Since you didn't’ reach close-hauled you are subject to rule 13. If the other boat finished tacking he is right of way

Sorry, I should have said: I did actually finish the tack and come down to close-hauled (at least 6 BLs from the mark). It's just that afterwards I had to pinch up high for a lot time to make the mark.

However, I guess I should also say it's not really clear to me how I should define close-hauled for the purposes of this rule. My sails were full as I sailed most of that distance. But I think I was much higher than max-VMG, so I thought of it as above close-hauled.

The situation you describe is not possible at anywhere near 6 boat lengths. [diagram]
If you could sail that angle, you were probably close-

hauled by definition for your boat.
But theoretically, no. They did not cause you to sail above close hauled.
Good question!

Thanks Philip -- I think you're probably right that I was sailing close-hauled.

I was definitely pinching hard, but it makes sense to say that's still not above close-hauled.

I take it the mark was to be left to port so that rule 18.3 applies.  The other boat is right of way, either rule 13 because you did not finish tacking (reach a close hauled course), or rule 12 because he is clear ahead or rule 11 because you are overlapped to windward.  However, Rule 18 applies (you are both on starboard tack even if you did not go down to close hauled) so the other boat is bound by rule 18.3.  You had to sail above close hauled to avoid contact.  I think your point of sailing before having to avoid is not germane.

I think David is saying he was in a steady-state of pinching for the mark .. .not that he didn't complete his tack.

David, maybe something like this?

Yep, thanks Angelo.

I think what David is trying to explore is this ..

Angelo: Exactly! That's a much better way of asking my question. Sorry about the confusion above.

David. Did you have to alter course further in order to avoid contact? Was there enough room for the inside tacking boat to round the mark whilst maintaining your steady course?
If you were pinching to make the mark from 6 boat lengths I cannot see how another boat could slip in without hitting the mark. 

Question,
Was the other boat was established on her starboard tack prior to you entering the zone? 
It is clear that she tacked in the zone therefore rule 18.3 Tacking in the Zone applies.  You were required to sail above close hauled to avoid contact however, if she was established, prior to you entering the zone (as defined by the her size) you were the overtaking vessel and required to keep clear. Rule 12 ON THE SAME TACK, NOT OVERLAPPED.  Also refer to rule 15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY.
If she was not established then rule 18 does not give her mark room and 18.3 requires her to keep clear.  Also, mark-room for a boat does not include room to tack unless she is overlapped inside and to windward.  She was not to windward so mark room is not given.  This makes her the "give way vessel".

However, if she was established on her tacked, she was leeward, you were the overtaking vessel, you are required to give way. rule 11 ON THE SAME TACK, OVERLAPPED
If she was not established on her tack, then you are required to give way.
Was she established on the starboard tack or did you have to avoid her as she tacked into the right of way vessel?  rule 15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY

David D re: “If you were pinching to make the mark from 6 boat lengths I cannot see how another boat could slip in without hitting the mark. ”

As shown in my drawing, the port tracker could have finished the tack slowed and barely clear ahead, such that the STB boat was over taking her and thus had to turn to windward to a avoid her stern. 

Mark, how would explain/support your "established" doctrine and the timing relative to when Starboard entered the zone?

PS:  Does the image below capture the point you were making?  Does 18.3 apply between Blue and Yellow?

 Angelo Guarino

said Created: Yesterday 16:06

I think what David is trying to explore is this ..

Rule 18.3 does not say "cause a boat ... to change course above close hauled ...".

I think the test is whether it was possible for W to change course down to a close hauled course:  if she cannot, then L is causing her to sail above close hauled.

This is a 'but for' test of causation:  W would have been able to change course to close hauled but for the presence of L.

And this definition of 'close hauled' might be useful:

"a boat is close hauled when sailing by the wind, as close as she can lie with advantage in working to windward"

If a boat is sailing any higher than her maximum VMG to windward, that is 'pinching', she is above close hauled.

Angelo, a boat pinching to clear a windward mark is sailing "with advantage in working to windward."

The question is was the boat that tacked in the zone from port to starboard, established on the tack (sheeted and sails full) prior to your overlap?

Question.
Was the boat established on the tack (sheeted and sails full) prior to your overlap?
Also, what ever course you were steering prior to displacement, the rule states in part... "she shall not cause a boat that has been on starboard tack since entering the 
zone to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact". Which is the scenari
1.  You were not in the zone when the other was established on her tack and then you entered the zone?
2. You entered the zone before she was established and you were forced ( from what ever point of sail) to sail "above close hauled?

