Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

Here's the scenario:

Boat W is to windward of boat L approaching the starting line on a close
reach with her boom outboard of the gunwales in order to slow down.
Boat M comes up from clear astern of boat W and tries to go in between
boat W and boat L. At the moment the overlap begins, there is enough
space for M to pass between the hulls of boat W and L, but not enough
space for her to pass between W's boom and L. Is M entitled to room here?

IOW, does "room" as cited in 18.5 include only the hulls or is it
"equipment in normal position"? Seems to me it would be the latter, but
I can't find an explicit cite of "equipment in normal position" in the
definition of room

Note: W is not sailing backwards by backing a sail.

For reference, here's 18.5

18.5 Passing a Continuing Obstruction
While boats are passing a continuing obstruction, rules 18.2(b) and
18.2(c) do not apply. A boat clear astern that obtains an inside overlap
is entitled to room to pass between the other boat and the obstruction
only if at the moment the overlap begins there is room to do so. If
there is not, she is not entitled to room and shall keep clear.

Here's the definition of Room: The space a boat needs in the existing
conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.

Thanks.

//Walt

Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

Walt wrote:
Here's the scenario:

Boat W is to windward of boat L approaching the starting line on a close
reach with her boom outboard of the gunwales in order to slow down. Boat
M comes up from clear astern of boat W and tries to go in between boat W
and boat L. At the moment the overlap begins, there is enough space for
M to pass between the hulls of boat W and L, but not enough space for
her to pass between W's boom and L. Is M entitled to room here?

IOW, does "room" as cited in 18.5 include only the hulls or is it
"equipment in normal position"? Seems to me it would be the latter, but
I can't find an explicit cite of "equipment in normal position" in the
definition of room

Note: W is not sailing backwards by backing a sail.

For reference, here's 18.5

18.5 Passing a Continuing Obstruction
While boats are passing a continuing obstruction, rules 18.2(b) and
18.2(c) do not apply. A boat clear astern that obtains an inside overlap
is entitled to room to pass between the other boat and the obstruction
only if at the moment the overlap begins there is room to do so. If
there is not, she is not entitled to room and shall keep clear.

Here's the definition of Room: The space a boat needs in the existing
conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.

Thanks.

//Walt

Walt,

It is not apparent that Rule 18 applies at all. You did not say anything
about the proximity to starting line marks so it is not clear whether
18.1(a) is in effect. The leeward boat (obstruction) does not have a
required side, so that would also eliminate Rule 18 from consideration.

It seems to me that only Rule 15 is in play in the situation described.
Rule 16 may also apply. In addition, if the starting signal has already
been made, there may be a proper course issue subject to Rule 17.

The middle boat can definitely force the windward boat to head up, as
long as the windward boat is given time and room to do so.

Regards,
Gene Fuller

Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

Walt wrote:
Here's the scenario:

Boat W is to windward of boat L approaching the starting line on a close
reach with her boom outboard of the gunwales in order to slow down.
Boat M comes up from clear astern of boat W and tries to go in between
boat W and boat L. At the moment the overlap begins, there is enough
space for M to pass between the hulls of boat W and L, but not enough
space for her to pass between W's boom and L. Is M entitled to room here?

L doesn't really come into the picture. This is purely a question of
M and W.

Initially, M is clear astern:

12 ON THE SAME TACK, NOT OVERLAPPED
When boats are on the same tack and not overlapped, a boat clear
astern shall keep clear of a boat clear ahead.

At some point, M becomes overlapped with W. W now has to keep clear
of M, but, M is restricted 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.

Since there is no proper course before the start (see the definition
of Proper Course), 17.1 does not come into play. So, W needs to keep
clear of M, but she doesn't need to begin maneuvering to keep clear
until the overlap is established, and even then, she only has to
maneuver in a seamanlike manner. She's got to trim her boom back
inside the sheerline, but only needs to do so hand-over-hand on the
sheet; she doesn't need to grab all parts of a multi-part mainsheet
system and do a panic trim. She needs to head up to stay clear, but
doesn't need to throw the helm hard over.

