Wednesday 3 March 2010

LTW Readers Q&A | 037; Reason and might

This installment of LTW Readers Q&A is about rule 14. The odd rule in the pack, but also one that is the basis for all others. The question comes from Beau, who states his case concisely:

blogcolorstripe

Certainly, feel free to post this on your Blog; I'd be proud to contribute.  Perhaps I should be more specific in my point, given your interest.
Rule 14 says:
AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible.
However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room
(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat
is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and
(b) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact
that causes damage or injury.
I take this to mean that: "...if reasonably possible." means that a boat must do everything reasonable to avoid contact.  This would include a tack or gybe, a radical course change, and slowing down, amongst other things.  It does not include damaging their own boat or someone else's and putting people in danger.  It is the first test, if you will, and if a boat had done everything "reasonably possible", then the Judge need go no further.  However, in most of the juries that I've participated, the boats do not pass this test, having made only a half-hearted attempt to avoid a collision.  All one need do is observe a youth laser regatta to find numerous examples of this on the water.

Sub-sections "a" and "b" clearly talk about what happens to the Right-of-Way boat in certain circumstances, so we may drop a discussion of those circumstances as the second test.  The Right-of-Way boat may be guilty of a Rule 14 violation, but may be exonerated under "a" and/or "b".

This leaves us with EVERY other collision.  As I read Rule 14, whenever there is contact between two boats, and it is not excluded by the "...if reasonably possible." phrase in the rule, then both boats must be guilty of a Rule 14 violation.  This is clearly not observed in practice.  A number of times competitors will respond, when I ask them if they did "everything reasonably possible" that if they had slowed down, let their sails luff, or turned away, they would have lost distance in the race and been less competitive, as if this was an acceptable excuse for "contact".

There are numerous collisions where Juries say things like: "Well, it wasn't very serious." or "It didn't alter the outcome so what's the big deal."  or worse, "Boys will be boys, they bump into each other a lot in this fleet."  All of these seem like entirely inappropriate responses from a Jury, and I have heard every one of them at one time or another in the Protest Hearing.

My question is:  Am I reading this rule incorrectly?  Does it not cover every contact between boats that is reasonably possible to avoid?  Please provide your opinion, and if you feel it's useful free to publish my question and solicit answers.

Thank you again for the wonderful work you do on your Blog.
Beau Vrolyk




blogcolorstripe
Beau, I don’t think you are reading rule 14 wrong.
Every time there’s contact the panel should answer the question: “Was it for either boat reasonably possible to avoid contact ?” If the answer is yes, rule 14 is being infringed.

Because of the ‘I don’t have to do anything until….’ clause in 14(a) and  the ‘exoneration’ clause in rule 14(b) for the ROW-boat, most people perceive that as ‘no rule 14 broken’. But that is wrong.

Have a look at: LTW Readers Q&A | 026

Also, because of the way we go about our approach to an incident in the hearing, the other rules are much more at the front of the theater – so to speak. And once a boat is disqualified for a rule, the reasoning ‘what does it matter that she also broke rule 14’ is used, not investigate further.

That is also not correct. In fact that panel does the sailors a disservice.

As soon as they progress in their skills and end up in higher events, they will run into a protest where they themselves are DSQed for breaking rule 14, never having learned the specifics before.

A good panel must, after having found as fact that there was contact, draw a conclusion regarding rule 14. Every time!

And in many cases it will have to conclude that boats have not avoided contact while this was reasonably possible.

J.

Next time in LTW Readers Q&A:Virtual Boats at the Windward Mark

.

9 comments:

  1. I think Jos has it right in the above and in LTW Readers Q&A | 026. MR Call Gen 2 shows a similar perspective.

    Maybe some protest committee members and competitors are under the mistaken impression that rule 14 is an 'extra penalty' rule like rule 2 or rule 69, so they shy away from it.

    I just happen to have made some notes on rule 14 yesterday which people may find helpful.

    In my experience it is helpful to ask the parties the following questions, in an attempt to establish a consensus, right at the beginning of the protest hearing:

    Was there any damage? If so was it serious?

    Did either boat take a rule 44 penalty in respect of the incident.

    Asking these questions at the start saves the protest committee from overlooking the issues later on, and the answers will identify issues in dispute, so that they can be investigated during witness's main evidence and do not have to be dealt with (or swept under the carpet) as an afterthought.

    As Jos says, the protest committee should reach conclusions on all other Part 2 rules before turning to Rule 14. This is because rules 14(a) and (b), depend on right of way and room entitlements.

    Now for some particular considerations, if there has been contact.

