"Wally" wrote in message k...
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Correction, I spoke in haste. By definition, the following vessel is
to weather of the lead vessel when both are on a beam reach.

This is because the apparent wind is all the vessels 'see' and
the sailing rules do not address apparent wind. They address
actual wind. Because two vessels on a beam reach are bringing
the wind forward, the wind as seen from a stationery observer
would be slightly aft of abeam. This means the following vessel
is the windward vessel and according to the sailing rules, this
vessel is the give-way vessel. Since he is already the give way
vessel Rule 13 is superfluous.

What if they're both on a slightly close reach? Ie, such that the apparent
wind is forward of the beam but, to a stationary observer, the real wind is
precisely on their beams? In this situation, would one or other be the
windward boat?


In the situation you describe the lead boat would be to weather because
he's in the lead.

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.


As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered
under Rule 12.



As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

Why do you say that? However you want to define windward and leeward,
there must be an angle to the wind where a boat directly astern is
neither windward nor leeward. The rules, however, define the windward
and leeward side not by the wind but by which side the main boom is on.
Clearly, by this definition a boat directly astern is neither windward
not leeward.


The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

You've said this over and over, but what's your point? Even if a rule
is "superfluous" by your reckoning, it still must be followed. And
since an overtaking boat may pass to windward or leeward, or may be on a
different tack, its clear the Rule 12 and Rule 13 can lead one to think
a different vessel is giveway. However, Rule 13 has priority,
regardless of your lame arguments.

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.


As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered
under Rule 12.



As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of
apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when
neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

CN


Correction: the following vessel is to *windward* by virtue of the apparent
wind not being the real wind the sailing rules are based on the real wind.
What if they're going upwind? Wouldn't the overtaking boat be to
leeward? And where in the rules does it mention "apparent wind"? In
fact, as I said, windward and leeward are not defined by the wind is on,
but which side the sail are on.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:

Rule 13 cannot take priority over the sailing rules. It has no standing to do so.

What do you mean by this? "No standing"??? Are you claiming that your boat does not qualify as "all vessels"?

I'm claiming my sailboat is obligated to follow the sailing rules which
cover all eventualities, yes even overtaking and that makes Rule 13
superfluous. Superfluous means it has no standing.

When one follows the sailing rules then Rule 13 never has a chance to
even come into play. It is not needed so how can it take priority?

What do you mean by this? These is nothing in the rules that say that they are randomly applied.

Exactly, sailboats are to follow the sailing rules. When they do, overtaking
situations are covered by the sailing rules. This makes Rule 13 superfluous.
If one also tries to apply rule 13 along with the sailing rules one runs into
situations where the sailng rules says vessel A is the stand on vessel while
Rule 13 says it is the give way vessel. You can't have it both ways. You have
to ask yourself at what point rule 13 applies. You say it applies at all times.
This tells me there are situations where Rule 13 would negate the sailing
rules. You cannot have one rule conflicting with another.


In order to follow rule 13 one would have to abandon the sailing rules.

Well sort of. In the sense that Rule 13 starts with "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and
II". This means that Rule 13 has priority over Rule 12. Why is this a problem?

It does not mean Rule 13 has priority over Rule 12. How can a rule that
contradicts another have priority? You either follow the sailing rules
or you ignore them. As captain, I'll make the choice of which rules
I will follow and since I sail, I will follow the sailing rules which
make Rule 13 unnecessary and superfluous. I will not be put in a
position to be liable for a poor set of rules that contradict each other
by embracing the contradictions.


One would be put in the uncomfortable situation of having to choose at
what point to abandon one rule in order to follow another.

Why is this a problem? The rules are very explicit and precise. They even give guidance as to what to do when in doubt.

You know as well as I do that that's bullcrap!

What? That the rules are optional? So how much did you pay someone to take the test for you? Its clear you never could have
passed it on your own.

That's the point. The sailing rules are NOT optional. Your precious
Rule 13 attempts to make them optional. This alone makes rule 13
something real sailors should ignore.


As long as one follows the sailing
rules one is operating entirely legally. As soon as one deviates from
the sailing rules one is acting entirely illegally.

Negatory pseudo-Cap. The rule apply in their entirety, not selectively. Rule 1 says "These Rules shall apply to all vessels" not
"Some of these rules..."

How can two rules that contradict each other apply at the same time.
It is not possible.


Rule 2 says "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any
neglect to comply with these Rules". It is clear that all of the rules must be followed, not selectively applied.

But, you are suggesting selective following. You are saying at some point
one must abandon one set of rules in favor of another rule.


Rule 13 specifically take priority over rule 12. They could have written "except for rule 12," but they didn't. Sorry Neal - are
you sure you want this blunder on the permanent record?

You are looking at this wrong, yourself. You are a typical confused
thinker who actually believes two rules that countermand each other
in certain situations can be applied together. It's simply not possible
in real life situations.

CN

By definition, the lead boat in situations other than when the wind is
abaft the beam is the windward boat. There is never a situation where
neither boat is to windward.

CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.


As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered under Rule 12.



As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

Why do you say that? However you want to define windward and leeward, there must be an angle to the wind where a boat directly
astern is neither windward nor leeward. The rules, however, define the windward and leeward side not by the wind but by which
side the main boom is on. Clearly, by this definition a boat directly astern is neither windward not leeward.


The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

You've said this over and over, but what's your point? Even if a rule is "superfluous" by your reckoning, it still must be
followed. And since an overtaking boat may pass to windward or leeward, or may be on a different tack, its clear the Rule 12 and
Rule 13 can lead one to think a different vessel is giveway. However, Rule 13 has priority, regardless of your lame arguments.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:
You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.

As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered under Rule 12.


