(pillow)Case of the week (30/12) - 2

(This is an installment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 2

Rule 12, On the Same Tack, Not Overlapped
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way
Rule 18.2(a), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room

If the first of two boats to reach the zone is clear astern when she reaches it and if later the boats are overlapped when the other boat reaches the zone, rule 18.2(a), and not rule 18.2(b), applies. Rule 18.2(a) applies only while boats are overlapped and at least one of them is in the zone.

Summary of the Facts

A and B were both on port tack, reaching to a mark to be left to starboard. The wind was light. At position 1, when A came abreast of the mark she was clear ahead of B but four-and-a-half hull lengths from the mark. B, who had just reached the zone, was three lengths from the mark. Between positions 1 and 2 A gybed and headed to the mark, becoming overlapped outside B. Between positions 2 and 3, after B had gybed and turned towards the next mark, she became clear ahead of A. When B first became clear ahead of A there was about one-half of a hull length of open water between the boats. A few seconds after B became clear ahead, A, who was moving faster, struck B on the transom. There was no damage or injury. A protested B under rule 18.2(b). B protested A under rule 12. A was disqualified and she appealed.  

Decision

A apparently believed that the second sentence of rule 18.2(b) applied when the two boats were at position 1 and that B, then being clear astern, was obliged to give A mark-room. As that sentence states, it applies only if a boat was clear ahead when she reached the zone. At position 1, B had reached the zone, but A was well outside it. Moreover, the first sentence of rule 18.2(b) never applied because the boats were not overlapped when B, the first of them to reach the zone, did so. However, while the boats were overlapped, rule 18.2(a) did apply, and it required A to give mark-room to B. During that time B had to keep clear of A, first under rule 10 and later (after she gybed) under rule 11.

After B gybed she pulled clear ahead of A. At that moment rules 18.2(a) and 11 ceased to apply and rules 12 and 15 began to apply. Rule 15 required B initially to give A room to keep clear, and B did so because it would have been easy for A to keep clear by promptly bearing off slightly to avoid B’s transom after B became clear ahead. When A hit B’s transom, she obviously was not keeping clear of B, and so it was proper to disqualify A for breaking rule 12. A also broke rule 14 because it was
possible for her to bear off slightly and avoid the contact with B.

After it became clear that A was not going to keep clear of B, it was probably not possible for B to avoid the contact. However, even if B could have avoided the contact, she could not have been penalized under rule 14 because she was the right-of-way boat and the contact did not cause damage or injury.

The appeal is dismissed, the protest committee’s decision is upheld, and A remains disqualified for breaking rules 12 and 14.

USSA 1962/87

 

I must confess that this Case is something that I have learned myself only recently. I never had a case involving the clear ahead boat not reaching the zone first before. Only after reading the sentences of rule 18 in the book again and again, I came to the same conclusion.

It is easy to overlook these first cases in the book as being too obvious. This one however is pretty important, although it might be some time before you come across a similar situation in the protest room.

We are almost at the 'end' of our series... One more to go.

(pillow)Case of the week (29/12) - 03

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 3

Rule 19.2(a), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an Obstruction
Rule 20.1, Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Hailing and Responding
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

A leeward port-tack boat, hailing for room to tack when faced with an oncoming starboard-tack boat, an obstruction, is not required to anticipate that the windward boat will fail to comply with her obligation to tack promptly or otherwise provide room.

Summary of the Facts

S hailed PL as the two dinghies approached each other on collision courses. PL then twice hailed ‘Room to tack’, but PW did not respond. PL, now unable to keep clear of S, hailed a third time, and PW then began to tack. At that moment, S, which was then within three feet (1 m) of PL, had to bear away sharply to avoid a collision. PW retired and S protested PL under rule 10. The protest committee disqualified PL observing that, not having had a timely response from PW, she should have used her right to luff and forced PW to tack.

PL appealed, claiming that:

1. she had no right to force PW onto the opposite tack;
2. even with both of them head to wind, S would still have had to change course to avoid a collision; and
3. she had foreseen the development and had hailed PW in ample time.

Decision

PL’s appeal is upheld. PL is to be reinstated. Because S was an obstruction to PL and PW, PL was entitled to choose between tacking and bearing away (see rule 19.2(a)). Having decided to tack and having hailed for room to do so three times, PL was entitled by rule 20.1 to expect that PW would respond and give her room to tack. She was not obliged to anticipate PW’s failure to comply with rule 20.1. PL broke rule 10, but she is exonerated as the innocent victim of another boat’s breach of a rule, under the provisions of rule 64.1(c).

RYA 1962/37

We are almost at the ‘beginning’ of our Casebook. The Cases there, are all dealing with the most fundamental principles. In this particular case the right of the right-of-way boat to choose, and – if the keep clear boat does not do what it is suppose to do – the exoneration for breaking a rule.

