From “The Room” by Brass
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 as shown.
Description of Incident
The description of the incident from the protest form is as shown.
Gullwing and Heron are 10m keelboats.
Wind conditions were about 10kts. Sea conditions are slight waves.
| | Gullwing responded to Flotsam who was shooting the finish mark. In the act of keeping clear of Flotsam, Gullwing collided with Heron, on port tack Gullwing protests Heron for failing to keep clear under rule 10. Contact occurred without damage or injury. |
The Hearing
Gullwing's Description of the Incident:
I was steering Gullwing. We were on the starboard tack lay-line for the finish mark, with Flotsam to leeward, overlapped, advanced on us by about half a boat length. Heron had finished clear ahead of both of us.
About 10m from the mark Flotsam luffed moderately hard to shoot the finish mark, and I responded to keep clear. I saw Heron to windward and expected her to gather way and sail clear.
Heron seemed to be in confusion, and did not trim sails and sail away, remaining stalled in the same position.
I continued to keep clear of Flotsam and collided with Heron. There was no damage or injury.
I was unable to change course away from Heron because there was no room between me and Flotsam.
I hailed 'protest' and my crew immediately displayed a red flag.
Heron's Questions to Gullwing
Q. Was Heron clear ahead when she reached the zone?
A. Yes.
Q. For how long was Gullwing on a steady course before she hit Heron?
A. Gullwing was changing course when she hit Heron.
Protest Committee's Questions to Gullwing
Q. How far towards the wind did you alter course?
A. About 25 degrees above close hauled, but not as high as head to wind.
Q. Did you do any penalty turns in respect of the incident?
A. No.
Heron's Description of the Incident
Heron had finished about 30m ahead of Flotsam and Gullwing, and I tacked immediately I had crossed the line to get clear of the finish pin which Flotsam and Gullwing were aiming for.
In the tack my weather sheet jammed, my jib did not cross the boat, and I stalled and lost way with the headsail aback.
I saw Gullwing changing course towards me but I was unable to avoid her.
In any case I reached the zone clear ahead and Gullwing was required to give me room.
Gullwing's Questions to Heron
Q. Were you sailing towards the mark or away from the mark?
A. Away from the mark.
Q. How far from the mark were you when contact occurred?
A. About a boat length.
Protest Committee Questions to Heron
Q. Did you hail Gullwing to claim mark-room?
A. No.
Q. Was there any injury or damage?
A. No.
Q. Did you do any penalty turns in respect of the incident?
A. No.
Gullwing's witness evidence
I was the skipper of Flotsam.
We were just below the starboard tack lay-line for the finish mark, with Gullwing to windward, overlapped, with us advanced by about half a boat length. Heron had finished clear ahead of both of us.
About 10m from the mark I luffed to shoot the finish mark, and Gullwing responded and just kept clear.
I then heard sounds like contact between two boats, glanced to windward and saw Heron close to windward of Gullwing.
I then heard a hail of 'Protest'.
Protest Committee Questions to Gullwing's witness
Q. How far did you clear the finish mark by?
A. I just cleared it, not more than half a metre.
Q. How far was Gullwing from you when you cleared the mark?
A. About 1 metre or less.
Gullwing Summing Up
Gullwing was on starboard, Heron was on port. Heron did not keep clear.
Heron lost her right to mark-room when she passed head to wind.
Heron should be disqualified.
It was not reasonably possible for Gullwing to avoid contact with Heron.
Heron's Summing Up
Heron was entitled to mark-room which Gullwing failed to give.
Gullwing hit Heron while changing course and should also be disqualified under rule 16.
Protest Committee's Assessment of the Evidence
Your fellow protest committee members agree that the evidence given, and the diagram in the written protest is reasonably consistent.
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.
We discussed this case on the Budd Inlet Star Fleet weblog last week. Now I can concentrate on the writing excercise:
ReplyDeleteThe PC endorses the drawing in the protest filed by G.
Facts
(1) Keelboats F G, and H approached the finish line on starboard tack for an upwind finish.
(2) F and G were close to the starboard layline for the pin at the left end of the finish line.
(3) When H reached the zone around the pin, she was clear ahead of F and G.
(4) H crossed the line about 30 meters ahead of F and G.
(5) H tacked on the line, about one boat length from the pin.
(6) H turned to a close hauled course, but did not tack her headsail.
(7) After her tack to port, H was stationary, or moving very slowly, in a position clear to windward of G's current course.
(8) When F reached the zone she was overlapped inside and about half a boat length ahead of G.
(9) Beginning 10 meters from the pin, while F was overlapped to leeward of G, F changed course toward the wind, clearing the pin by one half meter.