Since you have not and cannot, I stick by my statement that
given the three sailing rules and given they are being followed,
Rule 13 is superfluous.

Superfluous or not, it still exists. Or are you claiming that the rules are optional?


Definitely not! The Rules are not optional. This is why the sailing rules
must be followed. And, if they are followed and understood, there
is no case where it is necessary to apply Rule 13.

That's all I'm saying and you are trying to play lawyer and confuse the
simple issue.

CN

When two sailboats are interacting, Rule 12 covers all eventualities.

Abandoning them in favor of Rule 13 is the only thing that would
cause this toggling you refer to. My point is toggling is not necessary
if the sailing rules are followed.

If one decides to abandon one set of rules in favor of a contradictory
rule then one is adding confusion to the mix and increasing the chances
of a collision. This is not the intent of the Rules.

CN


"Trantor" wrote in message ...
I believe the rule on overtaking takes precedence over the windward/leeward
rules. else it would be toggling between the two rules if the overtaking
boat is to the leeward.

"Wally" wrote in message
...
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

This all begs the question of at what point does an overtaking situation
actually start? Where does the sailing rule end and the overtaking rule
take over. I say it never does unless the windward vessel fails to
follow
the sailing rules and creates a close quarters situation.

Ah, I see what you're saying - the leeward boat could be overtaking, at
which point he becomes the give-way, rather than the stand-on vessel. I
don't know what it says in the colregs, but the RRS has stuff about
overlaps
which could be used to define precisely when the overtaking maneuvre is
happening.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ...


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

You are being purposely closed-minded. I still am asking you to
describe one situation where if both sailboats are following the
sailing rules why would Rule 13 ever come into play.


As stated elsewhere, approaching from directly astern is not covered under Rule 12.



As stated wrongly elsewhere, that is. By virtue of the concept of apparent
wind, two vessels on a beam reach one of which is directly on the other's
bow, the following vessel is to leeward. There is NEVER a time when neither
vessel is to windward of the other.

The three sailing rules cover all sailing situations.
Consequently, Rule 13 is superfluous.

CN


Correction: the following vessel is to *windward* by virtue of the apparent
wind not being the real wind the sailing rules are based on the real wind.
What if they're going upwind? Wouldn't the overtaking boat be to leeward? And where in the rules does it mention "apparent
wind"? In fact, as I said, windward and leeward are not defined by the wind is on, but which side the sail are on.

Duh! And it's the wind that determines on which side the boom is.

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:
However, I'll give you a case where Rule 12 does not cover two
sailboats: Two sailboats A and B are on a beam reach. B is directly
behind A and overtaking. Both are on the same tack, neither is
windward or leeward or the other. Nothing in Rule 12 covers this
situation. In fact, this is the simplest case of where Rule 13
would supersede Rule 12. How could Neal be so stupid as to not see it?


Wrong! By definition, the lead vessel is to weather of the following
vessel when both are on a beam reach. Don't you know ANYTHING
about sailing?

CN


Correction, I spoke in haste. By definition, the following vessel is
to weather of the lead vessel when both are on a beam reach.

So which is it Neal? You're making a real fool of yourself here! I
can see the smoke coming out of your ears, just like an overloaded
android on Star Trek!


This is because the apparent wind is all the vessels 'see' and
the sailing rules do not address apparent wind. They address
actual wind. Because two vessels on a beam reach are bringing
the wind forward, the wind as seen from a stationery observer
would be slightly aft of abeam. This means the following vessel
is the windward vessel and according to the sailing rules, this
vessel is the give-way vessel. Since he is already the give way
vessel Rule 13 is superfluous.


So you're saying that windward/leeward depends on the exact direction of
the wind? That must mean that there is a point exactly in the middle
neither is windward or leeward. Which applies then?

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:
However, I'll give you a case where Rule 12 does not cover two sailboats: Two sailboats A and B are on a beam reach. B is
directly behind A and overtaking. Both are on the same tack, neither is windward or leeward or the other. Nothing in Rule 12
covers this situation. In fact, this is the simplest case of where Rule 13 would supersede Rule 12. How could Neal be so
stupid as to not see it?


Wrong! By definition, the lead vessel is to weather of the following
vessel when both are on a beam reach. Don't you know ANYTHING
about sailing?

CN


Correction, I spoke in haste. By definition, the following vessel is
to weather of the lead vessel when both are on a beam reach.

So which is it Neal? You're making a real fool of yourself here! I can see the smoke coming out of your ears, just like an
overloaded android on Star Trek!


This is because the apparent wind is all the vessels 'see' and
the sailing rules do not address apparent wind. They address
actual wind. Because two vessels on a beam reach are bringing
the wind forward, the wind as seen from a stationery observer
would be slightly aft of abeam. This means the following vessel
is the windward vessel and according to the sailing rules, this
vessel is the give-way vessel. Since he is already the give way
vessel Rule 13 is superfluous.


So you're saying that windward/leeward depends on the exact direction of the wind? That must mean that there is a point exactly
in the middle neither is windward or leeward. Which applies then?

In this case, the lead vessel is to weather. You need to read some
old-time, square-rigger novels like Horatio Hornblower where this
concept is well understood. Weather gage is the term to which I
refer

http://www.answers.com/weather+gage&r=67

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:


Rule 13 cannot take priority over the sailing rules. It has no
standing to do so.


What do you mean by this? "No standing"??? Are you claiming that
your boat does not qualify as "all vessels"?


I'm claiming my sailboat is obligated to follow the sailing rules which
cover all eventualities, yes even overtaking and that makes Rule 13
superfluous. Superfluous means it has no standing.

So what does "no standing" mean?


When one follows the sailing rules then Rule 13 never has a chance to
even come into play. It is not needed so how can it take priority?


What do you mean by this? These is nothing in the rules that say that
they are randomly applied.