But there’s another principle here;

Although most experienced regatta sailors know beforehand what is most likely going to happen, the rules don’t have any provisions or obligations that you have to anticipate. The rules deal in facts, not in intentions. In almost all incidents a boat has to act on the factual rights and obligations.
Am I keep clear boat?
Am I right of way boat?
And from the answers to those questions you know what you can or cannot do.

The trouble is that in any given situation the facts can change very quickly by what the boats do. That leads to ‘getting ahead’ of what the facts will become and with that to rights and obligations that are not (yet) established.

A port tacking boat will become a starboard right of way boat. But until it has completed its tack, it is still a keep clear boat. And until that time any (not tacking) boat does not have to respond, although its crew already knows that moment will come. If the tacking boat already acts as if she’s right of way boat, because that will happen in a second or two, it most likely will break rule 13.

The right-of-way boat in Case 3 does not have to anticipate that the keep clear boat will not act according to the rules – when she’s hailed three times.

(pillow)Case of the week (28/12) - 04

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 4

(Case 5 has been withdrawn for revision during 2009)
Rule 49, Crew Position
Rule 50.3(a), Setting and Sheeting Sails: Use of Outriggers

A competitor may hold a sheet outboard.

Question
Is it permissible for a competitor to hold the sheet of a headsail or spinnaker outboard?
Answer
Rule 50.3(a) prohibits the use of an outrigger and defines it to be a fitting or other device. A competitor is neither a fitting nor a device. It is therefore permissible for a competitor to hold a sheet outboard, provided that rule 49 is complied with.
RYA 1962/41

For those of you who are wondering about rule 49:
49 CREW POSITION
49.1 Competitors shall use no device designed to position their bodies outboard, other than hiking straps and stiffeners worn under the thighs.

49.2 When lifelines are required by the class rules or the sailing instructions they shall be taut, and competitors shall not position any part of their torsos outside them, except briefly to perform a necessary task.
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.
When holding a sheet outboard your torso will be most likely outside the lifelines on a yacht that is equipped with those. Therefore you can only do it briefly to perform a necessary task. Taking the spinnaker pole down just before lowering and then a crewmember holds the sheet outboard to keep the spinnaker drawing, complies with rule 49 and with rule 50.3(a). If you do the same for half a leg – provided you are that strong – it breaks rule 49 and the boat can be protested and DSQ-ed.
And since it is in part 4 of the RRS – no alternative penalty can be taken to exonerate this infringement.
A sheet is not a device designed to position a crew’s body outboard, so you even comply with rule 49.1 by using that same spinnaker sheet as support to prevent you from falling in the water. But, like stated, only briefly!

(pillow)Case of the week (27/12) - 06

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 6

Rule 16.1, Changing Course
Rule 16.2, Changing Course

A starboard-tack boat that tacks after a port-tack boat has borne away to go astern of her does not necessarily break a rule.

Summary of the Facts

Between positions 1 and 2 P bore away to pass astern of S. A moment later S chose to tack. After sailing free for about a hull length, P resumed her close-hauled course, having lost about a hull length to windward, and passed S a hull length to windward of her. After S tacked, P’s luff to closehauled was not caused by a need to keep clear of S. P protested S under rule 16.1. P claimed that, when S tacked after P had borne away to pass astern of S, S failed to give P room to keep clear. The protest committee disqualified S under rule 16.1. S appealed.

Decision

S’s appeal is upheld. She is to be reinstated. S was subject to rule 16 only while luffing from a close-hauled starboard-tack course to head to wind. During that time P had room to keep clear, and so S did not break rule 16.1. S did not break rule 16.2 because P was able to continue to sail her course ‘for about a hull length’ which demonstrated that S’s luff did not require P to change course immediately to continue keeping clear. After S turned past head to wind, P became the right-of-way boat under rule 13, and rules 16.1 and 16.2 no longer applied. S kept clear of P as required by rule 13. No rule was broken by S.

USSA 1963/93

Did you notice the hand-drawn picture? The typing has to be something that was added later.

This case demonstrates that rules in Section B of Part Two do not have the same impact as the rules in Section A. They are ‘mere’ limitations on the right of way rules.

A ROW boat has to give the other boat room to keep clear. That is not the same as not doing what she wants. As long as she gives that room, she is free to sail wherever she wants.
The limitation rules do NOT cancel out the ROW-rules. They merely provide the keep clear boat the space and time she needs, to do what she must do, and that is to keep clear.

J.

(pillow)Case of the week (26/12) - 07

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 7

Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way
Rule 16.1, Changing Course
Rule 17, On the Same Tack; Proper Course

When, after having been clear astern, a boat becomes overlapped to leeward within two of her hull lengths of the other boat, the windward boat must keep clear, but the leeward boat must initially give the windward boat room to keep clear and must not sail above her proper course.

