Monday, 2 February 2009

Tactical Rounding with Mark-Room? | 3

Although the poll hasn't ended quite yet, it will very soon. Almost 90% of the votes where on the right of way boat. You can only make "a tactical rounding" if you have mark-room and are right of way boat. I think this is consistent with the way the original working party intended the rule to work. On the website of the Australian Yachting Association I came across the presentation they gave at the November conference in Madrid.

On page fifteen they have a sheet on the issue of markroom. The inside boat without row is not exonerated for breaking rule 11 if she takes more room then she's entitled to:

You can download the whole presentation here: Section C presentation Nov08.pdf.

Also in a new post on the BI STAR blog a post is published on Case 20 from the US Sailing appeals book. Again the the inside boat is dsq'd for breaking rule 11. Go to: New Appeals Are Published

Unless someone brings me compelling arguments why a boat has the right to more room then needed to sail TO the mark I'm going to 'judge' protests with this principle.



  1. How embarassing. Finding out about your own MNA's website content from LTW.

    I note that the presentation not from Yachting Australia, but is from the ISAF RRC Section C Working Group. Surprising it hasn't been published by ISAF.

    I think it is very good. It's much shorter than the RYA one, covers all the ground, lets you see comparative situations on the same diagram, and highlights the ordinary and expert differences.

  2. Jos, I agree with you: give way boat is entitled to direct course to the mark and proper course at the mark. I think John Doerr's diagram is incorrect, and all the other commentaries consistently say this.

    I think US Sailing Appeal 20 is where the terms 'tactical rounding' and 'seamanlike rounding' were invented.

    Americans seem obsessed with discussing 'seamanlike', in ways which seem to me to obscure the simple application of the rules.

    The tactical/seamanlike concepts might help tactical decision-making, but once it comes to a protest, just look at the facts and the rules. Classifying into 'tactical' and 'seamanlike' won't help.

  3. I think they dodge the issue of when you become 'at' the mark.

    “At” is to be interpreted in its natural sense.
    The transition from “sail[ing] to” to “at” does
    not lead to significant changes in a boat's

    The bit about significant change means nothing.

    I think they have an error too. Discussing 18.5, they say a give way boat entitled to mark room cannot be exonerated for breaking rule 15 or 16. My reading is that once she is at the mark, and entitled to sail a proper course, she can.


  4. @Wag
    We will have to learn from protest and cases how significant the change will be.
    A keep clear boat can not break 15 or 16, only a row boat can. If a keep clear boat sails her proper course around a mark, she can only break a row rule (if the row boat does not give her enough mark room)

  5. If "no game change" is to be given credit, going from 18.2c an right if way for a boat clear ahead at the zone, something must have been overseen as that is quit different from sailing promptly and in a seamanway manor to the mark and sailing a proper course at the mark.

    No more stalling (mark trap) for inside boats on a windward starboard rounding in a team race?

    maybe "to" is just ment to be the mass-center of a boat continually closing to the mark. (head to wind still means no more right to mark-room)

  6. You are right and I am wrong about 18.5. Not the first time I have said something silly here.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...