Rules History Quiz
 

In reviewing the 1889 and 1948 rules I was reminded that the sailing
rules are different now from what I had learned as a youth. In most
cases, the 1972 rules follow the older rules, but there is one change.

In what way have did the sailing rules make a significant change from
the traditional rules?

OzOne wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:45:55 -0500, Jeff Morris
scribbled thusly:


In reviewing the 1889 and 1948 rules I was reminded that the sailing
rules are different now from what I had learned as a youth. In most
cases, the 1972 rules follow the older rules, but there is one change.

In what way have did the sailing rules make a significant change from
the traditional rules?


Arrrgh, Racing Rules, I was gonna say No Collisions....but it was 2000
IIRC.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

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

Nope - that rule has always been there, though not worded as strongly.
This is a case where the standon/giveway relationship got reversed.

Arrrgh, Racing Rules, I was gonna say No Collisions....but it was 2000
IIRC.


Jeff Morris wrote:
Nope - that rule has always been there, though not worded as strongly.
This is a case where the standon/giveway relationship got reversed.


It used to be that a boat with it's spinnaker up had ROW over a boat on
an upwind leg. This was the case up thru the mid 1960s or so... back
when it was NAYRU (and of course, dinosaurs roamed the earth)

DSK

DSK wrote:
Arrrgh, Racing Rules, I was gonna say No Collisions....but it was 2000
IIRC.


Jeff Morris wrote:

Nope - that rule has always been there, though not worded as strongly.
This is a case where the standon/giveway relationship got reversed.


It used to be that a boat with it's spinnaker up had ROW over a boat on
an upwind leg. This was the case up thru the mid 1960s or so... back
when it was NAYRU (and of course, dinosaurs roamed the earth)

DSK

A very good guess, but I was specifically thinking about ColRegs and its
predecessors, not the racing rules.

Jeff Morris wrote:
A very good guess, but I was specifically thinking about ColRegs and its
predecessors, not the racing rules.


Oh, sorry.

Were you thinking of the ColRegs change to reflect the new hi-tech
method of steering with a rudder instead of with an oar draped over the
aft quarter? For some of us, that is a recent change and hard to get
used to...

;)

DSK

You racers are so narrow-minded and hypocritical. Why don't
you put your mind in gear before you open your yaps. The
question is about the COLREGS - not stupid racing rules.

CN


It used to be that a boat with it's spinnaker up had ROW over a boat on
an upwind leg. This was the case up thru the mid 1960s or so... back
when it was NAYRU (and of course, dinosaurs roamed the earth)

DSK

Hey I remember that!


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

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

Of course I know the answer, I know everything worth knowing.

I'm just waiting to see how long it takes for somebody else
to answer the question for once.

CN


OzOne wrote in message ...
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:00:11 -0500, Capt. Neal®
scribbled thusly:

You racers are so narrow-minded and hypocritical. Why don't
you put your mind in gear before you open your yaps. The
question is about the COLREGS - not stupid racing rules.

CN

Then you know the answer?


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

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

OzOne wrote:
Hint please :-)

One of the answers given already should be hint enough. Since Neal
claims to know the answer (even though this was a few decades before a
woman taught him how to sail) I'll hold of on giving the answer until
Neal enlightens us. BTW, I've spent I lot of time scouring the net for
old rules and haven't found much, so I wouldn't recommend Google. I've
had better luck finding old text books at used bookstores and yard sales.

As I've said before, this a situation in the sailing rules where the
standon/giveway relationship has been reversed. In other words, if you
learned the rules before 1972 (or whenever your country adopted the
recent Colregs) you would have to relearn them.

Jeff Morris wrote:
OzOne wrote:

Hint please :-)


One of the answers given already should be hint enough. Since Neal
claims to know the answer (even though this was a few decades before a
woman taught him how to sail) I'll hold of on giving the answer until
Neal enlightens us. BTW, I've spent I lot of time scouring the net for
old rules and haven't found much, so I wouldn't recommend Google. I've
had better luck finding old text books at used bookstores and yard sales.

As I've said before, this a situation in the sailing rules where the
standon/giveway relationship has been reversed. In other words, if you
learned the rules before 1972 (or whenever your country adopted the
recent Colregs) you would have to relearn them.



There are some interesting differences.
otn

Capt. Neal® wrote:
Of course I know the answer, I know everything worth knowing.

I'm just waiting to see how long it takes for somebody else
to answer the question for once.

Last chance Neal, before I post the answer. BTW, in answer to your
claim that the Colregs did not exist before 1972, both the 1889 and 1948
versions were called the "Collision Regulations."

Here's a tidbit from the early rules:
In the 1800's there were various steering arrangements leading to
confusion when issuing orders. The 1889 rules clarified this with:

Article 32. All orders to the helmsman shall be given as follows:
"Right Rudder" to mean "Direct the vessel's head to starboard."
"Left Rudder" to mean "Direct the vessel's head to port."

