Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Extending a Prod in a windward Port and Starboard situation
Anto Sweetapple
Nationality: Australia
0
whats your view on the following scenario.
1. two boats beating to windward - middle of the harbour
2. boat on port tack is going to pass ahead of boat on starboard tack.
3. boat on stb tack has a prod in retracted position.
4. boat of stb tack extends prod 2.5-3m as they approach boat on port and hail 'Starboard', port tack boat tacks to stay clear of prod.
Other than being 'unsportsman' like - does this breach any rule?
4. boat of stb tack extends prod 2.5-3m as they approach boat on port and hail 'Starboard', port tack boat tacks to stay clear of prod.
Other than being 'unsportsman' like - does this breach any rule?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
C.9.3 BOWSPRIT
(a) USE
(1) The bowsprit shall be fully retracted at all times except when the spinnaker
is being set, is set, or is being retrieved, and shall be retracted at the first
reasonable opportunity after the spinnaker is fully retrieved.
(2) Approaching a mark at which the spinnaker will be set, the bowsprit shall not be
extended until the bow reaches the mark.
John
The wording typically requires the pole / sprit / prodder to be kept retracted until the spinnaker hoist begins and to be retracted promptly on the douse.
Case 77
Case 91
The following cases provide assistance, by analogy, on the sportsmanship issue
Case 73
And, in a mixed fleet (PHRF for example), is a boat bound by her class rules?
In such case rule 69 should also be considered (see examples 5, 7, 8, 10 in case 138).
If class rules or any other relevant documents don't require the prod to be retracted on the beat and S extends it so that P has room to keep clear, I wouldn't assume any rrs is broken in this case, since neither definition Keep Clear, nor rrs 10 says anything about equipment out of its normal position.
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.
She has by the action of putting out her prod acquired right of way and altered the situation for the port tack boat who should be given room to keep clear
The issue here may be that this may not be a class event. If this was a PHRF fleet for instance, those CR’s wouldn’t necessarily convey unless specifically detailed in the PHRF rules. I just looked at PHRF of the Chesapeake and though their equipment rules anticipate a retracting BS, it does not speak to its position while racing.
You can model it off the J/111 language or J/105 language below:
"The bowsprit shall be fully retracted at all times except when the gennaker is being set, is set, or is being retrieved, and shall be retracted at the first reasonable opportunity after the retrieval"
We found it necessary to have the additional language regarding the windward mark, thus preventing boats from extending the sprit to establish an overlap at the zone or to close the door on a port-tacker crossing ahead at the mark inside the zone. In those instances, approaching the windward mark they could certainly say they were in the process of setting the spin.
Case 77 and 91 both refer to boats on the same tack, so not directly relevant here?
I can’t find a rule or case that directly disallows what S did, even though I had assumed ‘equipment in normal position’ applies. Even though ‘equipment in normal position’ is used in the RRS, it’s always in situations or rules not relevant to this.
Rule 2 seems all that can be left, although it seems harder to prove unfair behaviour than a straight section 2 rule violation.
There does seem to be some gaps in the RRS with regards to mix fleet racing. Many boats have no class rule, even if they had to observe them during mixed racing.
In my mind unless there's some other rule violation I'd need something very obviously and extremely unfair or unsportsmanlike to assess a Rule 2 violation on it's own. I'm not sure this scenario (assuming no class rule applies) meets that standard for me.
I couldn't agree with you more.
We should be very rigorous in applying the 'recognised principle' and 'clearly established' parts of rule 2, and not go searching for rule 2 breaches in perfectly normal incidents.
said Created: Today 19:42
Agree
Very good point
Case 73 which would be the basis of a rule 2 conclusion, refers specifically to where contact has actually been made: it would require a substantial further 'stretch' to extend it to 'where contact would have been made'
While one should always be cautious about headnotes, in the Case Book (unlike Law Reports) they form part of the Case and are equally authoritative as the main text of the Case. Both the headnotes of Cases 77 and 91 (quoted above) refer generally to 'right-of'way boats'. I think those Cases are wholly applicable here.
