This situation occurred in a Radio Sailing event – Appendix E and 4 length zone.
On a beat to windward, Yellow on port tacks to round the mark.
Green, who also tacked in the zone, without breaking R 13 or R 15 relative to Yellow, has to give mark room to Yellow under R 18.2(a) and luffs up to give that room.
Red enters the zone on starboard and is forced above close hauled, so either or both Yellow and Green breaks R 18.3 relative to Red.
Neither vessel has right for room on red.
The meat in the sandwich scenario... My thoughts...: 'Generally' the meat (a boat who owes rights to one boat (A) at the same time as has rights over another boat (B) ) will always have the defense when the boat B does not comply with her obligation to give rights.
I'm sure that's not a hard and fast rule, but I can't readily think of a scenario where that's otherwise.
The reason is that Green could always argue that Yellow compelled her to break Rule 18.3.
If anyone can think of a case where 'the meat' is flicked, then I'd be interested.
Yellow is toast.
But I pose a problem for your comment. - as soon as Yellow passes HTW she is on stbd, and becomes overlapped with Green, gains mark room from Green under 18.2(a). With mark room comes exoneration from breaking R 13.
So back to my question - which boat to DSQ and which to exonerate?
John
Could this be the golden egg?
Could we say, when Yellow is on close-hauled course after passing head to wind . Yellow become an obstruction to both Green and Red.
So Red and Green is about to pass an obstruction. That means that rule 18 no longer apply but rule 19 apply between Green and Red
So no rule is broken
".....she will promptly take an appropriate penalty or action,
which may be to retire."
18.2 is off
Yellow, two turns or go home !!!....Y breaks rule 18.3
Green breaks rule 11 but 43.1b for Green
Cheers
Per rule 19.1(b), rule 19 does not apply when rule 18 applies between the boats and the obstruction is another boat overlapped with each of them. 18.3 applies here. 19 always applies at a continuing obstruction, but per the definition of obstruction, a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction.
I see that now ... we are back to rule 18.
br Poul
At position 4:
- Green breaks 18.3 to Red
- yellow is entitled to mark room from green under 18.2a since she turned head to wind:
- if yellow is already at closed haul course at the incidence, she is good. And Green DSQ not exoneratable by any rules.
- if the incidence happens when yellow is between HTW and closed haul course, R13 applies, and Yellow is no more entitle to mark room according to the last sentence in the definition of mark room. Yellow broke rule 13 and compelled Green to breaks 18.3, so Green exonerated under 43.1a. Yellow DSQ.
I have a question regarding the moment Yellow from HTW to closed haul course, she is on stb tack and overlapped inside of Green, R18.2a applies and also R13 applies, how do we decide if that shall be considered as tacking room not included into mark room or be considered as her proper course to sail close to mark (mark room definition a)?
Red broke no rule. She was required by rule 11 to keep clear of Green from the moment Green completed her tack, and she did so.
The rules are written to avoid collision. Entering the zone on port, for a port rounding was a gamble for both Yellow and Green. Red entered the zone on Starboard and was fetching the mark.
Neither Yellow or Green (or both) have the right to drive Red up and both should have "ducked" red to avoid a protest.
Without a fact as to when Green luffed then we are relying on the balance of probabilities, As they are radio controlled boats, which turn very quickly it is likely that Yellow passed through head before Green altered.
Maybe John Ball can help with that fact.
The conclusion is that Yellow is not keeping clear of Green as required by RRS 10.
We don't have a fact that there was enough room for one boat to tack inside Red and not break rule 18.3. Although the diagram seems to indicate that there might be room. FYI. International Juries rarely endorse a diagram as the same facts that can be derived from the diagram maybe different from the written facts. In my experience International Juries tend rely on written facts and make sure the facts lead to the conclusion and decision and the conclusion and decision are supported by the facts. You should be able to draw the diagram from the written facts if you can't you are missing some facts.
