Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Rules along a Continuing Obstruction
P
Angelo GuarinoCertifications:
- Regional Judge
- Fleet Measurer
0
A forum member drafted a post a while ago (that we held-back due to our forum rules) based upon an experience they had on the race course. We've since let some time pass and I've restructured the questions a bit in the following 2 scenarios.
In the drawing, North is up/top.
Scenario #1: True Wind @210deg (as shown)
2 boats are on port, running along a harbor marked by buoys A,B,C, with Yellow clear-ahead of Blue at #1. The SI's define this area as an obstruction. If both boats were to continue along the obstruction on port, their the proper course would be to gybe on to starboard as they pass Buoy C to head to the finish.
Blue hardens-up sailing away from Yellow and catches a fresh breeze. Blue gybes back onto starboard on a collision course with Yellow and starts yelling "Starboard!" as they approach. Yellow holds her course on port, close along the obstruction. At #6, Blue gybes back onto port and protests Yellow.
Questions:
In the drawing, North is up/top.
Scenario #1: True Wind @210deg (as shown)
2 boats are on port, running along a harbor marked by buoys A,B,C, with Yellow clear-ahead of Blue at #1. The SI's define this area as an obstruction. If both boats were to continue along the obstruction on port, their the proper course would be to gybe on to starboard as they pass Buoy C to head to the finish.
Blue hardens-up sailing away from Yellow and catches a fresh breeze. Blue gybes back onto starboard on a collision course with Yellow and starts yelling "Starboard!" as they approach. Yellow holds her course on port, close along the obstruction. At #6, Blue gybes back onto port and protests Yellow.
Questions:
- Is Blue's Protest upheld? Why/Why-not.
- Does Rule 19.2(c) apply?
Scenario #2: True Wind @275 deg (not shown)
Same scenario, but the true-wind is just forward abeam of both boats at #1. At #5, Blue throws her main over and sails by-the-lee toward Yellow between #5 - #6. Does the outcome change? Why?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Second scenario, as the question is written, blue is sailing on starboard less than 90 degrees from the true wind so the boats are not overlapped, Yellow has broken Rule 10. However, blue has to be sailing by the lee, not just holding out the boom. In light of what a judge on the water might see, It might be found either that the boats were overlapped, Judging true wind to be 85 degrees, not 90 or more is difficult. Alternatively it might be found blue was not sailing by the lee, but the boom was being held out (perhaps not if she has an unstayed mast). If blue is found to be on starboard and not overlapped, I think yellow needs quite a lot of room to keep clear. Her option is to slow which would take time. I expect the facts found, based on a normal protest, would likely not favour blue.
1) Blue does not prevail. The conditions for RRS 19.2(b) are met. The boats are sailing more than 90 degrees from the true wind and thus are overlapped by definition even though they are on opposite tacks. Blue as the outside boat has been able to give Yellow room since the overlap began. However, if Yellow does not sail as close to the obstruction as she dares then she is not sailing within the room to which she is entitled under 19.2(b) and is not exonerated by RRS 21 for breaking RRS 10.
2) If you are talking about the apparent wind being just forward of Yellow's beam then answer to 1 applies as the true wind must be aft of Yellow's beam. If you are talking about the true wind being forward of the beam, then the boats are not overlapped per the definition, RRS 19.2(b) does not apply, and this is a simple RRS 10 situation and Blue prevails.
Any help?
Agree with this, Yellow must press down as close as she can to the obstruction (which in this case is a defined area, not a physical object) while Blue is on starboard but Blue may not force Yellow into the obstruction. As soon as Blue gybes Yellow becomes leeward ROW and may head up to open the distance from the obstruction if she pleases.
TR G1:
TR G3:
MR G5:
Noting that each is authoritative solely for Team Racing or Match Racing.
In Scenario 2, Y is going to be pretty uncomfortable. If it is difficult for Y to keep clear of B, B, initially from the time she gybes, must give Y room to keep clear (rule 15).
In the US, we have US33 which states, "To change course means to change the direction in which the boat is heading or moving"
Beyond that, I can't think of a Case/Appeal which conflates 'change in speed' with 'change in course'. Do you have a Case/Appeal in mind?
The rules generally deal in outcomes, not in processes: thus they don't tell boats how to keep clear, or give room, they just require her to do so.
Charles' example of a boat backing out of a sandwich to begin a penalty is a good one, likewise the example of a boat luffing and slowing to tack behind another in a rule 20 situation.
