LTW Readers Q but no A | 039; Finishing Seaweed?

The following case was send in by two LTW readers from 'Down Under'.
They asked me to post this as they wrote it, without me giving any answers. They want you - as experienced LTW readers - to do this. I'm happy to oblige. Tell us your answers in a comment.

Finishing Line Problem – Seaweed
Here is a problem at the finishing line.  Your comments are invited.

Scenario

1. The course to be sailed was windward-leeward with four legs. The leg length was 1 mile. The leeward mark was a gate comprising marks (3A) and (3B).
2. The gate marks were set approximately 12 boat lengths (300 feet) apart.
3. Sailing Instruction 7.7 said. "In the event, that the race committee decides a change of course is necessary for the first downwind leg, leg 2, one of the gate marks (3A) or (3B), will be removed and the remaining gate mark, set in it’s new location, shall be rounded to port.
4. There was no change of course signal made.
5. The race committee displayed the “S” flag with two sounds after several of the lead boats had rounded the windward mark at the end of leg 1.
6. The race committee intended the course to be shortened by boats passing through the gate in accordance with rule 32.2(c).
   
   

Evidence to consider - You make the Call

On the Sailgroove website Patrick Rynne has put up a couple of videos where you can be the protest-committee and the umpire.
See the action on the water and decide for yourselves.

He's done this by filming two Optimist in different situations:
You make the Call - Episode 1 is about a windward mark rounding
You make the Call - Episode 2 is about a classic slam dunk situation.

In the first situation the 'testimony' of the sailors is included. As if you see this video in the protest-room, because one of them has brought it with them. So in that one you are allowed to see the video as many times as you please, getting to what actually happened. Please remember the restrictions a camera has - specially in depth perception.

In the second situation you have to take the decision as an umpire, on the spot. Well okay, you can see the video twice and then make a decision.

Good practice, but also a reminder that videos will never replace on the spot observation.

(pillow)Case of the Week (10) - 106

Eight case in our series. You know what to do.

CASE 106

Rule 28.1, Sailing the Course

When a boat’s ‘string’ lies on the required sides of finishing marks or gate marks, it is not relevant that the string representing her track, when drawn taut, also passes one of those marks on the non-required side.

Assumed Facts
As boats approach a downwind finishing line, a tidal current takes one of them outside one of the finishing marks. She sails beyond the entire finishing line, rounds the other finishing mark, and then crosses the finishing line from the direction of the last course mark.

Question
Has the boat complied with rule 28.1?

Answer
Yes. When the course requires boats to pass between two marks at a finishing line or at a gate, a boat complies with rule 28.1 if the string representing her track when drawn taut passes between the marks from the direction of the previous mark. She complies with rule 28.1 even if the string also passes one mark of the finishing line or gate on the non-required side. In this case the boat passed the buoy serving as a mark of the finishing line on the non-required side before passing it on the required side.
See Case 90 for a discussion of a similar incident at a starting line.

RYA 2004/4

Flowing through 18.1

Because of the many possibilities that rule 18.1 gives for making rule 18 not applicable, I've tried to make a flowchart to help, as I promised to Sen. (And you know how fond I am of those.)

Starting with the basic premise, this chart should give you the correct answer for when rule 18 applies or not.
I've made png to put it in this post, but if you think it needs improvement you can download the Word -document version here: Rule 18.1 Flowchart.doc or the pdf file: Rule 18.1 Flowchart.pdf

Please give me a situation that this flowchart does not answer.

.

ISAF Q&A 2010 - 010 | SAILORS, this one is for you!

This ISAF Q&A 2010-010 is something EVERY sailor , who's ever been or will be in a regatta where the race committee is posting OCS - boats at the windward mark, should read. It can make the difference between getting a place in the race or being scored points as DNF or OCS.

Even if you successfully request redress in which you can prove that your boat was not OCS, the wording in the sailing instructions can make a BIG difference. That is because getting a result does not depend solely on the fact that you must convince the PC that the Race Committee made a mistake, it also depends on what you did (or did not do).

Most sailors seeing there number posted at the windward mark will leave the race. That is normal practice. That is what is expected, they claim:"If I don't do it I will get a DNE!"

It all depends on the wording in the sailing instructions. Posting numbers is not something that is written in the rulebook. There is a guideline how to do it in Instruction 14.6 of Appendix LE (Expanded Sailing Instruction Guide available at the ISAF website) and normally restricted to a boat that failed to start or has broken rule 30.3, where a clause requiring such boats to retire immediately is included in the sailing instructions.

But if that clause is written badly and does not place an obligation on boats to leave you MUST not leave the course and should finish the race. If you don't finish the race, redress cannot be granted because it is partly you own fault that you did not.

Here's the link to the Q&A: ISAF Q&A 2010-010
I suggest you have look.

.

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.

Looking for 18.1(b) again!

The discussion in the comments of the original search for rule 18.2(b) made me realise something peculiar.
Well, at least I find it peculiar. You can tell me otherwise in the comments, as usual.

