoided a collision by bearing away harder or by luffing to windward of blue but we don't need to and in proper discharge of our role in applying rules to FF we should not so speculate on that any more than we should speculate whether blue gave green room to keep clear. These are facts to be found if the PC considers them to be relevent.
v. On the FF green was subject to 22.1 and collided with blue while attempting to return to pre-start.
No one is suggesting that Blue becomes OCS (break the start, as you call it). However, it is clear from the diagram that Blue continues to sail in a straight line after the Start signal. Agree, Blue is not required to sail her PC, but by not doing so invites rule 24.2 into the game and breaks it.
I would think that the answer to that question is relevant. The protest committee should have asked about that, no?
I lean to DSQ-ing Green, but see the argument against Blue, as well. Seems like more info is needed to get it right.
If we decide Blue's luff to close hauled did not give room to green, then we appear to be putting Blue in a damned if you do damned if you don't predicament - if she continues reaching or even luffs but not all the way to close hauled such that Green has to avoid her, Blue breaks 24.2, but if she luffs to proper course she breaks 16.1. And all this for no other reason than Green is OCS and trying to return in the way of boats trying to start.
It might be fair to cut Blue some slack in not immediately coming to close hauled on the signal given Green is in the position she is in. If Green had continued reaching after the signal she would still be a RoW boat to Blue rule 10. Blue only becomes RoW over Green once Green is sailing back toward the line. Therefore prior to 3, Blue has to plan to keep clear of Green after the start and has no certainty that Green will bear away at 3. Blue's best course is therefore to plan to cross astern of Green. Only once Green bears away does Blue have rights under 22.1 whilst also becoming burdoned by 24.2 and 16.1.
If Blue's luff to close hauled did not leave room for Green to keep clear then Blue breaks 16.1, but the FF did not include that Blue's luff did not leave room for Green to keep clear, only that Green responded and a collision resulted.
Blue can only be disqualified 16.1 if she failed to give room and the facts have not found that to be the case.
Silence in the facts should not be taken to be a deficiency. It is what it is. No fact that Blue failed to give room was found.
Green was OCS and subject to 22.1 and failed to keep clear of Blue.
As Blue acquired the right of way because of Green’s actions RRS 15 does not apply."
Back with rule 15, I'll might disagree a bit.
Part B rules are very powerful rules and hard to turn off and therefore I slightly disagree about "does not apply".
Which rule turns 15 off? Rule 15 says "When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear,"
but then there is a second part ...
"unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat’s actions" which very much applies.
Example MR call B4.
Are we to take that narrow of a time-slice-view applying rule 24.2? ... that the 'proper-course test' of the rule is ONLY applied at the moment the boats meet ? I can't get my head around the idea that a boat can clearly sail off their proper course and then interfere with a boat as long as they position their boat such that she can adopt the heading of her proper course at the moment of the interference.
Though Case 126 addresses the 'sailing on another leg' aspect of rule 24.2, I think the case is instructive in the sense that it opens up 'the state of mind' of the apparent interfering-boat (which I found fascinating because I've kept as a rule-of-thumb that the state of mind of the competitor only comes into play in rule 2 and 69).
In each of the Q&A's of that case, the application of rule 24.2 hinges on the knowledge of the competitor, whether or not they knew they were sailing on a different leg. Since, " .. ,sailing on another leg or subject to rule 22.1." is one one phrase set-off by a comma, should both of those conditions have the same application standard?
I think this goes to the heart of Kim's approach. Blue should have headed to her proper-course at #2. Without good reason to the contrary (a question others have raised), Blue holds her course away from her proper course between #2-#3 .. putting herself in a position such that when she adopts her proper-course she interferes with a boat subject to rule 24.2. That's kosher?
If we hold that 24.2's proper-course exception is only tested at the moment of interference, then would we say below, 2 boats on a beat to windward, that Blue does not break rule 24.2 relative to Yellow since Blue adopts her proper course at #5?
If you (as Blue's helm) think Green will continue to turn (as she did), you would head up hard, as she (Blue) did. If Blue did not head up at position 3, there is a nearly certain, very damaging collision waiting to occur in another boat length, or so.
If you think Green is going to steady her course and pass astern (of you, in Blue), you would continue straight reaching parallel to the line. No one paying attention would have headed up at position 3 into an oncoming Green boat that was steering to pass astern of you.
So, based on that assumption, I would exonerate Blue and disqualify Green. Blue did what she had to do to avoid serious collision. Green was obliged to return to the line and avoid others while doing so. Green should have made it much clearer that she was going to pass astern of Blue, if that was truly her intent. Even at position 3, it appears Green could have luffed and passed to windward of Blue.
There are many possible, valid reasons why Blue did not (or could not) head up at position 2. She travelled only 1.5 - 2 boat lengths further along the line before heading up - just a few seconds of time passed. Or is this a match race, and Blue is "hunting" Green ;-) (FF say fleet race!)?
Blue's proper course at that moment is to luff to a close-hauled course, which she does between position 3 and 4. Green’s obligation is to keep clear and Blue has to give her room to do so.
