(pillow)Case of the week (01/12) – 29

(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 29

Rule 19.2(b), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an Obstruction
Rule 19.2(c), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an Obstruction
Definitions, Obstruction

A leeward boat is an obstruction to an overlapped windward boat and a third boat clear astern. The boat clear astern may sail between the two overlapped boats and be entitled to room from the windward boat to pass between her and the leeward boat, provided that the windward boat has been able to give that room from the time the overlap began.

Summary of the Facts

When running towards the finishing line, W became overlapped with L when almost two hull lengths to windward of her. Subsequently, M sailed into the space between L and W. All three boats finished with no narrowing of space between L and W and no contact. W protested M for taking room to which she was not entitled, citing rules 19.2(b) and 19.2(c).

The protest was dismissed on the grounds that W had given room to M as required by rule 19.2(b). W appealed.

Decision

Rule 11 required W to keep clear of L throughout the incident. While M was clear astern of L, rule 12 required her to keep clear of L, and after she became overlapped with L rule 11 required her to keep clear of L. As the diagram shows, both M and W met these requirements. Because both W and M were required to keep clear of L throughout the incident, L was an obstruction to W and M during that time (see the penultimate sentence of the definition Obstruction).

However, because L was a boat under way, L was not a continuing obstruction to them (see the last sentence of the definition Obstruction). When M became overlapped with W, rule 19.2(b) began to apply between them. It required W to give M room between her and the obstruction, unless she was unable to do so from the time the overlap began.

As the facts clearly show, W was able to give M that room when the overlap began and continued to do so at all times until the boats finished. Therefore, W complied with rule 19.2(b). Rule 19.2(c) did not apply because the obstruction, L, was not a continuing obstruction. M broke no rule; therefore W’s appeal is dismissed.

USSA 1974/163

The key in the obstruction rule since the change in 2009 is ‘able to give room from the time the overlap began’

Sailors as well as umpires and judges must always go back to that moment to decide if a boat get room or not.

In the above case it is not that difficult because the distance between L and W was big enough to begin with. If that distance was smaller, say just enough so that W was keeping clear, M would have had a much harder time. By sticking her bow in between the two boats in front, she does get right of way over W, but initially she must give W room under rule 15 and also must keep clear of L under rule 11. W then must make room for her before she can safely overtake L.

Double standard?

Rule 19 deals with both “normal” obstructions and with continuing obstructions:

19.1 When Rule 19 Applies Rule 19 applies between boats at an obstruction except when it is also a mark the boats are required to leave on the same side. However, at a continuing obstruction, rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not.

First a static picture; I’ve designated the top as situation one and the bottom as situation two.



Below the animation of the two situations with three boats sailing along a continuing obstructions end up in exactly the same situation. In both animations the boat behind the yellow boats is in trouble – she has to dump speed to avoid contact. But in both situations she’s not keeping clear under rule 12.

Yellow protests in position 5: Who do you penalize in situation one and who in situation two?
My answers after the break.

(pillow)Case of the Week (22) - 93

 (This is an installment 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.)

(If you are missing case 94; Don’t look for it, it has been deleted!)

CASE 93

Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way
Rule 16.1, Changing Course
Rule 18.3(b), Mark-Room: Tacking When Approaching a Mark
Rule 18.5, Mark-Room: Exoneration
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
Definitions, Room

If a boat luffs immediately after she becomes overlapped to
leeward of another boat and there is no seamanlike action that
would enable the other boat to keep clear, the boat that luffed
breaks rules 15 and 16.1. The other boat breaks rule 11, but is
exonerated under rule 64.1(c).

Summary of the Facts

As they approached a windward mark, and after W completed a tack within the zone and was on her new close-hauled course, L was directly astern of W. W’s course was far enough above the layline to allow L to pass between W and the mark. In position 2, L had borne off from a point close astern of W and was about to overlap W to leeward. When the overlap began L immediately luffed and struck W’s port side. The boats then continued around the mark without further incident. L protested W but L was disqualified for breaking rule 16.1. She appealed.

LTW Readers Q&A | 038; Virtual Boats at the Windward Mark

A Q&A from Thorsten from Germany about virtual boats. Or are they? Read for yourselves and tell me what you think.


Hi Jos,

While playing virtual skipper (an online regatta simulator), the following situation at the windward mark arose in a fleet race.

Since I had similar situations with a H-Boat from time to time on our lake at home, I think the situation would be possible in real life
.
I wondered, what rules apply here, given the fact that both boats are head to wind simultaneously in position 3 and both overturn about 5 or 10 degrees.

Animation by Thorsten. Here’s the file: TB QA 038 windward mark – htw.gif

In position 1 and 2 rules 11 and 18.2(a) apply, ok. But what rules apply in position 3, 4 and 5?
Both boats are under rule 13 in position 3 and 4, yellow being obligated to keep clear. Rule 18.3 does not seem to apply, since the boats are not on opposite tacks and there is no boat under rule 13 while the other one can fetch the mark.

