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 as shown.
Description of Incident
The description of the incident from the protest form is as shown. Barnacle and Coral are International 14's, approximately 4.25m long, with additionally, a 3.5m bowsprit carrying large asymmetrical spinnakers. Wind conditions were about 10kts. Sea conditions are slight waves. SI do not change the zone: it remains as defined in Definitions.
Barnacle reached the zone clear ahead at position 2 in the diagram. Barnacle protests Coral for not giving mark-room under rule 18.2(c) and as windward boat failing to keep clear under rule 11. Contact occurred at position 4 without damage or injury.
The Hearing
Barnacle's Description of the Incident:
I was steering Barnacle. We were on a hot port tack lay-line for the leeward mark to be rounded to port. About 50m from the mark Coral managed to get an overlap to windward. When I was between 30m and 40m from the mark, I bore away to break the overlap, and sailed into the zone clearly ahead of Coral until I was within 20m of the mark. 20m from the mark I hardened up on my course to the mark and lowered my spinnaker. When I was 10m from the mark I saw Coral had become overlapped inside me. As I was changing course to round the mark on my proper course, Coral's spinnaker, which was being eased or lowered, contacted the port after part of Barnacle without damage or injury. I hailed 'protest' and my crew immediately displayed a red flag. Coral then fell off behind me.
Coral's Questions to Barnacle
Q. Didn't you see Coral gaining an overlap on you at 15m from the mark?
A. No I did not. Once I was in the zone at 20m from the mark I was concentrating on the mark and boat handling.
Protest Committee's Questions to Barnacle
Q. Did you hail or otherwise signify to Coral that you considered the overlap broken and that you were clear ahead at the zone.
A. No. I considered it obvious.
Q. Did you do any penalty turns in respect of the incident?
A. No. I was in the right.
Coral's Description of the Incident
I agree that Barnacle broke the earlier overlap about 40m from the mark. When Barnacle headed up to the mark 20m from the mark, she must have re-established the overlap as the line through her stern swung with her change in course. Therefore the boats were overlapped when they reached the zone at about 13m from the mark. Coral was inside overlapped at the zone and entitled to mark-room. Barnacle failed to give Coral mark-room.
Barnacle's Questions to Coral
Q. If you were hiking out on the windward stern position on your boat, how could you accurately judge when the tip of your bowsprit crossed the stern-line of Barnacle to 're-establish' an overlap?
A. I didn't actually see and judge it, but it must have happened. I looked and saw when we were close to the mark at about 10m and we were certainly overlapped then.
Protest Committee Questions to Coral
Q. Did you hail Barnacle to claim mark-room?
A. No.
Q. Did you do any penalty turns in respect of the incident?
A. No. I was in the right.
Barnacle Summing Up
Barnacle reached the zone about 20m from the mark, clear ahead and was thereafter entitled to mark-room. Coral did not give Barnacle mark-room and as windward boat did not keep clear. Coral should be disqualified.
Coral's Summing Up
Coral was overlapped with Barnacle when she reached the zone about 13m from the mark and was thereafter entitled to mark-room. Barnacle did not give Coral mark-room. Coral should be exonerated for breaking rule 11 because she was taking mark-room to which she was entitled.
Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence
Your fellow protest committee members agree that Barnacle was clear ahead of Coral 20m from the mark, and that the boats were certainly overlapped at 10m from the mark, but that there is no direct evidence of when or exactly where they became overlapped.
Problem
Write Facts Found, 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.
The PC needs to apply some judgement and agree whether there was overlap or reasonable doubt about overlap when Barnacle reached the zone, which extends 13m from the mark. Indirect evidence of overlap includes Barnacle's statement that she luffed at 20m after falling off for the sole purpose of breaking overlap, her self-described piloting under assumption that the zone was 20m from the mark, and her drawing on the protest form. In light of the drawing especially, I will imagine they find overlap as fact, and write...
ReplyDeleteIntroduction: The zone referenced in rule 18 is defined as the area within three hull lengths of the mark, so approximately 13m from the mark for these boats, and a boat enters the zone when some part of her hull comes within this distance to the mark. The definition of overlap, by contrast, does include equipment such as bowsprit and spinnaker, if that equipment is in normal postion. The PC found sufficent evidence to determine overlap in this case without reasonable doubt.
Facts: Barnacle was outside overlapped at the zone, and did not give Coracle room to sail to the mark. Coracle's spinnaker made contact with Barnacle to leeward, while Coracle was taking mark-room to which she was entitled. No penalty was taken.