Furthermore, if W's boom was so far out and you stuck your bow so
close in that in the course of her normal trimming of the mainsheet
the swinging boom hit your forestay, then I'd say you didn't give W
sufficient room. Probably not an issue on something like a J/24 with
a fairly short boom, but it certainly could be with a longer boom
(perhaps even one that overhangs the transom).

IOW, does "room" as cited in 18.5 include only the hulls or is it
"equipment in normal position"?

I don't see that 18.5 has anything to do with this. 18.5 talks about
a "continuing obstruction", which is generally taken to mean
the shoreline, a long dock, a fishing net, or the like. Where I sail,
there's some kind of marine construction project going on, and there's
a long line of pilings driven into the bottom near the edge of the
bay. They're spaced a couple of boatlengths apart, and the line goes
on for 1/4 mile or more; I'd call that a continuing obstruction. A
boat to leeward of you does not fit that definition.

Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

Walt wrote:
Here's the scenario:

Boat W is to windward of boat L approaching the starting line on a close
reach with her boom outboard of the gunwales in order to slow down. Boat
M comes up from clear astern of boat W and tries to go in between boat W
and boat L. At the moment the overlap begins, there is enough space for
M to pass between the hulls of boat W and L, but not enough space for
her to pass between W's boom and L. Is M entitled to room here?

IOW, does "room" as cited in 18.5 include only the hulls or is it
"equipment in normal position"? Seems to me it would be the latter, but
I can't find an explicit cite of "equipment in normal position" in the
definition of room

Note: W is not sailing backwards by backing a sail.

For reference, here's 18.5

18.5 Passing a Continuing Obstruction
While boats are passing a continuing obstruction, rules 18.2(b) and
18.2(c) do not apply. A boat clear astern that obtains an inside overlap
is entitled to room to pass between the other boat and the obstruction
only if at the moment the overlap begins there is room to do so. If
there is not, she is not entitled to room and shall keep clear.

Here's the definition of Room: The space a boat needs in the existing
conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.

Thanks.

//Walt

Walt,

Let me amplify on my previous response, which was very similar to Roy's.

There is no question that two boats traveling in parallel over some
distance can constitute a "continuing obstruction" situation. There are
examples shown in the appeals case book and in Dave Perry's book for
boats heading downwind toward a finish line.

In the case you described it seems difficult to have such a "continuing
obstruction". It seems far more likely that the overlap of M on W would
occur long before M would reach the stern of L. This is especially true
if the boats were not close hauled. If M overlapped W well before M
would overlap L then ordinary luffing rights apply between M and W.

This is clearly a judgment call. Did M really stick its nose in between
W and L or was this a simple two-boat encounter between M and W? Was L
traveling in the same direction and speed as W? How long did the
parallel travel between L and W exist? The case book references 6 boat
lengths as clearly satisfying the continuing obstruction case, but there
is no minimum offered.

Regards,
Gene Fuller

Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

Roy Smith wrote:

Walt wrote:

Here's the scenario:

Boat W is to windward of boat L approaching the starting line on a close
reach with her boom outboard of the gunwales in order to slow down.
Boat M comes up from clear astern of boat W and tries to go in between
boat W and boat L. At the moment the overlap begins, there is enough
space for M to pass between the hulls of boat W and L, but not enough
space for her to pass between W's boom and L. Is M entitled to room here?

I don't see that 18.5 has anything to do with this. 18.5 talks about
a "continuing obstruction", which is generally taken to mean
the shoreline, a long dock, a fishing net, or the like.

I beg to differ. I think 18.5 *does* apply here.

Take a look at case 16 from the 2005 casebook.
http://www.sailing.org/rrs2005/casebook2005.pdf

"When a boat clear astern overtakes two overlapping boats
clear ahead, she may intervene between them only if there
is room to pass between them."


Now, in that example the boats are on a run, not on a beat, but I don't
see how that changes anything regarding whether L is an obstruction to M
and W. The case states that L is a continuing obstruction to M and W
and that rule 18.5 applies. M can stick her bow in between L and W
*only* if there is room to pass between them.

