BoatBanter.com - rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/17595-rules-question-start-pinned-under-boat-windward.html)

rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward

DSK wrote:

J Peters wrote:

Let me try and clarify a little bit.

A and B are sailing down the line towards the pin, a couple of boatlengths
below the line. It is fairly light air so nothing is happening very quickly
although
there is enough air that boats keep moving, etc...

B overtakes A and gets her bow to leeward of A's transom. There is no
chance of B tapping A from behind although B could head up and hit A. They
are overlapped by a foot or so, and close enough laterally so that A cannot
head up nor can B. They sail like this for some time, 30 seconds, so I
think
the "initially" time has past.

At this point other boats to leeward on close hauled courses want to get
"through B" to get to the line. B tells them she can't alter course due to
A's
presence but does not hail A to come up because she knows that A can't
alter course without hitting her.

My question is whether B has any obligation (with respect to the boats
to leeward) to give A room to manouver as it is her position that turns A
into an obstruction. If B bears off then A will have enough room to turn up
after which B can turn up and give room to the boats to leeward.

Much of the problem here is one of good faith & intent on the part of
the windward boat. The way the rules are written now, the windward boat
can easily take a passive-aggressive course and insist that she cannot
head up. However it is obvious that unless the boats are already in
contact, she can. If her stern quarter 2" clear of the leeward boat's
windward side, she can head up such that her stern swings only 1" and
that of course will lead to increasing distance etc etc.

However I have never seen any protest committee ever hold the windward
boat to her obligation to keep clear if it required any diligence or
attention to detail. The rule was not written to enable windward boats
to claim the de-facto right-of-way, but IMHO that is what has happened.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Wouldn't this cover DSK's situation?

Appeals 2001 - 2004

APPEAL 38
Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way
A boat need not anticipate a change in right-of-way.

SW and SL were reaching on starboard tack and approaching the starting
line to start. SL, who was moving faster than SW, hailed SW to ‘Go up’
when SW was three boat lengths ahead of her but, because SW did not
respond, SL had to bear away before establishing a leeward overlap.
Contact occurred almost immediately between SW and SL. The protest
committee disqualified SL under rule 15 for not giving SW room to
keep clear. SL appealed.

Decision
The appeal of SL is dismissed Rule 15 begins with ‘When a boat acquires
right-of-way... ’, thus this rule does not require a boat clear ahead to
take any action until an overlap is established. In this case SL
expected SW to start to keep clear before the overlap was established.
Rule 11 applies immediately upon establishment of the overlap, but rule
15 limits the actions of SL when the overlap is first established. SL
broke rule 15 and was properly disqualified.

rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward

"NoOp" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:

J Peters wrote:

Let me try and clarify a little bit.

A and B are sailing down the line towards the pin, a couple of
boatlengths
below the line. It is fairly light air so nothing is happening very
quickly
although
there is enough air that boats keep moving, etc...

B overtakes A and gets her bow to leeward of A's transom. There is no
chance of B tapping A from behind although B could head up and hit A.
They
are overlapped by a foot or so, and close enough laterally so that A
cannot
head up nor can B. They sail like this for some time, 30 seconds, so I
think
the "initially" time has past.

At this point other boats to leeward on close hauled courses want to get
"through B" to get to the line. B tells them she can't alter course due
to
A's
presence but does not hail A to come up because she knows that A can't
alter course without hitting her.

My question is whether B has any obligation (with respect to the boats
to leeward) to give A room to manouver as it is her position that turns
A
into an obstruction. If B bears off then A will have enough room to turn
up
after which B can turn up and give room to the boats to leeward.

Much of the problem here is one of good faith & intent on the part of
the windward boat. The way the rules are written now, the windward boat
can easily take a passive-aggressive course and insist that she cannot
head up. However it is obvious that unless the boats are already in
contact, she can. If her stern quarter 2" clear of the leeward boat's
windward side, she can head up such that her stern swings only 1" and
that of course will lead to increasing distance etc etc.

However I have never seen any protest committee ever hold the windward
boat to her obligation to keep clear if it required any diligence or
attention to detail. The rule was not written to enable windward boats
to claim the de-facto right-of-way, but IMHO that is what has happened.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Wouldn't this cover DSK's situation?

Appeals 2001 - 2004

APPEAL 38
Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way
A boat need not anticipate a change in right-of-way.

SW and SL were reaching on starboard tack and approaching the starting
line to start. SL, who was moving faster than SW, hailed SW to ‘Go up’
when SW was three boat lengths ahead of her but, because SW did not
respond, SL had to bear away before establishing a leeward overlap.
Contact occurred almost immediately between SW and SL. The protest
committee disqualified SL under rule 15 for not giving SW room to
keep clear. SL appealed.

Decision
The appeal of SL is dismissed Rule 15 begins with ‘When a boat acquires
right-of-way... ’, thus this rule does not require a boat clear ahead to
take any action until an overlap is established. In this case SL
expected SW to start to keep clear before the overlap was established.
Rule 11 applies immediately upon establishment of the overlap, but rule
15 limits the actions of SL when the overlap is first established. SL
broke rule 15 and was properly disqualified.

SL (B in my example) is not asking SW (A in my example) for room.
B wants to force the boats to leeward to keep clear because she's not
ready to turn up to the line yet. As a result, she's not hailing A (SW)
to head up and she's telling the boats to leeward that A is an obstruction.