Phil .. re: "... a boat pinching to clear a windward mark is sailing "with advantage in working to windward."

I would tend to agree with that.  Of course we've now just left the discussion on "what does 'close-hauled' mean?" ... to "what does 'pinching' mean?". :-/

Mark .. your questions get to what I was asking you.  Where in Rule 18.3 does the timing of when STB entered the zone relative to the tacker being "established" become an issue?

When I read 18.3 .. I see 2 independent tests on it's application.  

Is there ... 

If "yes" to both of those questions, then 18.3's obligations and limitations apply to the boat that passed HTW vs the boat on STB.  The timing of those items is not part of 18.3's test.

The only rule that 18.3 turns-off is 18.2 .. therefore all the other rules (less 18.2) apply coincidentally .. so sure .. 13 might be an issue at the same time depending on the timing.

Angelo, Phil,

Phil's interpretation is certainly arguable, but I would contend that 'with advantage' means best VMG to windward.

The 'definition' just says 'working to windward', not 'sailing to a windward mark'.

Maybe we could be asking:  "if there was an umpire, would he or she be satisfied that a tacking boat that bore away to a pinched course, but no lower had reached a close hauled course?"

Is there a difference between 'pinching' but with sails still drawing, and 'shooting' with sails luffing?

John re: “is there a difference between 'pinching' but with sails still drawing, and 'shooting' with sails luffing?”

To me, yes. 

Pinching is a steady-state condition of a boat’s course and trim where they give-up speed and some VMG to make way to windward in the shortest distance.  A boat can maintain this course and trim at a steady speed for a long time. 

Shooting is non-steady-state maneuver where a boat’s forward momentum Is exchanged temporary for distance to windward.  A boat immediately starts to slow during this maneuver and eventually stop, therefore a boat can not maintain this course and trim for an extended period of time. 

Forget the mark:
A boat pinching into clear air out of someone's wake is also sailing "with advantage in working to windward."
My point is that pinching (however you now choose to define it) and sailing close hauled (by given definition) are not mutually exclusive.
As pinching is not defined or mentioned in the rules, it has no bearing on the rules.

18.3 states "cause to sail above close hauled". 
It does not state what point of sail you were on.
This does not apply if they tacked and you were outside the zone and they were established (sheeted and sails full) prior to you entering the zone then you are the overtaking vessel.

Agree. 

Again, where in the rules/cases do you find support for this position?

It's interesting that there's so much disagreement over "close-hauled". I wish we had a Q&A or a case or something to refer to.

Rule 13 states in part... "If a boat in the zone of a mark to be left to port passes head to wind 
from port to starboard tack and is then fetching the mark, she shall 
not cause a boat that has been on starboard tack since entering the 
zone to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact..."
There are two points.
#1. the rule does not refer to your point of sail prior to "having to sail above close hauled", therefore if you were pinching or on a broad reach the rule still applies.

#2. (Angelo, in answer to your question put to me.) The rule also states "since entering the zone" therefore you have no "Zone" rights until you in the zone.
The vessel in the zone also has no rights while tacking.  Rule 13 WHILE TACKING
After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats 
until she is on a close-hauled course.  After established Rule 12 ON THE SAME TACK, NOT OVERLAPPED
When boats are on the same tack and not overlapped, a boat clear astern shall keep clear of a boat clear ahead.....
Also, rights are define where "Mark room" is required as determined by when they enter the zone. A vessel clear ahead is to always be clear ahead once you enter the zone.

My point being that if a vessel tacks in the zone, when no one else is in the zone, and then establishes herself on Starboard.
Then you enter the zone you are not overlapped, you are the overtaking vessel and must remain clear. 
That is the way I would sail it if it were me.  Different story if I was in the Zone as indicated in the diagram above.
Question to David C.
It sounds like you were in the Zone before the other vessel was established on their tack therefore valid protest.
:)

Mark, .. I understand your point.  I made a drawing which I think exemplifies the scenario you are stating where Yellow "established" a STB close-hauled course prior to Blue entering the zone at #3 (copied again below for your convenience).  

Yes ..  If Blue can keep clear Yellow, first under RRS 12 and later under RRS 11 without being caused to sail above close-hauled, then Yellow does not break RRS 18.3.  Blue does not need to alter course while clear astern, therefore Yellow does not break 18.3 before #4.  At #5, Blue alters course to keep clear of and avoid contact with Yellow, therefore Blue does not break RRS 11, but Yellow breaks 18.3.

