Rule question

THERE WAS NO WAY I WAS GOING TO FLIP: 2-3 knots of wind and I weight 95 kgs. I would have to go on the trapeze on the leeward side to flip my cat in those conditions. A good friend of mine on the P19. We talked all the way through the maneuver, friendly British/French banter, as usual. We passed inch of each other but we both know our boats fairly well and how to handle them in tight quarters. He gave me room, I gave him as much as possible.

After the race we had a beer at the bar and were unsure of the rules. Hence my question. Don't make it something completely out of proportion with big words like penalty, liability and responsibility. I don't know about you, but I'm sailing for the fun of it.

Nothing will bring this thread back into alignment like a kitten talking in ebonics <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />

That makes a world of difference! The original post implied that the ROW boat did nothing to prevent a collision, which seemed silly. Now it's a case of the ROW boat simply reacting too late. At the kinds of closing speeds I would imagine were involved to do that kind of damage, that is not a criticism at all. It must have been a matters of seconds or less and friggin' scary.

DSQ takes care of the racing aspect, but port would be slapped with a lawsuit immediately if it was me he hit. Proving negligence in court to recover damages would be interesting, you'd have to make sure the judge understood the ROW rules first <img src="<>/crazy.gif" alt="crazy" title="crazy" height="15" width="15" /> .

Plenty of witnesses to the hailing, etc. should make it a slam dunk. Maybe he'd have to sell the boat to pay the fines - cosmic justice?

PS. I haven't raced in many years - if I get back into it, be assured that for the first season or two if you want to gain an advantage on me just yell out

RIGHT OF WAY

and some random rule number <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />. I'll move right out of your way!

Exactly where I was steering this to.

Leeward boat cannot just head up without any burden.

Okay. The real life situation I just cited involved adults. What if the (back) injury in this case is to a sixteen year old girl? Any idea how the parents would respond?

Right after this case came out of the protest hearing, I mentioned to a friend that the port boat acknowledged seeing the starboard boat at, iirc, 17 boat lengths. My friend's response was,

then starboard had plenty of time to avoid.

He had a horrified look on his face when I responded,

So did port.

There is much talk of increasing juvenile participation in our sport. If that happens, I think it would be a good idea to have a clear understanding of the rules and a clear understanding of the expectations. Since I have no children, I have no dog in the fight, pardon the expression. I'm just sayin...

OK guys. I didn't drill my friend for case numbers and rule numbers (we were at a regatta party, not a hearing or seminar). However, no many how many

what-ifs

I threw at him (in response to all the variations thrown out here), his reply was the same, windward gets tossed.

He is very much,

Don't talk past the sale.

This example was such a no-brainer to him, he seemed to get annoyed at the multiple questions, in his mind, none of them changed anything. Windward gets tossed.

I think the only way leeward gets in trouble is if there's contact that causes damage. And windward would still get tossed.

Mike

Pepin,

I understand you are trying to understand the rule and tactics and nothing disastrous happened. But you recognized the possibility. In addition to the rule... you should also know and understand that

Penalties (RR and the Sailing jury and judge)
Liability (Civil and Criminal Courts in the USA... Britan???)
Responsibility (Placed on the participant by the Prescriptions (USA)) Britan ???

go hand in hand with the rules and tactics. These are the words used in the RR of sailing, the Prescriptions and the NOR and SI;s,
When the **** hits the fan (accidents and mistakes) ... you will be held to the meaning of those words. You sign on to them when you sign the entry form.
Just because you

sail for fun

... does not give you a pass... Fact of life...the vast majority of us are sailing for fun... few are getting paid and mistakes and accidents happen.

I encourage you to understand all of the ramifications of the rule including penalties, liabilities and responsibilities.

Nice of you not to highlight the

With the wind any higher

of that sentence <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />

I'm asking an hypothetical question about how the rule applies, and you come back with no answer but some drivel about law that is completely irrelevant to the question asked.

Case closed in my case. Have fun talking with yourself. I'm out of there.