Summary of the Facts

About 200 yards (200 m) from the mark, L became overlapped to leeward of W from clear astern. L was less than two of her hull lengths from W. The two boats then sailed alongside each other, about one-and-a-half hull lengths apart, until they were 80 yards (80 m) from the mark. At this point, L luffed slightly to sail directly to the mark, a luff that did not affect W. W maintained a steady course. L never became clear ahead. W’s boom touched L’s shroud, although without damage or injury, and L protested under rule 11. L’s protest was dismissed, and she was disqualified on the grounds that she had not allowed W enough room to fulfil her obligation to keep clear as required by rule 15. L appealed.

Decision

L’s appeal is upheld. When L became overlapped to leeward of W, W became bound by rule 11 to keep clear of L. At the same time, L was bound by rule 15 to allow W room to keep clear, but that obligation is not a continuing one, and in this case the overlap had been in existence for a considerable period during which W certainly had room to keep clear.

Rule 17 applied to L because, as the diagram shows, she had been clear astern before the boats became overlapped and was within two of her hull lengths of W when the overlap began. L was justified in changing course to sail directly to the mark, provided that she did not sail above her proper course; it is L’s proper course that is the criterion for deciding whether she broke rule 17. According to the agreed diagram, L at no time sailed above her proper course. Just after position 3 L luffed slightly. Clearly there was room for W to keep clear, and so L did not break rule 16.1. L broke rule 14 because she could have avoided contact with W, but she cannot be penalized because there was no damage or injury. W is disqualified under
rule 11, and L is reinstated.

RYA 1963/10

Like I have stated in previous posts, it is the right of way (leeward) boat that decides what the proper course is. If she has a reasonable argument why she sailed that course, she does not break rule 17. Only when it is absolutely crystal clear that she would not have done the same – in absence of the other boat – then rule 17 might be broken.

This certainty becomes greater the closer to the mark the boats are.

(pillow)Case of the week (25/12) - 08

 

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 8

Rule 42.1, Propulsion: Basic Rule
Rule 42.2(d), Propulsion: Prohibited Actions

While reaching at good speed, a boat does not break rule 42 when her helmsman, anticipating and taking advantage of waves generated by a passing vessel, makes helm movements timed to the passage of each wave. This is not sculling but using the natural action of the water on the hull.

Summary of the Facts

Two small dinghies, A and B, were reaching at about hull speed in an 8- knot wind. A large power cruiser passed by rapidly on a parallel course to leeward, creating several large waves. As each wave reached A’s quarter, her helmsman moved his tiller across the centreline in a series of course changes rhythmically timed to the passage of the waves under his boat.

This was done only during the encounter with the waves generated by the cruiser. B protested A under rule 42.2(d) for sculling. The protest committee disqualified A and she appealed.

Decision

A’s appeal is upheld. She is to be reinstated.
The action, while repeated, was not forceful. Any gain in speed did not result directly from the tiller movement, but from positioning the boat to take advantage of wave action, which is consistent with rule 42.1. To do so, a helmsman may move his tiller as he thinks best, provided that his movements do not break rule 42.2(d).

USSA 1962/91

If you have ever been on a Laser or Laser Radial course watching the boats in a beat when there are waves due to some wind, you will see this ‘rhythmic’ tiller movement all the time. It is the fastest way the hull moves trough the waves. Up the front and down the back. The helm moves his tiller to enforce this, but the tiller blade itself does not generate ‘energy’. His or her body moves as well to keep the boat flat, in the same rhythmic wave pattern.

The same movements would be considered illegal when there are no waves.

(pillow)Case of the week (24/12) - 9

(This is an instalment in a series of blog posts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 9

Rule 10, On Opposite Tacks
Rule 18.1(b), Mark-Room: When Rule 18 Applies
Definitions, Proper Course

When a starboard-tack boat chooses to sail past a windward mark, a port-tack boat must keep clear. There is no rule that requires a boat to sail a proper course.

Question

Two close-hauled boats on opposite tacks meet at a windward mark to be left to starboard. S has adequate room to tack and round the mark with due allowance for wind and current but instead of tacking, S holds her course with the intention of forcing P to tack to keep clear. Can P disregard rule 10 if she considers S to be sailing beyond her proper course and to have sufficient room to round the mark?

Answer

No; rule 10 applies. Rule 18.1(b) states that the boats are not subject to rule 18 because they are on opposite tacks and the proper course for one of them (S), but not both, is to tack. Therefore, when S chooses to hold her course, P must keep clear. While in certain circumstances boats are prohibited from sailing above a proper course there is no rule that requires a boat to sail her proper course.

RYA 1964/2

The synopsis of this case states that there is no rule that requires a boat to sail a proper course. Do not read that too literary. There’s no rule in this case that does that, but there are rules that require a proper course from the r-o-w boat. For example rule 18.4 (gybing at a leeward mark) and of course rule 17 – in part – because the right of way boat shall not sail higher than her proper course.