Any mark-room for Yellow would come from 18.2.  When 18.3 applies, 18.2 does not.

In the example below, we can work it backwards.

Q1: Does Yellow cause Blue to sail above close-hauled?
A1: Yes

Q2: Is Yellow sailing within mark-room she is entitled to?
A2: No.  ..... Yellow, in the zone of a mark to be left to port, passes head to wind from port to starboard tack and is then fetching the mark.  Furthermore, Blue is a boat that has been on STB since entering the zone.  Because both of these criteria are met none of 18.2 applies between Yellow and Blue.  This includes 18.2(b) which gives a boat, who is clear ahead of other boats when the first of them enter the zone, mark-room thereafter from those boats who were clear astern.

The "since entering the zone"  phrase within 18.3's " ..  a boat that has been on starboard tack since entering the zone .."   describes a condition applied to the starboard tack boat.

Yellow is a ROW boat, Blue must keep-clear by RRS 11 at position 5, but is caused to sail above close-hauled while avoiding contact with Yellow.

Yellow breaks 18.3.

 

So...
Anytime a vessel tacks to starboard, inside the zone, must avoid any vessel, on starboard who can fetch the Mark.
Ok.
As I said, that is not how I would have sailed it.
Thanks for your patience.

PS .. Mark .. look at the drawing in Case 93 ... look at position #2 .. L  is outside the zone when W "establishes" herself on STB.

In the Decision, first sentence ..

"Between positions 1 and 2, while in the zone, W passed head to wind. At that time, L was fetching the mark, so rule 18.3 began to apply."

Mark re: "Anytime a vessel tacks to starboard, inside the zone, must avoid any vessel, on starboard who can fetch the Mark."

No .. the boat does not have to "avoid" the boat.  It's only what 18.3 says .. 

1) she shall not cause the STB-boat to sail above close hauled to avoid contact with her.
2) shall give the STB-boat mark-room if the becomes overlapped inside her.

Pretty well sums it up.
Thanks

This has been a somewhat difficult conversation, made more difficult by the use of words that are not in the rules, like 'established' 'sheeted and sails full', 'overtaking', and some concepts out of their proper context.

In discussions like this it's best to use the words in the rules.  In fact it's very helpful to have the rule book open in front of you and constantly refer to the rules and definitions.

To try to draw it together.

Rule 18.3 is a rule of Section C At Marks and Obstructions, which contains special limitations on Section A Right of Way (rules 10 to 13) and Section B General Limitations (rules 14 to 17).  Rule 18.3 does not displace or disapply any of the Right of Way rules: it merely imposes limitations on how a boat with right of way may exercise it.

Thus, a tacking boat, under rule 18.3 on reaching her close hauled course, will gain right of way over the other boat (either overlapped to leeward, rule 11 or clear ahead, rule 12), and the other boat must keep clear, but in doing so, the tacking boat is limited in that she shall not cause the other boat [in keeping clear] to sail above close hauled to avoid contact.

No part of rule 18.3 depends on a boat becoming 'established' on a tack, or reaching a close hauled course.

In fact the obligation not to cause the other boat to sail above close hauled begins before the tacking boat reaches her close hauled course, from the time that she passes head to wind, that is while she is still required, herself, to keep clear of the other boat, but in that case if the tacking boat  causes the other boat to sail high, or deviate from 'her course' in any other way, the tacking boat is not keeping clear and breaks rule 13, so there is no need to go to rule 18.3.

Whether a boat's sails are 'sheeted and full' or 'full an drawing' is not a criterion for the application of rule 13.  Rule 13 pointedly refers to a 'close hauled course':  it is the course of the boat, not the trim of her sails that is relevant.  See Case 17.  However, of course if a boat's sails are full and drawing, that's good evidence that she has reached her close hauled course.  The converse is not true.

It is not a condition of rule 18.3 that the other boat must have reached the zone before the tacking boat passes head to wind or reaches her close hauled course:  only that the incident (causing to sail above close hauled) occurs 'since' (that is 'after') the other boat has reachd the zone.

Philip, where does this language come from? I've never seen it before in any of our literature.  Just curious.