It seems to me that B (SL) has the right to do this even though A (SW)
is only an obstruction as long as B doesn't bear off to give her room
to manouver. Once B bears off then A has room to head up and B can
ask her to.

rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward

J Peters wrote:

B wants to force the boats to leeward to keep clear because she's not
ready to turn up to the line yet. As a result, she's not hailing A (SW)
to head up and she's telling the boats to leeward that A is an obstruction.

Then B has it all wrong. A is not an obstruction to B. It's quite
clear from the definition of obstruction:

"...a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they
are required to keep clear of her, give her room or, if rule 21
applies, avoid her. "

B is not required to keep clear of A.
B is not required to give A room.
A is not capsized, anchored, or run-aground (rule 21)

Therefore, A is not an obstruction to B. Next?

--
//-Walt
//
//

rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward

Walt wrote:

J Peters wrote:

B wants to force the boats to leeward to keep clear because she's not
ready to turn up to the line yet. As a result, she's not hailing A (SW)
to head up and she's telling the boats to leeward that A is an obstruction.

Then B has it all wrong. A is not an obstruction to B. It's quite
clear from the definition of obstruction:

"...a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they
are required to keep clear of her, give her room or, if rule 21
applies, avoid her. "

B is not required to keep clear of A.
B is not required to give A room.
A is not capsized, anchored, or run-aground (rule 21)

Therefore, A is not an obstruction to B. Next?

Well... maybe not quite so clear-cut? Sounds like JB's situation is kind
of the ripple effect:

====
APPEAL 56
Rule 11, Same Tack, Overlapped
Rule 18 , Passing Obstructions
A windward overlapped boat is entitled to room under rule 18.2(a) to
pass to leeward of a right-of-way boat of whom both must keep clear.

Summary of the Facts
Approximately one half minute before the start, S, close hauled on
starboard tack, was sailing slowly towards the race committee vessel. I
and O were sailing towards the starting line, both on a broad reach on
starboard tack and as they approached S, O established a leeward overlap
on I. I bore away to pass astern of S and O also bore away to avoid
contact with I. No collision occurred. O protested I under rule 11. The
protest committee upheld this protest and disqualified I for breaking
rule 11. I appealed.

Decision
S was an obstruction to I, and O was required to give I room to pass to
leeward of this obstruction under rule 18.2(a).
The appeal is upheld, the decision of the protest committee
disqualifying I is reversed and the race committee is directed to award
I her finishing position.
====

If you substitute A for S and I for B, and O for 'other leeward' boats;
A(S) could perhaps be deemed an obstruction to B(I), and in that case
the leeward boats (O) would be required to give B(I) room to avoid A(S).

Or perhaps Appeal 70:

APPEAL 70
Definition, Obstruction
Rule 12, On the Same Tack, Not Overlapped
Rule 18.2, Giving Room, Keeping Clear
Rule 64.1(b), Penalties and Exoneration
A boat clear ahead is an obstruction to a boat overtaking her from clear
astern when the boat clear astern requires room from another boat to
pass to leeward of the first boat.

Summary of the Facts
A, BW and BL were close-hauled on the starboard tack. A was clear ahead
of both BW and BL, who was overlapped to leeward of BW. BW was directly
astern of A. BW and BL were overtaking A, and BW hailed BL for room to
pass to leeward of A. BL did not bear away to give BW room and contact
occurred between BW's bow and A's rudder. The protest committee decided
that BW was a windward boat and was obliged to keep clear of BL under
rule 11 and was wrong to bear away. Further, under rule 12 BW was
obliged to keep clear of A. The protest committee disqualified BW under
rule 12. BW appealed.

Decision
A was a right-of-way boat with respect to BW under rule 12 as BW was
overtaking from clear astern. A was therefore an obstruction to BW and
rule 18 applied. BW elected to pass to leeward of A, and BL was required
under rule 18.2 to give BW, room to pass to leeward of A, which she
failed to do. Contact between BW and A was caused by the failure of BL
to give BW room and BW is exonerated for breaking rule 12 under rule
64.1 (b). The appeal of BW is upheld and BL is disqualified.

rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward

NoOp wrote:

Walt wrote:

J Peters wrote:

B wants to force the boats to leeward to keep clear because she's not
ready to turn up to the line yet. As a result, she's not hailing A (SW)
to head up and she's telling the boats to leeward that A is an obstruction.

Then B has it all wrong. A is not an obstruction to B. It's quite
clear from the definition of obstruction:

"...a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they
are required to keep clear of her, give her room or, if rule 21
applies, avoid her. "

B is not required to keep clear of A.
B is not required to give A room.
A is not capsized, anchored, or run-aground (rule 21)

Therefore, A is not an obstruction to B. Next?

Well... maybe not quite so clear-cut? Sounds like JB's situation is kind
of the ripple effect:

====
APPEAL 56

The gist of Appeal 56 is that S is an obstruction to I and O. S is an
obstruction because S is leeward and has ROW.

In JB's situation B is claiming that the windward non-ROW boat is an
obstruction. I don't see how this case is applicable to JB's situation.

APPEAL 70

Again, the ROW boat is recognized by the appeals committee as an
obstruction. That's consistent with the definition of obstruction. If
there's a boat that you are required to avoid, it's an obstruction to
you. OTOH, if you have ROW, the other boat is not an obstruction.
(usually - there are exceptions)

JB is claiming (or rather boat B in his scenario is claiming) that a
windward non-ROW boat is an obstruction. Can you find a case where a
non-ROW boat is an obstruction? That might shed some light on things.

--
//-Walt
//
//

rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward