(pillow)Case of the Week (46/11) - 35

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

CASE 35

Rule 20.1(b), Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Hailing and Responding

When a boat is hailed for room to tack at an obstruction and replies ‘You tack’, and the hailing boat is then able to tack and avoid the hailed boat, the hailed boat has complied with rule 20.1(b).

Summary of the Facts

As two close-hauled boats approached a shore, L hailed W for room to tack. W replied ‘You tack’ and L then tacked immediately. After tacking, L bore away in a seamanlike way and passed under W’s stern, which she cleared by three feet (1 m) or more. L protested W under rule 20.1(b). The protest committee decided that W failed to give room as required by rule 20.1(b) and disqualified her. W appealed.

Decision

W’s appeal is upheld, and she is to be reinstated. L’s actions showed that she had room to tack and avoid W. W therefore met her obligation under rule 20.1(b).

USSA 1976/189

The exact wording in rule 20.1(b) is:

……. ,or by immediately replying ‘You tack’ and then giving the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her; …..

In Case 35 boat L made the mistake in thinking that after she was given the reply “You Tack” she was free to do as she pleased. That she was free to tack and go in front of W. But the obligation to keep clear under rule 13 and then under rule 11, is not switched off. The only thing she ‘gained’ is that W took the obligation to give her room to do so, and while L did everything to keep clear, to avoid her.

Right of way is NOT changed by this rule. The hailed boat only gets an additional obligation to give (more) room and make sure that she avoids L.

If L would not have been able to bear away – or only in an un-seamanlike way – then W would not have given her enough room and would have broken rule 20.1(b). The failure to keep clear by L in that case, would be exonerated under rule 20.2

Hiking and rule 49.2

By mail I received a comment on yesterday's Case from Bill Heintz:
He has done some research on the subject across the Internet:


Rule 49.2 is not enforced on any level racing except under extreme conditions.  If everyone is doing it, it is fair across the board right?  Apparently the purpose of the lower lifeline for hiking purposes and has nothing to do with safety.

Rune 49.2 . . . On boats equipped with upper and lower lifelines of wire, a competitor sitting on the deck facing outboard with his waist inside the lower lifeline may have the upper part of his body outside the upper lifeline.

Maybe "sitting" needs needs to be defined in the RRS as in regards to Rule 49.2.  According to one dictionary "position in which one's weight is supported by one's buttocks rather than one's feet and one's back is upright"  this does not seem to include "hanging by a wire across your belly like a sack of potatoes."

Photo 1?  http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/2010/01/sunday-rules-snap.html
There did not seem to be consensus on whether this was legal in 49.2 (or people reading the rule)

Photo 2?  http://www.sailnet.com/forums/racing/38306-racing-question-anyone.html
According to this Forum this is legal - Rule 49.2 is open to on the spot interpretation.

Photo 3? http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=110190&st=125
Remember the old line "it's there to save your ass, not support it"? A life line failure is going to cause crew who are hiking that way to end up in the water. If half of a 6 person crew are swimming, how well is recovery going to go?

Photo 4? http://www.vsail.info/2011/08/25/rob-weiland-tp52-class-manager-talks-to-vsail-info/
Rob Weiland implies that this is legal under 49.2 as long as you "try to enforce by regular inspections."
ISAF ORC Special Regulation Cat 3 for Monohulls 3.14.6 Table 8 Lifeline Minimum Diameter wire rope diameter 3/16" wire - working load limit 940 lbs (4,700 lb breaking load) , 12 crew hiking on typical TP52 = each crew member can weight up to 78 lbs (even the Morning Light crew weighs more than that)

Comment? http://www.j24class.org/news/j24-hiking-position-2011-rule-changes-and-looking-forward/
"We were only slightly ahead of our times since the ISAF has a proposal before it (130-06) to delete the section of RRS 49.2 that allows hiking between the lifelines."

(pillow)Case of the Week (45/11) - 36

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

CASE 36

Rule 49.2, Crew Position

Positioning of crew members relative to lifelines.

Summary of the Facts
A boat in an offshore class, while close-hauled, had a crew member positioned, for several minutes on two occasions, next to the shrouds with his feet on the deck and his legs inside but touching the lifelines. While his torso was substantially upright, part of it was outboard of an imaginary line projected vertically from the top of the lifelines. The boat was disqualified under rule 49.2 and appealed.

Decision
The appeal is dismissed. To clarify the rule, the drawing shows possible crew positions.
Position 6 is the position of the appellant’s crew member.
Positions 1, 2 and 3 do not break the rule; positions 5 and 6 break it.
On boats equipped with one lifeline, position 4 breaks the rule.
On boats equipped with two wire lifelines, a crew member sitting on deck facing outboard with his waist inside the lower lifeline and the upper part of his body outside the upper lifeline, as shown in position 4, does not break the rule.