With John's clarification that we are dealing with a rule 13 breach by Yellow.
Yellow is broke rules 13 and rule 18.2(a). She is exonerated for her breach of rule 13 under rule 43.1(b) as she was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled under rule 18.2(a). However, she is not exonerated for breaking rule 18.3 by causing Red to sail above close-hauled.
Green broke rule 18.3 and rule 18.2(a). Green is exonerated under rule 43.1(a) for breaking rule 18.3 because she was compelled to luff by Yellow when she broke rule 13. Green broke rule 18.2(a) by not giving Yellow space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2. She is not exonerated as rule18.2(a) is not one of the rules listed in 43.1(b).
You could argue that Green was compelled to break rule 18.2(a) because Yellow tacked inside. But under what rule is she exonerated. Rule 18.2(f) doesn't help Green, it only applies if Yellow obtained an inside overlap from clear astern or by tacking to windward, she did neither. Rule 43.1(a), (b) or (c) do not appear to apply either.
I would agree with most of what you have written, but there was no contact, and Green altered course to give mark room to Yellow after Yellow passed HTW.
So my thought is that Green does not break R18.2(a) as she gives mark room and would like to exonerate Green from breaking R18.3 under R43.1(a) as she was forced to avoid Yellow who was breaking R 13 (even if Yellow is exonerated for that breach).
Yellow breaks R13 but is exonerated under 43.1(b) as she was sailing within mark room given by 18.2(a), but is dsq and not exonerated for breaking R 18.3.
Is that valid?
John
I see this as different from Case 133, as in that case I and M tacked almost simultaneously, and M put herself in a tight situation between I and S.
In my example, Green tacked well before Yellow and did so without breaking R 13 nor R 15, I do not think the rules require her to anticipate what Yellow will do.
John
At positions 2-3, RRS 18 does not apply between Yellow and Green, by RRS 18.1(a).
Rule 13 applies when a boat “passes head to wind”. To “pass” HTW, a boat must be on one tack and pass thru HTW onto the opposite tack. For instance, luffing up to HTW and then falling back down on the same tack, does not invoke RRS 13. (If a car passes you on the highway, the car must be behind you one moment in front a moment later. )
The moment just prior to Yellow reaching HTW is part of her “passing HTW”, RRS 18 did not apply between Yellow and Green. Therefore when Yellow “passes HTW” and RRS 13 applied, RRS 18 did not apply and Yellow was not entitled to mark-room, and thus is not exonerated.
If one wants to argue that “passes HTW” only includes that moment past HTW, then one might say that RRS 18.2(a) and RRS 13 turn-on simultaneously. If we concede to that interpretation, then the last sentence of def: mark-room nullifies that application of mark-room, as Yellow is not to windward of Green and therefore Yellow’s mark-room does not include room to tack.
It has to be one interpretation or the other. Either way, when Yellow tacks, she is not maneuvering within mark-room she is entitled to and therefore is not exonerated for breaking RRS 13.
Does the wording of 18.3 still apply when there is a boat between the one which tacked in the zone and the one fetching the mark?
I believe so. The key word is 'cause'. (Wasn't there an old case or Q&A on this?) Newton would certainly agree with the 'cause' and 'effect'.
G was NOT the 'cause' of R's luff above close-hauled. G was responding to obligations to keep clear and avoid contact while Y was breaking 18.3. Green did not break 18.3.
At the instant Y passed HTW, Y could theoretically claim that she was now inside boat (entitled to mark-room) or on reaching CHC, leeward boat with rights. Y could claim that G broke either rule and may well be correct. However, it is moot, since any rule G broke was because she was compelled to do so, due to Y's barge which broke rule 18.3. Green is exonerated under 43.a from any other rule she broke since she was compelled to do so when Y broke 18.3.
(Apologies if someone has already got to this conclusion above.)
Thoughts?