Exactly, sailboats are to follow the sailing rules.

No, sailboats follow ALL of the rules. There is nothing that exempts
them from that obligation.


When they do,
overtaking
situations are covered by the sailing rules.

Oh really, then why are you having so much trouble telling us which
sailboat is giveway in an overtaking situation?

This makes Rule 13
superfluous.
If one also tries to apply rule 13 along with the sailing rules one runs
into
situations where the sailng rules says vessel A is the stand on vessel
while
Rule 13 says it is the give way vessel. You can't have it both ways. You
have
to ask yourself at what point rule 13 applies.

It ALWAYS applies. In fact, it even says "notwithstanding" any other
rule. This isn't a vague inference; it explicitly says it take priority.

You say it applies at all
times.
This tells me there are situations where Rule 13 would negate the sailing
rules. You cannot have one rule conflicting with another.

Sure you can. Why not? The are a variety of such cases in the rules.
A powerboat shall keep out of the way of a sailboat, except when various
rules say otherwise. What's the big deal?



In order to follow rule 13 one would have to abandon the sailing rules.


Well sort of. In the sense that Rule 13 starts with "Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II". This
means that Rule 13 has priority over Rule 12. Why is this a problem?


It does not mean Rule 13 has priority over Rule 12. How can a rule that
contradicts another have priority?

Why not? What's your problem?

You either follow the sailing rules
or you ignore them. As captain, I'll make the choice of which rules
I will follow and since I sail, I will follow the sailing rules which
make Rule 13 unnecessary and superfluous. I will not be put in a
position to be liable for a poor set of rules that contradict each other
by embracing the contradictions.

Should we forward this to your local Marine Safety Office?




One would be put in the uncomfortable situation of having to choose at
what point to abandon one rule in order to follow another.


Why is this a problem? The rules are very explicit and precise. They
even give guidance as to what to do when in doubt.

You know as well as I do that that's bullcrap!


What? That the rules are optional? So how much did you pay someone
to take the test for you? Its clear you never could have passed it on
your own.


That's the point. The sailing rules are NOT optional. Your precious
Rule 13 attempts to make them optional. This alone makes rule 13
something real sailors should ignore.

It isn't "my rule," its the rule that you agreed to abide by when you
got your license. This claim of yours that you don't feel obliged to
abide by the rules might come back to haunt you in court. However, its
virtually impossible that you will ever be in the position of overtaking
another vessel.




As long as one follows the sailing
rules one is operating entirely legally. As soon as one deviates from
the sailing rules one is acting entirely illegally.


Negatory pseudo-Cap. The rule apply in their entirety, not
selectively. Rule 1 says "These Rules shall apply to all vessels" not
"Some of these rules..."


How can two rules that contradict each other apply at the same time.
It is not possible.

That's why they explicitly say which take precedence.




Rule 2 says "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the
owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to
comply with these Rules". It is clear that all of the rules must be
followed, not selectively applied.


But, you are suggesting selective following. You are saying at some point
one must abandon one set of rules in favor of another rule.

They are very explicit when that point is. Further, the overtaking rule
normally comes into play when the vessels are some distance apart. This
is not a case where the standon/giveway relationship suddenly changes.



Rule 13 specifically take priority over rule 12. They could have
written "except for rule 12," but they didn't. Sorry Neal - are you
sure you want this blunder on the permanent record?


You are looking at this wrong, yourself. You are a typical confused
thinker who actually believes two rules that countermand each other
in certain situations can be applied together. It's simply not possible
in real life situations.

It would seem that two rules are too many for you to understand.

Capt. Neal® wrote:
By definition, the lead boat in situations other than when the wind is
abaft the beam is the windward boat. There is never a situation where
neither boat is to windward.

By what definition? The only definition in the rules says there is a
windward and leeward SIDE of a boat. There is nothing that could be
construed as mean a boat clear astern or ahead is to windward or leeward.

And you still haven't answered how a boat directly behind can be
windward or leeward if the wind is directly on the beam.

Wally wrote in message
k...
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Correction, I spoke in haste. By definition, the following vessel is
to weather of the lead vessel when both are on a beam reach.
This is because the apparent wind is all the vessels 'see' and
the sailing rules do not address apparent wind. They address
actual wind. Because two vessels on a beam reach are bringing
the wind forward, the wind as seen from a stationery observer
would be slightly aft of abeam. This means the following vessel
is the windward vessel and according to the sailing rules, this
vessel is the give-way vessel. Since he is already the give way
vessel Rule 13 is superfluous.

What if they're both on a slightly close reach? Ie, such that the apparent
wind is forward of the beam but, to a stationary observer, the real wind
is
precisely on their beams? In this situation, would one or other be the
windward boat?

Wally, please learn to leave the bait alone.
FYI there are no 'stationary observers' out at sea and moreover since one
of the boats is by definition faster than the other their apparent wind
directions will differ anyway. It is not really all that complicated. If you
are overtaking another boat you have to keep clear until you are 'clear
ahead'.

Capt. Neal® wrote: Correction: the following vessel is to *windward*
by virtue of the
apparent
wind not being the real wind the sailing rules are based on the real
wind.

What if they're going upwind? Wouldn't the overtaking boat be to
leeward? And where in the rules does it mention "apparent wind"? In
fact, as I said, windward and leeward are not defined by the wind is
on, but which side the sail are on.


Duh! And it's the wind that determines on which side the boom is.



Another confession that you don't know how to sail, Neal? Now we
understand why you failed the test for the sailing endorsement.

BWAHAHAHAHA! What a PUTZ you are, Neal! You've completely embarrassed
yourself, here. Not only have you admitted you don't know the rules,
you've said you don;t care what they say, you have no intention of
abiding by them!

And now you're admitting that you don't even know how to sail!