I posited this 'definition' as possibly helpful although no longer authoritative

"a boat is close hauled when sailing by the wind, as close as she can lie with advantage in working to windward"

Source:  Definitions International Yacht Racing Rules/RRS 1961 - 1992

18.3's " ... she shall not cause a boat that has been on starboard tack since entering the zone to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact... "

Can anyone offer any background/history regarding 18.3's use of the "avoid contact" standard instead of "keep clear"?  I'd imagine there are scenarios that don't come immediately to my mind which drove that choice of wording. - Ang

Angelo, since 18.3 confers mark-room, not right of way, the boat astern isn't relieved of her obligation to keep clear, but that obligation is limited. She need not meet the definition of "Keep Clear" in that she gets room to sail her close-hauled course to the mark, and to round it without interference. While sailing within that room, though, she may be luffed up to a close-hauled course and must avoid contact. I would guess that "avoid contact" is used to recognize this limitation and avoid confusion.

John M,

Your discussion seems hard to follow.

There are two limbs to rule 18.3.

The first is when the other boat is either clear astern or overlapped to windward of the tacking boat, in both of which cases, the other boat is required to keep clear (rules 12 or 11), but the tacking boat shall not cause her to sail above close hauled to avoid contact, and there is no entitlement to either boat to mark room, because rule 18.3 does not grant it, and rule 18.3 disapplies rule 18.2.

The second, is the case where mark-room is granted to the other boat if she becomes overlapped inside the tacking boat.  In this case, the other boat also gains right of way, but cannot be 'luffed' by the tacking boat, because the tacking boat is to windward.

Angelo

I can't track rule 18.3 first limb any further back than the 1995 rewritte, when it was phrased '... to avoid her ...'.  This phrase matches up with '... need to take avoiding actoin ... ' in Definition Keep Clear.

As far as I can see while the second limb is traceable to old rule 42.3(a)(ii), the first limb this had no precedent in the pre 1995 rules.  Elvstrom (1995) did not identify or discuss rule 18.3 as a new rule.

The phrase '... avoid her ...' was replaced by '... avoid contact ... ' in the 2013 rules.  Submission 146-11 was the supporting submission, but it does not address why the word 'contact' was inserted.

A point arising from this is the boat which did not tack may have to luff above close hauled to keep clear but not to avoid contact. The facts might be difficult to establish 

Charles,

Could you elaborate on that a little?  Perhaps an example?

Just that a boat to windward needs a bigger gap to keep clear than to avoid contact

A common application of the rule is where a boat not tacking establishes an overlap to windward from clear astern. She could be very close to the boat ahead. Immediately the overlap is established, she would be obliged to luff so as to keep clear. 

Thanks Charles.  I follow you.

John, as you know, muddled description is a specialty of mine - my apologies, and I'll try again. Part of my reply was intended to allude to the situation that Charles refers to, but that's only part of what I was trying to say. The rest is that while I agree that there are two parts to 18.3, I submit that all parts of 18 all have to do with mark-room (witness the title of the section), and so reference that avoids discussion of keeping clear is more appropriate for semantic reasons as well.

I agree that 12 and 11 require the overtaking boat in the first limb to keep clear, but I submit that 18.3 confers mark-room in both limbs, and limits 12 and 11. You'll recall that years ago, there was no limitation to the right of the tacking boat to luff as she pleased once she completed her tack, leading to the standard tactic of completing a tack just to leeward of an approaching starboard tacker and luffing her out of the way to shoehorn one's way around the mark. With the advent of the more modern mark-rounding rule, that tactic was specifically limited (by what is now 18.3). The tacking boat is still permitted to use her rights under 12 and 11 to force the other boat to avoid her, and even to luff, but not to take the windward (or overtaking) boat above her close-hauled course. Importantly, she is also given mark-room under 18.2(a), and is sailing within that room until she has taken the other boat above a close-hauled course. Finally, I submit that 21 provides that a boat sailing within the room to which she is entitled is exonerated for breaches of 15 and/or 16 (per 21(a)), so as long as she doesn't take the other boat above close-hauled, the other boat must avoid her without any limitations imposed by those two rules, and if the other boat doesn't sail above a close-hauled course or provide her the room to which she's entitled, the tacking boat should be exonerated for breaking 31 (per 21(b)).

I was speculating that these limitations are what drives the rule to refer to "avoid contact" rather than "keep clear".

John M,

I think I've seen why we seem to be arguing at cross purposes.

You said 

That is not correct.  Rule 18.3 last sentence specifically switches off rule 18.2 when rule 18.3 applies, so the tacking boat is never entitled to mark-room.

I wasn’t aware we were arguing, but good point. So much for that speculation, and nice catch!