    Firstly these situations all involve a KC boat entitled to room, and thus we may have a situation where BOTH boats are saved under rule 14(a) or (b).

    If a ROW boat breaks rule 15 or 16 by not giving a KC boat room to keep clear then the ROW boat has made it impossible for th eKC boat to keep clear, and therefore it was not reasonably possible for the KC boat to avoid contact. The KC boat does not break rule 14.

    If a ROW boat breaks rule 19 by not giving a KC boat room between her and an obstruction, the same logic as above applies and the KC boat does not break rule 14.

    If a ROW boat breaks a provision of rule 18 by not giving a KC boat mark-room to which she is entitled:

    * IF the mark was an obstruction, the same logic as above applies and the KC boat does not break rule 14.

    * IF the mark was NOT an obstruction, it may be possible for the KC boat to have avoided contact by hitting the mark (which may be 'unseamanlike' (See MR Call UMP 29), but not unsafe). In this case the protest committee has to consider whether it would have been reasonable for the KC boat to avoid contact by hitting the mark.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is it reasonably possible for the starboard tack boat, Goose, to avoid the port tack boat, Duck, in the following situation?

    The winds are 20 kts with seas of 6 feet (2m). Approximately 1 minute after the start Duck, attempting to cross the fleet on port tack collides with Goose.

    Facts found.

    1. Approximately 10 seconds after the start the bowman for Goose returns from his lookout position on the bow to sit on the high side rail. Due to the wind strength and sea conditions all but one crew (the jib trimmer) of the starboard tack boat Goose are on the high side to help maintain control of the boat.

    2.The jib trimmer and the helmsman are in the cockpit maintaining a lookout to leeward. For safety considerations the jib trimmer remains in the cockpit and does not place himself on the leeward rail but rather looks to leeward by looking under the main sail boom. The helmsman also looks to leeward by looking under the main sail boom. Because of the conditions and the need to trim the jib the and steer the boat neither the helmsman nor jib trimmer are looking to leeward at all times.

    3. While maintaining a lookout as described the trimmer and helmsman see other starboard tack boats to leeward but do not see Duck.

    4. Duck on port, crosses clear ahead of Chicken Little, a starboard tack boat between Duck and Goose, and does not see Goose until he he has cleared Chicken Little. Upon seeing Goose Duck's lookout shouts to his helmsman to Go Down, Go Down. Two to four seconds later Duck collides with Goose. Duck testifies that he never saw Goose until he cleared Chicken Little two to our seconds before the collision. Despite maintaining a lookout as described above Goose testifies that he never saw Duck before the collision nor did he see Duck in the two-to four second interval from when Duck cleared Chicken Little until the collision.

    Questions.

    1.Considering the wind and sea conditions, and seamanship and safety was Goose's lookout a reasonable lookout for a right of way boat or has Goose broken rule 14 by not maintaining a constant lookout to leeward where he may have seen Duck after Duck cleared Chicken Little, two-four seconds before the collision?

    2. Has Goose broken rule 14 because he did not see Duck behind Chicken Little and thus did not take an avoiding action?

    3. Would the interpretation of ISAF Case 107 apply to this scenario so that Goose, a right of way boat, might be found to have broken rule 14 because he did not maintain a constant lookout?

    Dick

    ReplyDelete
  3. The last sentence of RRS 14 "However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room" but even a Keep Clear boat is entitled to Room to Keep Clear. So could 14 (a) and 14 (b)offer exoneration to Keep Clear boats not just right of way boats?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks very much for this (and all the others!) - but I would like to ask: SO WHAT if Rule 14 is broken by the right-of-way boat but there's no damage/injury? The right-of-way boat cannot be penalized unless the contact causes damage or injury, so even if the jury records it, it's irrelevant. No?

    We in the Hong Kong Etchells fleet very much appreciate your blogposts, they are fantastic for keeping us all on our toes about the rules.

    With best regards and thanks
    Jamie

    ReplyDelete
  5. Regarding Dick's questions

    This was a situation which required a constant look out to leeward from Goose. A helmsman sitting to leeward and a jib trimmer ought to have been able to do that and perform their normal tasks. I am surprised the helmsman did not see Duck before the collision.

    It might not have been possible to see Duck behind Chicken Liver.

    It would be harsh to ping Goose. With 2 people looking to windward, it is hard to see what more they could reasonably be expected to have done.

    Duck behaved dangerously. It was foreseeable that a boat bight be concealed in Goose's position and that Duck would be unable to avoid such a boat.