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!

Crappy,

It is known as the "Luffing Rule" and it does apply to sailing vessels.

Ole Thom


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsHomePage

Capt. Neal® wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Capt. Neal® wrote:

However, I'll give you a case where Rule 12 does not cover two
sailboats: Two sailboats A and B are on a beam reach. B is
directly behind A and overtaking. Both are on the same tack,
neither is windward or leeward or the other. Nothing in Rule 12
covers this situation. In fact, this is the simplest case of
where Rule 13 would supersede Rule 12. How could Neal be so stupid
as to not see it?



Wrong! By definition, the lead vessel is to weather of the following
vessel when both are on a beam reach. Don't you know ANYTHING
about sailing?

CN


Correction, I spoke in haste. By definition, the following vessel is
to weather of the lead vessel when both are on a beam reach.


So which is it Neal? You're making a real fool of yourself here! I
can see the smoke coming out of your ears, just like an overloaded
android on Star Trek!


This is because the apparent wind is all the vessels 'see' and
the sailing rules do not address apparent wind. They address
actual wind. Because two vessels on a beam reach are bringing
the wind forward, the wind as seen from a stationery observer
would be slightly aft of abeam. This means the following vessel
is the windward vessel and according to the sailing rules, this
vessel is the give-way vessel. Since he is already the give way
vessel Rule 13 is superfluous.



So you're saying that windward/leeward depends on the exact direction
of the wind? That must mean that there is a point exactly in the
middle neither is windward or leeward. Which applies then?


In this case, the lead vessel is to weather.

Why?

So you're claiming that in a beam reach situation, the vessel ahead is
to windward, and therefore must stay clear of the overtaking vessel
which is to leeward? In other words, a high speed planing boat or
catamaran is the standon vessel WRT to a slow moving banana boat? Just
how do you expect to get out of the way? BWAHAHAHA!!!

You need to read some
old-time, square-rigger novels like Horatio Hornblower where this
concept is well understood. Weather gage is the term to which I
refer

So now you're claiming you learned everything you know about sailing by
reading Hornblower? And we thought it was Sailing For Dummies.

"Edgar" wrote in message news:U7aLd.6639

FYI there are no 'stationary observers' out at sea and moreover since one
of the boats is by definition faster than the other their apparent wind
directions will differ anyway. It is not really all that complicated. If
you
are overtaking another boat you have to keep clear until you are 'clear
ahead'.

So, are you saying that, when the colregs refers to one boat being to
windward of another, that this is with reference to the apparent wind?

In Neal's case, the only thing he's able to overtake is his beer bottle.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Trantor" wrote in message
...
I believe the rule on overtaking takes precedence over the windward/leeward
rules. else it would be toggling between the two rules if the overtaking
boat is to the leeward.

"Wally" wrote in message
...
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

This all begs the question of at what point does an overtaking
situation
actually start? Where does the sailing rule end and the overtaking rule
take over. I say it never does unless the windward vessel fails to
follow
the sailing rules and creates a close quarters situation.

Ah, I see what you're saying - the leeward boat could be overtaking, at
which point he becomes the give-way, rather than the stand-on vessel. I
don't know what it says in the colregs, but the RRS has stuff about
overlaps
which could be used to define precisely when the overtaking maneuvre is
happening.

My god is he really that stupid?? Thanks Jeff for making it obvious.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Capt. Neal® wrote: Correction: the following vessel is to *windward* by
virtue of the
apparent
wind not being the real wind the sailing rules are based on the real
wind.

What if they're going upwind? Wouldn't the overtaking boat be to
leeward? And where in the rules does it mention "apparent wind"? In
fact, as I said, windward and leeward are not defined by the wind is on,
but which side the sail are on.


Duh! And it's the wind that determines on which side the boom is.



Another confession that you don't know how to sail, Neal? Now we
understand why you failed the test for the sailing endorsement.

BWAHAHAHAHA! What a PUTZ you are, Neal! You've completely embarrassed
yourself, here. Not only have you admitted you don't know the rules,
you've said you don;t care what they say, you have no intention of abiding
by them!

And now you're admitting that you don't even know how to sail!

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!

Neal,

I'm beginning to wonder about this group a little myself on this one.
There are enough racing people that must know "LUFFING RIGHTS" and the
rest should have seen it used in the America's Cup Races on Downwind
Legs.

I didn't think you were that tricky in your wording, but I guess you
were.

Ole Thom

Neal,

This is a good example of truly," knowing the rule" or "Knowing the
words"

Ole Thom


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsHomePage

Wally wrote in message
k...
"Edgar" wrote in message news:U7aLd.6639

FYI there are no 'stationary observers' out at sea and moreover since
one
of the boats is by definition faster than the other their apparent wind
directions will differ anyway. It is not really all that complicated. If
you
are overtaking another boat you have to keep clear until you are 'clear
ahead'.

So, are you saying that, when the colregs refers to one boat being to
windward of another, that this is with reference to the apparent wind?

There is no other way to go unless you are prepared to read your speed log,
then go below and draw a velocity triangle to find the true wind and then
hope the other guy has done the same. This is a red herring that Neal has
drawn across the track and in practice it is not hard to know who is to
windward without any complications.

Thom Stewart wrote:
Neal,

This is a good example of truly," knowing the rule" or "Knowing the
words"

Ole Thom


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsHomePage


No Thom, Neal can't be this stupid. He's just doing this to cause
trouble. He knows I can't leave a bogus rules claim out there without
rebutting it.

Next he'll be claiming Rule 18 can be ignored because its obviously
bogus. First it says power boats have to stay clear of sailboats, then
it says sailboats must stay clear of fishing boats, which are
powerboats. Obviously inconsistent and therefore can be ignored.