Green’s problem is that when Yellow changes tack from port to starboard between position 3 and 4 the boats become overlapped, Yellow gets mark-room under rule 18.2(a). This requires Green to give Yellow room “The space a boat needs in the existing conditions, including space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2 and rule 31.” One of Yellow’s obligations is her rule 18.3 obligation to Red. So Green has to give Yellow enough space to not to cause Red to go above close-hauled.
Position 4
RULES BROKEN
At positions 2-3, rule 18 does not apply between Yellow and Green, see rule 18.1(a).
When Yellow passes through head to wind, she changes take from port to starboard. At that moment several rules change
1) The right-of way rule changes from rule 1o to rule 13.
2) Rule 18 starts to apply between Yellow and Green as they are on the same tack. Rule 18.3 does not apply as Green has not been on starboard tack since entering the zone. So rule 18.2(a) applies.
3) Because Yellow is sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled if she breaks a rule of Section A of Part 2, rule 15, 16, or 31, she is exonerated for her breach under Rule 43.1(b).
1) avoid collision
2) ensure safety.
3) promote fair sailing.
4) promote equanimity.
It concerns me to see that any boat would be exonerated for breaking a rule if they themselves are breaking a rule to be where they are in the first place.
All agree that Red is the right of way boat.
Red should not be hampered by green and or yellow. (RRS 18.3 and RRS 13)
Yellow tacked in front of Green and Red causing both to alter course. This is dangerous sailing and she should be penalized under RRS 2.
To ensure safety, both green and yellow should have "ducked" red!
Seems pretty clear as Mark T summarized both Green and Yellow did not give way when they should have.
Rule 18 applies between boats when they are required to leave a mark
on the same side and at least one of them is in the zone. However, it
does not apply:
(b) between boats on opposite tacks when the proper course at the
mark for one but not both of them is to tack,
Clearly, Yellow is at the mark and her proper course (obsense of other boats) would be to tack.
Since she is also under RRS 13, she could be on the (starboard) tack, but 'she shall keep clear of other boats
until she is on a close-hauled course'. Green had to avoid Yellow (R 14) not to 'give mark room'.
As Mark T pointed out, there was nothing that compelled Yellow to sail that course and she would be scored DSQ (if not turns are taken by her).
I can hardly wait for the Rule 18 discussion that Dave Perry is working on. If anyone needs the 'invite' let me know. I will be happy to send it out.
Kim
“3) Because Yellow is sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled if she breaks a rule of Section A of Part 2, rule 15, 16, or 31, she is exonerated for her breach under Rule 43.1(b).”
Either Yellow tacked when 18 applies or she tacked when 18 did not apply.
If we are going to say that 18 applied between Yellow and Green when Yellow tacked (OK) then mark-room does not include room to tack as Yellow is not to windward of Green (MR last sentence). The room that Yellow took while 13 applied (to tack) was outside the room Yellow was entitled to.
This interpretation solves the “danger problem” Mark Evans brings up.
1. Yellow broke rule 18.3 with Red. DSQ.
2. Any rule Green broke was because she was compelled to do so by Yellow's breach of 18.3. Green is exonerated from any breach, per 43.a.
In the diagram below (based on John's 2nd amended diagram).
At the instant Yellow passes through head to wind and changes from port tack to starboard tack the right-of-way rule changes from rule 10 to rule 13. Also, rule 18 applies between Yellow and Green and Yellow and Red, because they are now on the same tack. Green owes Yellow mark-room under rule 18.2(a). And... Yellow shall not cause Red to sail above close hauled under rule 18.3.
If you accept that at the instant Yellow passes through head to wind and changes from port tack to starboard tack the right-of-way rule changes from rule 10 to rule 13 and that rule 18 also applies between Yellow and Green and Yellow and Red, because they are now on the same tack.
Green owes Yellow mark-room under rule 18.2(a) and mark-room includes the space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2. This includes not causing Red to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact. As Red sailed above close-hauled Green didn't provide Yellow enough space and should be DSQ'd under 18.2(a).