I've never heard of Angelo's nose-dive example, but there are two MR Calls about slowing, stopping and going astern
Match Race Call B7
Match Race Call B18
Neither of these Calls relies on any Appendix C rule, so they should be regarded as, at least, persuasive for fleet racing.
2. When an area is designated as an obstruction rules 19 and 20 apply at that area. However, what rule would a boat break if she were to sail in the area designated as an obstruction? I always advise that any such designated obstruction be specifically designated as an area in which boats shall not sail.
On #2, I’d point out that the absence of such language wouldn’t change the outcome of these scenarios.
Your #2 comment had me thinking about that language and whether or not you’d include a ‘rule 14(a)exception’ of sorts in it?
It occurred to me wording that “specifically designated as an area in which boats shall not sail.” could create a “shall vs shall showdown” with “shall not sail” seeming to have more weight than “shall avoid contact ... if reasonably possible”.
Interesting, the above hadn’t occurred to me before your comment.
If you don't include 2, than a right of way boat can force a give way boat into the prohibited area then protest them for breaking the SI.
Making an area a 'prohibited area' does not make it an obstruction.
Making an area an obstruction does not make it a 'prohibited area'
I can't see why you would want to make an are an obstruction if you didn't also want to make it a prohibited area.
Neither can I, my only point is that i don’t think it would have changed the rulings in our scenario as I believe rule 19 applies the same without it and Yellow is entitled to room to pass the obstruction.
Any comment on the rule 14(a) exception in such language?
And are they more than 3 boat lengths apart?
That said, we can feel free to play with the scenario and offer different assumptions if you’d like to highlight how the rules might change under different conditions.
So we can add that the SI’s state:
1) A,B,C define a harbor area boundary that is defined as an “obstruction”.
2) boats “shall not sail” into the harbor area
3) that boats shall pass A,B,C to starboard.
4) boats that break #2 can take a 2-turn penalty (for Philip).
PS:
5) as an alternative, examine if #3) is stated such that the “harbor area defined by A,B,C shall be left to starboard” instead of just the individual buoys.
Not sure that matters if they're part of a continuing obstruction.
This is not that different from the discussions we’ve had regarding “poison start line” language which forbids boats from crossing the starting line during a down-wind leg when the starting/finish line are in the middle of the course.
I agree that in the OP scenario it's irrelevant whether the obstruction area is also designated as a do not sail area, because at no time does any boat sail into it.
Gordon is obviously right to say that a right-of-way boat changing speed may make it not reasonably possible for a give-way boat to avoid contact, so that she will not break rule 14. If there is contact, however, she will necessarily have broken the relevant right-of-way rule, which is never subject to a 'possibility' limitation. Where the right-of-way boat slowing so as to cause a collision, the right-of-way boat herself probaly breaks rule 14, and it might be that this breach compelled the give-way boat to break the right-of-way rule and is thus entitled to exoneration under rule 64.1(a).
As to your four point list, I don't see any need to state a required side. It's enough just to say 'shall not sail into the area'. I agree with Mark's idea that an obstruction designated by a line joining objects will usually be a continuing obstruction and switch off rule 18, so it's better not to designate the bouys as marks (which you would do by requiring that they, or the obstruction be passed on a specified side).
Excellent point.
The SI is not a rule of Part 2, so rule 44 penalties will not automatically apply.
The designation of a 'do not sail area' is, to an extent arbitrary, and a marginal breach may have negligable effect on the fairness of competion.
So unless the race committee wants to use the nuclar option of DSQ (possibly to satisfy Harbour Authorities), then a provision allowing a rule 44 penalty, or DP, or SP for a breach of that SI, or, if you are running Appedix T, a post race penalty is a good idea.
1) Boats shall not sail into the harbor area defined by bouys A,B,C and points D, E which are points on the shoreline. The Harbor Area is an obstruction.
2) Later in the SI’s under Course, Bouys A,B, C are listed as being left to starboard.
A,B,C are now marks of the course, but they are arguably not continuing obstructions themselves. It’s not that it can’t be sorted out, but might cause confusion.
As you point out, better not to list them as marks of the course, and leave the excluded harbor area to stand as an obstruction to sail around.
That SI does not 'solve' the problem I identified, which was that DSQ may be disproportionate to a breach of the rule.
It also makes the Race Committee a tribunal of fact as to an event which they may not have observed.