Here are some rules that it would be appropriate to start off with (for kids and adults):

Basic Principle - Sportsmanship and the Rules

Sailboat racing is a self-policed sport. We are all expected to follow the rules, and take a penalty for an error.

Rule 1

SAFETY

. Safety (our own and others') is paramount. We must carry appropriate safety gear, and operate our boats in as safe a manner as practical. We must also help anybody in danger.

Rule 2

FAIR SAILING

Good sportsmanship is a fundamental tenet of our sport.

Rule 14

AVOIDING CONTACT

No matter who has right-of-way, everbody must avoid hitting another boat if they can. The rest of the rules in Part 2 of the rulebook simply spell out the process for avoiding contact.

Now, on to something more advanced, but appropos to the discussion:

ISAF Cases 26 and 87, and Rule 14(a):

A right-of-way boat is not obligated to take

avoiding action

until it is evident that the give-way boat cannot keep clear. At that point, however, it may be impossible for the right-of-way boat to avoid contact. Technically, the right-of-way boat doesn't break rule 14, but taking avoiding action sooner would have been better.

ISAF Case 50:

In other words, a right-of-way boat does not have to wait until the give-way boat cannot keep clear. She need only wait until there is a

reasonable apprehension

that the give-way boat will not keep clear. At that point, it is appropriate to take avoiding action, and the give-way boat has not kept clear.

Say, for example, that there's a Starboard/Port crossing situation where it is not clear that P will cross S cleanly. P maintains that she would have crossed had S held her course. P argues that S bore away when P could still have taken action (such as swinging her transom away) to keep clear. S states that had she and P held course, that S believed they would collide. S says she waited until the last moment that she felt she could safely avoid contact and acted to do so. Even though P could potentially have avoided contact if S had held course, S acted upon a

reasonable apprehension

of collision - and therefore P broke rule 10.

So, the message is - take avoiding action when you need to in order to prevent contact.

Regards,
Eric
US Sailing Certified Judge

Two things I find interesting in this thread, both not relating directly to the original question though.
Dave Ingram wrote the following in his response to a start-line infringement where a port boat gybed in front of him on the line, causing him to take avoiding action (as the ROW boat) :

You could not have continued on port because you were already at the boat, you couldn't tack because you would have been over early.

My understanding is that he COULD have tacked (in fact his only real recourse)if in doing so he could have cleared the line and not fouled anyone. Whether he would be over early or not has no bearing on what his obligations were under the rules. If he could have tacked away without causing anyone else to take avoiding action and without hitting the start boat, he should have done so, been over early and come back to the start area when safe to do so.

PTP wrote the following :

For example... I was driving one time and felt I had the right of way at a mark. They screamed at me and I was like W.T.F.? I found that person at the end because I honestly wondered whether I had truly fouled them as they have a lot more experience than I do racing. They replied to me when I asked what was up:

no problem, you totally had me."
I figure you should have protested him under the fair sportsmanship rule. Many hot-shot sailors use this tactic to intimidate less experienced sailors at a mark rounding or in other situations, and sadly get away with it because the novice gives way. IMO this infringement should get a DSQ and a request from the race comittee for this competitor to pack his boat up and go home early. It`s the only way to prevent this behaviour.

I agree that in the majority (probably vast majority) of such passing situations, if W(indward) cannot keep clear of L(eeward), it is her own fault for getting too close. However, a blanket statement that no matter what

windward gets tossed

is an oversimplification. You can't just ignore rule 16.1. I refer you again to ISAF Case 60.

Sincerely,
Eric

Eric, I assume no collision occurs in your example.

Take this very same situation and ask the question... what if starboard is worried that port is not keeping clear but does NOT tack away at the last moment below port and hail protest as you describe. (flick Port)

They continue on starboard for a beat or two and then decide that port is not keeping clear and they crash tack to go head to wind in front of port and stop their forward progress on starbord. Starboard's expectation was that Port would safely pass in front of them and starboard had avoided a collision and hail protest.