And clearly the rules of Section II do not apply if the skipper is
blind, because other vessels are not in sight. Since maintaining a
lookout means that vessels would then be in sight means that that rule
is contradictory.

And lights must be carried from sunset to sunrise, but they fail to
specify which direction time is running ...

I forgot......Oz has no humour unless he's the one starting it. You sure
you don't keep your boat shackled to the docks on City Island?


OzOne wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:50:25 -0500, "bell"
scribbled thusly:

What the fork does any of this thread have to do with
alt.sailing.asa?

Wow bell....ding a ling a ling!

Capt. Neal® wrote:
Rule 11
Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one
another.
Rule 12
(a) When two sailing vessels are approaching one
another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of
them shall
keep out of the way of the other as follows:

when each has the wind on a different side, the vessel
which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of
the way of
the other;
when both have the wind on the same side, the vessel
which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the
vessel which is to leeward;
if a vessel with the wind on the port side sees a vessel
to windward and cannot determine with certainty whether
the other vessel has the wind on the port or on the
starboard side, she shall keep out of the way of the
other.

(b) For the purposes of this Rule the windward side
shall be deemed to be the side opposite that on which
the mainsail is carried or, in the case of a
square-rigged vessel, the
side opposite to that on which the largest fore-and-aft
sail is carried.
Pretty simple, isn't it?

Most interesting to me is this part:

"when both have the wind on the same side, the vessel
which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the
vessel which is to leeward;"
This says if one sailboat is overtaking another and both
have the wind on the same side, then the sailboat to
weather is the give way vessel.
This tells me that the overtaking rule where the
overtaken vessel is always the stand-on vessel does not
apply to sailboats.
CN





Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting
you.

I'm sorry Jeff, but you're completely wrong about this. Neal *is* that
stupid.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Thom Stewart wrote:
Neal,

This is a good example of truly," knowing the rule" or "Knowing the
words"

Ole Thom


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsHomePage


No Thom, Neal can't be this stupid. He's just doing this to cause
trouble. He knows I can't leave a bogus rules claim out there without
rebutting it.

Next he'll be claiming Rule 18 can be ignored because its obviously bogus.
First it says power boats have to stay clear of sailboats, then it says
sailboats must stay clear of fishing boats, which are powerboats.
Obviously inconsistent and therefore can be ignored.

And clearly the rules of Section II do not apply if the skipper is blind,
because other vessels are not in sight. Since maintaining a lookout means
that vessels would then be in sight means that that rule is contradictory.

And lights must be carried from sunset to sunrise, but they fail to
specify which direction time is running ...

Most of these putzes are too confused by now to know of which they speak.

Jeff is the worst. He makes the ludicrous statement that boats must follow
ALL the rules.

Let's see now, Jeff thinks he has to follow the rules for a sailboat, a fishing boat,
a Not Under Command boat, a boat aground, a boat in a fog, a boat Restricted
in its Ability to Navigate and he has to follow all these rules at the same time.

How warped is that kind of thinking, anyway?

The fact is, one follows the rules that concern certain boats in certain circumstances.

Rule 12 deals with how two sailboats interact. Rule 12 covers all eventualities. One
need not concern oneself with ALL the rules in order to operate legally. This includes
Rule 13 because it does not apply just like Rule 9 does not apply in open water.

CN




"Thom Stewart" wrote in message ...
Neal,

I'm beginning to wonder about this group a little myself on this one.
There are enough racing people that must know "LUFFING RIGHTS" and the
rest should have seen it used in the America's Cup Races on Downwind
Legs.

I didn't think you were that tricky in your wording, but I guess you
were.

Ole Thom

snip


Unfortunately Cappy, you again fail.
It is the responsibility of the windward vessel to stay clear until
the leeward one becomes an overtaking vessel when she must keep clear.

If the windward vessel is unable to point at high, she will slow down
whereupon the leeward vessel becomes an overtaking vessel,

Or the windward vessel is obliged to tack away.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

I thought that the windward/leeward situation was a crossing
encounter. A crossing encouter isn't over untill it's resolved.
It doesn't change to a overtaking situation because the windward boat
slows and passes behind the leeward boat.
Mark E. Williams

Sorry Neal, all of the rules must be followed. Obviously, some imply no
action for some boats, but they all must be considered. You've claimed
that Rule 13 shouldn't even be considered because Rule 12 sometimes
might be used. What other Rules need not be considered? Rule 1? Rule
2? Are lookouts needed in your world?

You're claiming that a sailboat should ignore the rules for RAMs and
NUCs. Tell us Neal, just what rules are those? In fact, just about the
only rule that applies to NUCs and RAMs is Rule 13. The only rule that
mentions them by name says the sailboats must stay clear of them.

And what if a sailboat is also a NUC? Do we ignore Rule 18 because Neal
claims Rule 12 covers "all eventualities"? Nonsense!

One of the fundamental principles of marine law is that the rules are
mandatory. As Farwell puts it: "It will be recognized that a disregard
of any rule on the basis of convenience, courtesy, good nature, or
disbelief in its efficacy places the navigator under a burden of proof
that is almost impossible for him to carry."



Capt. Neal® wrote:


Most of these putzes are too confused by now to know of which they speak.

Jeff is the worst. He makes the ludicrous statement that boats must follow
ALL the rules.
Let's see now, Jeff thinks he has to follow the rules for a sailboat, a
fishing boat,
a Not Under Command boat, a boat aground, a boat in a fog, a boat
Restricted
in its Ability to Navigate and he has to follow all these rules at the
same time.

How warped is that kind of thinking, anyway?

The fact is, one follows the rules that concern certain boats in certain
circumstances.

Rule 12 deals with how two sailboats interact. Rule 12 covers all
eventualities. One
need not concern oneself with ALL the rules in order to operate legally.
This includes
Rule 13 because it does not apply just like Rule 9 does not apply in
open water.

