| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward
"John Allan" wrote in message news:MPG.1b3950b24512d91e989685@news... In article , says... John Allan wrote: says... John Allan wrote: Now it's hard for me to pin down the situation exactly from your description (whether that is my fault or yours I don't know) but it sounds as if A (to windward) has let themselves get into a really bad situation. I think if I was B, I'd tap A's transom, Ahh, the famous "love tap": went out in 1995 I believe. If you tap A with anything you will probably infringe RRS 14 at least. 14(b) says I won't get penalised for a "tap". I disagree. The stem of RRS 14 requires B (or any other boat) to avoid contact if reasonably possible: B alters course so as to cause contact, then I don't think one even gets to look at subparagraph (b). I think we might all be approaching furious agreement here. Andy's right that you won't get penalized under 14 for a tap that does no damage. But that's not the point - the "love tap" is out because of rule 16: "16.1 When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear." My take is that a deliberate tap would break rule 16. Yup, and if Andy "gives" A a tap then I'm inclined to think that he had to alter course to do it: Andy's not such a fool as to reach out his hand and go "tap" (although I was in a CQ on Sunday and I saw the little hands coming out under the guardrails and I thought, come on guys, foul me,... please ...). So Andy, on B plays possum yelling furiously to A in the hope that A will go up and kick B with the transom: what then: B, of course, will swear blind that he altered course (0.01 degrees) away from A to avoid contact, and, as Andy has said, under RRS 14(b), as the right of way boat is not to be penalised (under RRS 14 at any rate). I reckon that A will also claim exoneration under RRS 14, saying that A was entitled to room from B because B acquired right of way and under RRS 15 failed initially to give room. But you're free to take your chances in the protest room if you're so inclined. Has B hailed C and D under RRS 18 for room to pass the obstruction (A unable to respond to B's luff) yet? As for the original question it's a little too vague to really tell what's what. Dunno, the only thing I think is not stated in the scenario was whether B has overtaken A close to leeward, thus clearly failing to "initially" give A room under RRS 15, or whether , somehow or other, B has "initially" given A room. John 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. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Fiberglass vs plastic | General | |||
| rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
| rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
| rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
Threaded Mode
