I am sure many of us are preparing our various talks and presentations on the rule updates and I would be interested to hear other views as how the change to 18 will apply.
The last sentence of new rule 18.1 advises that rule 18 no longer applies between boats when mark-room has been given.
I think this may be a significant change as it means after mark room has been given18.2(f) will also be turned off and this may encourage boats to dive into a space.
I would appreciate other views as to whether the following is a correct interpretation of the new wording.
Between positions 3 and 4 Blue has given mark-room (even though Yellow did not take it) so 18 no longer apples.
Any luff by Yellow between positions 4 and 5 must now comply with 16 and she cannot luff Blue into the mark (unseamanlike).
Blue keeps clear by tacking.
No rule broken.
As I see it the difference between old and new is that under the current rules Blue was continually obliged to give Yellow room to sail her proper course under 18.2(f) which in this case may be a high close hauled course to shut the door on Blue.
Is this a correct interpretation of the new wording and, if so, how do we clearly explain to the sailors when mark-room has been given (but not taken)?
But what about 18.4 being turned off?
An inside boat, having been given room to round, need no longer gybe to her proper course!
I do not understand the reference to "Proper course" this has no relevance to "Room" except in Match Racing.
when Mark room has been given 18 is off so there is no new 18.1(a). for a boat jumping in.
Mark room currently has been given when:-
A boats proper course no longer takes the boat to the mark.
The boat has room to round the mark.
I should have referred to 18.2(c)(2).This requires a boat that obtains an inside overlap, as per my diagram, gives the boat entitled to mark-room room to sail her proper course while they remain overlapped. My point is that if 18 no longer applies then nor does 18.2(c)(2) or for that matter 18.4 as mentioned by Philip. My concern is not with the current rules, but how we decide mark-room has been given and 18 turns off in the new rules, when that room has not been taken and the boats have not necessarily passed the mark on the way to the next mark assuming it is upwind in my diagram.
In my diagram I believe Blue will infringe under the current rules but will not under the new rules.
I am happy to be persuaded differently!
I still do not see the infringement now or under the next rule and neither did you when I looked at the original post.
Assuming (as she bore off later) she had to go above her proper course at 5 (yellow) she was outside the mark-room she was entitled to and with 16.1 not entitled to force the other boat onto the mark.
I did try to cover when mark-room had been given.
Somewhere between 3 and 4 yellow passed the point when if she headed up to a closehauled course she would pass close by the mark. As she passed that point she had been given mark-room.
As I see it up to that point she is always able to change course (especially if R O W) to claim her mark-room.
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/274-contradiction-in-rule-18
Rob’s post (inc history and background) is near the bottom.
The change to 18 does resolve the situation covered in your link as in my scenario Blue will not get mark-room under 18.2(a).
There does appear to be some agreement that mark-room has been given by Blue somewhere between positions 3 and 4
I think this may now create a scenario that encourages Blue to have a go for the gap that is currently discouraged by 18.2(c)(2) but will not be discouraged next year as 18 will not apply if it can be argued room has been given..
If Blue can get her nose in Yellow will be governed by 16 when 18 turns off so she will not be able to close the door. Not sure yet if this is good or bad and maybe, as others have said, it may not be any different except that the discussion will soon be about whether mark room has been given and not if a boat has room to sail her proper course!
I do find the change made in appendix C2.9 gives a clear cut off. Yellow would be entitled to mark-room in my scenario as the mark is not astern of her. There must be some reason why this has not been introduced for fleet racing.
This would also resolve Philip's 18.4 issue as Yellow would likely not be on the next leg so 18 would still apply.
The continuing joys of rule 18!!!
Of course, since there is a change in definition mark - room, that affects some of Rule 18 scenarios. The way I see it, under the new rules, a boat entitled to mark-room is always entitled to room until the mark is astern of her, regardless of the direction of the next mark.
In the meanwhile, since the new definition explicitly states that mark room includes room for a boat to pass the mark as necessary to “sail the course”, thus to pass the mark on the required side, I see no reason why the definition keeps reffering also to room to leave a mark on the required side. I believe it is an unnecessery repetition to an already complicated rule.
Furthermore, according the new wording of 18.1, I find it also frustrating.
Thus, in a Rule 18.3 situation, since Rule 18 will no longer apply between boats when the boat entitled to mark-room, under 18.3, has been given that mark-room, we have to assume that seases also the obligation of the boat that passed head to wind from port to starboard tack in the zone of a mark to be left to port, not to cause a boat that has been on starboard tack since entering the zone to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact. An obligation which is however irrelevant to the obligation to give that boat mark-room, if she becomes overlapped inside her.
Was that the intention of the rule makers?
"The addition of the words 'and her course is no longer influenced by it'
at the end of Mark-Room (b) extends the application of mark-room
beyond the point where the boat has completed passing the mark for
those situations when she continues to need the protection of rule 18"
[for drift, etc.].
This would also have solved the 18.4 issue, since the position of the mark
would continue to influence her with a gybe obligation, even if she had
physically passed the mark.
That US proposal was not adopted by WS, however.
If in this scenario the yellow boat is sufficiently to leeward I believe she has had mark room even when the mark is not astern.
There are good reasons for not using John and Mike's interpretation -- consider, for example, a boat that enters the zone of a leeward mark clear ahead and then drops her spinnaker into the water. She comes to a dead stop while retrieving her chute. Suppose a boat comes in to that mark a minute later. Can they claim the "gave her mark-room" and therefore she no longer is entitled to that room? Surely not.
John and Mike's interpretation might even prevent the normal "wide and then tight" rounding, as that surely takes longer than a tight seamanlike rounding. John's original diagram shows Yellow dropping well down below the mark, but suppose she had simply started her turn two lengths or so away from the mark? Could Blue than "go in" and claim she had given Yellow mark-room and therefore rule 18 no longer applies when yellow "closes the door"? Surely not.
Yellow left room and Blue takes that room at her own risk.
Mark room for Yellow has ended after P4 as her proper course is no longer close to the mark. Yellow as ROW may luff up above close hauled after P5 but is subject to R 16.1.
John
I may be required to give you something but I cannot force you to use it. After I have given it I have fulfilled my part of the bargain.
I think you have misrepresented my position.
Under what I said, 18 would be on in each of your scenarios.
I said if you sailed so far from the mark that if when you headed up you could not pass close to it because you had effectively left say 3/4 length to the mark (enough for another boat) you had been given mark room.
This does not stop wide out close in as you pass close to the mark.
I do not see the problem.
I think that introducing an alternative interpretation of rule 18.1 would not be helpful in presenting the rules to sailors, even if that interpretation is semantically correct..
I must admit that I have yet to analyse the ‘what ifs’ when more that two boats are involved but my initial thoughts are that this is far easier to explain and understand than the ‘when room has been given’ statement.