For some reason, in 1948 they changed the wording to:

RULE 32
All orders to helmsmen shall be given in the following sense:
right rudder or starboard to mean "put the vessel's rudder to
starboard;" left rudder or port to mean "put the vessel's rudder to port."

This rule was dropped in 1972.

Recently, I've heard the claim that there was confusion of the bridge of
the Titanic because the wheel worked in reverse and thus the commands
were ambiguous. Given the attempt to standardize was 20 years earlier,
it seems a bit unlikely.

Jeff Morris wrote:
In reviewing the 1889 and 1948 rules I was reminded that the sailing
rules are different now from what I had learned as a youth. In most
cases, the 1972 rules follow the older rules, but there is one change.

In what way have did the sailing rules make a significant change from
the traditional rules?


OK, I guess Neal is busy trying to google the answer. Here it is. This
is the Sailing rule from the 1948 version of the Colregs (the 1889
version is virtually identical):


RULE 17

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 :—

(a) A vessel which is running free shall keep out of the way of a vessel
which is close-hauled.

(b) A vessel which is close-hauled on the port tack shall keep out of
the way of a vessel which is close-hauled on the starboard tack.

(c) When both are running free, with the wind on different sides the
vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of
the other.

(d) When both are running free, with 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.

(e) A vessel which has the wind aft shall keep out of the way of the
other vessel.


Rule 17(a) means that a port tack close hauled boat is standon wrt a
starboard tack boat running free. Under the current rules, of course, a
starboard tack boat is always standon wrt port tackers (not counting
overtaking situations!)

Note that is is the opposite of the old racing rule the DSK mentioned
whereby a spinnaker is standon wrt closed hauled. Otherwise, it would
have been worth a half point.

Jeff Morris wrote:


Rule 17(a) means that a port tack close hauled boat is standon wrt a
starboard tack boat running free. Under the current rules, of course, a
starboard tack boat is always standon wrt port tackers (not counting
overtaking situations!)

Note that is is the opposite of the old racing rule the DSK mentioned
whereby a spinnaker is standon wrt closed hauled. Otherwise, it would
have been worth a half point.

Jeff, do you know why the rule was changed? Was it because there were to many bozos out there who were unable to tell the difference between running
free and sailing close hauled? Perhaps more likely two vessels on opposite tacks but near a beam reach, could get into an argument about who was
running more free?

Cheers
Marty

Martin Baxter wrote:
Jeff Morris wrote:



Rule 17(a) means that a port tack close hauled boat is standon wrt a
starboard tack boat running free. Under the current rules, of course,
a starboard tack boat is always standon wrt port tackers (not counting
overtaking situations!)

Note that is is the opposite of the old racing rule the DSK mentioned
whereby a spinnaker is standon wrt closed hauled. Otherwise, it would
have been worth a half point.


Jeff, do you know why the rule was changed? Was it because there were to
many bozos out there who were unable to tell the difference between
running free and sailing close hauled? Perhaps more likely two vessels
on opposite tacks but near a beam reach, could get into an argument
about who was running more free?

It is interesting that the rule allows for a certain ambiguity,
especially since what was "close hauled" for the old ships would be a
close reach (if that!) for a modern sailboat.

The common explanation is simply that in the days of square rigged ships
sailing "close hauled" was a huge effort for little gain. Ships could
spend a day trying to gain a few miles to round a cape, so requiring
them to give way would be a tremendous burden. Now that almost all
sailboats are fore-and-aft rigged, and have auxiliaries, this is no
longer important.

I found it more interesting that the rule survived the 1948 re-write,
since clearly the days of windjammers was over by then. However, many
of the mariners then did have square rigged experience - My
father-in-law, who was in the Merchant Marine in WWII served under a
captain who had round Cape Horn a number of times in square rigged ships.

Jeff Morris wrote:

The common explanation is simply that in the days of square rigged ships
sailing "close hauled" was a huge effort for little gain. Ships could
spend a day trying to gain a few miles to round a cape, so requiring
them to give way would be a tremendous burden. Now that almost all
sailboats are fore-and-aft rigged, and have auxiliaries, this is no
longer important.

Makes sense to me, thanks.

Cheers
Marty

Jeff, thanks for an interesting series of posts

Jeff Morris wrote:
..... the rule survived the 1948 re-write,
since clearly the days of windjammers was over by then. However, many
of the mariners then did have square rigged experience - My
father-in-law, who was in the Merchant Marine in WWII served under a
captain who had round Cape Horn a number of times in square rigged ships.

You're welcome. Sometimes the drivel here gets to me, and I feel the
need to write something a bit more on-topic. I hope some of the lurkers
enjoyed it.

One of these days, I'll put the 1889 and 1948 rules online.

DSK wrote:
Jeff, thanks for an interesting series of posts

Jeff Morris wrote:

..... the rule survived the 1948 re-write, since clearly the days of
windjammers was over by then. However, many of the mariners then did
have square rigged experience - My father-in-law, who was in the
Merchant Marine in WWII served under a captain who had round Cape Horn
a number of times in square rigged ships.