Forum: Rule 18 and Room at the Mark

Meat in the sandwich?

John Ball
Nationality: Canada
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.

Is either Yellow or Green exonerated?

John
image.png 59.2 KB


Created: 21-Jul-15 00:40

Comments

Mark Evans
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
2
When yellow and green entered the zone on port, they were subject to rule 18.3 as soon as they tack and fetching the mark.
Neither vessel has right for room on red.
Created: 21-Jul-15 01:18
P
Benjamin Harding
Nationality: Hong Kong
Certifications:
  • International Judge
1
Great question..  I've been thinking about this a lot recently.

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.


Created: 21-Jul-15 02:12
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
5
Between Red and Green, Mark Room does not apply. Green is the leeward boat with ROW, EXCEPT that she shall not cause Red to luff above close hauled to avoid contact with her.  Green does force Red above close hauled, but only because of Yellow's violation of 13 while tacking (and of 18.3). Hence Green is exonerated.
Yellow is toast.
Created: 21-Jul-15 02:14
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
0
Thanks Philip,
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
Created: 21-Jul-15 03:01
P
Benjamin Harding
Nationality: Hong Kong
Certifications:
  • International Judge
0
Jolly good question John..

Could this be the golden egg?
Created: 21-Jul-15 04:49
Poul Ennemark
Nationality: Denmark
Certifications:
  • National Judge
0
Let me try another view on the situation.
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 

Created: 21-Jul-15 06:51
Catalan Benaros
Nationality: Argentina
1
Hi friends !!

".....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
Created: 21-Jul-15 09:50
Chris Hogan
Nationality: Australia
1
John - When Y passes HTW rule 18.3 starts to apply. Per 18.3, when that rule applies 18.2 does not apply. So no exoneration for Y.  Y breaks 18.3. Penalise Y. G breaks 11 and 18.3, but only because Y breaks 18.3.  Exonerate G. Maybe R breaks 11, but only because Y and G break 18.3.  Exonerate R.
Created: 21-Jul-15 10:03
Chris Hogan
Nationality: Australia
0
Poul -
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.
Created: 21-Jul-15 10:16
Poul Ennemark
Nationality: Denmark
Certifications:
  • National Judge
0
Thanks Chris
I see that now ... we are back to rule 18.
br Poul
Created: 21-Jul-15 10:52
Chao Wang
Nationality: China
Certifications:
  • Measurer in Training
  • Regional Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Hi Paul,  according to Rule 19.1b, rule 19 doesn't apply but rule 18 applies here. 

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)? 
Created: 21-Jul-15 12:38
Ólafur Bjarnason
Nationality: Iceland
Certifications:
  • Regional Umpire
1
Position 1: When Yellow and Green enter the Zone rule 18 dose apply (18.1a), Red ROW-boat rule 10 apply

Position 2: Green had tack and did not break rule 13 or 14 but rule 18,3 apply between Red and Green. Green is ROW-boat vs Red and Yellow.

Position 3: Green is ROW boat vs Yellow and Red but rule 18,3 apply vs Red

Position 4: Yellow broke rule (10)? or 13 and 18.3vs Red. Compelled Green to break rule 18,3.

Yellow DSQ and Green exonerate Rule 43,1b for break rule 18.3a

Óli Bjarna

Created: 21-Jul-15 12:54
Alvaro Garcia
Nationality: Argentina
1
 
The graph does not show if yellow keep clear from green when tacked, otherwise it would violate 10 or 13, yellow DOES NOT violate 18.3 respect to green because green has not remained starboard tack since it entered the zone. Green violates 18.3 forced by the yellow maneuver for which he is exonerate. Red doesn't break any rules. 

Created: 21-Jul-15 13:27
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
1
IMHO

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.
 
After Green passed head to wind and was on the same tack as Red, who was fetching the mark, rule 18.3 applied to Green with respect to Red. Red had to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact, so Green broke rule 18.3. Green is exonerated under rule 43.1(a) for breaking rule 18.3 because she was compelled to luff by Yellow.
 
After Yellow passed head to wind she was fetching the mark and Green was overlapped outside Yellow, so rule 18.2(a) applied between them, which included “space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2” (see the definitions Room and Mark-Room). In addition Yellow was on the same tack as Red, who was fetching the mark, so rule 18.3 applied to Yellow with respect to Red. Red had to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact, so Yellow broke rule 18.3.
 
Yellow broke rule 13 at position 4, but is exonerated under rule 43.1(b) because she was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled under rule 18.2(a).
 
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 it is not one of the rules listed in 43.1(b).
 
Yellow is not exonerated for her breach of rule 18.3 under rule 43.1(a) because she was not compelled to pass between Green and the mark at position 4. Instead, she could have tacked around or ducked Green and Red. Yellow is not exonerated under rule 43.1(b) because rule 18.3 is not one of the rules listed in rule 43.1(b).
 
SUMMARY
Yellow broke rule 18.3 by causing Red to sail above close-hauled and she is not exonerated for that breach. Green broke rule 18.2(a) by failing to give Yellow mark-room and she is not exonerated for that breach. Therefore, both Yellow and Green are disqualified. 
Created: 21-Jul-15 14:00
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
Yellow broke RRS 10 (Port/Starboard) with respect to both Green and Red before she passed head to wind. She was still on port tack when the others had to luff up to avoid damage.
Created: 21-Jul-15 14:21
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
There is not a fact that indicates that Green and Red had to luff before Yellow passed head to wind. When Yellow passes head to wind Green has to give mark room to Yellow under R 18.2(a). Yellow is exonerated under rule 43.1(b) for a breach of rule 13.
Created: 21-Jul-15 14:24
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
Perhaps not a fact, but a conclusion, which holds sufficient force to find a violation.
Created: 21-Jul-15 15:00
Mark Evans
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
1
Mark Townsend has it spot on. Both Yellow and Green (independently) are governed by 18.3.
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.
Created: 21-Jul-15 15:25
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
The facts lead to the conclusion and decision and the conclusion and decision must match the facts. We need some facts about when Green luffed to avoid contact with Yellow and when Red luffed to avoid contact with Green.

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.


Created: 21-Jul-15 15:34
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
1
The fact is that, at position 3, Yellow's bow on port tack has crossed the bow of Green on starboard tack with contact imminent.
The conclusion is that Yellow is not keeping clear of Green as required by RRS 10.
Created: 21-Jul-15 15:58
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
0
Thanks everyone for these replies. One item that is not clear from the diagram, is that R10 was not involved. The problem I had with the diagram is that the length/width ratio of the boats does not look like an IOM RC boat, which has a length to beam ratio of about 5:1. With a long, skinny boat there is room for Yellow to tack without doing it front of Green. Here is a version using Powerpoint arrows that I could elongate to give a better perspective.
image.png 11.2 KB


Created: 21-Jul-15 16:03
Tod Sackett
Nationality: United States of America
0
Mark, Would you agree that in the absence of Yellow, Green did not foul Red?  So it is Yellow that caused Green to break 18.2a correct? Green did give Yellow room but had to luff Red in the process. I am not tracking on why Green is not exonerated for that. 
Created: 21-Jul-15 16:06
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
Tod, You can make the counter argument that in the absence of Green, Yellow would not foul Red. Not sure it gets us anywhere.

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.
Created: 21-Jul-15 17:31
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
0
Mark,
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
Created: 21-Jul-15 17:54
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Mark T, do we have a Case/Appeal that validates Yellow's Rule 13 exoneration is not excluded by the last sentence of def: Mark-Room?
Created: 21-Jul-15 18:38
Juuso Leivonen
Nationality: Finland
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • National Judge
0
This is close to the old Case 133 (https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/cases/398?page=14), which is under revision. And has been for a while (suggesting it's not so clear cut :)
Created: 21-Jul-15 18:43
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Yea .. we also had a long thread about nearly the same issue here: https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/492-new-scenario-18-2-vs-18-3-and-cause
Created: 21-Jul-15 18:53
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
0
Hi Juuso & Angelo
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
Created: 21-Jul-15 18:57
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Agree .. your scenario adds the question of rule 13 exoneration, which my old thread and old Case 133 do not.
Created: 21-Jul-15 18:59
Robert Sisk
Nationality: United States of America
0
Tough to tell from the diagram, but it looks as if Red was clear astern of Green when entering the zone, in which case, she would have to keep clear of Green. As someone said earlier, Yellow is toast.
Created: 21-Jul-15 19:35
John Thorne
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
 Philip Hubbell has it right.
Created: 21-Jul-15 20:40
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
I am going to make the case (in 2 ways) that RRS 13 is not exonerated. 