(10) G changed course toward the wind to about 25degrees above close-hauled, clearing F by one meter.
(11) G and H made contact while G was changing course. The contact caused no damage nor injury.
(12) No penalties were taken on the water.
Conclusions
(1) When H passed head to wind, rule 18.2(b) ceased to apply between H and G, and between H and F.
(2) H on port did not keep clear of G on starboard. H broke rule 10.
(3) Considering the limited forward momentum of H when G began to change course, when G changed course she did not give H room to keep clear. G broke rule 16.1.
(4) As as a consequence of breaking rule 16.1, G compelled H to break rule 10. Rule 64.1(c) applies.
(5) It was not reasonably possible for H to avoid contact with G.
(6) When F changed course she did not give G room, given the location of H, to keep clear. F broke rule 16.1.
(7) As as a consequence of breaking rule 16.1, F compelled G to break rule 16.1 with respect to H. Rule 64.1(c) applies.
(8) It was not reasonably possible for G to avoid contact with H.
(9) When F changed course without giving room to G, F was sailing her proper course at the finish pin, and F was taking mark room to which she was entitled by rule 18.2(b) between F and G. Rule 18.5 applies.
Decision
H is exonerated under rule 64.1(c).
G is exonerated under rule 64.1(c).
F is exonerated under rule 18.5.
Time: two weeks for discussion, 65 minutes writing
Facts found
ReplyDelete1. H crossed the finish line on starboard tack, three boat lengths ahead of F & G.
2. After H completely crossed the line, she tacked to port.
3. While H was tacking, her sheet jammed. That caused her to move astern while her headsail was backed by the wind.
4. F & G approached the finish line, on starboard tack. F was overlapped to leeward of G.
5. Approximately one boat length from the finish mark, F turned to windward to fetch the mark.
6. G also turned to windward, in order to keep clear of F. G did not pass head to wind.
7. Before G cleared the line, there was contact between the starboard side of G and the port side of H.
8. There was no damage or injury.
9. No boat completed a penalty.
Conclusions
1. When H was not racing, she interfered with G who was racing: H breached rule 23.1.
2. H also broke rules 10, 14 and 21.3, but she is not liable to be penalised under those rules because she was not racing at the time.
3. G could not reasonably have avoided contact with H, and therefore did not breach rule 14.
4. H had room to keep clear of G, so G did not breach rule 16.
Rules applicable
10, 14, 16, 21.3, 23.1, 64.1(c)
Decision
H is disqualified from the race she had just completed.
(If there was a protest against F or G) Protests against F & G are dismissed.
Time taken: 47 minutes
It was not clear from the evidence whether H had completely cleared the finish line before she stalled. For the purposes of the exercise I have assumed that she did.
Dear John G.
ReplyDeleteI've had to delete three of your comments. Couldn't find any differences... Please, once is enough., okay?
Facts Found:
ReplyDelete1.The wind was about 10 knots with slight waves.
2. Heron finished on starboard tack about 3 boat lengths in front of Gullwing and Flotsom, inside the zone, at the pin end of the finish line.
3. After finishing, Heron tacked to port. During the tack Heron’s windward sheet jammed and the jib became backwinded causing Heron to stall and to lose way.
4. During the tack Heron passed head to wind. but did not thereafter come to a closehauled course.
5. When Heron entered the zone she was entitled to Mark Room per rule 18.2(b). When Heron passed head to wind 18.2(b) ceased to apply to her per rule 18.2(c).
6. As Heron was finishing Gullwing and Flotsom, both on starboard, entered the zone and were approaching the pin end of the finish line. Gullwing was on the starboard tack layline with Flotsom to leeward and about 1/2 boat length advanced of Gullwing.
7. Flotsom headed up to “shoot” the line to finish. Gullwing responded by heading up about 25 degrees above close hauled to keep clear of Flotsom resulting in contact between Gullwing and Heron.
8.There was no injury or damage as a result of the contact.
9. The diagram of the incident, as prepared by Heron, is endorsed by the protest committee.
Conclusions:
1. When Flotsom, the right-of-way boat, changed course she did not give Gullwing room to keep clear. Flotsom broke rule 16.1.
2. It was not reasonably possible for Gullwing to avoid contact with Heron. Gullwing did not break rule 14.
3. When Gullwing headed up she gave time and room to Heron to manoeuvre promptly in a seamanlike way. Gullwing did not break rule 16.1.
4. Heron, while tacking, did not keep clear of Gullwing. Heron broke rule 13.
5. It was reasonably possible for Heron to avoid contact with Gullwing. Heron was not the right of way boat or entitled to room. Heron broke rule 14.
