By Brass from “The Room”
Introduction
The aim of this series is to practice judges' skills in writing Facts Found, Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and Decisions as required by rule 65.1. These are not intended to be 'difficult' rules problems: concentrate on the writing skills. You are not expected to 'discuss' the rules or the scenarios, or enter into 'what-if' considerations. I suggest you write against the clock, and include a note of your time taken when you post your answers on LTW, to compare with others.
Hearing and Evidence
You are the scribe for the protest committee of the LTW Yacht Club, which races in Port Liberty Roads. You have received a written protest, decided it is valid, and have heard both parties and witnesses.
You have listed Facts Found and the protest committee members have agreed to endorse the attached diagram.
 |
| Orange: Ankara Absinthe; |
Facts Found
- Vilnius Vodka and Washington Whiskey were sailing on a downwind leg on starboard tack.
- Vilnius Vodka became overlapped to windward of Washington Whiskey from clear astern and Washington Whiskey luffed to defend her position. Vilnius Vodka responded, with the result that both boats were sailing well above what would be their proper course to the next mark.
- Vilnius Vodka's course was converging on Ankara Absinthe, which was sailing lower and slower.
- Vilnius Vodka became overlapped on Ankara Absinthe from clear astern within two boat lengths.
- Washington Whiskey did not come within two boat lengths of Ankara Absinthe until after position 3 in the diagram.
- Ankara Absinthe changed course to windward to keep clear of Vilnius Vodka.
- Ankara Absinthe protested Vilnius Vodka and Washington Whiskey for sailing above their proper course under rule 17, with timely flag and hail.
Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence
Your fellow protest committee members agree that Vilnius Vodka and Washington Whiskey, throughout, are sailing above a course that would enable them to reach the next mark as soon as possible in the absence of other boats, but that Vilnius Vodka did not sail higher than was necessary to keep clear of Washington Whiskey.
Problem
Write Conclusions and Rules Applicable, and the Decision for this protest. Please post your effort on LTW, for us all to share and learn. Don't be shy.
CONCLUSION;
ReplyDelete1. VV to windward kept clear of WW to leeward under rule 11.
2. AA to windward kept clear of VV to leeward under rule 11 and AA outside overlapped gave VV room to pass between AA and an obstruction WW under rule 19.2(b).
3. VV was sailing her proper course because VV would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of AA. Because VV had to kept clear of WW under rule 11.
4. There was no contact between these three boats.
5. No rule was broken.
RULES APPLICABLE;
11, 19.2(b), Definition ‘Proper course’
DECISION;
The protest against VV is dismissed.
TIME;
5 minutes to read facts
10 minutes to write in Japanese.
10 minutes to translate into English referring the Protest Decision Wordings.
(Thanks Jos)
Sen Yamaoka
CONCLUSION;
ReplyDelete1. VV to windward kept clear of WW to leeward under rule 11.
2. AA to windward kept clear of VV to leeward under rule 11.
3. Rule 17 did not apply between WW and VV. Rule 17 might have applied between WW and AA when VV and hence WW became overlapped with AA. The diagram, though, shows that this happened just after position 2, when WW was more than 2 boatlengths to leeward of AA. Therefore rule 17 did not apply between WW and AA.
4. No rule was broken.
DECISION;
The protest against VV and WW is dismissed.
5 minutes, cribbed some of Sen's conclusions.
Wag
Wag
Rule 17 does not constrain WW because her overlaps began at a distance greater than two of her hull lengths.
ReplyDeleteRule 11 requires VV to keep clear of WW; VV does so.
Rule 17 constrains VV from sailing above proper course in her interaction with AA; VV does so, because she sailed no higher than required by rules applicable in the absence of AA.
Rule 11 requires AA to keep clear of VV; AA does so.
No penalty.
Tried to be quick, but the clock says 12 minutes, and I see I missed 19.2(b).
Conclusions
ReplyDelete1. Rule 11: AA kept clear of VV, who was overlapped to leeward; VV kept clear of WW who was overlapped to leeward.
