Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Hove-to right of way
Dobbs Davis
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
- National Judge
- National Umpire
- National Measurer
1
A junior sailor and her crew (Team A) are hove-to in their i420 in light air between races, positioned well away from anyone racing, refuelling themselves with snacks and water before the next race. Their jib is backed to port and the main sheeted in hard to keep the boat hove-to while they rest.
Another Junior sailing i420 team sailing on starboard tack (Team B), also not racing, collides with them and causes damage to their boat and an upset parent demanding payment for that damage from the parent of the hove-to skipper of Team A because their child "was on starboard and entitled to right of way."
Does RRS 10 apply? or any other Part 2 RRS? being hove-to, is not Team A an Obstruction? would any protest filed be invalid because neither team was racing?
Another Junior sailing i420 team sailing on starboard tack (Team B), also not racing, collides with them and causes damage to their boat and an upset parent demanding payment for that damage from the parent of the hove-to skipper of Team A because their child "was on starboard and entitled to right of way."
Does RRS 10 apply? or any other Part 2 RRS? being hove-to, is not Team A an Obstruction? would any protest filed be invalid because neither team was racing?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Back to the rules...
Assuming this is before then Preparatory Signal, COLREGs states that the boat that has the other its starboard side is the give-way vessel. This is essentially the port tack boat. The other boat is the stand-on vessel that doesn't need to alter course -- except if a collision is imminent. Then COLREGs 17b kicks in:
And, even if this was after the Preparatory Signal and the other i420 was still hove-to), Starboard would still need to keep clear under Rule 14.
If you are going to heave-to or sit and luff to have your lunch, do it on Starboard Tack but at all times avoid collisions.
To answer a question right at the beginning, no the hove-to boat does not become an obstruction.
Even on starboard hove-to a leeward vessel could come crashing into you claiming they were the stand on vessel. But more then likely they will be overtaking the how-to vessel.
Best bet would be to take sails down and drift. It could then be considered not under command, restricted ability to Maneuver, or under human power.
Every vessel has a responsibility to avoid collision.
While hove too, the vessel is restricted in it's ability to manoeuvre. The more manoeuvrable vessel (the one sailing) becomes the give way vessel.
Both boats are intending to race and are in the racing area, so racing rules apply 2
Being hove-to is sailing backwards or sideways so they are the keep clear boat, by 22.3.
The right of way boat must avoid contact by rule 14 and because there was damage cannot be exonerated.
Edit: There is also rule 16. The right of way boat must at some time changed course to be on a collision course with the hove-to boat. Either they did this at some distance, in which case they really broke 14 badly ie lined them up from a long way out and then sailed into them without taking action to avoid contact; or they changed course at the last minute to contact the hove-to boat, in which case they need to initially give room that is subject to the current conditions and a seaman like manoeuvre. So I would think you'd have to give a hove-to boat a little bit more room to keep clear than one sailing normally. Did the crew on the hove-to boat have time to react to the change of course? If not then 16 was probably broken as well.
Edit: So I'm guessing that Hove-to boat broke 22.3 and 14. The other boat broke 14 and probably 16.
But ultimately, who pays for damage is not something decided by the racing rules. That decision might be influenced by the racing rules, but not the only consideration. Note that you can't have a situation where right of way boats can ignore 14, hit keep clear boats and get their damage paid for!
In which case A is on starboard. B is al on starboard so may be bound by 11 or 12. If she is clear astern or to windward she is keep clear boat. If she becomes overlapped to leeward rule 15 applies as B acquires right of way. Giving room to keep clear means allowing time for A to uncleat sails and gain steerage so that she can start keeping clear. A is not required to anticipate, but must start taking some action promptly.
In my limited experience collisions between races are more common than they should be because people relax and do not maintain good look out.
Race officials might consider whether or not there is evidence the collision was deliberate. If so, consider rule 2 or 69.
A parent is a Support Person. They have obligations, in particular under rule.69.1(b).
If a parent attempts to put pressure or 'tension' on a judge, the judge can deal with it just as he or she would any misbehaving competitor.
A's jib is backed to port, therefore the wind is coming over her port side and she is on port tack.
Greg,
Check your rule 22.3. A, hove to, is drifting to leeward, she is not moving sideways to windward. Rule 22.3 does not apply to her.
A broke rules 10 and 14.
B broke rule 14.
Both boats were failing to keep a lookout. See Case 107.
Had A been keeping an adequate lookout there would have been ample room for her to keep clear whenever it was that B changed course. B does not break rule 16.1 in the hove to situation.
There was damage. If the damage was serious both boats can and should, on valid protest, be penalised.
A capsized is simple:
A, resting with sails down is a little more difficult:
In what way does a boat, not racing, not comply with the definition of Obstruction with respect to a boat of the same or similar size?
I don't think ROW matters in this incident since neither boat can be penalized for breaking any rule that required her to keep clear and since damage occurred the ROW boat can't be exonerated for breaking rule 14. Boat A might have broken rule 10 but can't be penalized for it.