    Wag

    ReplyDelete
  6. Horsey,

    Yes, if there is contact without injury or damage, where a keep clear boat is entitled to room or mark-room, both the right of way boat and the keep clear boat will be protected from being penalised by rule 14(b).

    Jamie,

    This is exactly the issue Beau raised in the original post.

    I suggest that it matters for the following reasons:

    1. A protest committee should identify all the rules that are broken in a validly protested incident and give clear decisions on each one of them. This is just an issue of thoroughness and doing a good job by the protest committee.

    2. A protest committee that starts deciding not to make decisions about rules being broken because in their opinion 'is won't make any difference' is starting down a slippery slope: will the next decision where 'it won't make any difference' be not to bother about a port/starboard because the boats were coming last and second last?

    3. Rule 14 is always important. It is there to prevent unsafe sailing. Contact without damage is only seconds and centimetres from contact with serious damage and possiby injury. If a boat bothers to protest, then they deserve to get a protest decision that highlights that rule 14 was broken if this was the case.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wag,

    There are a few things in your post that I don't understand.

    How could a helmsman perform his or her normal tasks in 20kts of wind while sitting to leeward? Are you familiar with the phrase "Sit low go slow?"

    If the situation required a constant lookout to leeward from Goose, and Goose did not keep a constant lookout to leeward, why is it harsh to ping Goose under rule 14, when, if she had been keeping a good lookout she would have seen Duck in time to take action to avoid contact?

    You say "With 2 people [on Goose] looking to windward it is hard to see what more they could reasonably be expected to have done." Didn't you just say above, that they should have been keeping a constant lookout to leeward?

    Perhaps Duck behaved dangerously, but boats do that all the time and there is no rule against it. It suffices that Duck broke rule 10 and rule 14. I don't think protest committees should making moral judgements when deciding Part 2 rules.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Brass

    You are quite right. The boats I sail (Gareloch OD) introduced windows in the main for this very reason.

    I know Goose needed to keep a look out, not just have people positioned to leeward. I still find it strange they did not see Duck. Maybe she was obscured by spray at the key moment.

    As for Duck's move being a bit dangerous, I dont suggest there should be a penalty on her for that. Rather that it be taken into account when deciding whether or not Goose broke 14. Also, there is the question of what Goose could have done. I suspect not a lot, especially if she boats to leeward.

    Wag

    ReplyDelete
  9. In answer to Dick's specific questions:

    1.Considering the wind and sea conditions, and seamanship and safety was Goose's lookout a reasonable lookout for a right of way boat or has Goose broken rule 14 by not maintaining a constant lookout to leeward where he may have seen Duck after Duck cleared Chicken Little, two-four seconds before the collision?

    Answer 1(a). Case 107 tells us that Goose was required to keep a 'good' lookout, not a 'reasonable' one, but never mind. I suggest that the standard of lookout required is a lookout that is sufficient to detect and monitor the presence, position, course and speed of another boat in sufficient time, in the case of a ROW boat taking advantage of rule 14(a), for the ROW boat to assess or identify when or whether it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear and if not, to take reasonably possible action herself to avoid contact. A protest committee is entitled to infer that a so-called 'lookout' that does not see another boat AT ALL until contact occurs is not a lookout at all, and certainly not a 'good' lookout.

    Answer 1(b). A boat does not break rule 14 by failing to keep a lookout. She breaks rule 14 by failing to avoid contact when it is reasoanbly possible to do so.

    2. Has Goose broken rule 14 because he did not see Duck behind Chicken Little and thus did not take an avoiding action?

    Answer 2. If the reason Goose did not take avoiding action was because Duck was obscured by Chicken Little until it was too late for Goose to take any reasonably possible avoiding action, then Goose does not break rule 14 because it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact.

    But if the reason Goose did not take avoiding action was that, even though Duck could have been seen by Goose in time for Goose to take avoiding action, Goose, because of crew positions, distractions or whatever, did not see Duck at all, then, if there was sufficient time and space from the time that Duck COULD HAVE BEEN SEEN by Goose, then Goose has not taken reasonably possible action to avoid contact, and so breaks rule 14.

    3. Would the interpretation of ISAF Case 107 apply to this scenario so that Goose, a right of way boat, might be found to have broken rule 14 because he did not maintain a constant lookout?

    Answer 3. Case 107 expressly says: "[The requirement of rule 14] means that a boat must do everything that can reasonably be expected of her in the prevailing conditions to avoid contact. This includes keeping a good lookout, particularly in a crowded starting line situation."(emphasis added)

    Can anyone see any way that Case 107 does NOT apply?

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...