2. Rule 17: VV, who was subject to rule 17, sailed her proper course.
3. Rule 19.2(b): AA gave VV room between her and an obstruction.
4. No rule was broken.
Rules applicable
11, 17, 19.2(b)
Decision
Protest is dismissed.
Time taken: 16 minutes
Since writing that, I note that the words “who was overlapped to leeward” are ambiguous, at best. As the factual findings have already stated who was overlapped with who, all I really needed to say was that AA kept clear of VV, and VV kept clear of WW.
I dont think rule 19 applies. AA has to keep clear, so is not an obstruction.
ReplyDeleteWag
AA and VV and WW
ReplyDelete1. RRS11 VV and AA Kept Clear and complied with this rule
2. RRS 19.2(b) AA gave room to VV.
3. RRS 17 VV was constrained not to sail above her proper course but because of her actions in keeping Clear of WW she at all times complied.
4. RRS17. WW had no proper course limitation.
5. RRS16 WW did not alter course or altered course so slowly she gave room.
Protest Dismissed
Mike B
10 mins
Conclusion:
ReplyDelete1. AA kept clear of VV as windward boat under rule 11
2. VV kept clear of WW as windward boat under rule 11
3. VV sailed her proper course & didn' t break rule 17, because the definition of proper course referres to the course one would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term, (rule 17) and thus VV is sailing her proper course in the absence of AA but in the presenc of WW.
4. AA gave VV room at an obstruction (WW, from whom both have to keep clear under R 11) under rule 19.2b
5. Rule 17 didn' t apply on WW because she was not in a distance less than 2 boat lengths when she became overlapped with AA.
6. THere was no contact between the boats
7. No rule was broken by any of the 3 boats
Rules that apply:
R 11, R 17, R 19.2(b), definition "proper course"
Decision:
Protest of AA against VV and WW is dinmissed
Time: 4' to read the facts found
18' to write the conclusion & decision
Kostas Christopoulos, Greece
Conclusions:
ReplyDelete1. VV was sailing a course to keep clear of W as required by rule 11. This was her proper course. VV did not break Rule 17.
2. WW was sailing higher than her proper course and became overlapped with AA when VV between AA and WW overlapped both. WW was not restricted fom sailing this course by rule 17 because she became overlapped with AA more than two of her hull lengths to leeward of AA. WW did not break Rule 17.
3. WW is an obstruction to both AA and VV. However, AA as outside overlapped boat is not ROW and her obligation is not to give VV room to pass between her and WW but to keep clear of VV under rule 11. Rule 19.2(b) does not apply.
Rules that apply; Rules 11, 17, definitions of "Proper Course", "Obstruction", and Clear Astern, Clear Ahead; Overlap".
Decision: AA's protest of VV and WW is dismissed.
\
\
Conclusions;
ReplyDelete1. VV to windward kept clear of WW to leeward. VV did not break rule 11.
2. AA to windward kept clear of VV to leeward. AA did not break rule 11.
3. VV became overlapped to leeward from clear astern within two lengths of AA and, while remaining on the same tack and overlapped, sailed above her proper course without passing astern of AA. VV broke rule 17.
5. At position 3, per the definition of “Clear Astern and Clear Ahead, Overlap” while VV is overlapped with AA and is between AA and WW, WW becomes overlapped to leeward from clear astern of AA and, while remaining on the same tack and overlapped, sailed above her proper course without passing astern of AA. WW broke rule 17.
Decision:
1. WW is DSQ for breaking Rule 17.
2. VV was compelled to break rule 17 as a consequence of WW breaking rule 17. VV is exonerated for breaking rule 17 under rule 64.1(c).
Feedback AA v VV and WW
ReplyDeleteWelcome Sen and Kostas.
This problem raises the interesting issue of how much we should write when we find no rule broken and dismiss the protest altogether.
Key technique was to take the boats pairwise and identify obligations.
Normally, when a protest committee is concluding that rules have been broken the Protest Committee Conclusions Wording Tool gives us what we need, but it is not designed to show conclusions about rules not being broken.