What is different between the scenario I present and case 16 is that in
my example the boats are going upwind, and to sail between the boats in
a seamanlike way would require M to trim her sail in, while in case 16
the "seamanlike" thing to do would be to sail with the boom out. The
question is whether W is required to be "seamanlike" and pull her boom
in as well. Certainly Rule 12 would require that, but rule 12 would be
trumped by rule 18.5.

That was the basic argument - M said "Pull in your boom.", W said "No, I
don't have to, there's no room for you in between me and L so you must
keep clear."

Note: Case 29 also has an example of a leward boat being a continuing
obstruction.



//Walt

Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Walt wrote:

Boat W is to windward of boat L approaching the starting line on a
close reach with her boom outboard of the gunwales in order to slow
down. Boat M comes up from clear astern of boat W and tries to go in
between boat W and boat L. At the moment the overlap begins, there is
enough space for M to pass between the hulls of boat W and L, but not
enough space for her to pass between W's boom and L. Is M entitled to
room here?


It is not apparent that Rule 18 applies at all. You did not say anything
about the proximity to starting line marks so it is not clear whether
18.1(a) is in effect.

You are right that I didn't say anything about proximity to the starting
marks. This happened in the middle of the line far from the starting
marks. The only obstructions in the picture are other boats. 18.1 is
not in effect.

The leeward boat (obstruction) does not have a
required side, so that would also eliminate Rule 18 from consideration.

Um, no.

Rule 18 applies when boats are about to round or pass a mark
they are required to leave on the same side, or an obstruction
on the same side, until they have passed it.

Read that carefully. A *mark* must have a required side for rule 18 to
apply, but an obstruction need not have a required side. All that has
to happen is for the boats to be passing the obstruction on the same
side and rule 18 applies.

Boats that you are required to avoid are obstructions. In particular, L
is an obstruction to M and W because they must keep clear of L. It's a
continuing obstruction because M and W will be sailing along side it for
a while.

//Walt

Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

In article ,
Walt wrote:
I beg to differ. I think 18.5 *does* apply here.

Take a look at case 16 from the 2005 casebook.
http://www.sailing.org/rrs2005/casebook2005.pdf

Interesting. I have some reading to do. Thanks!

Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Walt wrote:

Boat W is to windward of boat L approaching the starting line on a
close reach with her boom outboard of the gunwales in order to slow
down. Boat M comes up from clear astern of boat W and tries to go in
between boat W and boat L. At the moment the overlap begins, there is
enough space for M to pass between the hulls of boat W and L, but not
enough space for her to pass between W's boom and L. Is M entitled to
room here?

There is no question that two boats traveling in parallel over some
distance can constitute a "continuing obstruction" situation. There are
examples shown in the appeals case book and in Dave Perry's book for
boats heading downwind toward a finish line.

In the case you described it seems difficult to have such a "continuing
obstruction". It seems far more likely that the overlap of M on W would
occur long before M would reach the stern of L. This is especially true
if the boats were not close hauled. If M overlapped W well before M
would overlap L then ordinary luffing rights apply between M and W.


Ok. Maybe I didn't provide enough detail. These are dinghys. W and L
were "camped-out" on the starting line, i.e. with about a minute to go
they were about two boat lengths below the starting line and sitting
nearly still - sails flogging while waiting for the start, keeping just
enough way on to have steerage. M was sailing along the line below all
the camped-out boats looking for a gap, and with about 30 seconds to go
tried to squeeze in between W and L. Thus, W and L were overlapped next
to each other for some considerable abount of time, and M was clear
astern of both of them until she sailed in between them. At the moment
when M became overlapped with W there was enough space for M to pass
between the hulls, but not enough space to pass between the end of W's
boom and L's hull.

Did M really stick its nose in between W and L or was this a simple
two-boat encounter between M and W?

M stuck her bow in between M and W. W and L were close enough together
that there was space to pass in betwenn the hulls, but not between the
boom and the bull.


Was L traveling in the same direction and speed as W?

Yes.

How long did the parallel travel between L and W exist?