But back to Case 9.

This situation is frequently used in Match Racing. All mark roundings are starboard roundings. And to force the Port tack boat to tack, the Starboard boat sometimes continues past the mark. Starboard has to time her approach exactly, to pull this off. Because to defend, Port can duck Starboard and tack fast, becoming the inside boat.

(pillow)Case of the week (23/12) – 10

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 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 10

Rule 20.1, Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Hailing and Responding
Rule 64.1(b), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
Definitions, Obstruction

When two boats are involved in an incident and one of them breaks a rule, she shall be exonerated when a third boat that also broke a rule caused the incident.

Summary of the Facts

As P approached the mud flats, she tacked onto port. M, on starboard tack, immediately hailed and then hailed again when one hull length away, since it was apparent that P was trying to cross ahead and a collision would be inevitable. When there was no response to her hails, M tacked, hailing S as she was going about. S tried to respond but there was contact. P retired promptly after the incident because her crew believed she had gained an advantage over M and S who had lost considerable time as a result of the contact between them. S protested M under rule 10. The protest committee, commenting that M had sufficient time to take avoiding action to keep clear of both P and S, disqualified M under rule 14.

M appealed, asserting that the protest committee erred in suggesting that she, a right-of-way boat, was obliged to keep clear of P. Furthermore, after her second hail, had she borne away and then P finally responded by tacking, contact would have been likely. M also alleged that S had not given M room to tack as required by rule 20.1.

Decision

P broke rule 10. When she retired promptly after the incident, she took the applicable penalty and is not to be penalized (see rule 64.1(b)).

S was subject to rule 14, but did not break it as it was not possible for her to avoid contact. Rule 20.1 did not apply between M and S because, according to the definition Obstruction, P was not an obstruction since M and S were not required to keep clear of P.

M, in the circumstances, took proper action to mitigate the effects of P’s error of judgment. Both M and S were the innocent victims of P’s breach of rule 10. M broke rule 13, but is exonerated under rule 64.1(c). M’s appeal is upheld. M is to be reinstated.

RYA 1964/8

I have a question for you, regarding this third boat.

We all know that a procedure has to be stopped and restarted when the PC has found that a third boat might be involved and might have broken a rule. That usually means that the whole hearing is pushed to the next day, in order to locate and protest that third boat.

Have any of you ever been in a protest where the third boat was not or could not be identified. Both parties agree on the facts found, they agree that the third boat was the ‘root’ cause of the incident, but can’t remember which boat it was.

Did you still exonerate the ‘middle’ boat? Without finding the guilty boat and penalizing her?

J.

(pillow)Case of the week (22/12) – 11

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 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 11

Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 19.2(b), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an Obstruction
Rule 20.1, Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Hailing and Responding
Rule 20.3, Room to Tack at an Obstruction: When Not to Hail
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

When boats are overlapped at an obstruction, including an obstruction that is a right-of-way boat, the outside boat must give the inside boat room to pass between her and the obstruction.

Summary of the Facts

PW and PL, close-hauled on port tack and overlapped, approached S on the windward leg. PL could pass safely astern of S. PW, on a collision course with S, hailed PL for room to pass astern of S when PW and PL were about three hull lengths from S. PL ignored the hail and maintained her course. When PW bore away to avoid S, she and PL had slight beam to beam contact. PW protested under rule 19.2 (b).

The protest committee held that rule 19.2(b) did not apply, stating that PW could easily have tacked into the open water to windward to keep clear, and should have done so. PW was disqualified under  rule 20.1 and appealed.

Decision

S was an obstruction that PW and PL were about to pass on the same side.
Therefore, rule 19 applied. Under rule 19.2(b) PW was entitled to room to pass between PL and the stern of S. PL did not give PW that room, so PL broke rule 19.2(b).
PL was subject to rule 14, but since she held right of way over PW and there was no damage or injury, she cannot be penalized for breaking that rule. PW could not have known that PL was not going to give sufficient room until she was committed to pass between S and PL. PW broke rule 11, but she was compelled to do so by PL’s failure to give room as required by rule 19.2(b). Therefore, as required by rule 64.1(c), PW is exonerated from breaking rule 11. Also, when it became clear that PL was not giving room, it was not reasonably possible for PW to avoid the contact that occurred, so PW did not break rule 14.
PW was not required to “tack into open water to windward to keep clear” because PL did not hail under rule 20.1 for room to tack and avoid S. Rule 20.3 prohibited PL from doing so because she did not have to make any change of course to avoid S. PW’s appeal is upheld. The decision of the protest  committee disqualifying PW is reversed. PW is reinstated, and  PL is disqualified.

RYA 1964/18

This case teaches that, although there is a perfect ‘alternative escape’ route for a keep clear boat to keep clear, it still may relay on the rules to give her the route those rules provide. If she wishes to take that route.

