(pillow)Case of the week (35/11) – 59

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

This is a catch-up post (originally slotted for week 52/10)

CASE 59

Rule 18.2(a), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room

When a boat comes abreast of a mark but is outside the zone, and when her change of course towards the mark results in a boat that is in the zone and that was previously clear astern becoming overlapped inside her, rule 18.2(a) requires her to give mark-room to that boat, whether or not her distance from the mark was caused by giving mark-room to other boats overlapped inside her.

Assumed Facts

Five boats were approaching a leeward mark dead before the wind. Four of them were overlapped in line with A nearest the mark. The fifth boat, E, was clear astern of A, B and C when those three boats reached the zone. When D came abreast of the mark and turned to round it, E became overlapped inside D. This occurred after E had already reached the zone and before D reached it. E rounded the mark behind A, B and C but inside D, which was able to give mark-room to E.

 

Question

Was E entitled to mark-room under rule 18.2(a) from D?

Answer

Yes.
Because E was clear astern of A, B and C when they reached the zone, she was required by rule 18.2(b) to give each of them mark-room. Between E and D, however, a different relationship developed. In order to leave room for the three inside boats with their booms fully extended, D had to approach the mark on a course that brought her abreast of it outside the zone. When E reached the zone, she was clear astern of D and D was still outside the zone. Therefore, rule 18.2(b) did not apply between D and E. When D changed course towards the mark, E obtained an inside overlap and rule 18.2(a) began to apply between D and E. E was entitled to markroom under that rule, which D was able to give.

USSA 1982/250

 

In big fleets this is frequently and issue. While boat D thinks he’s clear ahead and doesn’t have to let any other boat in he never enters the zone until he has luffed. With the increase from two to three lengths zone this issue has marginally “improved”. That is to say it plays out more to the perception of the sailors. But like in this case if there are four or five abreast it still should be considered.

(pillow)Case of the week (34/11) – 60

This one of those ‘gab’ Cases between 60 and 53, posted as second post each Monday….

Just read the Case and don’t worry about the order.

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

CASE 60

Rule 16.1, Changing Course
Rule 18.1(c), Mark-Room: When Rule 18 Applies
Definitions, Keep Clear
Definitions, Room

When a right-of-way boat changes course in such a way that a keep-clear boat, despite having taken avoiding action promptly, cannot keep clear in a seamanlike way, the right-of way boat breaks rule 16.1.

Summary of the Facts

After A rounded the windward mark to starboard ahead of B and then gybed onto starboard tack, she chose not to sail directly towards the next mark but, for tactical reasons, to reach high above it. To do so, after gybing she luffed sharply, at which point she was bow to bow with B, who was on port tack beating to windward. The boats were now little more than one length apart. B immediately bore away as hard as she could to avoid a collision, but her action was not sufficient. However, A quickly luffed still further and the two passed very close to each other but without contact.
The protest committee upheld A’s protest under rule 10 and B appealed, claiming that A had broken rule 16.1 by failing to give B room to keep clear.

Decision

B’s appeal is upheld; she is reinstated and A is disqualified. 
Tactical desires do not relieve a boat of her obligations under the rules. A was free to adopt any course she chose to reach the leeward mark, but she did not have the right to luff into the path of B so close to B that B could not keep clear. Despite B’s bearing away as hard as possible, a potentially serious collision would have occurred had A not taken avoiding action by quickly luffing further. As it turned out, their combined efforts narrowly averted such a collision, but that does not change the conclusion that in this case when A gybed onto starboard tack, became the right-of way boat, and continued to alter course, she did not at any time give B ‘the space [she needed] . . . while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way’ to enable A to ‘sail her course with no need to take avoiding action.’

Therefore, A broke rule 16.1.

Although both boats were in the mark’s zone, rule 18 did not apply because B was approaching the mark and A was leaving it (see rule 18.1(c)). Therefore, A was not entitled to exoneration under rule 18.5(b) for her breach of rule 16.1.