However, PORT is unable to keep clear of starboard who is now head to wind and stopped and so Port's expectation that starboard would sail on allowing them to duck their rudders is now not possible. So while trying to suddenly bear off hits the starboard tack boat.

In the protest room Starboard says... I crash tacked to avoid a collision with port who was not keeping clear. I expected him to pass in front of me... at worst... he would round up head to wind beside me. I am within my rights to avoid a collision at all costs and I thought that my crash tack was the appropriate move to avoid a collision even though I was the ROW boat.

Port says I was absolutely keeping clear and bearing off to just clear starboard transoms. Starboard suddenly and with out real reason panicked and changed course to go head to wind without giving me room and opportunity to keep clear. I bore off and sheeted out to avoid a collision but was unable to avoid him.

What would the jury rule.... with these facts and testimony.

My fleet has a very cautious racer who pulls the escape rip cord early... sometimes he pulls the cord a bit too late as described here in this example and argues that you backed me into a corner and Starboard had no choice, I am sailing with my niece and I am being safe.... You are breaking the rule.

IMO... the ROW boat Starboard must understand the game and the fleet they are racing in with respect to tight crosses. and they have some restraints on their maneuver's that they make under the

I was trying to follow the rules and avoid a collision

rule. in particular... they must give the burdened boat room to respond to their change of course.

The

I took action to avoid a collision

is not a get out of jail free card for the ROW boat.

Your thoughts?

Mark,

I don't quite follow the scenerio you're describing, but I gather that you have a racer who has difficulty reacting at the right time when boats meet. The best advice I can give is to leave him a little extra room until he develops the experience and comfort to judge crossings better. At the clubs where I usually sail, we offer reticent sailors a green ribbon to fly while racing. That lets the other boats know he's not comfortable in close situations and we give him a wider berth.

Yes, that's Rule 16.1 - the topic of most of this discussion.

True. I only quoted half of ISAF Case 50 in my last post. The other half reads:

The pivotal phrase here is

genuine and reasonable apprehension

. An inexperienced sailor will often have a genuine apprehension of collision that is not reasonable. He will take avoiding action earlier than necessary or when not necessary. He may take actions in panic that actually make things worse.

These situations can be tough to sort out in a protest hearing because the testimony is usually as erratic and tangled as the boathandling. The point of Case 50 is that there is no burden of proof on either the right-of-way boat or the give-way boat. Both boats must present adequate evidence to support their case. Protest Committee must then determine the facts and apply the rules. If PC finds that the ROW boat had a reasonable and genuine apprehension of collision, and took avoiding action, then they should rule in her favor. If PC finds that the ROW boat's apprehension was not genuine, or not reasonable, or that she did not take avoiding action, then they should dismiss the protest (assuming no other rules apply).

I hope that helps,
Eric

Yes. In the example that I am trying to describe. Starboard took actions that made things worse. It's usually comes with... I did not know what port was doing, therefore I must take action to avoid a collision. The actions make a collsion unavoidable.

In this collision example. I would expect the jury to find both at fault. Port for failing to stay clear of starboard and Starboard for changing course without giving port room and opportunity to stay clear.
Would this outcome be reasonable?

I think it's critical for people to understand that there is no burden of proof... Each side has to present evidence about the interaction on the water. Both could be at fault as the situation plays out.

I think many people are not quite on this page and want black and white answers 100% of the time.!

There is no get out of jail free card where Starboard can't stand up and say... i was on starboard... I took action I deemed necessary to avoid collision... I can't be at fault no matter what happens.

As always... communication helps enormously... but your expectation that the other guy will signal you his intention when you want does not allow you to pull the escape cord and hail protest or make the collision unavoidable if you don't get the communication.