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. 
Created: 21-Jul-15 22:35
P
Benjamin Harding
Nationality: Hong Kong
Certifications:
  • International Judge
0
On consideration folks, I think this is simpler than we may think.  The key being:

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'.

It is clear to see in this scenario that Y's barge causes G's luff which in turn causes R to sail above CHC.  None of this would have happened if Y had not tacked in there.  Y was the 'cause'.  In which case, Yellow breaks 18.3 with Red.  That's easy, right?

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?


Created: 21-Jul-16 02:06
Alvaro Garcia
Nationality: Argentina
0
Hello Benjamin. How about this maneuver for Newton? Thanks.
newton.JPG 52.2 KB
Created: 21-Jul-16 12:24
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
Below describes the right-of-way rule that applies and the part of rule 18 that applies between the boats at each position.
 
A couple of important rule notes.
  1. A boat is always on a tack, starboard or port, corresponding to her windward side. When a boat passes through head to wind she changes tacks, port to starboard or starboard to port. She is a tacking boat until she reaches a close-hauled course, but she is on one tack or the other..
  2. Overlaps established by passing head to wind in the zone are addressed either by rule 18.2(a) or by rule 18.3.

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 1
Red-Green : Rule 10. Rule 18.1(a). Rule 18 does not apply between boats on opposite tacks.
Red-Yellow : Rule 10. Rule 18.1(a). Rule 18 does not apply between boats on opposite tacks.
Green-Yellow : Rule 12. Rule 18.2(b). However, it is not clear who reached the zone first.  If Yellow reached the zone (see WS Case 2) they would have mark-room, otherwise Green. But as both boats have to tack it is not important.
 
Position 2 & 3
Red-Green : Rule 11. Rule 18.3. Green shall not cause a Red to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact. Rule 18.2 does not apply between them.
Red-Yellow : Rule 10. Rule 18.1(a). Rule 18 does not apply between boats on opposite tacks.
Green-Yellow : Rule 10.  Rule 18.1(a). Rule 18 does not apply between boats on opposite tacks.
 
Position 3 ½ (When Yellow passes through head to wind)
Red-Green : Rule 11. Rule 18.3. Green shall not cause a Red to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact. Rule 18.2 does not apply between them.
Red-Yellow : Rule 13. Rule 18.3. Green shall not cause a Red to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact. Rule 18.2 does not apply between them.
Green-Yellow : Rule 13.  Rule 18.2(a). Green and Yellow are on the same tack so rule 18 applies. Green and Yellow are overlapped so Green the outside boat shall give Red mark-room. Mark-room includes “room for a boat to leave a mark on the required side.” And room includes “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.” And Yellow has a rule 18.3 obligation to Red.

Position 4
Red-Green : Rule 11. Rule 18.3. Green shall not cause a Red to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact. Rule 18.2 does not apply between them.
Red-Yellow : Rule 13. Rule 18.3. Green shall not cause 18.2a Red to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact. Rule 18.2 does not apply between them.
Green-Yellow : Rule 13.  Rule 18.2(a). Green boat shall give Red mark-room.

RULES BROKEN
Yellow broke rule 13 at position 3½, but is exonerated under rule 43.1(b) because she was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled under rule 18.2(a).
 
Green broke rule 18.2(a) by failing to give Yellow mark-room, which includes space to comply with her obligations under the rules of Part 2. She is not exonerated as it is not one of the rules listed in 43.1(b).
 