A right-of-way boat may change course in such a way that a keep-clear boat is newly obliged to take action to keep clear, until a further alteration of course would deprive the keep-clear boat of room to do so.
When Blue luffs to a close-hauled course was there room for Green, the keep clear boat, to take avoiding action if she acted promptly, or was a collision inevitable? There are no facts found that says a collision was inevitable, so it seems reasonable to assume that a collision was not inevitable.
Green then choose to bear away and cross Blue's path, after which a collision occurred. When Green bore away was it to avoid an impending collision, would luffing have been a better choice, or did Green in her desire to restart, quickly bear away and try to cross Blue's bow? Again there are no facts that support an impending collision, so it seems reasonable to assume that a collision was not inevitable.
The geometry would seem to indicate that had Green luffed she would have passed safely to windward. Therefore, it is Green's final alteration of course to bear away and try to cross Blue's bow that makes the collision inevitable.
In the diagram below, I have included a 5th position, which is between the original position 3 and position 4. This is after Blue luffs to a close-hauled course, but before Green bore away to a run.
OK .. there are 2 parts there in your statement (1) "deviation" and (2) "purpose". As far as (1), do you agree that Blue, by not coming to close-hauled at her starting signal at 2 (since there are also no facts that she delayed to avoid other boats), that Blue deviates from her proper course at #2? You'd agree that a course-change is not required to deviate from proper course, right?
If we agree on (1), then we are on to "purpose". I'm being sincere in my questions here .. as I've never had this issue arise in a hearing I was involved in.
How would we ever determine a fact of 'purpose of interfering' without basically an admission of intent during the hearing? As a member of a panel, I would have thought to proceed with the approach to discover facts that could explain the deviation in this circumstance and absent any other facts/explanation, end up at 'if it waddles when it walks, quacks, lays eggs and has feathers and bill, it's a duck'.
How would you approach this in a hearing and come to a conclusion of interference without an admission?
Thanks .. Ang
Rule 10 applies. Blue a port tack boat shall keep clear of Green a starboard tack boat. There is no mention of proper course in rule 10.
Blue by sailing a parallel course to the starting line is complying with her obligation to keep clear of Green under rule 10.
I too agree that Blue does not have "a proper course requirement immediately after position 2."
Seems we are considering rule 24.2. Rule 24.2 does not require a boat to sail a proper course. How I read it, rule 24.2 uses proper course as a test (not a requirement) as to whether or not a boat shall be penalized for interfering with another boat (even if it was reasonably possible for her not to interfere). Interfere with another boat subject to rule 22.1, even if it was reasonably possible for you not to? ... and you are sailing your proper course getting to that position? .. no penalty.
Seems to me 24.2 is a backwards progression test. You start with the alleged interference of a rule 24.2 applicable boat. Next, you find facts of how the alleged interferer got there. If they they deviated from their proper course to be in a position to interfere, then it seems the 24.2 proper course exemption is not available to them.
I believe that B's proper course at the starting signal is to start [but also to avoid ROW boats including G]. So if B continues to sail parallel and below the line after the starting signal (position 2), she is not sailing her proper course [except to the extent that she does so to keep clear of G, or until G turns below parallel to the line and B gains ROW] until she does come to a close-hauled course. I tend to agree with Mark that by the time the incident occurred B was sailing her proper course. B was not required to sail her proper course, but whether she was or was not impacts her obligation under 24.2.
I might also argue that B didn't interfere with G, as G had plenty of options for keeping clear and avoiding interference from B while returning to the start line. Maintaining the course she was sailing at position 3 or coming up slightly would have been options. Continuing to bear away was her worst option but unfortunately the one she chose.
I agree that "purpose" doesn't have any applicability to 24.2, or really any other rule except perhaps 2 or 69. If a boat breaks a rule it doesn't matter if she did it on purpose or not. But I kind of grant that 24.2 implies purpose, since breaking it requires that the boat has deviated from her proper course which she would only do if she had some reason other than finishing as soon as possible (such as interfering). If the boat taking a penalty or returning to start chooses to place herself on another boat's proper course line, that's her problem.
Ang, I would adjust the wording slightly again to eliminate the implication of purpose.
The facts indicate that at position 3, Green has born away and starts sailing towards the pre-start side of the starting line to start after the starting signal, Blue becomes the right of way boat and no longer needs to keep clear of Green. Green’s obligation is to keep clear and Blue has to give her room to do so.
Blue's proper course at that moment is to luff to a close-hauled course, which she does between position 3 and 4.
Remember these are 470's in 12 knots of breeze. Assuming Blue has sheeted in, which the diagram indicates she has, they are only a few seconds between position 2 and 3.
Facts for Question 3
I agree, I was responding to Mark's use of "purpose" and then looking at the 'state-of-mind' application in the Case.
I was thinking about that after I posted last .. that where I landed at the end was the right place (without or without "purpose" and a couple edits)
This still leaves the timing of the proper course test (Tim, the reason I kept "in a position" in above). Is it only at the point of interference or is it the path that got the boat in the position to interfere, regardless if the interfering boat can obtain a proper course immediately prior to the interference (as illustrated in my drawing above).
