Racing Rules: "Right of Way"

I know a picture is worth 1,000 words. Has anyone used

Boat Scenario

? I found it on the web looking for diagrams.

If you do use it, can you cut/paste/insert it here somehow?

Wow...

Talk about port tack into the windward mark/offset mark

looked like port started to duck and then changed their mind...

holy gelcoat, batman

No way they were shooting that gap anyway. Bad place to be.

I looked up the race results M87 (port) had a DNF in the last three races (looks like they lost a rudder, too) - but the boat that followed M87 in there (T18) finished 8th (out of 79) in the regatta (6th in that race - they made up some ground).

T18 could easily have been DSQ that race or at least penalized and had to do turns. Is that incorrect or were they close enough to the mark where other rules come into play (note: I realize that the orange mark is an offset mark and the windward mark is the yellow mark)?

+1, that doesn't look like a hack-fleet who's going to let someone get away with murder/port-tacking the fleet.

I am surprised by all the talk of luffing head to wind.
In this scenario, the overlap developed with a clear astern boat overlapping to leeward. Isn't L obligated to not sail above her proper course by rule 17

Is that because her proper course would be to tack?

Because I don't see sailing head to wind as the way to finish as soon as possible. Her proper course takes her head to wind but then is unable to complete the tack because 13 switches on?

Yes.

Because L established overlap to leeward from clear astern within two boatlengths of W, L may not sail above her proper course (rule 17). Also, because W was clear ahead when she reached the zone, L must give W mark-room (rule 18.2(b)).

So, as they approach the mark, L may not luff-up, and she must allow W to sail to the mark. When they reach the starboard-tack layline, however, L's proper course (the course she would sail in the absence of L) is to tack. Also, L's tacking would not prevent W from rounding the mark. Therefore, neither rule 17 nor rule 18.2(b) prevents L from tacking.

Rule 13 though, would kick in the moment L passed head-to-wind. L is free to turn head-to-wind provided she gives W room to keep clear (per rule 16.1). If W wishes, however, she may prevent L from tacking by placing herself in a position where L would be unable to keep clear after passing head-to-wind.

As a practical matter, W most likely would (and in this scenario did) tack. If W's goal is to extend her lead on L, then she can hold L at head-to-wind until L loses headway and then tack.

I hope that helps,
Eric

Thanks Eric! That totally sums this up, and the pic helps a lot.

As for that video, just another example of the complete and utter misuse/overuse of the word

epic.

Had the bow entered the hull, I might think otherwise. Having that out of my system, who wants to walk through the rules and obligations?

Mike

Originally Posted by Isotope235

The problem with using Boat Scenario is that the time scale is hard to get right between different tracks. This diagram illustrates that perfectly.

For example, between positions 1 and 2, blue moves almost two boat lengths, whereas yellow moves just a bit more than 1 - meaning that blue is moving twice as fast as yellow, even though yellow is sailing a lower course and should be going significantly faster.

It's something that takes a bit of thought when drawing these scenarios.

Also, the little S curve in blue's track between positions 4 and 5 is unrealistic - unless there was a current going from left to right.

It's easy to make boats do the impossible when creating these diagrams. Getting them right takes some skill - and playing the animation over and over until it looks right.

Rule 10. Oh, and rule 14 too. Port was obligated to keep clear and did not. Port was obligated to avoid contact and did not. It was not reasonably possible for S to avoid contact, so she did not break any rules.

BoatScenario is by no means a perfect tool, but it is relatively simple to use and allows one to cobble-up these diagrams without too much fuss.

The initial description said that the windward boat had overstood the layline but was sailing slower than the leeward boat. W was clear ahead at the zone, but later became overlapped, just as the diagram shows.

Please pretend the little s-curve is a straight line. It is an artifact of how BoatScenario draws tracks, not an intentional representation of Blue's course. I tried to get the boat positions and headings right and didn't worry too much about the track lines.

Yes, the program is imperfect. Yes, it does introduce errata when animating. Yes, there are situations that BoatScenario simply won't draw (such as sailing by the lee). Nevertheless, if I had to resort to a less convenient tool (say, Corel Draw), I wouldn't have posted a drawing at all.

Regards,
Eric

I disagree with S not being reasonably possible to avoid contact. They made virtually no attempt to alter course - they waggled a little bit, then t-boned P directly amidships. Deer in the headlights. They could have headed up, just as the boat behind them did (and avoided the situation entirely). Their spinnaker was only 1/2 way up when the collision happened, so that wasn't preventing them from luffing up.

Re: the boat scenario diagram - I knew you put that together quickly, so don't take my criticism personally - I just wanted to point out that even

pretty

diagrams can be misleading. You have to really think about what you're looking at and decide if it makes sense.

I watched that a couple of times thinking the same thing...but for a moment there they did that dancy thing where S went to starboard as P went to port...both tried to counter by making the opposite move and bang.

Watch it twice - one time keep your eyes trained on S. Then have a second go and keep your eyes trained on P. I think you'll see both of them try to avoid in the same direction and the counter in the same direction right before it's too late.

