Rules Question - two boats, starboard, overlapped...a-mark.

You've just stated, unequivicolly, you don't accept that starboard has right of way and you are willing to challenge that right of way.

Circumstances on the race course may not be black and white but this rule is.

Once again, you're building a case to evade the rule. What you're doing is a little like creative accounting to evade taxes. Of course you're willing to pay the penalty IF you get caught. How kind of you.

Show me where I stated this....even in a fuzzy manner, much less unequivocally. Starboard always has right of way in this situation. I'm only challenging the level of my own certainty upon which I can cross without fouling starboard.

If you go back and read my first post, you'll see that I elected to not make the cross because I was unsure that we would clear them. Later, our competitor said he thought we would have crossed clean.

I think you guys are confusing me with Dave who stated (and I paraphrase)

foul them, the turns penalty hurts less than the situation you ended up in

. <---this wasn't me.

Anytime your certainty is less than 100% you're challenging the rule.

nope. Nothing is certain.

(I'm trying a new argument tactic with you - philosophical debates kept under 5 words each).

Jake don't fall into the Pete/Mark vortex unless of course it's a slow day at work and you're bored. You've made your point and your point and your point the rest of us get it, you'll never change the direction of Pete or Mark.

the rest of us

That's a little grandiose.

The victim in the port/starboard encounter I've alluded to was considering violence for a time and there was talk of black listing the offender from the club.

Jake's attitude moves the onus of the rule from the port tack boat to the starboard tack boat. I doubt that has unanimous support.

Jake,
I hear what you are saying. But I think you have the percentages wrong. The way you explain it it sounds more like you are talking 98 percent sure you will make it and only 2 that you will not. And you are taking in considerations for speed wind angles other boats etc.
It really sounds like you only take the cross if you feel you have a really good chance(98%) on making or it you do not it will be without any real impact on the right of way boat.

The problem is how other sailors might interpret what you are saying.

Dave you are not only wrong buy way out in left field. The actions you are endorsing will get you or another boat in real trouble or someone really hurt.

It's a slow day. <img src="<>/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin" height="15" width="15" />

Only you assert this position.

this five word thing is tough

50%+ = better than average chance clean.

Not quite, a similar opinion was offered last evening.

At least you're having fun.

Does a contraction count as one word or two?

It counts as one - and numbers/symbols don't count at all.

From the outside, it looks like there is several different conversations/discussions going on at the same time. some of the latest posts have nothing to do with the initial one. Somewhere a tangent evolved, albeit loosely, and I think several of you guys are on different pages.

Just sayin,

Huh.... using plain language you would say... I Can or I Can't cross.... no probablities matter here..

That is exactly how you set this situation up... You made a No GO decision.

You infered that I called you a cheater.... that is morality
I assert that your mindset and language violate the RRS.

OK... You keep saying two different things....
70/30 is risk that you will take and break the rule.. (not hit the last 30% of the boat.)
vs
100% that you will not break the rule.

The game requires the second standard. (standards are pass/fail)

Never a question that if you were at fault or challanged ... you would do your turns.

However... you ignore the principle of the rule... or simply don't accept it... (petes point)

I completely agree that the REALITY on the water can make your 100%...

I will cross Orphan

cleanly go sideways.

At that point... (Follows in time and as a consequence of your decision to cross) the rules require starbord to avoid collision and allow you to take a penalty turn.... HISTORICALLY.... you would have been DSQd from the race....

The RRS are set up so that you accept responsiblity to call your own on the PS ROW. and ROW is absolute.

These are absolute requirments and set the standard for behavior on the race course.

The mindset you use 70/30..... risk reward, collision or not... is simply a violation of the rules... falls below the standard... What you count on is the local etiquette of crossing ... However, the chronic low level violations day to day on the race course violoate the standard.

Orphan is being nice to you... the issue is more then language you are using.

Try this.
So... this is a call your own sport.... (we agree on this correct?)