Since no other rule switches off rule 18.2, to me it seems that rule 18.2(a) is still on. After overturning 5 to 10 degrees, both boats are now on port tack, though not on a close-hauled course. Yellow would be entitled to mark-room including room to tack.

In position 5, blue ignores yellow, turns to round the mark and pushes yellow onto the mark. Without blues manoeuvre and the contact, yellow would have been able to round the mark. Slowly, but still. So it seems to me that blue breaks rules 16.1 and 18.2(a).

I searched the RRS, the case book and the Q&A Service for similar cases, but that was to no avail. I'm wondering if my conclusion is correct, especially the interpretation of rule 18.2(a) and 18.3.
Maybe you can help me out?

Thanks in advance and best regards from Germany,
Thorsten.

Zoning Laws

Yesterday, at the Heiner Team Racing Winter series final, I had a conversation with the other umpires about ‘the zone’, specifically when boats of different length are rounding the same mark.

Lots of events locally are multiclass events were this can happen. Now, this is not something new, it happened just as frequently under the 2005-2008 RSS. But because the sharp ‘border’ at which rule 18 switches on and because the zone has become bigger, it might be more of an issue.

This is the situation and questions we asked ourselves:

Yellow is a 8 meter Regenboog and Blue is an Optimist, sailing toward a leeward rounding mark to be left at port. The Optimist is closest to the mark when she reaches the zone of the Regenboog. By the time the Optimist has almost reached her zone, the Regenboog as overtaken her and enters that zone first.

Questions
If any, which boat has mark-room and from where? Which rules apply? Which zone applies and why? Has any boat broken a rule? Anyway, you get the drift, a purely hypothetical case.

We did come up with an answer, but I’m not going to tell you. Please consider this in your own time and leave a comment. After a couple of days I’ll do the same or post our answer in a blogpost.

LTW Readers Q&A | 21

Hello Jos,

I have a question for your blog.

I had a discussion with some UMP and JDG about situation under rule 18.3. The rule book says "if rule 18.3 applies .. rule 18.2 doesn't". My question is about rule 18.5.

Q: If a boat is under 18.3 and 18.2 is OFF ..is rule 18.5 still applying?

If one part of rule 18.3 switches off rule 18.2 and the "mark room" right, this means rule 18.5 can not be applied also, because it is written "When a boat is taking mark-room to which she is entitled, she shall be exonerated..."

Seems when rule 18.2 is switched off we have to come back at "normal" rules without the exonerations of 18.5. So the boat inside bearing can infringe rule 16 and have no rights at any exoneration...???

Best Regards,

Luigi Bertini

Well Luigi,

I've had a look at the exact wording in rule 18.3: And you're right that, if all the requirements of rule 18.3 are met ( i.e. boats on opposite tacks approaching a mark and one of them changes tack and is subject to rule 13 in the zone when the other is fetching the mark) , then rule 18.2 is switched off.

That means that the tacking boat can not claim mark-room as inside boat and is subject to all other rules. She either becomes row-boat under 11 with restrictions under 14, 15 and 16, and an additional restriction under 18.3. That is, she may not cause the other boat to sail above close-hauled to avoid her or prevent the other boat from passing the mark on the required side.

In this situation she has no "use" for rule 18.5, she never gains mark-room, therefore cannot be exonerated other then by 64.1(c).

She can also become keep clear boat, if the fetching boat becomes overlapped inside her.

Again in that situation all normal rules apply and she does not gain mark-room, therefore again has no "use"for 18.5. She then must keep clear under rule 11.

BUT

If the fetching boat establishes an inside overlap, SHE is the boat who is entitled to mark-room. She then also has the "protection" of rule 18.5!

That rule does not state that only mark-room gained from a rule 18.2 is to be considered. No, if a boat taking mark-room to which she is entitled - however she got it -, she shall be exonerated....|
The inside boat is given mark-room in 18.3(b)....

So, in answer to your question; if rule 18.3 is applicable and rule 18.2 is not, rule 18.5 is still applying for the fetching boat that establishes an inside overlap.

All the best,
Jos

RULES IN SECTION C

I've been fiddling with a diagram from the presentation of the ISAF RRS Section C Working Party. (You can look that up in this post: Tactical Rounding with Mark-Room? | 3)

For everybody who is finding their way in the new section C, the presentation gave a schematic flow-chart to find the appropriate rule. When I first started translating this in Dutch to use in a presentation, I discovered there should be an additional question. Rule 19 can be applicable for boats that approach the line to start!

So I revised the flow chart to include that question and here's the result

I'm also including the Dutch translation:

We will no doubt have protest about boats approaching the first line of boats at a starting line from astern. The discussion if the windward boat will be able to give room, might be difficult, but must somehow be resolved. Mike B already predicted a Black flag chaos: RRS 2009-2012; Rule 19 Room to Pass an Obstruction

What do you think? Any comments on the diagrams are welcome.

.