Decision.
1. When Flotsom did not give room to Gullwing, Flotsom was at the mark and taking mark-room to which she was entitled. Flotsom is exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 under rule 18.5(b).
2. Heron is DSQ for breaking rules 13 and 14.
Time for the PC deliberations to discuss and review the testimony, evidence, and rules, 25 minutes.
Time to write the Facts Found, Conclusions and Decision, 20 minutes.
Time to read the decision, 8 minutes.
Total time 53 minutes.
Dick,
ReplyDeleteGullwing v Heron
Would you care to try with a solution 'reverse engineered' from the Protest Wording Tool conclusions, and see how short you can make it?
Brass,
ReplyDeleteIf I understand your comment I have shortened my Facts Found to the following 5 facts to support my conclusions. The other facts I will retain in my notes to offer as comments should there be an appeal. My conclusions and decision remain unchanged.
Facts Found:
1. After finishing, Heron tacked to port. During the tack Heron passed head to wind but did not thereafter come to a closehauled course.
2. When Heron entered the zone, clear ahead, she was entitled to Mark Room per rule 18.2(b). When Heron passed head to wind 18.2(b) ceased to apply to her per rule 18.2(c).
3. Flotsom headed up to “shoot” the line to finish. Gullwing responded by heading up about 25 degrees above close hauled to keep clear of Flotsom resulting in contact between Gullwing and Heron.
4.There was no injury or damage as a result of the contact.
5. The diagram of the incident, as prepared by Heron, is endorsed by the protest committee.
Brass's Attempt Gullwing v Heron
ReplyDeleteEerie similarity indeed. LTW is a clean green sustainable sailing blog: reduce, reuse, recycle.
Dick, thanks for the rewrite: 270 words.
Here's my attempt, weighing in at 306 words, with a little explanation about how I concluded that Gullwing did not break rule 16.1.
Facts Found
Gullwing was sailing towards the port-end finishing mark, on the layline, close hauled on starboard tack.
Heron was sailing towards the port-end finishing mark, to leeward of, and half a boat length advanced on Gullwing.
Heron had finished, tacked onto port with difficulties and was lying across the finishing line, making no way, initially half a boat length upwind of Gullwing.
At just under one length from the mark, Flotsam changed course to windward and shot the mark, without passing head to wind.
Gullwing responded, and kept clear of Flotsam, without passing head to wind, and collided with Heron, without injury or damage.
No boat took a penalty.
Conclusions
Heron had finished, but was not clear of the finishing line. Heron was racing.
Heron on port did not keep clear of Gullwing on starboard-tack. Heron broke rule 10.
Heron's obligation to keep clear of Gullwing began when Heron passed head to wind and continued until after contact occurred. There was room for a boat similar to Heron, manoeuvring promptly from that time, in a seamanlike manner, to have maintained speed and steerage way so as to have kept clear of Gullwing. Gullwing did not fail to give Heron room to keep clear. Gullwing did not break rule 16.1.
It was reasonably possible for Heron to avoid contact with Gullwing. Heron was not the right-of-way boat or entitled to room. Heron broke rule 14.
It was not reasonably possible for Gullwing to avoid contact with Heron. Gullwing did not break rule 14.
When Flotsam, the right-of-way boat, changed course she did not give Gullwing room to keep clear. Flotsam broke rule 16.1.
When Flotsam did not give room to Gullwing, Flotsam was at the mark and taking mark-room to which she was entitled.
Decision
Heron is disqualified.
Flotsam is exonerated under rule 18.5.
Dick, I don't think there is evidence that Heron had not completed her tack: it's pretty hard for a boat with the jib aback _not_ to be borne away onto at least a close hauled course. What caused you to change your mind from the solution you gave to BISF?
On the BISF quiz I found, as you have here, that the boat that was stalled on the line, on port tack, broke 10.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that I could have concluded that Heron broke 10 instead of 13. But, I decided to go with 13 instead of 10 because the diagram of the incident, prepared by Heron and endorsed by the committee, shows Heron above closehauled at the time of the incident and, usually, when my windward sheet jams during a tack, I end up not making it to a closehauled course on the new tack.
During the hearing I probably should have asked
the question of Heron; "Did you complete your tack to a closehauled course"? If yes then DSQ him for 10.
But, I did make that finding a conclusion and not a fact found so Heron could ask to reopen, based on evidence that he did come to a closehauled course or, appeal his DSQ for breaking 13.
Either case would simply leave him with a DSQ under 10 when Gullwing has not broken 16.1.