CN




"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...

Neal,

I'm beginning to wonder about this group a little myself on this one.
There are enough racing people that must know "LUFFING RIGHTS" and the
rest should have seen it used in the America's Cup Races on Downwind
Legs.

I didn't think you were that tricky in your wording, but I guess you
were.

Ole Thom

You just don't understand how stupid and impossible your stance
is, do you?

It is not possible to follow all the Rules all the time. One must
decide which Rules apply to one's vessel and when they apply.
Once one does this one must ignore all the others that do not apply
or contradict.

To maintain that all Rules apply all the time is one of the most asinine
things I've ever heard. You've got a serious problem.

CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Sorry Neal, all of the rules must be followed. Obviously, some imply no action for some boats, but they all must be considered.
You've claimed that Rule 13 shouldn't even be considered because Rule 12 sometimes might be used. What other Rules need not be
considered? Rule 1? Rule 2? Are lookouts needed in your world?

You're claiming that a sailboat should ignore the rules for RAMs and NUCs. Tell us Neal, just what rules are those? In fact,
just about the only rule that applies to NUCs and RAMs is Rule 13. The only rule that mentions them by name says the sailboats
must stay clear of them.

And what if a sailboat is also a NUC? Do we ignore Rule 18 because Neal claims Rule 12 covers "all eventualities"? Nonsense!

One of the fundamental principles of marine law is that the rules are mandatory. As Farwell puts it: "It will be recognized that
a disregard of any rule on the basis of convenience, courtesy, good nature, or disbelief in its efficacy places the navigator
under a burden of proof that is almost impossible for him to carry."



Capt. Neal® wrote:


Most of these putzes are too confused by now to know of which they speak.

Jeff is the worst. He makes the ludicrous statement that boats must follow
ALL the rules.
Let's see now, Jeff thinks he has to follow the rules for a sailboat, a fishing boat,
a Not Under Command boat, a boat aground, a boat in a fog, a boat Restricted
in its Ability to Navigate and he has to follow all these rules at the same time.

How warped is that kind of thinking, anyway?

The fact is, one follows the rules that concern certain boats in certain circumstances.

Rule 12 deals with how two sailboats interact. Rule 12 covers all eventualities. One
need not concern oneself with ALL the rules in order to operate legally. This includes
Rule 13 because it does not apply just like Rule 9 does not apply in open water.

CN




"Thom Stewart" wrote in message ...

Neal,

I'm beginning to wonder about this group a little myself on this one.
There are enough racing people that must know "LUFFING RIGHTS" and the
rest should have seen it used in the America's Cup Races on Downwind
Legs.

I didn't think you were that tricky in your wording, but I guess you
were.

Ole Thom

snip

Unfortunately Cappy, you again fail.
It is the responsibility of the windward vessel to stay clear until
the leeward one becomes an overtaking vessel when she must keep clear.

If the windward vessel is unable to point at high, she will slow down
whereupon the leeward vessel becomes an overtaking vessel,

Or the windward vessel is obliged to tack away.


Are you talking about ColRegs or the racing rules?

Maynard G. Krebbs wrote:
I thought that the windward/leeward situation was a crossing
encounter. A crossing encouter isn't over untill it's resolved.
It doesn't change to a overtaking situation because the windward boat
slows and passes behind the leeward boat.

Agreed. Overtaking is different from W/L. The order of precedence for
vessels under sail is Starboard over Port (for which they have to be on
different tacks), Leeward over Windward (for which they have to be on
the same tack), Ahead over Astern (same tack, again).

I can see an overtaking vessel becoming leeward or windward (and there
is a whole lot about this in the racing rules) but not vice versa.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Neal, you're just making an ass of yourself. But what else is new?

You've actually claimed that you're not bound by all of the rules, you
feel free to pick and choose which you want to follow. In your words:

"I'll make the choice of which rules
I will follow and since I sail, I will follow the sailing rules which
make Rule 13 unnecessary and superfluous. I will not be put in a
position to be liable for a poor set of rules that contradict each other
by embracing the contradictions."

Lest anyone thing that Neal might be correct, here's what the
acknowledged standard reference has to to say:

"It should be noted that International Rule 13 ... takes precedence over
all other rules in Part B, Section II, ... Therefore sailing vessels and
all other vessels given priority in Rule 18, even those hampered in some
way..., must consider themselves bound by Rule 13 and keep out of the
way of a vessel they are overtaking." Falwell's Rules of the Nautical Road.

Sad, Neal, sad. You probably even have the delusion that people believe
that you really have a license.




Capt. Neal® wrote:
You just don't understand how stupid and impossible your stance
is, do you?

It is not possible to follow all the Rules all the time. One must
decide which Rules apply to one's vessel and when they apply.
Once one does this one must ignore all the others that do not apply
or contradict.

To maintain that all Rules apply all the time is one of the most asinine
things I've ever heard. You've got a serious problem.

CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Sorry Neal, all of the rules must be followed. Obviously, some imply
no action for some boats, but they all must be considered. You've
claimed that Rule 13 shouldn't even be considered because Rule 12
sometimes might be used. What other Rules need not be considered?
Rule 1? Rule 2? Are lookouts needed in your world?

You're claiming that a sailboat should ignore the rules for RAMs and
NUCs. Tell us Neal, just what rules are those? In fact, just about
the only rule that applies to NUCs and RAMs is Rule 13. The only rule
that mentions them by name says the sailboats must stay clear of them.

And what if a sailboat is also a NUC? Do we ignore Rule 18 because
Neal claims Rule 12 covers "all eventualities"? Nonsense!