If the penalty of a foul in a cross was DSQ for you .... AND you agree that you and you alone make the call on your possible foul of Starbord... on the water

How would you describe the descion making process?

This is the standard of the RRS... (Standards are pass fail)

At that point... (Follows in time and as a consequence of your decision to cross) the rules require starbord to avoid collision and allow you to take a penalty turn.... HISTORICALLY.... you would have been DSQd from the race....

I'd like to see the historical rule reinstated.

Same. 30% weighs heavier on consequence.

I'd have to +1 to Jake for being a very nice dude to sail with/against. Good grasp of rules and not going to do anything really stupid (we'll let that sailing with the beach wheels thing go for this comment, but...)

I think I first got to know Jake at one of the races in the Keys. I think he did so many turns that weekend he was dizzy... I think we've all been there at some point. Alex schooled me a few times on some of the finer points of RRS

And I'm sure we've all made

questionable

crosses. Some worked, some involved crash-bear aways/ crash-tacks. I can't think of any in my limited sailing that involved collisions. And I REALLY can't think of any that involved INTENTIONAL damage... But I don't race professional.

I'm sure someone said before that it's probably the STB tacker's obligation to enforce the rules by noting a protest (NOT HITTING THE OFFENDER) and altering course to avoid collision.

[sarcasm] OMG! The unbelievable lack of ethics! [/sarcasm]

Balls of steel, and a program with a fat enough wallet to pay for it.

Still not legal, even in a small fleet.

Mike

Do what!? <img src="<>/crazy.gif" alt="crazy" title="crazy" height="15" width="15" /> It's perfectly legal if they made it clean and nothing said there indicates otherwise.

So, are you now judging by perceived level or

confidence

of making it clean and NOT by the actual situation regarding whether they caused starboard to deviate course? Good luck with that! I don't want to be on your race course.

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone over here.

5 words or less Jake.

Twilight Zone happens here first (5)

Jake... the AC45s are USING ON THE WATER JUDGES and a modified rule set....very different game.

The sport we play under the RRS is very clear... Each Sailor calls the fouls on themselves.

It's perfectly legal makes no sense in the RRS game.

the rule is... HONOR the right of way of starboard... this leaves the judgement up to PORT..... did the reality of the cross meet his standard of HONOR the rights of starbord.

YOU can't escape your responsibility to make the call on your self and apply your understanding of the word HONOR.

As Starbord... I am not JUDGING anything.... All I get to do is PROTEST... So.. Yes...Sailors call protest when their

percieved level of confidence

drops.... But in the RRS game... it is still your call... you judge your own actions.

I started this, so I'm going to try and figure out why you think I'm doing something illegal. Whether there are on the water judges or not has no bearing on the rules in this case - I don't know why you would imply this. The rules are the rules. They still have the same port/starboard right of way rules. And, Ding, apparently I don't regard any rules, including my own.

I'm preparing to cross a starboard boat while I am on port, as I approach it, I determine that I have a 70% chance of making it - which means that I believe I can make the crossing clean. To provide reference for my 70% determination, had I determined I had a 50% chance, otherwise referred to as

50/50 chance

, I consider that I have an equal chance of not making and an equal chance of making it - it could go either way...I probably wouldn't cross in this situation...but that's not what we're talking about. To reiterate, here I am, having determined that I have a 70% chance, better than average, likely to get through, chance of crossing clean... Two things happen:

Scenario 1) I make it clear and the starboard boat does not have to make any effort to avoid me. I don't do any penalty turns and I continue racing normally.

scenario 2) for some reason, I don't make it clear, starboard has to make a slight course change to avoid me, I do penalty turns as soon as I can get clear of other boats, and I resume racing.

Remind me what I did wrong other than poorly butts my chance to cross if scenario 2 takes place?

I guess I understood Bundy's quote to mean that the port boat fouled them. Why else would he comment on it?

Scenario 2 is only OK if you didn't knowingly try the cross with no hope (RRS 2), and don't come out with a significant advantage (RRS 44).

Mike

Take the possibility of a collision off the table. NO CHANCE, got it?