Seems like we can't get most people to recreate the boat tracks the same way twice with model boats in the room, either. To say nothing of what the hand-drawn

diagrams

look like on the protest forms. I don't even know why they're there, seems that most people either can't draw (usually self-admitted), or draw something that in no way matches the written description. It's amazing how much different the testimony is as well. All part of the fun of being a judge, I guess!

As for the video, I think that would pass as non issue for S, because without the video, I'd almost guarantee that the jury couldn't decide definitively from the testimony that S could have avoided. But, with the video, I think S was changing course the whole time, and most likely completely focused on getting the chute up.

Mike

At time 0:36, M87 (on port tack) turned down to sail in front of H7 (on starboard tack). At time 0:37, they made contact.

In that one second, just how much do you think H7 could have done? Even if she took no time at all to assess the situation, and put the helm hard over, at 7+ kts boatspeed they'd almost certainly still collide.

Remember that a right-of-way boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear. See RRS 14(a) and ISAF Case 87.

Given the video shown, I'd be very surprised if any jury penalized H7. This is about as cut-and-dried as it gets.

I hope that helps,
Eric
US SAILING Certified Judge
Chair, SAYRA Appeals Committee

I drew what I understood the situation to be from the written description provided. Do you think the diagram conflicts with the text in any significant way? If so, how?

Absolutely. The hard part of hearing a protest is figuring out what happened on the racecourse. Applying the rules is easy in comparison.

I recall a

facts found

writeup floating around the judges community a while back that began:

two boats, sailing in different regattas on different bodies of water, both on starboard tack and both to leeward, made contact...

Admittedly, without the video, it would be very difficult to determine this.

However, at 0:33, H7 rounds the offset and M87 (and another boat on port) are already in the frame - about 3 boatlengths away. H7's only way to avoid collision is to head up - and instead, they bear away.

Watch the port boat behind M87 and the two starboard boats behind H7. They managed to avoid a collision, why couldn't H7? Because he had his head in the boat - when there were not one, but two port boats on a collision course.

Not reasonably possible?

Not when you t-bone someone dead square amidships at a right angle - and when there are other boats that manage to avoid a collision in similar circumstances.

I'm very well aware of 14(a) and Case 87. Take a look at Case 123. This one doesn't pass the sniff test when you look at the video. DSQ RRS 14(a).

Matt Bounds
US Sailing National Race Officer
US Sailing Regional Judge

Slightly slower

does not equal half as fast. The

squiggle

isn't really significant, but you told me to

please ignore it

. Well, if I have to ignore that, then what else should I ignore? (I've heard that before from an IJ).

Eric, I'm not trying to niggle - I was just pointing out that just because Boat Scenario diagrams are pretty, doesn't mean they are 100% accurate.

FWIW, I agree with parts of what both of you are saying.

Reasonable

without the video is going to be almost impossible. Even with the video, it might be hard for some juries to get there. It was a fast incident, near a mark that starboard boats normally round and turn downwind. I know that P doesn't have to anticipate S's course change, but it is a very basic part of the game to round that mark in the manner that they did. No excuse at all for S not watching for traffic, however.

Separate from 10 and 14, here's something I would also discuss during a hearing: As I noted above, S was changing course throughout, both in rounding the mark and the

deer

wiggle. P could make a compelling case that under 16.1, S should be DSQ.

Mike

At time 0:33, M87 (Port) was still sailing a course (or could turn to a course) to sail behind H7 (Starboard). M87 does not turn in front of H7 until 0:36.

H7 was not obligated to anticipate M87's turn-down and attempt to cross. She had every reason to expect M87 to avoid her. See ISAF Case 27, which states

a boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule

.

I have watched the video and did not see another boat on a collision course with M87. There is another boat that could have read-ended H7 if she turned down, but she did not.

Yes. I do not think it is reasonably possible to turn a 28ft boat that is going over 7kts 90 degrees within a 6ft radius in one second in a seamanlike way given no time plan the maneuver nor inform the crew .

I've looked at Case 123 and don't believe it applies. At time 0:33, which is when you say H7 needs to react, it is not

clear to a competent, but not necessarily expert, sailor...that there is a substantial risk of contact

. At that time, M87 could still pass above H7. She doesn't commit to the cross until time 0:36.

I thought for sure you'd refer to Case 26

Have you determined from the video evidence that there was damage or injury? It isn't clear to me that there was either. Even if you feel H7 broke rule 14, she might be exonerated under rule 14(b). Oh, and by the way 14(a) is the exception part of the rule, stating

need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear

.

Regards,
Eric

Thanks all for contributing to this learning. I've got another one for ya, probably much simpler, but I'll save that for another time. I've been able to cut down the video to about when windward enters the zone. Admittedly you cant see leeward or the contact directly. You can see/ feel and possible here it. What I'm interested in now is, did I described the situation correctly? When I desribed the situation, I tried to take a facts found approach and was able to get both boats to agree on the facts... mostly. Leeward thought they were overlapped. Incidentally, most people think they are overlapped I'm finding.