In fact I think Case 91 actually resolves this problem: P saw the prod extended, and tacked away to keep clear of it. In terms of Case 91 the prod was 'out of its normal position long enough ... to have been seen and avoided', and P avoided it and kept clear: no rule was broken.
In the absence of a NOR, SI or applicable Class Rule, I agree with you.
Yes indeed.
Many thanks for all you kind considerations of my scenario.
The race was a mixed fleet, Winter Series race on Sydney Harbour - all on PHS handicap system. I checked the Sailing Instructions and there is no reference to "retracting or deploying the prod" mentioned anywhere. the only reference to anything to do with the bow is that "anchors protruding from the bow shall be removed"
From all the comments, it would appear the Starboard boat acted in accordance of the rules, with the possible exception of Rule 15
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.
as Andrew McIrvine identified.
and given that we (Port) had the opportunity to tack, and did tack to avoid contact - the Starboard boat did give us time to keep clear.
There are probably some grounds for a protest under Rule 2 as Matt and Tim identified however this is a bit ambigous and possibly grasping at straws.
I will write to the Sailing Committee and express my concerns on yachts racing to windward using their retractable prod as an impliment to aquire a right of way and suggest that the prods "shall remain retracted for the duration of the race with the exception of deploying, flying or retrieving asyms or spinnakers" or words to that effect.
many thanks for your knowledge and advice
Anto
For your proposed SI, I'd suggest something along the lines of "retractable bowsprit shall not be extended until the boat is in the zone of a mark and will be retracted as soon as is practicable after the spinnaker is taken down." That would prevent someone from extending their sprit in order to create an overlap and entitlement to mark room. But gives a little more leeway on the takedown as there may be other stuff going on.
I might suggest that PHRF associations consider adding such a rule to their Class Rules.
If the protest committee were to find that:
1) The port tack boat was crossing clear ahead of the starboard tack boat by in excess of 3m.
2) As the port boat approached, the starboard tack boat extended their prod by 2.5m to 3.0m.
3) Once the starboard tack boat extended their prod, the port tack boat having a reasonable apprehension of collision with the prod, tacked to keep clear.
4) The starboard tack boat gave no reason for extending their prod.
One might conclude that starboards action could have no other intention than to cause the port tack boat to tack or break rule 10.
This would appear to rise to gamesmanship, the use of methods, that are dubious or seemingly improper but not strictly illegal. Does gamesmanship, get one to fair sailing? If you look at Case 73, the leeward boat is not found to have broken any part 2 rules. However, because her action could have had no other intention than to cause the other boat to break a rule, they found the leeward boat broke rule 2. Also look at Case 47 A boat that deliberately hails “Starboard” when she knows she is on port tack has not acted fairly and has broken rule 2.
The same would appear to apply in this incident. If starboard's action could have had no other intention than to cause the port to break rule 10, or force them to tack, doesn't this get you to rule 2? It does not appear necessary for the port tack boat to break rule 10, to reach a conclusion that the starboard boat broke rule 2.
Further the starboard tack boat could have a problem with rule 69. Did the starboard tack boat conduct an act of misconduct. Rule 69.1(b)(1) defines misconduct as
The protest committee might also consider taking action under rule 69. However, be aware that rule 69 utilizes a different standard of proof, namely 'comfortable satisfaction', which is defined as lying in between the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' and the civil 'balance of probabilities'.
We have had the issue occur here and as a result we put the following language in the general sailing instructions for all club events:
"A right of way boat shall not hinder a give way boat by having her retractable bowsprit extended unless (a) she is setting a spinnaker, or (b) she has just dropped her spinnaker or (c) the bow of the boat has just passed a weather mark."
PS: FYI, the J105’s have an official Class Rule Interpretation regarding this issue as well, which touches on topics which might be helpful if you get into a dialog regarding your proposed SI with the RC.