USSA 1975/178

For those who are missing the bouncing ball:

1. B on port did not keep clear of A, because;
2. A could not sail her course with no need to take avoiding action, because;
3. B did not have enough room (space to manoeuvre in a seamanlike way), because;
4. A as right of way boat changed course directly in front of her, therefore;
5. B is exonerated because she was forced to break rule 10, and
6. A is disqualified for breaking rule 16.1.

Now, if you can do this backwards you’ll be able to become a competent PC-member…….

(pillow)Case of the Week (50) - 61

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

And again, don’t look for Case 62 – it also has been deleted.

CASE 61

Rule 71.4, National Authority Decisions

When the decision of a protest committee is changed or reversed upon appeal, the final standings and the awards must be adjusted accordingly.

Question 

May the organizing authority state in the notice of race or sailing instructions that, while appeal is not denied, final regatta standings and awards will not be affected by any appeal decision?

Answer 

No. Rule 86.1 prohibits changing any part of rule 70 or rule 71 in the sailing instructions. An appeal involves not only the adjudication of a dispute on the meaning of a rule but also, in the event of a change or reversal of the decision of the protest committee, an adjustment of the results of the race and the final standings of the regatta on which the awards are based.

Rule 71.4 states that the decision of the national authority is final, and this decision must be implemented by those bodies subject to rule 85 and governed by the rules: the organizing authority, the race committee and the protest committee.

USSA 1983/252



On average the number of appeals in the Netherlands is about 10 a year.

I was wondering how many a big sailing nation as the USA has each year and if that number has increased since the new US SAILING Prescriptions.

The number of parties in a redress hearing must have grown considerably……

J.

(pillow)Case of the Week (49) - 63

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)

Case 64 has been deleted in the Casebook.

CASE 63

Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
Rule 18.5(b), Mark-Room: Exoneration
Definitions, Mark-Room

At a mark, when room is made available to a boat that is not entitled to it, she may, at her own risk, take advantage of the room.

Summary of the Facts


Two boats, A and B, broad reaching and about to round the leeward mark, were overlapped with B outside. C was further astern. A passed the mark about one hull length to leeward, as did B, leaving ample room for C to round the mark inside them. B, because of her position outside A, was unable to deny room to C, and at no time during the incident sailed a course that would have resulted in a collision with C. No contact occurred. B protested C.

The protest committee dismissed B’s protest stating that C did not break any rule when she sailed between B and the mark and C did not cause B to take avoiding action or prevent B from luffing. B appealed on the grounds that C’s action prevented her from executing her intended manoeuvre, which had been to slow down by bearing away and then to harden up across A’s transom, thereby denying room to C to pass inside.


Decision 

B’s appeal is dismissed. When B entered the zone she was clear ahead of C, so rule 18.2(b) required C to give B mark-room. Rule 12 (and later rule 11) also required C to keep clear of B. B was not required to give C mark-room. However, B, because she could not prevent it, allowed C room to sail between her and the mark and the protest committee found that she was not in a position to do otherwise. When C sailed between B and the mark C broke no rule.

When a boat voluntarily or unintentionally makes room at a mark available to another that has no rights to such room, the other boat may take advantage, at her own risk, of the room. The risk she takes is that the boat entitled to mark-room may be able to close the gap between her and the mark while sailing her proper course. In that case, the boat entitled to mark-room will be exonerated if she breaks a rule of Section A or rule 15 or 16 (see rule 18.5(b)), and only rule 14 will inhibit her if she makes a rapid and aggressive attempt to close the gap between herself and the mark.

RYA 1984/1



I wonder how many re- writes this call has gone through since 1984. And now with the latest change in wording with ‘mark-room’, it still works. Shows that not THAT much has changed in the way regatta rules are used on the water.

How’s that saying again: “You Snooze, you Loose”?

And talking about saying:
You have to click over to Tillerman’s post on Paul Elstrøm: What Did Elvstrøm Say?

Perhaps a genuine htg rules-nerd can find the answer…

J.