Video here:

Are you saying that at time 0:33, M87 (port) is already unable to avoid contact? It appears to me that M87 could avoid H7 at least up until time 0:35, by slowing down, luffing up, or tacking.

I invite you to produce a diagram that perfectly matches the text description without any inconsistencies, artifacts, nor room for interpretation.

While it is true that diagrams do not tell the whole story, it is also true that text does not either. Both, when presented by parties or witnesses, constitute testimony. Both, when supplied by or endorsed by protest committee, constitute facts found. Neither supercedes the other. See Case 104 which states

neither written facts nor diagrammed facts take precedence over the other

.

It's a mistake to dismiss diagrams as

just pretty pictures

.

Eric, you obviously have more time to devote to this than I do.

I will agree to disagree.

BTW, if there was no damage/injury as a result of a 1700 lb boat+crew t-boning another boat, I'm Father Christmas.

I'll explain how avoiding contact works, both practically and under the rules.

When two boats meet, and let's say it is a starboard/port situation, there is a last possible moment when each boat may act to avoid contact. I'll call them TS (time starboard must act) and TP (time port must act). The two times are not necessarily the same -- in fact, they are usually different times. It is entirely possible that TS is earlier than TP.

At time TS, the starboard tack boat (S) has a

genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision

, and may take avoiding action. The port boat (P) then breaks rule 10. See ISAF Case 50. When I'm the starboard boat in this situation, I wait until the last possible moment when I can insure there will be no contact and act then. I believe that is good practice and encourage others to do the same. In the scenario in question, that might be time 0:33.

That is not, however, what the rules require. RRS 14(a) states

a right-of-way boat ... need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear

. Even though it's a good idea to act at time TS, boat S is not required to act until time TP. At time TP, it may well be too late for S to be able to keep clear. Even if there is contact, and even if that contact causes damage or injury, boat S does not break rule 14.

I refer again to ISAF Case 26, which states

A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid a collision until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear. However, if the right-of-way boat could then have avoided the collision and the collision resulted in damage, she must be penalized for breaking rule 14

. Again, when

it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear

means time TP -- that is when boat S must act.

And I also refer again to ISAF Case 27, which states

A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule

. Boat S is not required to act at time TS (when she could anticipate that P will break rule 10).

And, I refer once more to ISAF Case 87, which states

a right-of-way boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other
boat is not keeping clear

. S may wait until P actually fails to keep clear - which is at time TP.

Which brings us back to the video in question. Could boat H7(S) have avoided contact by changing course at time 0:33 (when she had a

genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision

- i.e. time TS)? Yes. Did rule 14 require her to? No. She was not obligated to act until boat M87(P) actually was unable to avoid contact (when it became

clear she is not keeping clear

- i.e. time TP), which was about time 0:35-36 in the video. By then, unfortunately, H7(S) was not reasonably able to avoid contact. Therefore, H7(S) did not break rule 14.

Although not absolutely required, I recommend sailors act at time TS and avoid contact (and possible damage/injury), not to wait until time TP like boat H7 did.

I hope that helps,
Eric

P is not required to anticipate S's change of course, but she must respond to it - which she does not do.

Looking over the video yet again, I see boat H7(S) making two course changes. One is when she rounds the mark at time 0:32-0:34. The other is the

wiggle

at time 0:35-0:36.

During the first course change, boat M87(P) is still 2-3 boatlengths away. I believe that P had ample opportunity to keep clear (by slowing down, heading up, or tacking) during that time.

At time 0:35, however, P is committed to the cross and unable to keep clear by luffing. S makes a quick turn to her right but is unable to avoid P. S then turns quickly back left, taking contact on her bow. P is already not keeping clear so there is no possible way for S to give her room. If you insist on applying RRS 16.1 to the second course change, and conclude that S breaks it, then you should exonerate her under RRS 64.1(a).

Remember, the purpose of rule 16 is to protect a give-way boat from an overly aggressive right-of-way boat. It does not excuse an overly aggressive give-way boat for failing to meet her obligation to keep clear. A port-tack boat can't just sail into a line of starboard tack boats rounding a mark and say

oh, they should have held their course

. The starboard-tack boats may not turn into P, but P can't use rule 16 to justify sticking her nose into a place where she isn't able to keep clear.

Regards,
Eric

Eric,

Thank you again for being so diligent about helping to explain application of the rules and succinctly describing obligation vs rights.

+1
Terry

At 34-35 seconds, I see H7 (S) make a sharp turn to starboard to avoid P and, in my opinion, was early enough to completely avoid the collision. The problem is that P made a similar and identically timed turn to port meaning both boats continue heading right at each other. Upon realizing this, S reacts to turn back down to port but P reacts in the same identical manner to starboard. After the two zag zigs, there was nothing left to do. The angle of the video makes it a little difficult to see H7's initial turn to avoid P - which was, in my opinion, clearly substantive and early enough to avoid. The problem was that P matched S's moves exactly and there was no avoidance because of the situation P created.