|
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 |
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
|
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
John Allan wrote:
says... 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? B changes course. Anyone say RRS 16.1 does not apply? B is now required to give A room to keep clear. Therefore A is an obstruction to B. The scenario as stated is that B has not altered course - A & B are so close together that B can't head up and A can't alter course at all. It's been like this for 30 seconds or so. At this point B has no obligations under 16.1. A is not an obstruction to B. -- //-Walt // // |
rules question at start, pinned under a boat to windward
In article ,
says... John Allan wrote: says... 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? B changes course. Anyone say RRS 16.1 does not apply? B is now required to give A room to keep clear. Therefore A is an obstruction to B. The scenario as stated is that B has not altered course - A & B are so close together that B can't head up and A can't alter course at all. It's been like this for 30 seconds or so. At this point B has no obligations under 16.1. A is not an obstruction to B. You said "Next" I thought you were asking what happens next. John |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com