| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward
This came up the other day in a Etchells start.
The line is set square to the wind which is blowing 5-7 knots. Two boats, A and B are sailing down the line on Stbd. A and B are overlapped but B's bow is close enough to A's transom (overlapped by a two or three feet) to limit A's ability to head up without hitting B. There are a series of boats, close hauled on stbd, below B calling for room. What's B's responsibility in this situation? Does she have to slow down or bear off to give A room to head up? If the boats coming up from below reach B before she has been able to untangle herself from A, is B in the wrong? |
rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward
J Peters wrote:
This came up the other day in a Etchells start. The line is set square to the wind which is blowing 5-7 knots. Two boats, A and B are sailing down the line on Stbd. A and B are overlapped but B's bow is close enough to A's transom (overlapped by a two or three feet) to limit A's ability to head up without hitting B. There are a series of boats, close hauled on stbd, below B calling for room. What's B's responsibility in this situation? Does she have to slow down or bear off to give A room to head up? If the boats coming up from below reach B before she has been able to untangle herself from A, is B in the wrong? 11 ON THE SAME TACK, OVERLAPPED When boats are on the same tack and overlapped, a windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat. This is limited by 15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat’s actions. and 17.1 If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above her proper course while they remain overlapped within that distance, unless in doing so she promptly sails astern of the other boat. This rule does not apply if the overlap begins while the windward boat is required by rule 13 to keep clear. and that is modified by the definition Proper Course A course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term. A boat has no proper course before her starting signal. 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, shout PROTEST loudly, and hope everyone else had the sense not to get involved! (not that I'm an expert - I'm just bored....) Andy |
rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward
Any time I have sailed in an Ecthell class, everyone not only knew
what they were doing, but knew how to do it well. Anybody that does not know the windward boat is obligated to come up does not belong on a start line. |
rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward
|
rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward
|
rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward
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). 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. But you're free to take your chances in the protest room if you're so inclined. As for the original question it's a little too vague to really tell what's what. -- //-Walt // // |
rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward
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 |
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. |
rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:14 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com