For about 60 seconds before the gun, and for a few minutes afterward
until W tacked away. I think this pretty clearly meets the criteria of
"continuing".

BTW, I wasn't a participant in this situation, so I really don't have a
dog in this fight. I'm interested in finding out the correct answer,
not some sort of vindication of my position. My *opinion* is that M is
not entitled to room under 18.5, but a contrary opinion is that M is
entitled to room because there's enough space for her to fit between the
hulls. Is it the the distance between the hulls that count, or is it
the hull and boom? Looking for supporting arguments one way or the other...

//Walt

Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

Walt wrote:

[snip]

BTW, I wasn't a participant in this situation, so I really don't have a
dog in this fight. I'm interested in finding out the correct answer,
not some sort of vindication of my position. My *opinion* is that M is
not entitled to room under 18.5, but a contrary opinion is that M is
entitled to room because there's enough space for her to fit between the
hulls. Is it the the distance between the hulls that count, or is it
the hull and boom? Looking for supporting arguments one way or the
other...

//Walt

Walt,

There are few rules or appeals that specifically mention the hull as
opposed to the complete equipment on a boat. For example, there is no
question that touching a sail constitutes contact, even if the sail is
an out of control spinnaker. Touching a line dragging in the water is
also contact. The only two cases I can think of where an unusual
position of equipment would be questioned are the classic cartoon
showing extreme spinnaker position at the finish line and a deliberate
sudden repositioning of the boom or a sail to block or hit an overtaking
boat. The latter is probably a Rule 2 violation. Sailboat racing isn't
quite NASCAR or Roller Derby yet.

In the situation you described it would appear that the W boat had a
perfectly valid reason to have the boom extended over the side of the
boat. The boom is part of the overall envelope of the W boat. I agree
with your position.

Regards,
Gene Fuller

Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Walt wrote:

My *opinion* is
that M is not entitled to room under 18.5, but a contrary opinion is
that M is entitled to room because there's enough space for her to fit
between the hulls. Is it the the distance between the hulls that
count, or is it the hull and boom? Looking for supporting arguments
one way or the other...

There are few rules or appeals that specifically mention the hull as
opposed to the complete equipment on a boat. For example, there is no
question that touching a sail constitutes contact, even if the sail is
an out of control spinnaker. Touching a line dragging in the water is
also contact. The only two cases I can think of where an unusual
position of equipment would be questioned are the classic cartoon
showing extreme spinnaker position at the finish line and a deliberate
sudden repositioning of the boom or a sail to block or hit an overtaking
boat.

I think the classic example would be towing a 100' floating line while
on starboard, and pulling it in when on port.

In the situation you described it would appear that the W boat had a
perfectly valid reason to have the boom extended over the side of the
boat. The boom is part of the overall envelope of the W boat. I agree
with your position.

While I agree that W had a valid reason to have her boom out, I don't
think W is *required* to have a valid reason. The fact is that the
hulls were X cm wide and there was less than X cm between W's boom and
L's hull when the overlap obtained. To me that says "no room".

Unless someone can come up with a valid reason why W should be compelled
to set her sail a certain way.

BTW, I've searched through the rules and the casebook for examples of
the notion of "equipment in normal position" and I don't see anything
that applies here. Maybe I'm missing something...

//Walt

Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

Walt wrote:
My *opinion* is that M is not entitled to room under 18.5, but a
contrary opinion is that M is entitled to room because there's enough
space for her to fit between the hulls. Is it the the distance
between the hulls that count, or is it the hull and boom? Looking
for supporting arguments one way or the other...


Personally, I would not want to go in front of a protest
committee and argue the claim that "room" meant the physical
constraint of space between hulls. Is beam plus 1 inch "room?"

It's also possible that once the boat in middle puts her
nose in, the windward boat could not trim in her boom
without clipping th eboat in the middle's forestay since it
swings aft as it swings in. Oops!