Conclusions: Barnacle broke rule 18.2(b). Coracle broke 11, but is exonerated under 18.5.
Decision: DSQ Barnacle.
30 minutes
Facts Found.
ReplyDelete1.Barnacle and Coral were two International 14’s having a hull length of 4 25m and a bowsprit 3.5m long.
2. Barnacle and Coral, both sailing on port tack, with Barnacle to leeward, were approaching a leeward mark to be rounded to port.
3. At about 50m from the mark Coral established an overlap to windward from clear astern.
4. At about 30-40 meters from the mark Barnacle bore away and broke the overlap.
5. At about 20m from the mark Barnacle was clear ahead and to leeward of Coral.
6. When Barnacle was at the mark there was contact between Coral’s spinnaker and Barnacle’s stern on the port side. There was no damage or injury as a result of their contact.
Conclusions.
1. Per rule 18.2(d), Barnacle was clear ahead when entering the zone.
2. Barnacle was entitled to mark room per 18.2(b) and was sailing her proper course at the mark.
3. Coral, clear astern when Barnacle reached the three-length zone, did not give Barnacle mark-room to sail her proper course at the mark. Coral broke rule 18.2(b).
4. Coral to windward did not keep clear of Barnacle to leeward. Coral broke rule 11.
5. It was reasonably possible for Coral to avoid contact with Barnacle. Coral was not, the right-of-way boat or entitled to room. Coral broke rule 14.
6. It was reasonably possible for Barnacle to avoid contact with Coral. Barnacle broke rule 14.
Decision.
1. Coral is to be scored DSQ for breaking rules 11, 14 and 18.2(b).
2. When Barnacle did not act to avoid contact with Coral, Barnacle was the right-of-way boat entitled to mark-room, and the contact did not cause damage or injury. Barnacle may not be penalized under rule 14.
Time to read and review the scribes notes and rwview applicable rules. 8 minutes.
Time to write the facts found, conclusions, and decision. 20 minutes.
Total time 28 minutes.
Facts Found
ReplyDelete1. B & C were approaching the leeward mark on a port gybe. The mark was to be passed to port.
2. B entered the zone when she was clear ahead of C.
3. C established an overlap to windward when B was inside the zone.
4. B luffed at the mark and there was contact between the boats.
5. There was no damage or injury.
6. Neither boat completed a penalty.
Conclusions
1. C failed to give B mark room and thereby broke rule 18.2(b).
2. C, as the windward boat, failed to keep clear of B, and thereby broke rule 11.
3. B, as the right of way boat, changed its course without giving C room to keep clear, and thereby broke rule 16.1.
4. When B broke rule 16.1 she was rounding the mark on her proper course, and so she is exonerated under rule 18.5(b).
5. It was reasonably possible for both B and C to have avoided contact: both boats broke rule 14. However, B is not liable to be penalised because there was no damage or injury, she was the right of way boat, and she was entitled to mark room.
Rules applicable
11, 14, 16.1, 18.2(b), 18.5(b).
Decision
C is disqualified.
(If there was a protest against B) The protest against B is dismissed.
Time taken: 22 minutes.
FACT FOUND:
ReplyDelete1. Barnacle and Coral were two International 14s. A hull length is 4.25m and a bowsprit is 3.5m long.
2. Barnacle, leeward and Coral, windward on both port tack were approaching a leeward mark to be rounded to port.
3. At about 50m from the mark, Coral became overlapped to windward from clear astern of Barnacle.
4. At about 30-40m from the mark, Barnacle bore away and broke the overlap.
5. At 20m from the mark, Barnacle was clear ahead and to leeward of Coral.
6. At 10m from the mark, Coral became overlapped to windward from clear astern of Barnacle.
6. When Barnacle was at the mark, there was contact between Coral’s spinnaker and Barnacle’s stern on the port side. There was no damage or injury.
CONCLUSION:
1. Barnacle was clear ahead when entering the zone under rule 18.2(d).
2. Barnacle was entitled to mark room under rule 18.2(b).
3. Coral did not give Barnacle mark-room, then she broke rule 18.2(b).
4. Coral to windward did not keep clear of Barnacle to leeward, then she also broke rule 11.
5. It was reasonably possible for both to avoid contact, then both broke rule 14.
But Barnacle was R-O-W boat and a boat entitled to mark-room and the contact did not cause damage and injury, then she is not penalized under rule 14(b).
RULES APPLICABLE:
11, 14, 18.2(b), 18.2(d)
DECISION:.
Coral is DSQ’d under rules 11, 14 and 18.2(b).