In Case 126, if the finding was that L deviated from her proper course to the offset mark due to an unintentional round up and as a result interfered with X who was on another leg of the course would L be subject to 24.2 or not?
Put another way; if one was to look at the diagram without the text, they may well conclude blue luffed attempting to avoid green bearing away to a run, or at a minimum that both boats changed course simultaneously in which case it could not be deduced who was responding to who.
This is no small thing. The diagram cannot possibly represent the text of the FF yet when viewed along with the text it strongly gives an impression that blues last course change did not leave room for green to make a final course change. Th diagram is wrong and misleading.
Rule 24.2
If reasonably possible, a boat shall not interfere with a boat that is taking a penalty, sailing on another leg or subject to rule 22.1.
However, after the starting signal this rule does not apply when the boat is sailing her proper course
Facts found:
If Blue is a boat changing course to sail her proper course (coming
HTW[close-hauled] at Blue's gun when Green is subject to 22.1 would be an example of that), I'd say 24.2 does not apply to Blue and it reverts to 16.1 vs 22.1 with 14.Q; When do you think the PC stared to apply to Blue? Important to determine if the exclusion in 24.2 can be applicable to her.
Kim
The reason given for submission 178-15 was: “Before the starting signal a right-of-way boat may inadvertently and unknowingly interfere with a boat taking a penalty as a result of an incident with a third boat. The proposed change clarifies that the rule is broken only when a boat clearly sails to prevent another boat, that is subject to rule 22.2, from completing a penalty”
Rule 22.1 Starting Errors
Rule 24.2 Interfering with Another Boat
Question
After the start, B is sailing on port tack towards the pre-start side of the starting line without having started. Y has started correctly and bears away below her proper course onto a collision course with B. B gybes and keeps clear of Y. B protests. What should the call be?
Answer
Submissions
https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/17815RacingRulesofSailingRule24.2-%5B19233%5D.pdf
https://www.sailing.org/meetings/2014-conference.php
The proper course exemption to rule 24.2 applies when Green starts sailing towards the pre-start side of the starting line to start.
The facts found say "immediately after the starting signal Green bore away". The diagram shows Green starting to sail towards the pre-start side of the starting line about 1/2 to 1 boat length after position 2. Until that point Blue is the keep clear boat under rule 10.
When Blue sees Green starting to sail towards the pre-start side of the starting line, she knows she is no longer the keep clear boat and 1-3 seconds later comes to a close-hauled course. As soon as Blue starts to luff to a close hauled course Green needs to continue to keep clear by luffing, she does not. In fact she does the opposite and bears away further.
The diagram shows Blue sailing another 2 boat lengths after the starting gun, at 8 knots that would be 2 seconds at 4 knots, 4 seconds. Blue cannot instantaneously luff to a close hauled course as it takes time to turn a boat. If the race committee displays the X flag within 5 seconds it is generally considered to have promptly displayed the recall signal. So one could infer that Blue has promptly come to a close-hauled course.
We don’t know why Blue sailed two boat lengths before luffing to a close hauled course, but no facts supports that she acted to interfere with Green.
We don't have facts found to tell us.
Even if you decide that Blue must immediately come to a close hauled course, that doesn’t mean she has broken rule 24.2 if she does not immediately come to her close hauled course, it just means you apply the test in the rule. “If reasonably possible, a boat shall not interfere with a boat that is taking a penalty, sailing on another leg or subject to rule 22.1.” However, Green remains subject to rule 22.1 and when Blue, a right-of-way boat, changes course, Green, a keep-clear boat is newly obliged to take action to keep clear.
Shouldn't we assume that Blue was not acting to interfere with Green until we are sure she was?
With the added caveat of "if reasonably possible" which was not in the 2013 version of the rule.
All three submissions were adopted. However, when combining the three submissions into the final language of the rule the phrase 'act to" was not used. Case 126 Question 3 still appears to imply the "act to" thinking "L deviated from her proper course to the offset mark in order to luff X."
The second sentence of rule 24.2 has a proper course test and if you find that Blue is sailing her proper course then she can not break rule 24.2. The definition of proper course is "A course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term." The other boat referred to in rule 24.2 is Green. So in the absence of Green would Blue's course be different? If Blue would sail the same course in the absence of Green, rule 24.2 does not apply, because Blue is sailing her proper course. If Blue would sail a different course then rule 24.2 applies, but it doesn't mean Blue breaks rule 24.2.
I agree, but this doesn't mean Blue is sailing her proper course. It could indicate that Blue is unable to sail her proper course because Green is breaking rule 22.1.
Rule 24.2 - If reasonably possible, a boat shall not interfere with a boat that is taking a penalty, sailing on another leg or subject to rule 22.1. However, after the starting signal this rule does not apply when the boat is sailing her proper course.
Proper Course - A course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term. A boat has no proper course before her starting signal.