At what point is it OK for Port to cross Starboard's bow? How about if he's 1000 yards ahead? That ought to be OK. How about 120 yards (20 boat lengths)? Is that too close? What's your comfort zone?

My rule of thumb is using 12 mph as a good sailing speed, you travel 1 boat length every second. If you cross his path a full 10 seconds before he crosses your wake, is that enough clearance? Ten seconds, 10 boat lengths, is 60 yards, pretty close (maybe), but is that enough for him to say you bothered him and warrant a protest? My rule when walking in a crowd, riding my bike in traffic, or sailing a boat is that I am OK if the other guy does not have to

break stride

when I cross in front of him. So it's HIS perception that matters!

A some magic separation distance you have to make a judgement call and when racing,

clean

gets into the eye of the beholder. In American football you can't run into a punter but he'll make a HUGE show of getting fouled if someone even comes near. A Starboard boat might turn up, down, or slow up, whether out of fear or just to establish interference. It's within their power to present the aura of a foul. Without a collision, a

legal

cross is in the fear, confidence, and

gamesmanship

of both players. Winning racers will vote on their prowess and boat speed to go for it while others, like Pete, would back down at the 1000 yard mark and tack away or duck.

A

clean cross

is a decision you have all made (except Pete). My question is, if you are close enough to have to think about it and you decide that absolutely you can make it cleanly, do you still analysis your future responsibility and race position if the other guy calls a protest?

I love it when someone has so little faith in their arguments they resort to ad hominems. It generally indicates stupidity.

do you still analysis your future responsibility and race position if the other guy calls a protest?

Move to an unambiguous rule and you won't have the problem.

Scenario 1) I make it clear and the starboard boat does not have to make any effort to avoid me. I don't do any penalty turns and I continue racing normally.

So.... Starboards call by Bundy is... He fouled me...
That is Bundy's perception... and for this case... does not say a word.
Now what should happen...

Under the RRS that we sail under.
Jake has to make the judgement ON HIMSELF... did I HONOR... not... did I clear by 6 inches... 6 feet, 6 yards, etc.
the standard is HONOR>.. If your understanding of honoring Starboards right of way is that I made it.. so I honored starboards right of way... You would sail on.... and vice versa.

Obviously, if Port SEE's Starbord change course then he KNOWS he violated the rule and does his proper penalty turn (your number 2) ..or he chooses to cheat in addition to breaking the rule. (Starbord has not said a word)

So, What does HONOR mean.
Dave Parker uses this interpretation of HONOR
My rule when walking in a crowd, riding my bike in traffic, or sailing a boat is that I am OK if the other guy does not have to

break stride

when I cross in front of him. So it's HIS perception that matters!

I agree... Port has to Judge his actions taking into account starboards perception and the reality on the water.... (Jake cleared by 6 inches)

The standards we use are .. CALL YOUR OWN which means that Jake judges himself and does a turn (or not) based on his HONOR the right of way of starbord.

When your sole benchmark is... I, Port cleared by 6 inches... you are diminishing the standard of HONOR Starbords Right of Way.... so you are violating the rule.

In this case... we know that Starboard has a strong opinion... Bundy says it was a foul... He did not change course...
But he is not the judge.. All he gets to do is hail protest... Jake gets a second bite at the apple now and can reevaluate his understanding of the standard... HONOR Starbords right of way....
Step three of the game is that Bundy files the paperwork and goes to the room.

The evidence he presents is windspeed, wave action, conditions, time and distance.

The PC will judge the standard of Port HONORING Starbords right of way on these facts!

So... your 70/30 calculation MUST take into account the rule.. HONOR starbords right of way. I can make it... it will be close But Starbord perception will be that his right of way was honored is the standard of the RRS.

I will make it .... it will be close... and I don't give a fig about what Starbord percieves about the cross is NOT HONORing Starbords ROW.

Another way to describe this concept is to use the word impecable. EG... I Honor my word MEANS “impeccable “ ... NOT “just enough to count”