Because of the this and other limitation rules (15, 16, & 17) the right of way boat sometimes feels MORE restricted in her movements, than the keep clear boat. A keep clear boat can change course as fast as she likes, can tack or gybe or whatever – as long as she keeps clear. The right of way boat must always look ahead and calculate what consequences her actions have on the ability of the keep clear boat to keep clear.

Some sailors advocate a simpler way. To get rid of all those limitations on the right of way boat. I always urge them to consider the case of the faster boat catching up with them, who cries foul when the slightest bow point overlaps there stern or rudder……

(pillow)Case of the week (21/12) - 12

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 12

Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
Rule 18.1, Mark-Room: When Rule 18 Applies
Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
Rule 18.5(b), Mark-Room: Exoneration
Definitions, Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; Overlap

In determining the right of an inside boat to mark-room under rule 18.2(b), it is irrelevant that boats are on widely differing courses, provided that an overlap exists when the first of them reaches the zone.

Summary of the Facts
OL and IW were approaching a mark to be left to starboard. The wind was light and there was a 2-knot current in the same direction as the wind. IW, which had sailed high on the course to the mark to offset the effect of the current, approached it with the current, almost on a run. OL, on the other hand, had been set to leeward and, at position 1, about three hull lengths from the mark, was sailing close-hauled slowly against the current. IW twice hailed for water, and OL twice replied ‘You can’t come in here.’ At the last moment, shortly after position 4 in the diagram, as IW luffed to begin her passing manoeuvre OL tried to give her room but the two dinghies made
contact. There was no damage or injury.

OL protested under rule 11 but was herself disqualified under rule 18.2(b). She appealed, asserting that it was illogical and beyond the intention of the definition Overlap and of rule 18 to consider as overlapped two boats whose headings differed by 90 degrees. She also asserted that the purpose of rule 18 was to protect a boat in danger of hitting the mark that was unable to go astern of the outside boat. She further argued that throughout IW’s approach to the mark until she finally luffed, she was easily able to pass astern of OL, and that IW was not an ‘inside’ boat until a moment before contact.

Decision
OL’s appeal is dismissed and her disqualification is confirmed.
The boats were required to leave the mark on the same side and were on the same tack, and so rule 18 applied after position 1 when OL reached the zone. The boats were overlapped from that time until contact occurred, and therefore the first sentence of rule 18.2(b) applied, limiting OL’s rights under rule 11 by requiring her to give IW mark-room. OL did not give IW mark-room, and so is disqualified under rule 18.2(b). It should be noted that OL also broke rule 14, as she could have avoided contact, but, because OL was the right-of-way boat and the contact caused neither damage nor injury, she could not have been penalized had rule 14 been the only rule she broke. As a result of OL’s failing to give IW mark-room to which IW was entitled,
IW broke rule 11 while trying to take that mark-room, and therefore is exonerated under rule 18.5(b). IW also broke rule 14, as she too could have avoided contact, but is not to be penalized, because she was a boat entitled to mark-room and the contact caused neither damage nor injury.

RYA 1964/19

Many sailors have a hard time understanding that they can be overlapped with a boat far away on a hugely different angle. This case makes it clear once and for all and has been doing it since 1964!

The most common example is not with two boats, but with multiple boats who stack up behind each other to go round the mark and are surprized by a later incoming boat who claims mark room.

When the pink boat enters as fourth boat, the light blue is overlapped on the inside. Before we had the three length zone, this was even more seen as unfair.
J.

(pillow)Case of the week (15/12) – 13

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 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 13

Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way
Rule 16.1, Changing Course
Rule 17, On the Same Tack; Proper Course
Definitions, Proper Course

Before her starting signal, a leeward boat does not break a rule by sailing a course higher than the windward boat’s course.

 

Summary of the Facts

As the two 14-foot dinghies manoeuvred before the starting signal, they crossed the starting line. While bearing away to return to the pre-start side, L, initially the windward boat, assumed a leeward position by sailing under W’s stern. Immediately after position 4, L luffed to close-hauled and sailed straight for the port end of the line. W meanwhile, with sheets eased, sailed along the line more slowly. At position 5, there was contact, W’s boom touching L’s windward shroud. L protested W under rule 11; W counter-protested under rules 12 and 15.

The protest committee found that L had right of way under rule 11 from the time she assumed a steady course until contact. W had room to keep clear, although she would have had to cross the starting line prematurely to do so. Therefore, it dismissed W’s protest and upheld the protest by L. W appealed, this time citing rule 16.1.

Decision

W’s appeal is dismissed. Between positions 2 and 3 L became overlapped to leeward of W, acquiring right of way under rule 11 but limited by rule 15’s requirement to initially give room to W to keep clear. L met that requirement because L gave W room to keep clear. Just after position 4, when L luffed to a close-hauled course, she was required by rule 16.1 to give W room to keep clear, and she did so. L had been clear astern of W and was within two of her hull lengths of W when she became overlapped
to leeward of W. Therefore, she was required by rule 17 to sail no higher than her proper course. However, she had no proper course before the starting signal (see the definition Proper Course) and the starting signal was not made until after the incident. Therefore, L’s luff did not break rule 17 and she was in fact entitled to luff higher than she did, even as high as head to wind, as long as while so doing she complied with rule 16.1.