Yellow broke rule 18.3 by causing Red to sail above close-hauled. She is not exonerated for her breach of rule 18.3 under rule 43.1(a) because she was not compelled to pass between Green and the mark at position 4. Instead, she could have tacked around or ducked Green and Red. Yellow is not exonerated for her breach of rule 18.3 under rule 43.1(b) because rule 18.3 is not one of the rules listed in rule 43.1(b).
 
Created: 21-Jul-16 14:27
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
Angelo Guarino stated in a prior post.
Mark T, do we have a Case/Appeal that validates Yellow's Rule 13 exoneration is not excluded by the last sentence of def: Mark-Room?

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).

Created: 21-Jul-16 14:54
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
Are we all agreed that the weakness is in 18 applying instantly when a tacking boat passes head-to-wind?
Created: 21-Jul-16 16:10
Tod Sackett
Nationality: United States of America
0
so after two days of discussion there is still not a consensus on all the implications of this common mark rounding situation.  How can it be expected that sailors could sort it out on the fly and exonerate themselves or not? Its a good thing there is a rules committee looking at a rethink on all this. 
Created: 21-Jul-16 17:12
John Thorne
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
It seems clear that Yellow broke rule 18.2(c)(2) because she did not give Green "room to sail her proper course" when she became overlapped on the same tack.  No reason for Yellow to be exonerated.
Created: 21-Jul-16 18:07
Mark Evans
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
0
The 4 basic principles of the rules are to:
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.
Created: 21-Jul-16 19:05
P
Kim Kymlicka
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
I wonder if we can find some relief in RRS 18,1,(b).
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
Created: 21-Jul-16 20:13
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Mark, this is where I have the issue …

“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. 
Created: 21-Jul-16 20:35
P
Benjamin Harding
Nationality: Hong Kong
Certifications:
  • International Judge
0
I'm confused.  Can someone explain why the following is not satisfactory?

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.


Created: 21-Jul-16 23:13
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
Angelo Guarino wrote

Either Yellow tacked when 18 applies or she tacked when 18 did not apply. 

In the diagram below (based on John's 2nd amended diagram).

Position 1 (position 3½ in the original 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.

image.png 25.1 KB



Created: 21-Jul-17 00:07
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
Benjamin Harding wrote.

Can someone explain why the following is not satisfactory?
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.

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.
Created: 21-Jul-17 00:25
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
Mark, you have changed the relative positions of Yellow and Green prior to Yellow's tack.
And unless Yellow has bow thrusters, I do not believe she can turn as you have shown.
Different situation.
Created: 21-Jul-17 00:27
P
Benjamin Harding
Nationality: Hong Kong
Certifications:
  • International Judge
0
Mark, 

I get all that 18.2a stuff. 

I'm not sure how to do the fancy quote thing but Mark, you said.. 

"As Red sailed above close-hauled Green didn't provide Yellow enough space and should be DSQ'd under 18.2(a)." 

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! 

Created: 21-Jul-17 01:11
Rick Myers
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Umpire
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Angelo.  For the purposes of the interaction between Yellow and Blue.  Take Red out of the equation.  Yellow breaks 13.  Exonerated under 43.a.  

Now include Red and the answer seems easier I think.  
Created: 21-Jul-17 02:09
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
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

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. 
Created: 21-Jul-17 02:11
Rick Myers
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Umpire
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Hasn’t yellow already tacked? The tack isn’t complete but 43 specifically exonerates for 13.
Created: 21-Jul-17 02:27
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
 
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. 




Created: 21-Jul-17 04:52
Anders Rydlöv
Nationality: Sweden
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Umpire
0
Hi!!

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)



Created: 21-Jul-17 07:22
Rick Myers
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Umpire
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Hi Anders.  I agree with all that you say except that 18 does not apply to the Y and G.  You are correct that it did not apply when the boats were in opposite tacks.  Once Y crosses head to wind the boats are in the same tack. 18.2(a) turns on.  
Created: 21-Jul-17 12:14
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
0
First, I would like to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion, especially as the scenario affects Radio Sailors rather that you ‘big boat’ sailors. I did not expect it to develop the interest and controversy it has.