The rules committee has some differing opinions on how the rules apply in this area as they have been rewriting Case 133 for six years. The last attempt to reach agreement on Case 133 within the rules committee at the annual conference failed again.
And unless Yellow has bow thrusters, I do not believe she can turn as you have shown.
Different situation.
I get all that 18.2a stuff.
I'm not sure how to do the fancy quote thing but Mark, you said..
My point is that G could not give that space. What could G do?
Y's breach of 18.3 nails Y and exonerates G.
If we wrote a list of all the breaches and exonerations, and then cancelled them all out, and we are left with 18.3 on Yellow. Which not surprisingly, is the action which caused everything!
Now include Red and the answer seems easier I think.
Yellow’s mark-room does not include room to tack (def: mark-room) based on her position relative to Green and Red.
Def: Mark-Room “[…] However, mark-room for a boat does not include room to tack ..”.
While Yellow is taking room to tack, that room is not part of the mark-room she is entitled to.
Tacking and Tack are different.
A boat tacks from port to starboard when their bow passes through head to to wind. A boat is tacking from the moment a boat passes through head to wind until they reach a close hauled course.
As soon as a boat passes through head to wind they have tacked. Yellow is entitled to mark-room the moment her bow passes through head to wind and she has tacked. She does not need to complete her tack and reach a close-hauled course.
I suggest:
Interpretation of the drawing for the following:
G must take avoiding action after Y passes HTW but before Y reaches close hauled.
18.3 applies between R and each one of G and Y.
10 and 13 applies btw G and Y, resp before and during the tack.
18.2a applies between G and Y after Y passes HTW, Y is entitled to mark-room from green.
However, mark-room does not include room to tack in this situation, so no exoneration for Y breaking 13.
RRS applies to two boats at the time. Y does not herself affect R so no rules broken between them. The meat in the sandwich...
Y broke RRS 13 and is not exonerated for this breach since mark-room does not include room to tack in this situation.
G broke 18.3 but is exonerated by 43.1a, since Y broke a rule and thereby compelled G to break 18.3.
Decision: Y DSQ
But if Y does not break 13... the meat would be DSQ .... ??
(edited)
Thank you all sincerely
John
Another approach, which I eluded to in my first reply, is to underscore the fact-gathering process which we already do, and that is to look back in time to see if the boat changed tacks .. and to require that Rule 18 applied to the boat "tacking" while they were on the opposite tack.
This is what I mean. Consider the following diagram ..
Now we ask .. Does Yellow break Rule 13 vs Blue?
Well, we don't know because based on the information in the drawing, we can not tell if Yellow "passes head to wind".
If the situation was this, then Yellow does not pass head to wind.
However if the situation was this, then she does pass head to wind.
When determining if RRS 13 applies, we must go back in time and include in "passing head to wind", the moment before the boat reaches HTW and establish what tack the boat was on.
If it's the same tack, she does not pass HTW.
If it's the opposite tack, she does pass HTW.
"Passing HTW" includes information from the final moment before the boat reaches HTW .. for without that moment we can not differentiate a tack from a luff.
I believe this is another approach which could be used to clarify this situation. I do not believe it "changes the game" with regard to RRS 13 in any way because it just underlines the analytical process that we already do to differentiate a luff from a tack.
We can use this information (the tack the boat was on prior to reaching HTW) in the last sentence of "mark-room".
Mark-Room last sentence (suggestion) ..
"However, mark-room for a boat does not include room to tack unless
(1) she is overlapped inside and to windward of the boat required to give mark-room and she would be fetching the mark after her tack, and
(2) she was entitled to mark-room
when on the opposite tackprior to tacking."The disagreement is to when rule 18.2(a) applies and the issue in my mind is to the definition of the terms tack, tacking, changes tack, passes through head to wind and probably a couple of others. I think Case 133 was correct, others think it was wrong. There were obviously enough people who agreed with Case 133 as written to approve it and publish it, and enough people who disagreed with it to have it withdrawn.