After L became overlapped to leeward of W, W was required by rule 11 to keep clear of L. She did not do so and accordingly her disqualification under rule 11 is upheld. In addition, W broke rule 14 because she could have avoided the contact with L. L also broke rule 14 because it would have been easy for her to bear off slightly and avoid the contact. However, she is not penalized because there was no damage or injury.

RYA 1965/10

Again a classic case. One that has survived the changes in the rules since 1965!
(Must be important, don’t you think?)

Although many an issue revolves around the limitations of the right of way boat (15, 16 and 17) the one thing that should clearly stand out in all these cases: Rules of Section A are to be followed!
The first and only obligation of the keep-clear boat is: TO KEEP CLEAR.

Only after you’ve done that – within a reasonable effort, and promptly – you can start to look at the limitations on the ROW-boat. She is after all the boat with right of way. She must be able to sail her course – whatever that may be – without having to feel the need to take avoiding action.

There are those that want the rules to be much more black and white. No limitations, no restrictions on course. With very few exceptions, the ROW boat should be able to do as she pleases. change course as hard as she wants, sail as high as she wants, etc., etc.
That would make PC work much easier, but it would not benefit the sailing. The keep clear boat would have to stay away at a much greater distance and really dedicate considerable attention to ROW-boats all of the time.
Be very happy that limitations exist!.
But it does not mean the keep clear boat can claim a greater part of the pie;
She still must KEEP CLEAR.

(pillow)Case of the week (14/12) – 14

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 14

Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 16.1, Changing Course
Rule 17, On the Same Tack; Proper Course
Definitions, Proper Course

When, owing to a difference of opinion about a leeward boat’s proper course, two boats on the same tack converge, the windward boat must keep clear. Two boats on the same leg sailing near one another may have different proper courses.

Summary of the Facts

After rounding the windward mark in light wind the fleet divided, some boats sailing towards shore to get out of the tide and others remaining offshore in hopes of a better wind. L had established an overlap to leeward of W from clear astern and they rounded the mark overlapped. W chose to remain offshore, while L began to luff slowly and informed W of her intention to go inshore. W replied ‘You have no right to luff.’ L replied that she was sailing her proper course and W was required to keep clear. The discussion took some time. L continued to gradually change course, and at no time did W state that she was unable to keep clear. The boats touched and both protested. The protest committee disqualified L under rule 17 for sailing above her proper course, and she appealed.

 

Decision

When, owing to a difference of opinion on the proper course to be sailed,two boats on the same tack converge, W is bound by rule 11 to keep clear and by rule 14 to avoid contact.

This case illustrates the fact that two boats on the same leg sailing very near to one another can have different proper courses. Which of two different courses is the faster one to the next mark can not be determined in advance and is not necessarily proven by one boat or the other reaching the next mark ahead.

The basis for W’s protest was that L sailed above her proper course while subject to rule 17. L’s defence and counter-protest were that she had decided that the inshore course out of the tide would result in her finishing sooner and that, therefore, the course she was sailing was her proper course. In addition, L argued that W had broken rules 11 and 14.

The facts found do not show that L sailed above her proper course; therefore she did not break rule 17. When L luffed slowly between positions 1 and 2, W had room to keep clear, so L did not break rule 16.1. L could have avoided contact with W. By not doing so, she broke rule 14, but is not penalized because the contact caused no damage or injury. By failing to keep clear of L, W broke rule 11.
W could have avoided the contact, and by not doing so she too broke rule 14, but is not exempt
from penalization. L’s appeal is upheld. L is reinstated, and W is disqualified for breaking rules 11 and 14.

RYA 1966/3

Like with passing an obstruction, it is the right-of-way boat who decides. If that boat feels that going inshore is a proper course, the windward boat must keep clear and go up as well

The definition of proper course allows for multiple courses and beforehand it is not always clear which . But even if the windward boat can show that the leeward boat is sailing well above its proper course, she still must keep clear. No boat is forcing her to break rule 11 – so she cannot be exonerated. She has but one option: Keep clear and protest. If she doesn’t and the leeward boat is found to have been sailing above her proper course, they both will be disqualified.

Although we are now getting into the first cases in the book and therefore well into the ‘oldest’, many sailors still get confused and make this – basic – mistake.

(pillow)Case of the week (13/12) – 15

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 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 15

Rule 12, On the Same Tack, Not Overlapped
Rule 13, While Tacking
Rule 18.1(b), Mark-Room: When Rule 18 Applies
Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
Rule 18.2(c), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
Definitions, Mark-Room

In tacking to round a mark, a boat clear ahead must comply with rule 13; a boat clear astern is entitled to hold her course and thereby prevent the other from tacking.