Much of the discussion centers around whether mark room is granted to Yellow after she passes HTW, or if tacking is excluded, and mark room not granted until she reached her close hauled course. It would be great if we could get an ‘official’ answer on this. Perhaps this could be a submission to the Q&A Rapid Response team, if someone has access to make such a submission. I maintain a web site for RC sailing rules and tactics, and some of my text may need to be revised, based on the outcome as it currently reflects the ‘as soon as she passes HTW’ interpretation and grants exoneration for the breach of R13. 

Why are ‘big boats’ not affected by this version of ‘meat in the sandwich’ question? In ‘big boats’, the answer to my scenario is much easier as you have a three length zone. Green tacks to stbd before entering the three length zone, and so gains mark room over Red 18.2(b) and as as Green enters the zone on stbd, R 18.3 applies to Yellow to not push Green above close hauled. So Yellow is DSQ under R 18.3, and Red gives room to Green so no other rules are broken and no discussion of exoneration – a much simpler outcome.

Looking back, this issue started for Radio Sailing when the phrase ‘since entering the zone’ was added to R 18.3 back in the RRS 2016-2020.  This change had little effect on ‘big boats’, but creates the challenge for Radio Sailing with Appendix E and its larger four length zone. The four length zone provides room for Green to tack to stbd inside the zone without breaking R 13 and R 15 relative to Yellow, but a three length zone would not. When the test ‘since entering the zone’ applies, it takes R 18.3 out of play more frequently, and increases the application of R18.2(a).

After reading all the opinions, I still do not know if Yellow or Green or neither are to be exonerated. Some say to DSQ both, but that seems harsh on Green, as she broke no rule when she tacked to stbd, and had no obligation to anticipate what Yellow would do. This is quite different from Case 133 where Green tacks as soon as Yellow, and puts herself into the limited space between the two other boats.

If we can gain confirmation that the definition of ‘mark room’ excludes Yellow while tacking as shown, then it sound like the resolution is to DSQ Yellow for breaking R 13 with no exoneration, and Green breaks 18.3 but is exonerated under 43.1(a) as she was avoiding Yellow who broke a rule.

Thank you all sincerely

John

Created: 21-Jul-17 14:18
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Mark T, again I’d ask for a WS Case that supports that interpretation.  If there is not one, then this is a relatively easy temporary fix for what is a fraught and dangerous situation in the rules.

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 ..

image.png 17.9 KB

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.
image.png 28.2 KB


However if the situation was this, then she does pass head to wind.


image.png 28.8 KB


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 tack prior to tacking."
Created: 21-Jul-17 14:45
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
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. There are no World Sailing Cases that provide guidance. WS Case 133 has been withdrawn for revision for six years. The last attempt to reach agreement on Case 133 was at the 2020 WS Annual Conference it failed again.
 
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)
image.png 49.2 KB
Created: 21-Jul-17 16:11
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
1
Hi Mark,

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

Created: 21-Jul-17 16:31
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Judge In Training
0
John, I too am a radio sailor. For my fleet it is a matter of depth perception. 
(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
Created: 21-Jul-17 18:33
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John B, I agree that that there are 2 issues here.  The one that resembles Case 133 we can leave for another day.  

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. 

image.jpeg 69.4 KB
Created: 21-Jul-18 12:20
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
0
There has been much argument about when Mark Room begins to apply, after HTW or after close hauled. I think there is more support for the latter, as it applies the second part of the definition to this scenario.

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.

Created: 21-Jul-18 20:59
Chris Hogan
Nationality: Australia
0

With respect, I think that Mark’s interpretation is incorrect. So let me make the contrary case. 

Assuming Y broke rule 13, she is exonerated under rule 43.1(b) only if she was sailing within mark-room to which she was entitled under rule 18.  