I think the hove-to boat A had every expectation that she could avoid contact simply by remaining hove-to, and that even up to the last second B would maneuver around her. By the time it was apparent that B was not going to avoid contact it probably wasn't reasonably possible for A to shift her sails and gain sufficient way to avoid B. It was reasonable for B to expect that A would remain hove-to and up to the last second it was reasonably possible for B to maneuver to avoid so B did not meet her obligation to avoid contact.
Pretty ballsy, I think, for the parent of a kid who drove their boat into a more or less stationary boat to claim it was the other guy's fault.
When you intend to race the rules of Part 2 only apply from when you begin to sail in or near the racing area until you have left the racing area; and they only apply between boats intending to race, or have been racing.
I find the following decision tree useful for navigating rule 14.
Action on her rudder has consequences, albeit with restricted options.
It is incorrect to describe her as adrift, moving only sideways, or moving backward.
John I am sorry. You are right, since A is not racing they can be an obstruction. It is not however relevant. Being an obstruction does not give a boat any additional rights. It also doesn't impose any additional obligations on the other boat. It only comes into play when there is a third boat involved and one boat has to give another room to pass the obstruction (RRS 19) or room to tack at the obstruction (RRS 20). .
As others have stated, the relevant rules appear to be 10 and 14. A, with jib backed to port is on port tack and is required to keep clear of B on starboard tack. As A fails to keep clear of B, she breaks rule 10 but cannot be penalized for this because she is not racing. It is not clear from the description of the incident if it was reasonably possible for A to avoid contact. While being hove-to, A would likely be making slow progress ahead and to leeward but without steerage way. Because of this, it is reasonable that B would have had the opportunity to avoid the collision. Without more information, it is not possible to determine whether A broke rule 14 or not.
B broke rule 14. If she were racing, she would not be exonerated as she suffered damage as a result of the incident. However, because both boats were not racing at the time of the incident, they could only be penalized under rule 14 if the damage was deemed to be serious damage.
So reading the description again: "Their jib is backed to port and the main sheeted in hard" it is perhaps arguable that they are actually tacking, because their main has probably passed through head to wind (in both directions) and they have not arrived at a close hauled course. So be it 10 or 13, I think we all agree that the RRS apply and A was keep clear by some rule or other.
I think we also all agree that both boats broke 14. I also think that B has problems with 16 depending on the seconds before.
They can be DSQ'd from the closest race in time by 64.1, but that still says nothing about damages.
Ultimately there is rule 67 Damages: "The question of damages arising from a breach of any rule shall be governed by the prescriptions, if any, of the national authority." The Australian national Authority says it is a matter for the courts. I have heard it said that RRS can help settle damages only if the parties agree to it and that if they don't then a court would consider COLREGs rather than the RRS which is ultimately a sporting agreement between boats that has broken down if they are taking it to court. I do know boats that have taken collisions all the way to the steps of a court, but I think they settled there so I don't how true that COLREGS suggestion is.
The vessel that was hove to (vessel A) must have a reasonable expectation that they were not creating a hazard or they should not have hove to in that area.
Vessel B was obligated, while sailing, to avoid any obstacles including other vessels regardless which was the stand on vessel.
Without a doubt, both vessels were required to avoid collision.
Without a doubt, both vessels were required to keep a lookout.
Vessel A was restricted in it's ability to manoeuvre however (it appears) took no steps to avoid collision.
Vessel B, did not avoid collision and was actually the cause of the collision.
I'm wondering if other have produced similar decision trees for other rules...
https://www.abyc.org/images/pdf/rmc/2020/Rule_14_Decision_Tree_2017-2020.pdf
https://www.abyc.org/images/pdf/rmc/2020/Protest_Hearing_Procedures_2017-2020.pdf
https://www.abyc.org/images/pdf/rmc/2020/Validity_the_Seven_Tests_20200605.pdf
Said Created: Today 17:24
Sorry, this is incorrect.
There are two reputable legal cases which clearly establish that boats, by entering a sailing race agree to be bound by the RRS and not by the IRPCAS, and that this is lawful.
The Satanita (apologies for the Wiki link, but the authorised judgement is not freely available on-line); and
Juno v Endeavour
To quote from Juno v Endeavour
Note that this refers only to 'conflicting' COLREGS, such as the RRS Part 2 rules, so some other COLREGS, like keeping a lookout and so on will still apply.
Juno v Endeavour goes further, with respect to US law, saying that a decision by a protest committee constitutes a binding arbitration, of the issues decided. That's a peculiarity of US domestic law. In other jurisdictions I think it would be hard to find an Arbitration Agreement in the RRS.
Greg Wilkins
Said Created: Today 17:14
And, the US Sailing Prescription says, similarly
Firstly, in accordance with rule 3 and the standard Entry Form, the boats have already agreed to be bound by the rules.
It may be that a court, particularly a lower level court in a 'small claims' case not initiated in an Admiralty jurisdiction, and if the case was not well argued, might apply COLREGS instead of the RRS, but it would be wrong to do so.
A court may well not be prepared to depend on a protest committee decision, and insist on hearing all the evidence anew, but the rules that should then be applied are the RRS.
In the days when cruising yachts were intended to be used at sea the galley was always on port so that it would be on the leeward side when hove to.
Gordon
Thank you for that titbit.
I'm with Charles on the moral advice.