USSA 1976/194

  
Rule 49.2 is purely a safety issue. We don't want that crew members are compelled to take too much risk in projecting there weight outside to get a little more speed. There is a limit and this is it. Shouldn't be to hard to follow......

 
But if there are no lifelines - only rule 49.1 restricts the crew position....

(pillow)Case of the Week (44/11) - 37

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

CASE 37

Rule 32.1(d), Shortening or Abandoning After the Start
Rule 62.1(a), Redress

Each race of a regatta is a separate race; in a multi-class regatta, abandonment may be suitable for some classes, but not for all.

Summary of the Facts

In the third race of a regatta involving about 120 boats and 15 offshore classes, all classes sailed the same course on which a reaching mark was found to have moved almost a mile out of position. Various boats in several classes sought redress because of it. The mark moved out of position over an hour before any of the boats in the last two classes reached it. None of the boats in those two classes requested redress. The protest committee, however, abandoned the races for all classes. The boats in the last two classes then asked for redress, claiming that the abandonment of their races was improper. Redress was denied. They appealed.

Decision

The protest committee failed to distinguish between different procedures under which a race may be abandoned. The race committee could have abandoned the race under rule 32.1(d) because the mark was out of position. It did not do so, however, and appeared to have been satisfied to let the several races stand.

When several classes are racing at the same time, each class is competing in a separate race. If the protest committee had taken up the question on a class-by-class, race-by-race basis, it would have found that there was no requirement or need to abandon the race for the last two classes.

There may have been sufficient reason to abandon the races of some classes, but the protest committee erred when it abandoned the races for the classes in which no redress was requested. Its decision to do so was an ‘improper action’ within the meaning of rule 62.1(a).

The appeals are upheld, and all of the boats in the races of the two classes in question are reinstated in their finishing places.

USSA 1977/200

Abandonment should always be the last options, in my opinion. As long as there’s a fair race – equal for all boats – it is better to keep the results. If races are abandoned for other reasons than mentioned in rule 32.1, we end up on a slippery slope.

As it is, rule 32.1(e) is relatively ‘open’ enough to be used in circumstances where the fairness is in question.

But also remember the rule only states the the Race Committee may abandon. There is no obligation. And not abandoning is in itself not a mistake or omission subject to redress.

(pillow)Case of the Week (43/11) - 38

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

CASE 38

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) are intended to ensure the safety of vessels at sea by precluding situations that might lead to collisions. When the IRPCAS right-of-way rules replace the rules of Part 2, they effectively prohibit a right-of-way boat from changing course towards the boat obligated to keep clear when she is close to that boat.

Summary of the Facts
At about 0030, L and W were running on starboard tack on parallel courses about two hull lengths apart. W was to windward and clear astern of L and steadily closing up on her. The sailing instructions had, between sundown and sunrise, replaced the rules of Part 2 with the IRPCAS right-of-way rules.

L changed course to starboard, forcing W to respond in order to avoid a collision. W protested L on the grounds that ‘luffing was forbidden at night’. The protest committee upheld the protest under the IRPCAS, Part B, Section II, Rule 17. L appealed on the grounds that the protest committee had misapplied the relevant IRPCAS rules.

Decision
IRPCAS Rule 13(a) states that ‘any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken’, and Rule 13(b) states, ‘A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.’ In the above case W was the overtaking vessel. Rule 13(d) states, ‘Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not . . . relieve [the overtaking vessel] of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.’

The overtaken vessel, in this case L, has obligations towards the overtaking vessel. These are in Rule 17, which states in part, ‘Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.’ It is this rule that prohibits the racing manoeuvre known as ‘luffing’ while the boats are so close that L’s luff forces W to change course to avoid contact. Therefore, L’s appeal is dismissed and the protest committee’s decision to penalize her is upheld.

CYA 1976/32

The IRPCAS are not written for racing. Any situation involving two or more boats meeting, is to be solved by the safest way possible, to ensure no contact will occur.

It will feel ‘unnatural’ to most racing sailors, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have to follow the IRPCAS (or any other Government Right of Way rule) if that is stated in the Sailing Instructions. Then those rules become racing rules.

Do you know the IRPCAS good enough to give an interpretation sitting in a PC? I don’t. If any SI of an event I’m attending does have such a statement, I would have to bone up…..

Links to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions At Sea (IRPCAS):

The Bosun’s Mate
IRPCAS
Stormy Weather Software