Y was entitled to mark-room under rule 18 from the moment she changed tacks from port to starboard. That is, at the moment she passed head to wind. 

But mark-room does not include room to tack. 

So exoneration does not apply if the breach of rule 13 took place at a point that was within Y’s room to tack. 

So what is meant by “room to tack”?

The RRS do not define “room to tack”.  The rules do define the noun “tack”. But the phrase “room to tack” includes the verb rather than the noun. And the rules do not define the verb “to tack”.  

I believe that the intended meaning can be inferred from how the verb is otherwise used in the RRS and their use of other terms related to tacking. 

The present participle of the verb “to tack” is used in the heading of rule 13 - While Tacking. The rule applies at all points between passing head to wind and reaching a close hauled course. 

This supports the view that “room to tack” includes all points of sail between htw and close hauled. 

Rule 18.3 uses the phrase “passes head to wind” rather than the verb “to tack” as in the definition of mark-room. This suggests that “room to tack” means something more than “room to pass head to wind”.

The only other rule in which the phrase “room to tack” is used is rule 20.  Consider a rule 20 situation. It seems unlikely that the rule requires the hailed boat to give the hailing boat only the room she requires to pass through head to wind. The more likely meaning is one that covers at least the points of sail covered by rule 13. 

So I suggest the better view is that Y has no entitlement under rule 18.2 re G at any point when rule 13 requires Y to keep clear of G. 
Created: 21-Jul-19 01:57
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
Yellow was entitled to mark-room under rule 18 the moment she passed through head to wind from port to starboard. When in the definition it is says "mark-room for a boat does not  include room to tack..." it should be interpreted as not including the room to change from port to starboard tack, or starboard to port tack. As Yellow doesn't pass through head to wind again, the exception does not apply.

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.

Created: 21-Jul-19 05:44
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
If you have a copy of Dave Perry's 100 Best Racing Rules Quizzes, read quiz 96. It supports my interpretation of the way rule 18.2(a) and exoneration under 43.1(b) works.
Created: 21-Jul-19 06:00
Chris Hogan
Nationality: Australia
0
Thanks Mark. It would be helpful if you could let us know the reasons why your interpretation is the correct one. 
Created: 21-Jul-19 06:41
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
0
After thinking about the TR calls E6 and E10, and looking at them very closely, I concluded that in each case the call was that mark room began after the boat passed HTW was because they met the criteria in the in the second part of the Mark Room 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
Created: 21-Jul-19 15:36
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
Chris, Below is the process I follow to determine the rules that apply to a particular incident. Sometimes there is a case or appeal that is nearly identical to the incident, other times you need to piece the answer together from several sources.

The introduction to the Racing Rules of Sailing lists the authoritative interpretations of the rules.
 
Interpretations World Sailing publishes the following authoritative interpretations of the racing rules:
· The Case Book – Interpretations of the Racing Rules,
· The Call Books, for various disciplines,
· Interpretations of Rule 42, Propulsion, and
· Interpretations of the Regulations, for those Regulations that are rules.
These publications are available on the World Sailing website. Other interpretations of the racing rules are not authoritative unless approved by World Sailing in accordance with Regulation 28.4.
 
Two WS publications provide authoritative interpretations of the applicable rules in the incident.
  • WS Case Book 2021-2024
  • WS Call Book for Radio Sailing 2021-2024
 
I also look at MNA Appeals & Cases, Calls and Judges Manuauls.
  • RYA Cases
  • Sail Canada Appeals
  • US Sailing Appeals
  • WS Call Book for Match Racing 2021-2024 (Rule 18 is changed in Appendix C, so the calls are usually not relevant.)
  • WS Call Book for Team Racing 2021-2024 (Rules 18.1(a), 18.2(b) are not changed by Appendix D so TR Calls can be used for guidance, but are not authoritative.) 
  • WS Judges Manual
  • US Sailing Judges Manual
 
The next thing I do is read the Cases, Calls, MNA Appeals that include the definitions and rules that apply to the incident.
 