One of the fundamental principles of marine law is that the rules are
mandatory. As Farwell puts it: "It will be recognized that a
disregard of any rule on the basis of convenience, courtesy, good
nature, or disbelief in its efficacy places the navigator under a
burden of proof that is almost impossible for him to carry."



Capt. Neal® wrote:



Most of these putzes are too confused by now to know of which they
speak.

Jeff is the worst. He makes the ludicrous statement that boats must
follow
ALL the rules.
Let's see now, Jeff thinks he has to follow the rules for a sailboat,
a fishing boat,
a Not Under Command boat, a boat aground, a boat in a fog, a boat
Restricted
in its Ability to Navigate and he has to follow all these rules at
the same time.

How warped is that kind of thinking, anyway?

The fact is, one follows the rules that concern certain boats in
certain circumstances.

Rule 12 deals with how two sailboats interact. Rule 12 covers all
eventualities. One
need not concern oneself with ALL the rules in order to operate
legally. This includes
Rule 13 because it does not apply just like Rule 9 does not apply in
open water.

CN




"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...

Neal,

I'm beginning to wonder about this group a little myself on this one.
There are enough racing people that must know "LUFFING RIGHTS" and the
rest should have seen it used in the America's Cup Races on Downwind
Legs.

I didn't think you were that tricky in your wording, but I guess you
were.

Ole Thom

Again, you miss the point. One is only bound by Rule 13 if one is in an
overtaking situation. This is the only situation where Rule 13 applies.

When two sailing vessels are following Rule 12, overtaking situations
do not occur because if the two vessels follow Rule 12 and avoid a
close quarters situation there is never any need to overtake. Any passing
can and should be done a distance. Mind you, the two vessels I am
talking about are sailing in open water. I think you, being a lubber,
are always thinking narrow channels, etc. where Rule 13 can and does
apply.

The reason Rule 13 does not apply between two sailing vessels in open
water is because if the two sailing vessels are following the dictates
of Rule 12 (and other applicable rules depending on the situation) Rule
13 does not come into play.

For example, I am sailing my fast, blue water, Coronado 27 of the starboard
tack, close-hauled. I am approaching another vessel such as a C&C 32 which
is a very slow boat, also sailing close-hauled on the starboard tack.

Rule 12 tells me that the C&C is the stand-on vessel because he is to weather.

Therefore, I follow Rule 12 and fall off and pass him at over a half mile of
distance. This does not meet the definition of overtaking in any way shape
or form. By adhering to the sailing rules, I avoid "overtaking" the C&C but
I still end up ahead of him. I am still downwind of him so he is still the
stand-on vessel. By virtue of the fact that I followed the dictates of Rule
12, Rule 13 was superfluous.

Try to understand these simple truths.

CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Neal, you're just making an ass of yourself. But what else is new?

You've actually claimed that you're not bound by all of the rules, you
feel free to pick and choose which you want to follow. In your words:

"I'll make the choice of which rules
I will follow and since I sail, I will follow the sailing rules which
make Rule 13 unnecessary and superfluous. I will not be put in a
position to be liable for a poor set of rules that contradict each other
by embracing the contradictions."

Lest anyone thing that Neal might be correct, here's what the acknowledged standard reference has to to say:

"It should be noted that International Rule 13 ... takes precedence over all other rules in Part B, Section II, ... Therefore
sailing vessels and all other vessels given priority in Rule 18, even those hampered in some way..., must consider themselves
bound by Rule 13 and keep out of the way of a vessel they are overtaking." Falwell's Rules of the Nautical Road.

Sad, Neal, sad. You probably even have the delusion that people believe that you really have a license.




Capt. Neal® wrote:
You just don't understand how stupid and impossible your stance
is, do you?

It is not possible to follow all the Rules all the time. One must
decide which Rules apply to one's vessel and when they apply.
Once one does this one must ignore all the others that do not apply
or contradict.

To maintain that all Rules apply all the time is one of the most asinine
things I've ever heard. You've got a serious problem.

CN


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...

Sorry Neal, all of the rules must be followed. Obviously, some imply no action for some boats, but they all must be considered.
You've claimed that Rule 13 shouldn't even be considered because Rule 12 sometimes might be used. What other Rules need not be
considered? Rule 1? Rule 2? Are lookouts needed in your world?

You're claiming that a sailboat should ignore the rules for RAMs and NUCs. Tell us Neal, just what rules are those? In fact,
just about the only rule that applies to NUCs and RAMs is Rule 13. The only rule that mentions them by name says the sailboats
must stay clear of them.

And what if a sailboat is also a NUC? Do we ignore Rule 18 because Neal claims Rule 12 covers "all eventualities"? Nonsense!

One of the fundamental principles of marine law is that the rules are mandatory. As Farwell puts it: "It will be recognized
that a disregard of any rule on the basis of convenience, courtesy, good nature, or disbelief in its efficacy places the
navigator under a burden of proof that is almost impossible for him to carry."



Capt. Neal® wrote:



Most of these putzes are too confused by now to know of which they speak.

Jeff is the worst. He makes the ludicrous statement that boats must follow
ALL the rules.
Let's see now, Jeff thinks he has to follow the rules for a sailboat, a fishing boat,
a Not Under Command boat, a boat aground, a boat in a fog, a boat Restricted
in its Ability to Navigate and he has to follow all these rules at the same time.

How warped is that kind of thinking, anyway?

The fact is, one follows the rules that concern certain boats in certain circumstances.

Rule 12 deals with how two sailboats interact. Rule 12 covers all eventualities. One
need not concern oneself with ALL the rules in order to operate legally. This includes
Rule 13 because it does not apply just like Rule 9 does not apply in open water.

CN




"Thom Stewart" wrote in message ...

Neal,

I'm beginning to wonder about this group a little myself on this one.
There are enough racing people that must know "LUFFING RIGHTS" and the
rest should have seen it used in the America's Cup Races on Downwind
Legs.