RI-14-01: DEFINITION OF "PASSING" THE WINDWARD MARK AND RETRACTION OF THE SPRIT
Case 47 "A boat that deliberately hails “Starboard” when she knows she is on port tack has not acted fairly and has broken rule 2." is another example where rule 2 is the only rule broken.
Also just because you conclude a boat broke rule 2, does not get you to a rule 69. Rule 69 utilizes a different standard of proof, namely 'comfortable satisfaction', which is defined as lying in between the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' and the civil 'balance of probabilities'.
1. I agree with the decision of Case 73 but would analyze it differently. By making contact with W who was keeping clear, L broke rule 14 by failing to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible for her to do so. L is exonerated by 14.2(b) but by knowingly breaking rule 14 L also broke rule 2 and is disqualified. It was not reasonably possible for W to avoid contact so W did not break rule 14. And I don't need to worry about anyone's intentions.
2. Case 73 as decided seems to hinge on the offender deliberately inducing the other boat to break a rule. Thus when Mark says "The same would appear to apply in this incident. If starboard's action could have had no other intention than to cause the port to break rule 10, or force them to tack, doesn't this get you to rule 2?" it seems to me that these are two different things. If S deploys the sprit late and suddenly in a way that seems likely to result in contact or causing P to break rule 10 then yes, I think S has not sailed fairly.
But if S determines that the cross may be close and deploys the sprit at some distance from P to discourage the cross, giving P time to decide to duck or tack, is that really any different from S pinching up (early, outside of 16.1 territory) to shut the door on the cross? Or S leaving the sprit deployed for the entire race for that matter?
Unless there's some rule in effect which prohibits S from deploying the sprit I think I'd consider that an acceptable level of gamesmanship. But I also think I'd still recommend that mixed fleets should have a rule limiting deployment of retractable sprits to avoid any controversy.
Suppose that both skippers are experienced and know the rules? If P hails "starboard" and S ignores the hail and maintains her course, has P still broken rule 2?
What if the experienced skipper on port hails "hey, keep clear!" rather than "starboard" and the inexperienced starboard skipper tacks or ducks. Is that a rule 2 violation?
I have rather similar view on the prod situation in question as Tim, while being on the same page with you regarding WS Cases.
Nicholas said:
" Equally, a boat that for no other reason than to force a penalty increases its length by 3m unexpectedly and for no good reason falls into the same category. "
I completely agree here, but what if the prod was extended in order to not let P cross for tactical reasons (to force her to tack and not let her cross and then cover) and was done on a fair distance and in fair time to let P keep clear?
On the contrary, let's say S doesn't extend the prod, P crosses and then tacks for no other reasons than to cover S. Or perhaps tacks slightly before the crossing to lee-bow position to force S to tack away.
Understanding both boats would execute gamesmanship, I find it hard to find the key facts that distinguishes these actions since both would comply with Part 2 of RRS.
I don't see any malicious intentions here to break a rule, deceive a competitor or compel him to break a rule that I assume to be key facts in WS cases to find the actions as violating principles of sportsmanship.
Would be great to get an insight from you since it is rather difficult case for a less experienced judge as myself.
A general definition of the “recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play" and “misconduct” would be helpful in The Racing Rules of Sailing as there are many different views around the world as to what constitutes the “recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play" and “misconduct.” Not wearing a blazer and tie might be considered misconduct in some yacht clubs, whereas wearing one in others might result in your tie being cut off and pinned to the bar ceiling in others!
and we are back to DNE for breaches of Rule 2 with effect from Jan'21
I kind of think that if it is "clearly established" that "recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play" have been violated, a more severe penalty is warranted. But PCs should establish a reasonably high standard for upholding an allegation. As Mark said above, if the PC is in doubt on rule 2 the benefit of the doubt should go to the accused.
I'd be interested in seeing the submission that led to that change.