Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Case 88 modified
Matthew Blake
0
I am looking at Case 88.
But, instead of what is shown in that diagram, at position 1+ (say, just a split second after S starts to luff) P starts to tack to starboard. S still starts her luff (with intent to tack) at position 1 (say just before P starts her tack) because S thought P was going to remain on port and therefore collide. At position 3, P is in a safe lee-bow-out position on S, both boats close hauled. S protests P. S later admits that, in retrospect, she did not need to luff, but at the time she did not know P's intentions and did not want to risk collision.
1) Is this a "no harm, no foul," situation, or is P penalized for failing to keep clear (because S changed course)?
2) What limits S from taking advantage of P, or being more cautious than most competitors in this type of situation?
3) Does P have any ability to get to a close safe leeward on S without S able to claim a Rule 10 infraction?
4) How does S's maneuver compare to what a "competent but not expert" skipper would perform? How is this factor used in the overall assessment?
But, instead of what is shown in that diagram, at position 1+ (say, just a split second after S starts to luff) P starts to tack to starboard. S still starts her luff (with intent to tack) at position 1 (say just before P starts her tack) because S thought P was going to remain on port and therefore collide. At position 3, P is in a safe lee-bow-out position on S, both boats close hauled. S protests P. S later admits that, in retrospect, she did not need to luff, but at the time she did not know P's intentions and did not want to risk collision.
1) Is this a "no harm, no foul," situation, or is P penalized for failing to keep clear (because S changed course)?
2) What limits S from taking advantage of P, or being more cautious than most competitors in this type of situation?
3) Does P have any ability to get to a close safe leeward on S without S able to claim a Rule 10 infraction?
4) How does S's maneuver compare to what a "competent but not expert" skipper would perform? How is this factor used in the overall assessment?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
1. By that finding, P is penalized regardless of S's avoidance action.
2. RRS 2: sportsmanship and fair play.
3. Yes. Communication by P acknowledging S's course would help: "I see you." or the old "Hold your course."
4. "Competent but not expert" does not rule out the "expert" boat handling displayed by S.
2 - The judgement of the PC. If it decides that S's "apprehension of collision" when she altered course wasn't genuine and reasonable, P doesn't get penalized.
3 - Yes, but she has to do so in such a way as to be able to convince the PC that S had no reasonable apprehension of collision. (For example, she might have started her luff earlier, so as not to alarm S into thinking P wasn't going to do anything but hit her. By the time S starts her luff, that point has probably passed. P hailing S that she saw her and would avoid her might help, or it might not.)
4 - We don't know what kind of 24' keelboats these were, so we don't really know how maneuverable they were, or how fast they were likely moving, but we know they were in ideal conditions (12-15kts wind, flat water), so they were likely moving about as fast as they could upwind. If they were moving at six knots (quite possibly a conservative guess), 2 boatlengths represents about 4 seconds to contact. The appeals committee in Case 88 determined that S' maneuver was at least competent, if not expert, in that she waited until the boats were that close, and they came within 2' of each other after P's crash turn down and S' return to starboard (if S had completed her tack, they would likely have at least been closer, if they hadn't made contact).
In the case you describe, I'd want to know how close P's lee bow position was, how fast the boats were moving, and how long they could be expected to take to complete a tack, but assuming all the other factors are the same, S would still have had the same reasonable apprehension of collision when she altered course, and P should probably still get penalized.
1) P did not Keep Clear and is penalized. What matters is the decision at the time anc not post-event supposition.
2) Agree with RRS2. More info needed to make a Rule 2 determination. Merely taking advantage of a situation is not necessarily unsportsmanlike.
3) No communication is required. If P moves into a leebow posiiton, she has to tack and therefore loses any rights (RRS13) until the new close-hauled course is reached and must Keep Clear of S. When P gets to the new close-hauled course in the leebow position, she must give S room to iniitally Keep Clear under RRS15.
4) Seamanlike is the term applied. Boats do not need to be sailed expertly. S did a nice job avoiding P. Whether it was ‘expert’ or merely ‘seamanlike’ is not determined.