TIME:
Read 5ms, Refer to ‘RRS’ 3ms, Write 7ms, Refer to ‘Protest Conclusion Wordings’ 5m, Transl to English 10ms. Total about 30ms.
Sen Yamaoka June 2, 2009
John G, Barnacle v Coral
ReplyDeleteAnother nice neat solution.
You found as a fact that 'B entered the zone when she was clear ahead of C'.
At, or betwen, which of positions 1, 2, 3 or 4 on the diagram do you consider B reached the zone?
You also concluded that B broke rule 16.
I don't think there is any evidence that when B changed course at the mark she did so so fast that she failed to give C room to keep clear.
Sorry not to have time to do the practice opinion. If I may still make a comment, itsn't the point here that B mistakenly believed the zone to be at 20 m from the mark. C correctly judged the zone at about 13 m. The diagram drawn by B shows an overlap at zone entry (3 hull lengths) Shouldn't the protestor's own drawing be taken into consideration to decide the most important point - was there or wasn't there an overlap at zone entry?
ReplyDeleteSorry not to have had time to do the practice. If I may make a comment, isn't the point here that B believed the zone to be at 20 m from the mark when in fact it is at about 13 m as stated by C. Also, B's diagram shows an overlap at 3 hull lengths from mark - position 3 - and supports C's case. Perhaps DSQ B?
ReplyDeleteWasabi, Barnacle v Coral
ReplyDeleteWelcome, you don't have to submit an answer to earn the right to comment.
You're right, this problem was a follow on to "3 Lengths Overall or Hull" http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/2009/05/3-lengths-overall-boat-or-hull.html
B's diagram was scaled as one unit to one _overall_ length, so the correct zone boundary is just over one and a half units from the mark.
But we need to be very wary about what appears in a protest form diagram. The protestor will have spent no more than 5 or 10 minutes on it, and it's just the get over the hurdle of a sufficient protest form to get into a valid hearing. Neither a protest form diagram nor a TSS diagram should be scaled or interpolated from in preference to direct evidence of distances, they are usually only rough sketches.
The Protest Committee's Assessment was meant to demonstrate doubt about overlap at the zone and invite a solution addressing rule 18.2(d) and last point of certainty.
Dick and Sen took the last point of certainty as @2 in the diagram, between 20 and 30 m from the mark, than applied rule 18.2(d) to that.
O'hara and you have concluded that at the 20m point where B hardened up, she inevitably became again overlapped, and thus the last point of certainty was @20 plus delta and boats were overlapped.
As the problem is written, I think each view is equally open. I'll tweak this problem, and put in a 4 length zone, and try to get it pointing to just one right answer in future.
Thanks for participating.
Brass
ReplyDeleteI understood from the Description of the Incident that B entered the zone clear ahead at position 2. I thought that these were circumstances given to us for the purposes of the exercise - although it does appear from the diagram to be further out than three hull lengths.
In regard to the finding of rule 16, I have to admit that I have never seen an International 14 sail, as they are not sailed in my country. Judging by the picture on the LTW site a week ago, they appear to be fast boats. From the diagram, it seems that in the space of less than three boat lengths, B luffed up 45 degrees across C’s bow, and C, carrying a spinnaker was stuck between the mark and B. This must have happened within about a second.
Naturally, C should have anticipated that, as they were about to round a mark. Hence the exoneration.
John G, Barnacle v Coral
ReplyDeleteI apologise. The description of incident text underneath the diagram should have appeared in a white box alongside the box as in the Description of Incident section of a protest form. It was meant to be Barnacle's perception.
Nice answer on the way you saw it.
If I might nit-pick (usual stuff: words and language in the rules, and this applies to some answers besides yours) I know these are personal pet peeves, but hey, we're looking for a little polish here:
Boats _reach_ the zone, they do not _enter_ the zone.
Boats _become_ overlapped, one boat does not _establish_ and overlap.
Boats _change course towards the wind or to windward_ they do not _luff_: who knows what _luff_ means?
A boat _does not_ give room or keep clear, she does not _fail_ to give room or keep clear: saying she _failed_ indicates that you have already decided fault.
Ditch the 'thereby' and 'per' and other nineteenth century words. Instead of saying 'and B thereby broke rule rr' just start a new sentence 'B broke rule rr'. Saves a word or two.
Don't say 'B is not liable to be penalised' use the words of the rule: 'B shall not be penalised.'
If each of your conclusions include 'B broke rule rr' then don't repeat what rules were broken in your decision: just say 'B is disqualified'.
Still, as I said, a good neat answer.
Tbanks everyone for participating.