Rule 18 is divided in five rules numbered 18.1 trough 18.5 and some of them even further divided into parts by using letters (a), (b), (c) etc. It makes it a very complex rule. It was worse in the previous rulebook were obstructions were also part of rule 18. But it is still one rule, with me so far?

The rule starts with giving us the exceptions - when rule 18 NOT applies, of which 18.1(b) is one of them.

On a side note: Uli came up with the only  logical place on the race course (so far) where rule 18.2(b) 18.1(b)  is the only rule switching off rule 18. In all other places we have to twist and turn to get to it. He stated:

Example 3:
Mark 2 on a trapezoid course.
Only 18.1(b) but not 18.1(a) apply between a port boat coming form mark 3 and a starboard boat coming from mark 1.

But back to my original point.


Although we agree it is a complex rule and written extremely well for it's purpose, there is, in my opinion, a logic flaw. If rule 18 is switched off within rule 18 itself (by part 18.1) how can rule 18 tell us that it is switched off? It is no longer applicable. If it's not applicable it can't be used, and if it can't be used it can't tell us it is switched off!

I'm sure that the writers have considered this, but I can't help thinking: "this is a circular reference, like we sometimes get in excel"

What do you think?


.

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:



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

LTW Readers Q&A | 036; Sheeting in a Laser

Since there were so many unanswered Q&A’s in my mailbox, I decided to spend a couple of hours Saturday to catch up. I apologies to all for taking so long to get to this. I’ll schedule posting as many as I can this & next week.

This RRS Question one is from Bence from Hungary about sheeting in a Laser. He writes:

Dear Jos,
I have been reading your rrsstudy-blog for more than a year and I find it really interesting. Just keep up the good work!

I live in Hungary and I'm sailing in Laser Radial now. Besides racing I also organize races and sometimes work as a national jury. We had a regatta last month here in Hungary and there was an argument between the judges, coaches and competitors about controlling the mainsheet in the laser class.

According to the cited rule's last sentence you may control the sheet directly from below the forward boom block.
Is it allowed to use it in such a way for adjusting the sail to a slight change of wind direction, either in a beat on a wave or in a reach?
When doing so, could it be regarded as a pump or not? If there are no surfing or planning conditions, I guess it is a pump and so not allowed.

To facilitate tacking and gybing it can be controlled from any part of it (also aft the forward boom block) - that's clear.

Please try to answer if you can, or if not, could you offer me a laser-expert jury to contact? We also tried to ask it from the International Laser Class Association, but unfortunately we still didn't get any answer...

Kind regards, Bence Böröcz HUN

My answer to Bence is after the jump.

(pillow)Case of the Week (9) - 107

Seventh in our series. You know what to do.
(There will be a test at the end of the semester <EG> whaahaaa whaha haaahaa))

CASE 107

Rule 14, Avoiding Contact  
Rule 44.1, Penalties at the Time of an Incident: Taking a Penalty
Rule 64.1(b), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

A boat that is not keeping a lookout may thereby fail to do everything reasonably possible to avoid contact. Hailing is one way that a boat may ‘act to avoid contact’. When a boat’s breach of a rule of Part 2 causes serious damage and she then retires, she has taken the applicable penalty and is not to be disqualified for that breach.

Summary of the Facts
Between the preparatory and starting signals, Ephesian on starboard tack and Jupa on port tack approached each other head-to-head. Both boats were heavy keelboats, 33 feet (10 m) long. Neither boat was aware of the other. The bowmen on both boats, who normally would have been stationed by the forestay, were handling their genoas, and no other crew members were keeping a lookout. Ephesian was moving slowly with limited manoeuvrability. They collided, causing serious damage to Jupa, who therefore retired. In the resulting protest, Jupa was disqualified under rule 10, and Ephesian was disqualified under rule 14. Ephesian appealed, claiming that she could not have avoided Jupa by changing course or speed.

Decision
Rule 14 begins ‘A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible.’ This requirement means 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.

The protest committee concluded that if either boat had seen the other a collision could have been avoided, even at the last minute, particularly if Ephesian had hailed Jupa when it was clear that Jupa was not changing course to keep clear. Until that moment, rule 14(a) allows a right-of-way boat to delay acting to avoid contact. It follows that at that moment she must begin to act in an effort to avoid contact. The word ‘act’ is not restricted to changing course or speed. Hailing was an action that Ephesian could and should have taken. Ephesian broke rule 14. Because the collision resulted in damage, the protest committee’s decision to disqualify Ephesian was correct (see rules 14(b) and 64.1(a)). Her appeal is therefore dismissed.

Clearly, Jupa broke rule 10. As a result of the serious damage she suffered in the collision, she retired from the race and thus took the applicable penalty (see rule 44.1(b)). Rule 64.1(b) prohibits penalizing her further. The disqualification of Jupa is reversed and she is to be scored DNF.

RYA 2004/6

.