John: So, let's assume a reasonably maneuverable one-design, say Etchells, that can tack in a boat-length, or so. In this case, measure in boat lengths, forget the 24 feet. Speed of 2 or 3 sec per boat length is fine for this.
I think you are both saying about 3 (maybe as little as 2, but much more risky) boat lengths is as close as P can get to S's track before needing to start her tack, unless P is able to convince S (by communication) that she will avoid collision.
If that is what you are saying, it seems like those jammed starboard lay lines in big fleet regattas should see many more P-S protests as port tack boats approach the layline and tack into a position to round the weather mark. Communication on the water can be very unreliable, as those who race know.
It does not seem that P could ever achieve a close-aboard safe leeward position without risk of protest, unless communication is established and S permits it, or at least acknowledges the communication. It is a little unclear if contention there could ever play out in P's favor.
I'm not sure I'd go that far. If S didn't change course and no contact occurred I'd say that P kept clear. Case 50 basically says the same thing.
I think what Case 88 is saying is that at position 1 it was apparent to S that she would have to maneuver in order to avoid contact, and so P was not keeping clear.
What criteria does P use to decide how close to S's course line she can sail before tacking? S can decide at any moment that P is too close. How does P defend herself against that uncertainty? Communication is one idea that has been mentioned, but communication is often unreliable, takes time to get set up, and can be error prone. And any communication is not binding on S... S can subsequently decide P is too close.
Phil was referring to the finding in Case 88 that "When the boats reached position 1 in the diagram, P was [already] not keeping clear?"
That finding was based on the fact that immediately before Position 1, S had changed course to avoid P: that was the point at which P broke rule 10.
If right of way boat does not take any action (such as changing course, or starting sails and slowing), and there is no contact, then this demonstrates that there was no need to do so, and thus the give way boat has kept clear.
Matthew Blake
As others have said, P breaks rule 10 at the moment S changes course, what happens after that does not affect this rule breach.
The limitation is that for P to have failed to keep clear S must have 'needed' to take avoiding action (Definition: Keep Clear), and that that 'need' has to be based on S's 'reasonable apprehension' of collision (Case 50), where the 'reasonableness' of any apprehension S claims she had will be judge by the protest committee.
So, if S is excessively cautious, or otherwise unreasonable in her claim, a protest by S will be unsuccessful.
Matthew Blake
said Created: 21-Jun-23 14:49
P needs to begin to tack sufficiently far away from S so that S does not have a 'reasonable apprehension' of collision.
P can remove or diminish the 'reasonableness' of any apprehension by hailing.
There is a world of difference in apprehension for a starboard tacker between when there is doubt whether an oncoming port tacker has even seen her, and when the port tacker makes it clear that she has seen the starboard tack boat, and intends a deliberate course of action to keep clear.
If it's a characteristic of the boats involved that they can tack within one boat length, then beginning to tack at just over one boat length distant is reasonable, provided that S knows that that is what P is going to do.
In the event of a protest, the decision is not up to S, it's up to the protest committee's judgement what is 'reasonable'. P defends herself by bring evidence and argument that S had no reasonable apprehension of collision, and, on the water, diminishes any 'reasonableness' by hailing.
I think this concern is exaggerated. Oral hails between boats in the 20 to 40 foot range are usually effective, and take no time at all to 'set up'.
It's not a question of being 'binding' on S. The issue is the effect of a hail on any 'apprehension' that S may have.
Yes it can do, particularly with respect to rule 16.
If P is tacking, once she begins changing course, in a normal way, there is nothing more she can do to keep clear of S, and S can only change course towards P, in a way that allows P room to keep clear or in other words, does not prevent P from keeping clear (rule 16.1).
So if P sets up and executes her tack to come out on a close hauled course, say half a boat length to leeward of S, she should be fireproof.
If P is bearing away, she is sailing to pass to leeward of S, and by rule 16.2, S may not bear away if as a result P must change course immediately to continue keeping clear.
Further, in terms of 'reasonable apprehension', Case 87, although addressing an exception to rule 14 for a right of way boat, makes it clear that a port tack give way boat "could readily have borne off and avoided S from a position very close to S", so, by inference, 'reasonable apprhension' should not arise unless P is less than half a boat length from S.