Not sure we are going to solve it. Also I am fairly confident that WS Q&A panel is smart enough not to answer a question in this area.
If there was a protest about this incident it could be sent to the area appeal committee for ratification.
WS CASE 133 (Withdrawn for Revision)
you write
I agree that there is an issue in the rules around 18.2(a) and when it applies. There are at least two camps of "rules experts" who cannot agree when 18.2(a) "turns on"; after you pass through head to wind, when you complete the tack or at some other point.
I was not suggesting that the Q&A answer the questions of the incident. Rather I intended to suggest that they consider the question of the interpretation of the definition of mark room and the question of when 18.2(a) turns on - after HTW or after close hauled course? That should not overlap with Case 133.
John
(Also why we omit RRS31, Touching a Mark.)
Errors of sneaking in are not intentional. Usually.
Except at those venues that allow sailors to walk about the course, the boats just tend to jam up, especially on the first rounding of the windward mark.
Good humor and a liberal sprinkling of circles must prevail. Live and let live seems to be the way to go.
The occasions of this are far fewer when sailing on board with clear perception of distances, convergence, and clearances, and often more water room for starboard tack approaches.
- Philip
The other one (which I’ve been addressing in my posts) could be addressed with a Q&A/Case interpreting the last sentence of Mark-Room or (a much harder approach) a change to the last sentence of mark-room.
This scenario is illustrated by simply removing Red from the drawing and establishing as a fact that Green altered course prior to Yellow falling off to a close-hauled course.
However there are two TR calls E6 and especially E10 that say mark room begins after HTW. Do these calls apply to fleet racing? These two calls are for a stbd rounding - I cannot see that that changes how the rule and definition apply for a port rounding.
John
TR Call E6
Answer 2
B has right of way throughout but, when the boats become overlapped while Y is
subject to rule 13, rule 18.2(a) requires B to give Y mark-room provided she is able to
do so from the time the overlap began. See rule 18.2(f).
If B is able to give mark-room after Y becomes overlapped, as shown in the diagram,
penalize B for breaking rule 18.2(a).
TR Call E10
Answer 1
When Y enters the zone, the boats are on opposite tacks on a beat to windward and no
part of rule 18 applies. When B passes head to wind, she becomes overlapped inside Y
and entitled to mark-room under rule 18.2(a). However, rule 18.2(f) applies because
the overlap was created by B tacking to windward of Y.
With respect, I think that Mark’s interpretation is incorrect. So let me make the contrary case.
Read Team Race Call E6 and Team Race Call E10, they are for starboard rounding marks, but apply equally to port rounding marks, other than rule 18.2(e) won't apply. Team Race Calls are not authoritative interpretations for fleet racing, but as the rules in the Call are the same as fleet racing they can be used for guidance.
The mark-room definition might be clearer if "tack" was replaced by "pass through head to wind" in the definition.
unless she is overlapped inside and to windward of the boat required to give mark-room
In each of these TR cases the boat was overlapped, inside, and windward and so mark room included room to tack and the overlap began as soon as she passed HTW.
In my scenario, the boat is overlapped, inside, and to leeward and so does not meet that criteria and so mark room excludes room to tack, and therefore mark room (and exoneration) would not be granted until the tack was over and she reached her close hauled course.
John
The introduction to the Racing Rules of Sailing lists the authoritative interpretations of the rules.
The Judge/Umpire split might also align with “a lot of boats with varying skill” (fleet racing) vs “a couple/few boats with higher-skill” (match/team racing).
The later seems a lot less scary.
It seems from what you say that race officials are not on the same page here. It would be great to have some official clarity, at least in team racing where things get a bit hectic at the corners! Situations arise where it’s hard to avoid leaving yourself in the hands of the umpires.
Perhaps a specific TR call?