 

Assumed Facts

A and B are approaching the windward mark which they are required to leave to port. They are close-hauled on parallel courses with A clear ahead. A expects B, when she can tack and fetch the mark, to tack to round it and head for the next mark. Instead, B holds her course as shown in the diagram and sails on well past the mark.

Question

Has B the right to hold her course in this way and, thereby, prevent A from tacking?

Answer

Yes. While A remains on port tack, B is required to keep clear by rule 12 and, as A was clear ahead when she reached the zone, B is required by rule 18.2(b) to give A mark-room as well. Provided B keeps clear of A and gives A mark-room if A luffs (even if A luffs as high as head to wind), B is entitled to sail any course she chooses, including holding her course.

However, B is no longer required to give A mark-room after A leaves the zone (see rule 18.2(c)). If A were to pass head to wind, then at that moment all parts of rule 18 would cease to apply because the boats would be on opposite tacks (see rule 18.1(b)). In addition, A would no longer have right of way under rule 12, and B would become the right-of-way boat under rule 13.

RYA 1966/8

One  solution for Boat A to get out of this situation is to time his luff so that she will have enough speed to get head to wind next to the mark. Boat B will either have to luff and end up on the wrong side of the mark or bear down to behind A. If the latter happens boat A can safely tack while keeping clear.

Boat B bears off behind A. She’s not entitled to mark-room although she get’s an inside overlap in position 3. RRS 18.2(c), first part.

Boat B luff and finds herself on the wrong side of the mark. She can’t continue upwind to interfere with A, because A is already on the next leg and that means boat B would break rule 23.2.

She can also start pinching as soon as she’s entered the zone clear ahead to get closer to the mark that way. In both scenario’s boat B has to keep clear and has to give mark-room (until A passes head to wind_

Boat B slows down between 2 and 3 to go behind A. And A can continue as lead boat, although she has lost some speed in doing so. The one thing boat A must not do is pass head to wind before boat B has committed to go behind. Rule 18.2(c), second part, also states that mark-room is lost once the boat having mark-room passes head to wind.

(pillow)Case of the week (12/12) – 17

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 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.)

(This weeks case is number 17, because Case 18 is deleted in the Casebook)

CASE 17

Rule 13, While Tacking

A boat is no longer subject to rule 13 when she is on a close-hauled course, regardless of her movement through the water or the sheeting of her sails.

Question

Rule 13 applies until the tacking boat ‘is on a close-hauled course.’ However, the rule does not say whether the boat must be moving when she assumes a close-hauled course. Is it intended that, at the moment rule 13 ceases to apply, the boat must actually be moving through the water on a close-hauled course and not merely be on such a course?

Answer

A boat is no longer subject to rule 13 when she is on a close-hauled course, regardless of her movement through the water or the sheeting of her sails.

RYA 1967/8

Which makes it harder to see, sometimes. But that’s the way the rule is written and HAS to be used.
I always tell sailors who have a hard time recognizing if a boat has turned from head to wind enough, to use their own boat as reference. As most racing is done in one design classes, that should give them enough to work with.

In the Netherlands we race with ‘traditional’ boats who are equipped with leeboards. Those have a very big angle towards the wind, when sailing close hauled. Nevertheless the moment rule 13 switches off comes sooner than most sailors think. Err on the side of caution is a prudent strategy.

(pillow)Case of the Week (11/12) - 19

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 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.)
(Don’t look for case number 16, because again it is deleted in the Casebook)

CASE 19

Rule 14(b), Avoiding Contact
Rule 44.1(b), Penalties at the Time of an Incident: Taking a Penalty
Rule 60.3, Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule 69 Action
Rule 61.1(a)(3), Protest Requirements: Informing the Protestee
Rule 62.1(b), Redress
Rule 63.5, Hearings: Validity of the Protest or Request for Redress
Rule 64.3(a), Decisions: Decisions on Measurement Protests

An interpretation of the term ‘damage’.

Question
Is there a special meaning of ‘damage’ in the racing rules?
Answer
No. It is not possible to define ‘damage’ comprehensively, but one current English dictionary says ‘harm . . . impairing the value or usefulness of something.’
This definition suggests questions to consider. Examples are:

1. Was the current market value of any part of the boat, or of the boat
   as a whole, diminished?
2. Was any item of the boat or her equipment made less functional?

RYA 1968/2




In my experience as judge I’ve come across this issue more than once. It is always a judgement call, but one with far reaching consequences. If you deem the contact to have caused damage, the right of way boat can be penalized in for infringing rule 14. If you decide that is wasn’t damage, the right of way boat can not.