Gene Fuller wrote:
There are few rules or appeals that specifically mention the hull as
opposed to the complete equipment on a boat. For example, there is no
question that touching a sail constitutes contact, even if the sail is
an out of control spinnaker. Touching a line dragging in the water is
also contact. The only two cases I can think of where an unusual
position of equipment would be questioned are the classic cartoon
showing extreme spinnaker position at the finish line and a deliberate
sudden repositioning of the boom or a sail to block or hit an
overtaking boat.


Such as leaving the sprit out on a sportboat while sailing
to windward? Or the case of Il Moro during one of the San
Diego America's Cup, who gybed just before crossing the line
so as to let their spinnaker blow out further in front...
the judges called it by the relative positions of the
stemhead, anyway (a call I disagreed with).



I think the classic example would be towing a 100' floating line while
on starboard, and pulling it in when on port.

In the situation you described it would appear that the W boat had a
perfectly valid reason to have the boom extended over the side of the
boat. The boom is part of the overall envelope of the W boat. I agree
with your position.


Walt wrote:
While I agree that W had a valid reason to have her boom out, I don't
think W is *required* to have a valid reason. The fact is that the
hulls were X cm wide and there was less than X cm between W's boom and
L's hull when the overlap obtained. To me that says "no room".


I also agree but there is no telling what a protest committe
will decide.


Unless someone can come up with a valid reason why W should be compelled
to set her sail a certain way.

BTW, I've searched through the rules and the casebook for examples of
the notion of "equipment in normal position" and I don't see anything
that applies here. Maybe I'm missing something...


Is there a defined "normal position" for gear when
maneuvering to start? There is no definite course or point
of sail.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

In article ,
DSK wrote:

BTW, I've searched through the rules and the casebook for examples of
the notion of "equipment in normal position" and I don't see anything
that applies here. Maybe I'm missing something...


Is there a defined "normal position" for gear when
maneuvering to start? There is no definite course or point
of sail.

There's certainly nothing unseamanlike about letting your main luff so you
can slow down. I do that whenever I'm picking up a mooring or sailing up
to a dock.

The whole "normal position" thing is really about the reason something is
where it is. If it's there because there's some boat-handling reason for
it to be there, then it's "normal". If it's only there because it gives
you some tactical advantage to have it sticking out, then it's not "normal".

"My boom was way out because I was luffing my main to slow down so I
wouldn't be over early", that's normal position. "My boom was way out
because I wanted to keep leeward boats away", that's not normal position.

Continuing obstruction (RRS 18.5) question
 

Roy Smith wrote:
DSK wrote:

BTW, I've searched through the rules and the casebook for examples of
the notion of "equipment in normal position" and I don't see anything
that applies here. Maybe I'm missing something...

Is there a defined "normal position" for gear when
maneuvering to start? There is no definite course or point
of sail.

Not that I can find anywhere.

There's certainly nothing unseamanlike about letting your main luff so you
can slow down. I do that whenever I'm picking up a mooring or sailing up
to a dock.

The whole "normal position" thing is really about the reason something is
where it is. If it's there because there's some boat-handling reason for
it to be there, then it's "normal". If it's only there because it gives
you some tactical advantage to have it sticking out, then it's not "normal".

Or if it's there by mistake, like letting a line drag behind you.


"My boom was way out because I was luffing my main to slow down so I
wouldn't be over early", that's normal position. "My boom was way out
because I wanted to keep leeward boats away", that's not normal position.

I agree with you on the meaning of "normal position", however there is
nothing in the rules stating that you have to keep your equipment in
normal position. In that regard it's sort of like the concept of
"proper course" - we can agree on what it means, but there are actually
only a few situations where the rules explicitly state that you must
sail a proper course. Likewise, the only place I can find a notion of
"equipment in normal position" is in the definitions of Overlap and
Finish, and those cites don't proscribe having gear out of normal
position.

So, on the one hand, there is nothing in the rules compelling a boat to
keep her gear in normal position. On the other hand, there are a few
examples of boats being DQed or penalized for deliberately placing their
equipment out of normal position for a tactical advantage. Is this one
of them?

Maybe Doug has it right with "there is no telling what a protest
committe will decide."

//Walt