I didn't think you were that tricky in your wording, but I guess you
were.

Ole Thom

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Rule 12 tells me that the C&C is the stand-on vessel because he is to
weather. ...
... I am still downwind of him so he is still the
stand-on vessel. By virtue of the fact that I followed the dictates
of Rule 12, ...

....which states...

Rule 12
Sailing Vessels
(a) when two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve
risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as
follows:
b.. (ii) When both have the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to
windward shall keep out of the way of the vessel which is to leeward;


Try to understand these simple truths.

Bwahahahahaha!!

Wally wrote in message
...
"Edgar" wrote in message news:C_7Ld.6675

I find it hard to believe some of the posts in this thread, especially
when
one poster admits he does not know what is in the colregs!

Get a clue, dummy - I said I didn't know what the colregs had for defining
'overtaking'.

No you did not, and I quote from your post on 30/01/ 05 "I don't know what
it says in the Colregs..."
You then go on to talk about overlaps in racing. Get a clue.




In a non-racing
situation why should anyone seriously suggest that a boat which is being
overtaken by another should 'tack away'?

Get another clue, dummy - I was referring to the overtakING boat. If he's
upwind and can't point any higher, he can tack away to avoid a collision.


That is nonsense. Why should an overtakING boat tack right away from his
desired course when he can ease sheets, pick up speed and pass clear to
leeward of the overtaken boat? Think about it. Go or a sail sometime. Be
careful out there...

"Edgar" wrote in message news:3vxLd.6799

Get a clue, dummy - I said I didn't know what the colregs had for
defining
'overtaking'.

No you did not, and I quote from your post on 30/01/ 05 "I don't know
what
it says in the Colregs..."
You then go on to talk about overlaps in racing. Get a clue.

Selective, decontextualised bull****. You're grasping at straws already.


Get another clue, dummy - I was referring to the overtakING boat. If
he's
upwind and can't point any higher, he can tack away to avoid a
collision.

That is nonsense. Why should an overtakING boat tack right away from his
desired course when he can ease sheets, pick up speed and pass clear to
leeward of the overtaken boat? Think about it. Go or a sail sometime.
Be
careful out there...

Where did I say that tacking away was his only choice?

So what? In my haste I SWITCHED the stand-on and give-way vessels.

The point is that, if sailing vessels adhere to Rule 12, Rule 13 is superfluous
because an overtaking situation is avoided.

Try arguing the point. You will find it more difficult than laughing at mistakes.

CN

"Wally" wrote in message ...
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Rule 12 tells me that the C&C is the stand-on vessel because he is to
weather. ...
... I am still downwind of him so he is still the
stand-on vessel. By virtue of the fact that I followed the dictates
of Rule 12, ...

...which states...

Rule 12
Sailing Vessels
(a) when two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve
risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as
follows:
b.. (ii) When both have the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to
windward shall keep out of the way of the vessel which is to leeward;


Try to understand these simple truths.

Bwahahahahaha!!

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

The point is that, if sailing vessels adhere to Rule 12, Rule 13 is
superfluous
because an overtaking situation is avoided.

Try arguing the point. You will find it more difficult than laughing at
mistakes.

So, your contention now is that Rule 12's negation of Rule 13 is only
applicable in open water. Do the colregs only apply in open water?

International Rules apply on open water.
Inland Rules apply on inland water.

Rule 12 makes Rule 13 superfluous in any case where
there is enough water to make overtaking unnecessary
because there is plenty of space to avoid being close
enough to have to overtake and pass at close quarters.

This is extremely logical and evident. I fail to see why
people can't seem to get it.

CN

"Wally" wrote in message k...
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

The point is that, if sailing vessels adhere to Rule 12, Rule 13 is
superfluous
because an overtaking situation is avoided.

Try arguing the point. You will find it more difficult than laughing at
mistakes.

So, your contention now is that Rule 12's negation of Rule 13 is only
applicable in open water. Do the colregs only apply in open water?

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

International Rules apply on open water.
Inland Rules apply on inland water.

Are you saying that the only water that isn't inland water is open water? Is
an estuary inland water? Which rules apply to the Firth Of Forth in
Scotland?


Rule 12 makes Rule 13 superfluous in any case where
there is enough water to make overtaking unnecessary
because there is plenty of space to avoid being close
enough to have to overtake and pass at close quarters.

Rubbsh. Rubbish of the highest order. The colregs apply in situations where
close quarters can occur - during a sailboat race, for example. You're
basically saying that you're terrified of getting within half a mile of
another sailboat, either in case there's a collision, or because you are
incapable of applying Rule 13.

"Wally" wrote in message k...
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

International Rules apply on open water.
Inland Rules apply on inland water.

Are you saying that the only water that isn't inland water is open water? Is
an estuary inland water? Which rules apply to the Firth Of Forth in
Scotland?

Rule 1
Application
(a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.

I would guess the Firth of Forth is covered under the International Rules but I would have to
see a chart and the demarcation line to know for sure.


Rule 12 makes Rule 13 superfluous in any case where
there is enough water to make overtaking unnecessary
because there is plenty of space to avoid being close
enough to have to overtake and pass at close quarters.

Rubbsh. Rubbish of the highest order. The colregs apply in situations where
close quarters can occur - during a sailboat race, for example. You're
basically saying that you're terrified of getting within half a mile of
another sailboat, either in case there's a collision, or because you are
incapable of applying Rule 13.


Negative, I am saying, in the circumstance where I am sailing out in International
Rule waters, like crossing the Gulf Stream, it is unnecessary and dangerous to
pass close to other vessels. A small course correction, done early and in accordance
to sailing rule 12, makes Rule 13 superfluous.

Why is that so hard to understand?


CN