Mark describes the exact position I found myself in, being on Stbd and hailing to the port boat, twice, on the first weather leg at a National event. After each very loud call I saw the skipper of the port boat look under his mainsail and made eye contact with him on both occasions. Having done this I made the assumption that he would avoid me and continued racing. At around 2 boatlengths to collision I realised his intent to dip below me (he had been trying to clear ahead and realised too late that it would be too close), I saw him ease his main and start steering down, so I kept my course. On bearing away he powered up, and with the class of boat in question (deep V-hulled catamaran, 18ft with skegs and no daggerboards), as soon as it powered up it sailed straight as if on rails, with no respect for any rudder input (Dart sailors will understand)..
At this point I realised his attempt at dipping below me was not going to work, so I attempted to head up to avoid collision, which was the only way I could go. This made it worse as I slowed, and he ended my regatta in the first race.
My question : If I had NOT tried to avoid the collision, it might have been possible that the damage would have been less, as he hit me in front of the rear beam - had I maintained speed he might have hit me on or behind the beam. How would I have fared in the protest room, having deliberately NOT altered course, in order to attempt to avoid the collision..?

I find it difficult to imagine a scenerio where a give-way boat is penalized for breaking rule 10 (or 11) and the right-of-way boat is penalized for breaking rule 16. The two should be mutually exclusive. If the ROW boat breaks rule 16, the GW boat would be exonerated under rule 64.1(c).

It is possible for the GW boat to be penalized under rule 10 (or 11), and the ROW boat penalized under rule 14. Occasionally (but rarely), protest committee will disqualify multiple parties.

Absolutely correct. Right-of-way is not carte blanche. When a boat focuses on her rights, she tends to forget her obligations.

Also true. Things go much smoother when both boats know what to expect from the other - its easier to avoid contact when there are no surprises.

Regards,
Eric

I can tell you of a case where this exact thing happened at hobie midwinters(Divis Island). Port got the DSQ and lost the protest.

Eric,

I am aware of Case 60, as is my friend. I'm going to take his word on this one, Case 60 won't help windward in the overtaking situation described in this thread. He's an IRO, SJ and IU, and has worked everything including Olympics. Not that he couldn't make a mistake, but I'm willing to take that chance.

Mike

That's fine. I'll keep my own counsel (which is that it's a valid argument, but a difficult protest to win). I place much more faith in logical explanation than in ex cathedra assertion. Here is an example. Several years ago, when I was a judge-in-training, I had a question about the meaning of

room

as applied under then rule 18 (marks and obstructions). At a sailing conference, I individually asked two Senior Judges, one International Judge, and one International Umpire. One of them assumed that in the situation I described, that I was one of the skippers and simply told me

You're in the wrong

. One said he didn't know, but that 90% of the time, boat

A

would lose the protest. The other two said A was wrong. When asked, not a single one of them could point me to a spot in the rule book to justify their assertions (as I didn't really want a ruling - I wanted to clarify what

room

meant). It took me some time, and several reads of the RRS, but I finally found the item I was looking for (in the rule 18 preamble). Then I was able to string all the pieces together to interpret the hypothetical incident.

I think that we often get a mindset of how the rules should work, and forget what they actually say. If a person makes a rule assertion and can't back it up with logical application of the rules as written, then I don't really care what their credentials are. I'll stick with what the rules say. I've had arguments with IJ's and IU's over the rules and I stick to my guns until they show me all the links from A to Z. I've won some (like the IJ who asserted that no contact = kept clear). I've lost some (although gaining a better understanding of the rules is really a win).

The end result is that I won't make a rules assertion unless I can back it up by pointing out the relevant rules and explaining how they string together. As a protest committee member, I will never vote to penalize a boat unless I can explain exactly what rule was broken and how.

Can you cite any Rule, or USS Appeal, or ISAF Case that states that rule 16.1 does not apply between boats overlapped on the same tack (i.e., subject to rule 11)? If you can, I'd love to know. If not, then I'll stick with the rule as written:

Sincerely,
Eric

Eric,

You're my hero!

I understand. I've been on both sides of this situtation myself - once before I learned to steer with the sails on my Isotope (I was the port boat), and once on a San Juan 21 (as crew on the starboard boat). Both cases were the first race of a regatta. Both cases resulted in contact with damage that put me out of the rest of the races. Neither case went to a hearing - the port boat admitted fault and retired both times.