It is unsatisfying and uninformative for racers to just be told that 'no rule was broken'. While a written decision need not 'answer' every rule breach suggested in the protest, where a protest is being dismissed, it is probably a good idea to respond to what is in the protest.
There was no suggestion of rule 11 or other failure to keep clear, so I don't think that needs to be addressed, but we do need to tackle rule 17.
WW had no proper course obligation AT ALL:
* WW became overlapped to windward of VV
* WW became overlapped more than 2 boat lengths away from AA.
WW did not break rule 17.
VV had a proper course obligation to AA to sail no higher than her proper course.
VV's proper course was to keep clear of WW, the leeward boat.
VV did not sail above her proper course. VV did not break rule 17.
AA's protests are dismissed.
Some responses referred to rule 19 obligations. I don't think rule 19 needs to be applied when Section A rules apply effectively. Had VV 'wedged in' between AA and WW from clear astern, under the old rules rule 19 would have applied to switch off VV's right of way on AA, but that is no longer the case. Case 16 referring to the old rules application has been deleted. So rule 19 has no effect in this case. All the more so when we conclude that it has not been broken.
Thanks everyone for participating.
A couple of follow up questions for Brass.
ReplyDeleteFact found #6 says that AA changed course to keep clear of VV and thus compied with rule 11. But, if it was necessary for AA to change course to keep clear, and VV was sailing a course above her proper course, by fact found #2, why has VV not broken rule 17 with AA?
Also, Fact found #5 says WW became overlapped within 2 boat lenghts of AA after position 3.
Would WW be breaking rule 17 with AA after position 3?
Dick,
ReplyDeleteThe case turns on what VV's proper course was and whether she sailed above it.
VV became overlapped within 2 boat lengths to leeward of AA from clear astern so VV had a rule 17 obligation not to sail above her proper course.
Fact Found 2 referred to what _would have been_ the proper course to the next mark. Elsewhere we have called this the 'best course'.
VV's proper course was to keep clear of WW (who had no proper course limitation). The protest committee agreed that VV sailed no higher than was necessary to keep clear of WW.
VV had a proper course obligation but never sailed above her proper course.
And a final two follow up questions to be sure I understand the interpretations and proper application of rule 17.
ReplyDelete1. Are we saying that VV’s proper course is to not break rule 11, or any rule, with respect to WW, or with any boat other than AA, “the other boat referred to in the rule”, because in doing so VV would have to do turns and that would be a slower course to the finish?
2. Would the results of a protest be different if AA protested VV and WW after WW became overlapped within two hull lengths, after position 3?
Dick,
ReplyDelete1. Rather than introduce the disadvantage of doing turns, I would argue that 'without breaking any rules' should be implied into the definition of proper course. I guess it amounts to the same thing.
2. No, a boat becomes subject to a proper course limitation under rule 17 when she 'becomes overlapped within two of her hull
lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack'. If she becomes overlapped from clear astern outside two hull lengths, she is not subject to rule 17 and will not become subject to rule 17 even though she later comes within two hull lengths of the windward boat.
Ok good. Thanks to your response for question #2 I now have an understanding of the proper application of rule 17 that; for 17 to be in force a boat must be within two boats lengths when the overlapped was gained.
ReplyDeleteBut, I need to persist on the issue of VV’s, or any boat’s, proper course.
Till now I have always thought of a boat’s proper course as being one that a boat would sail in the absence of “any” other boats. Now, as I pay more attention to the wording of the definition of proper course I see that the definition says; “in the absence of other boat’s referred to in the rule using the term”.
Is that the caveat that you would claim supports your interpretation that “without breaking any rule” is a consideration for a boat’s proper course?
Do you have any Case reference that “without breaking any rule” can be “implied” into the definition of proper course?
And, if that were a consideration for proper course, could a protest committee have concluded that VV broke 17 because it would have been faster for VV to finish by slowing down and falling off to pass astern of WW rather than being luffed head to wind?