Definitions, Mark-Room
WS Cases 15, 21, 25, 63, 95, 114, 118
RS Call B11
RYA Case 2004/8
Sail Canada Appeal 105
US Sailing Appeal 3, 20, 89
 
Definitions, Room
WS Cases 21, 24, 93, 95, 103, 114, 118, 125, 146
RS Call B11
RYA Case 1975/6
Sail Canada Appeal - None
US Sailing Appeal 4, 13
 
Rule 18.1(a), Mark-Room: When Rule 18 Applies
WS Case 9, 15, 95, 132
RS Call B9
RYA Case 1988/9, 2003/1
Sail Canada Appeal 49
US Sailing Appeal 89, 97
 
Rule 18.2(a), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
WS Case 2, 59
RS Call B9, B10, B11 
RYA Case 1976/2
Sail Canada Appeal 50
US Sailing Appeal None
 
Rule 43, Exoneration
WS Case 24, 49, 63, 93, 95, 124, 125, 146
RS Call B9
RYA Case 1975/6, 1982/6, 2003/1, 2003/7
Sail Canada Appeal 36, 56, 105
US Sailing Appeal 3
 
Created: 21-Jul-19 16:20
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
The disagreement in this thread is to what happens when two boats pass head to wind in the zone. After Yellow passes head to wind and is on the same tack as Green, what parts of rule 18 apply.
 
Rule 18.1 tells us that “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.” As none of the exceptions apply, we know that rule 18 applies between Yellow and Green after position 3½ when Yellow passes head to wind.
 
Overlaps established by passing head to wind in the zone are addressed either by rule 18.2(a) or by rule 18.3. As Green has not been on starboard tack since entering the zone, rule 18.2(a) applies, not rule18.3.
 
When Yellow tacks (passes through head to wind) she is required to keep clear of Green until she is on a close-hauled course. As Yellow and Green are on the same tack rule 18 applies, and we decided above that it is rule 18.2(a) NOT rule 18.3 that applies. At this moment Yellow is on starboard tack and has mark-room. The mark-room does not include the room to tack, she has just tacked from port to starboard and cannot pass back through head to wind to port. When Green luffs to avoid contact with Yellow she breaks rule 13, but because she is sailing within the mark room to which she is entitled she is exonerated under rule 43.1(b).
 
Umpires generally agree with the above interpretation and many Judges tend to disagree. Probably why WS Case 133 has been withdrawn for revision for 6 years.
 
The rules use the terms tack, tacking, tacked, pass head to wind, interchangeably but they all have slightly different meaning. I would either change 1) the definition of mark-room to reflect the way that the rule is being interpreted. “… mark-room does not include the room to pass through head to wind…”, 2) change TR CALL E6 and TR CALL E10, or 3) delete rule 13 as they have in the Americas Cup.
 
Created: 21-Jul-19 17:08
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Mark T, thanks for that recap post and the insights between how Judges and Umpires might see it.  

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.  

Created: 21-Jul-19 20:21
Chris Hogan
Nationality: Australia
0
Many thanks Mark for pulling those resources together. 

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?
Created: 21-Jul-20 02:27
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
In my opinion umpires tend to have a better understanding of some the part two rules because of the way the umpires and competitors interact. Match Racing and Team Racing competitors file protests by displaying a Y flag or red flag. The umpires then agree as to the penalty and display a flag to indicate if a rule was broken. Calls that competitors view as wrong are usually met with some helpful competitor feedback, such as "that's the worst call in the history of match racing." There is a debrief at the end of the days racing where umpires and competitors meet and discuss any penalties that the competitors don't understand. The Umpires describe what they saw (the facts) and the rules that apply. This results in the umpires and competitors reaching a common understanding of the rules.

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.
Created: 21-Jul-20 14:25
Richard Jones
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
0
New member so be gentle with me please.
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.

Created: Mon 13:20
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
0
Hi Richard,

I would disagree with some of your arguments.

First one is that hhile Yellow gains mark room over Green, she does not have mark room over Red, so she breaks R 18.3 when Red luffs above close hauled, and so in my opinion, she is not exonerated for that breach.