The only recourse a competitor has about a protest committee decision they disagree with is to file an appeal. Occasionally protest committees will explain how they reach a decision and the rules that apply, but usually the are under time constraints to get to the next protest. Many protest committees won't even publish their full decision. Not exactly a customer friendly feedback process.
This one doesnt seem to have been put to bed yet.
I agree with Marks interpretation that yellows mark room begins when she passes HTW and I agree that although Yellow breaks R18.3 with Red and either R13 or 15 or R16.1 with green she is exonerated because she is sailing in mark room under R18.2a with Green so is exonerated by R43.1b.
However I think Green is also exonerated for breaking R18.3 with Red and either R13 or 15 or R16.1 with green by R43.1a.
43.1 (a) When as a consequence of breaking a rule a boat has compelled another boat to break a rule, the other boat is exonerated for her breach.
Yellow has broken either R13 or R15 or R16.1 with Green and as a consequence has compelled Green to break R18.3 with Red. That satisfies R43.1a so Green can be exonerated.
This means Yellow and Green can negate R18.3 with impunity and Red can be left stuffed HTW.
Green would not break R18.3 with Red. Yellow breaks one of these rules regardless of whether she is exonerated by R43.1b by sailing within mark room from Green..
I'm using R43.1a to exonerate Green, not R43.1b so the fact Green has no mark room or room from anyone is irrelevant. It only requires Yellow to break a rule with Green when as a consequence of breaking that rule she has compelled Green to break a rule with Red.
I feel that if there was any degree of clarity as to when 18 turns on in this scenario that Case 133 would not still be retracted after 6 years and one new set of rules.
Here is what I got wrong …. (I will detail it with the hope that it might clear it for others as well).
In my responses, I repeated this idea that “to tack” MUST take a ‘span of time’ (at least I was consistent). My reasoning was “to tack” a boat must change tacks, which includes 3 states ..
.. and that going from 1-2, then 2-3 must take a span of time. This is where I was made my error.
As we all know, a boat that goes from off-the-wind to HTW (simply luffs HtW), retains its previous tack while HTW. Therefore we really don’t have 3 steps as I outlined above, we only have 2 .. because 1 and 2 are actually combined. It is actually ..
Going from this new #1a to #2a CAN happen instantly, but “to tack” must include both #1a and #2a.
Being on starboard is a “state of being” and only requires a single element… only 2a (final tack)
As soon as Yellow is on STB and inside, that is the single moment that her 18.2(a) mark-room begins. “To tack” in this newly acquired mark-room, Yellow would need to accomplish both 1a and 2a (which she does not) after she acquires mark-room, which happens at 2a.
Since the “room to tack” exclusion does not apply on this situation, Yellow is entitled to her 18.2(a) mark-room and exonerated for breaking 13 and 15 and even 14 as long as there is no damage or injury.
I want to thank everyone (both my online and offline friends) for their patience in helping me pin-point my error.
Ang
Rick
“Tack” (noun) is a defined term in the RRS.
“Tack” (verb “to tack”) is not defined. Therefore it falls to how it is commonly used and understood.
There’s the rub ..
“Tack” (verb) has an implied meaning by Rule 13, and that’s “to tack” is to pass HTW and fall off to a close-hauled course.
… but it’s not that simple, be cause when we speak, we commonly interchange “to tack” to mean both simply passing HTW and passing HTW and falling off to close-hauled.
We commonly might say, “He never completed his tack” to describe a boat that didn’t fall-off to close-hauled, but we might also say “hey, you tacked” when challenging a boat that passed HTW during a luff-up at the start.
When thinking about “room to tack” in def: mark-room, rule 18 would turn-off immediately as soon as the windward boat passed head to wind onto the new tack, because they would now be on opposite tacks on a beat to windward. Such a boat can’t “complete its tack” while mark-room still applies. This implies “to tack” only means passing HTW.
If def: mark-room used “to pass HtW” instead, the verb-form uses of “tack” would be consistent to refer to “passing HTW and falling off to a close-hauled course”.