Personally I like this criteria: “Damage is something a prudent owner would repair immediately” 
So a scratch on the hull that can be repaired in the next scheduled maintenance is not damage, even if the owner puts a piece of duck tape over it, to prevent further deterioration.

The list of rules at the beginning of this Case are the rules in the book where damage is mentioned. But there is a difference. I’ve made two columns to show this 

Rules involving damage	Rules involving SERIOUS damage
14(b)	44.1(b)
61.1(a)(3)	60.3
62.1(b)	63.5
64.3(a)

As to when damage becomes serious damage is also widely discussed in the PC/Jury circles.
What do you think? What would you consider serious damage?

(pillow)Case of the week (10/12) – 20

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 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 20

Rule 1.1, Safety: Helping Those in Danger
Rule 62.1(c), Redress

When it is possible that a boat is in danger, another boat that gives help is entitled to redress, even if her help was not asked for or if it is later found that there was no danger.

Summary of the Facts

Dinghy A capsized during a race and seeing this dinghy B sailed over to her and offered help. A accepted help and B came alongside, taking the crew of two aboard. Then all hands worked for several minutes to right A, whose mast was stuck in the mud. Upon reaching shore, B requested redress under rule 62.1(c).

The protest committee considered several factors in its decision. First, A’s helmsman was a highly experienced sailor. Secondly, the wind was light, and the tide was rising and would shortly have lifted the mast free. Thirdly, she did not ask for help; it was offered. Therefore, since neither boat nor crew was in danger, redress was refused. B appealed, stating that rule 1.1 does not place any onus on a boat giving help to decide, or to defend, a decision that danger was involved.

Decision

B’s appeal is upheld. A boat in a position to help another that may be in danger is bound to do so. It is not relevant that a protest committee later decides that there was, in fact, no danger or that help was not requested. B is entitled to redress. The protest committee is directed to reopen the hearing and to grant appropriate redress following the requirements and advice given in rules 64.2 and A10.

RYA 1968/14

This appeal makes it clear that rule 1.1 is above all a safety rule. It MUST be adhered to. It is far better to grant redress to a boat that erred on the side of caution, in stead of having to punish a boat because she was reluctant to help. Let alone the possible injuries that are prevented or worse, lives that are spared.

Never hesitate to help a boat that can be in danger.

(pillow)Case of the week (09/12) – 21

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. 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 21

Definitions, Mark-Room
Definitions, Proper Course
Definitions, Room

The amount of space that a right-of-way boat obligated to give mark-room to an inside overlapped boat must give at the mark depends on the inside boat’s proper course in the existing conditions.

Question

When a right-of-way boat is obligated to give mark-room to an inside boat that overlaps her, what is the maximum amount of space that she must give? What is the minimum amount of space that she must give?

Answer

As the definition Mark-Room states, while the inside boat is at the mark the outside boat must give her room to sail her proper course. If the overlapped boats are on the same tack, mark-room includes room to tack. According to its definition, ‘room’ in this case is the space needed by an inside boat, which in the existing conditions is handled in a seamanlike way, to sail her proper course while at the mark.

The inside boat’s proper course is the course she would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the outside boat. This may entitle the inside boat to more space than she needs for a seamanlike rounding. For example, her proper course may be a track that takes her farther from the mark as she rounds than a seamanlike rounding would so that her speed is not reduced by the tightness of her turn. Note that, according to the definition Mark-Room, an inside overlapped boat that is required to keep clear of the outside boat is not entitled to sail her proper course while sailing to the mark; she is only entitled to sail her proper course after she is at the mark.

The term ‘existing conditions’ deserves some consideration. For example, the inside one of two dinghies approaching a mark on a placid lake in light air will need relatively little space beyond that required for her hull and properly trimmed sails. At the other extreme, when two keel boats, on open water with steep seas, are approaching a mark that is being tossed about widely and unpredictably, the inside boat may need a full hull length of space or even more to ensure safety. The phrase ‘in a seamanlike way’ applies to both boats.

First, it addresses the outside boat, saying that she must provide enough space so that the inside boat need not make extraordinary or abnormal manoeuvres to sail her proper course while at the mark.
It also addresses the inside boat. She is not entitled to complain of insufficient space if she fails to execute with reasonable efficiency the handling of her helm, sheets and sails while sailing her proper course.

ISAF 1969/1

You might also want to read Q&A 2009-022 B005.

And from Rapid Response Match Racing Call 2010/001

Question 2
When does a boat sailing ‘to the mark’ become ‘at the mark’?

Answer 2
A boat that is sailing ‘to the mark’ will be ‘at the mark’ when one or more of the following conditions apply:

• (a) She is no longer able to alter course, in a seamanlike way, towards the mark and pass it on the wrong side.
• (b) Any part of her hull overlaps the mark and she is closer than half of her hull length to the mark.
• (c) She reaches a position where she would usually alter course to round or pass the mark on the required side in order to start sailing the next leg of the course.