The other component of this scenario relates to when Yellow obtains mark room over Green, and this relates on how to interpret or apply the second half of the definition of mark room. As I said earlier, the situation between Yellow and Green could not happen in ‘big boats’ with a three length zone, as Green would break R 13 or R 15 when she tacks to stbd inside the zone. The definition fits well to allow Yellow room to tack while boat boats are on port – Yellow in inside, overlapped and to windward of Green. And alternatively, if we redraw the same diagram with a three length zone, Green enters the zone on stbd, and 18.3 and not 18.2(a) applies between Yellow and Green.

The problem I have is ‘can we apply the second half of the definition to Yellow after she passes HTW and becomes overlapped and inside and to leeward of Green’? If we can apply the definition, then Yellow fails to meet the condition, and therefore does not gain room to complete her tack. In this case, mark room would only begin when Yellow reaches close hauled – and Red is DSQ under R 13.

I believe that when ‘since entering the zone’ was added for R18.3, nobody anticipated the impact on Appendix E and the four length zone. I find it hard to believe that the rule makers intended to give exoneration to Yellow – who only gains mark room by breaking R13. Yes, we give exoneration when a boat is forced to break a rule by another boat – but to give exoneration to a boat that gains it by breaking a rule – that is my issue. It is like saying its against the law to rob a bank – but you needed the money so that’s ok, you’re forgiven.

If we may apply the definition of mark room to a tack in progress, as well as to a tack not yet started, then that resolves my exoneration problem.

John

Created: Mon 17:34
Richard Jones
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
0
Hi John, I agree Green breaks R18.3 with Red but is compelled to do so by Yellow breaking a Rule with Green. This can be either R13 or R15 or R16.1 depending upon when Green had to luff to avoid contact with her. If Yellow wasn't there, 

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.
Created: Mon 19:37
Rick Myers
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Umpire
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Hi John and Richard.  There in lies the rub though.  The whole question that has been tossed back and forth lately is weather yellow broke a rule that they were not exonerated for.  If, as Mark and several others feel that 18 turns on when yellow crosses HTW and tacks, they are the inside boat and owed MR by green. Yellow is then exonerated from breaking 13, 15 and 16.  I suppose you could torture the argument and say that yellow broke 18.3 with respect to Red and is not exonerated from that foul. Thus we could exonerate Green under 43.1(a).  

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.  
Created: Mon 20:09
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
After beating on this offline with gurus, and rereading Mark T’s posts, I was able to find the fault in my logic.  I am now 100% with Mark T, both in his interpretation of how the rules apply in this situation, but also his suggestion that how “room to tack” is used in def:mark-room is confusing.  Exactly as Mark suggested, if def: mark-room said “..room to pass head to wind”, it would be clearer..

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 ..

  1. Initial tack
  2. Head to wind
  3. Final tack

.. 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 ..

    1a) Initial tack including HTW
    2a) Final tack

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
Created: Tue 22:43
Rick Myers
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Umpire
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Hi Ang.  I think you have it exactly right. I’ve been thinking of how to verbalize it as well.  I came up with: 18.1(a) treats the word tack as a state of being on either one tack or the other.  The exception treats the word tack as a verb or an action.  Subtle but very different.  As soon as the inside boat tacks 18 turns on and 18.1(a) is the rule in effect.   

Rick
Created: Tue 22:58
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
1
Rick, I think your last sentence should reference rule 18.2(a) not rule 18.1(a).
Created: Yesterday 06:49
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Rick’s comment ties into Mark’s comment about how “tack” is used in def: mark-room. 

“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”. 
Created: Yesterday 11:19
Rick Myers
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Umpire
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Thank you Ang.  You got what I was trying to say exactly.  I was hesitant to use the term “noun”.  I do agree that this situation needs clarification from the powers above and it seems like that is being worked on as we speak.   
Created: Yesterday 12:05
Rick Myers
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Umpire
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Thanks Mark.  You are correct.  Fat fingers. 
Created: Yesterday 12:07
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more