I think you would fare ok. Look the protest committee members straight in the eye, and with sincerity and conviction say that you believed he was going to duck you, and when it became apparent that he could not that there was nothing you could do to avoid contact. Tell them that your best option for minimizing damage and risk of injury was to hold course and speed. Explain that heading down would be disaster, and heading up would slow you down and risk greater damage.

Rule 14 reads

A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible

. In the situation as described, it was not reasonably possible for you to avoid contact.

I hope that helps,
Eric

Hi Eric,

You have a valid point (wanting to see rule and case numbers), but I've already answered all of those concerns. We were talking over a beer, I mentioned all the what-if's and why-not's listed by you and others (over and over again now). His answer was the same, windward gets tossed. (FWIW, he also agreed that the maneuver by the leeward boat was completely moronic in a fleet race.)

I don't blindly follow anyone, and I know anyone can make a mistake, but this is one of the 2-3 people on the planet that I take at face value with this stuff. And that has nothing to do with their titles.

I think that the main point has also been mentioned here, don't put your boat into a position that you can't get out of...

Mike

Is this a case of not being clear or of having a message that you do not want to accept? I clearly stated that the rules do not require anticipation. They DO REQUIRE MANEUOVERING PROMPTLY. THAT requires tiller movement, so if you first do sail handling then you already have violated the requirement to maneuover promptly. By anticipating what will happen, you will be BETTER PREPARED to fulfill your RRS responsibilities correctly, that's all. Like Jake wrote in reaction to my post, that may even mean taking down the spinnaker before you are overlapped. So unless you can steer towards the wind promptly in response to a luff while taking down the spinnaker, then you have violated the RRS requirement. Otherwise, by the time you finish taking the spinnaker down in response to a leeward boat luff, any luff on your part is no longer prompt. So, to be extra clear, what I am saying is that in order to execute their RRS responsibilities, experienced racers have learned to anticipate what may happen so that they are ready to behave correctly, accordingly, w/o delay. To go one more step, anticipation would have prevented the whole situation which has been explained ad nauseum by now. Required by the rules? No. Smart and practical? YES!

I know sailing rules are different than other racing rules but in auto racing, we call that blocking. Going off line to interfere with someone is just dirty pool and you should let them go if they are that much faster than you are.

Almost certainly there would be the opposite reaction if the passing auto deprived fuel from the passed auto which is essentially what the passing windward boat does to the leeward boat. And while I do not watch Nascar racing, I do occasionally read in the paper about all the feuds going on about some car

bumping

another to push them out of the way. It is amazing to me that this is allowed, (as opposed to severely punished) especially considering the much more severe effects that can have on the cars and drivers compared to sailboat racing. The closest I ever got to that was on Hobie 21s in the Prosail Series back in the day and, guess what? That was run by a group that sponsored Nascar racing!

I don't care for oval racing whether it be boats or cars. I like cars that turn right and left.

If you know how to hit properly, it is safe. If you are really good, you can make it look like an accident. I used to race spec racers and there is an art to taking someone out. I only had to use it a couple of times.

it's off topic; but they did make an escalating effort to disallow the aggressive driving in NASCAR a couple of years ago. It culminated with the last Talladega race last year where they told the drivers that bump drafting or nudging in the turns would be heavily penalized. It was the single most boring race in the world - the drivers hated it and ended up in a three hour parade with hardly any position changes up until the last 10 laps of the race. The fans hated it. It was dumb. The NASCAR ratings had been in a multi year decline and that one race hurt them even worse.

So this year? The NASCAR organization said

screw it

and told the drivers to police themselves. An eye for an eye. Play nice or risk sanctioned retaliation. The result? A pretty exciting year so far full of drama. If a driver decides to nudge another driver's rear bumper to loosen them up in the corner, he better have a faster car when he gets in front of them or there will be hell to pay!

Now, that said, I don't care to have this on my race course...nobody is paying for my boat and giving me a salary. I get enough drama off the start line and playing the shifts around the course!

Is bump drafting allowed in Scott's WWF series? It's sailed with Waves for heaven's sake, so not much could happen to them...