You'll be presented with a incident by a TSS or Boat Scenario Animation so you can give your opinion on the rules involved.
The first of this series was send by Vladimir Pavlov, Russia, Novorossiysk. He mailed me an animation with FOUR boats. You might need to watch this one a couple of times. :-)
Exercise
The purpose of this 'exercise' is to write down the facts found, a conclusion and a decision as if you were a member of the protest committee dealing with this incident.
 |
| If the animation does not appear, please load the picture in a separate window - that should bring it to 'life' |
I'll give you one hint: In my opinion only one boat should be DSQ-ed.
I'll give you my solution next Friday, before the next issue of FFF Animation.
Good luck.
hi, here is my try (though i think most protest committees would try to shorten this a bit):
ReplyDeleteFACTS FOUND:
On a beat to windward, green, red and blue are sailing on port tack, yellow is sailing on starboard tack.
When entering the zone of the windward mark, green, red and blue are overlapped.
Green is to windward and to the inside of red and blue.
Red is to windward and to the inside of blue.
Red is to leeward and to the outside of green.
Blue is to leeward and to the outside of red and green.
Yellow is fetching the mark.
Red bears away, crossing blue behind her stern.
Red subsequently tacks to starboard, bears away and gybes.
Blue, on a collision course with yellow and inside the zone, tacks to starboard very closely to yellow.
Blue completes her tack to leeward of yellow and very close to her.
In addition, blue completes her tack on a collision course to green and less than half a boat length in front of her.
Yellow luffs above close-hauled to avoid blue.
Almost immediately after blue completed her tack, heavy contact occurs between the bow of green and the front port quarter of blue.
Green is stopped completely by the collision, drifts backwards and touches the mark.
(---What about damage and/or injuries?---)
CONCLUSIONS AND RULES THAT APPLY:
Blue, after completing her tack to starboard inside the zone, causes yellow to sail above close-hauled to avoid her and hereby infringes RRS 18.3(a).
Green on port tack fails to keep clear from blue on starboard tack and hereby infringes RRS 10.
Green has no reasonable possibility to avoid contact and does not break RRS 14.
Blue, after acquiring right of way by completing her tack to starboard, fails to give green room to keep clear and hereby infringes RRS 15.
Blue fails to avoid contact when it is reasonably possible and hereby infringes RRS 14.
(---No contact or injury is caused by the contact. According to RRS 14(b), blue shall not be penalized under RRS 14.---)
Green touches a mark and hereby infringes RRS 31.
Green is compelled to infringe RRS 10 and 31 by blue infringing RRS 15 and is exonerated under RRS 64.1(c).
DECISION:
Blue is disqualified under RRS 15 and 18.3(a).
best regards,
thorsten
Ooh, I forgot to tell you. I'm waiting a bit with posting the comments (answers) you send to me.
ReplyDeleteEverybody has to do this by themselves, okay?
Thorsten, yours is in, looks good imho
Blue breaks 18.3a by forcing yellow above close hauled.
ReplyDeleteBlue breaks 15 because after blue completed her tack and became right of way boat against green, green could not keep clear.
Blue could have avoided the collision with green by ducking yellow. She therefore breaks rule 14.
Wag
Assumptions
ReplyDeleteMark is to be left to port.
Wind is from top of the page.
G, R and B were all overlapped at the zone.
Facts Found
1. G, R and B were sailing close hauled on Port tack, with G on the Port tack layline inside R with 1 boatlength between them and B outside R by a further boatlength.
2. Y was close hauled on Stbd tack about half a boatlength above the Stbd Tack layline to the mark.
3. B and Y were on collision course
4. @2 B luffed preparatory to tacking.
5. @2.5 B had passed HTW, but not yet reached a close hauled course and Y luffed to avoid contact with B.
6. [@3 R tacked to leeward of Y’s quarter. R kept clear of Y]
7. R reached a close hauled course on stbd, then continued to bear away to avoid contact with G.
8. @3 B was reached a close hauled course on Stbd tack, with her bow half a boatlength from the mark.
9. @3 G on Port was less than 2 m from B.
10. @3.5 G’s bow made contact with B amidships.
11. @ 4.5 R on Stbd, bore away to avoid contact with G on Port.
Conclusions
A. B, tacking did not keep clear of C. B broke rule 13.
B. G on Port tack did not keep clear of B on Starboard Tack. G broke rule 10.
C. B, having acquired right of way through her own actions did not give G room to keep clear. B Broke Rule 15.
D. G was compelled to break rule 10 with respect to B by B breaking rule 15. G shall be exonerated for breaking rule 10 under rule 64.1(c).
E. G on Port did not keep clear of R on Stbd. G broke rule 10.
F. G was compelled to break rule 10 with respect to R by B breaking rule 15. G shall be exonerated for breaking rule 10 under rule 64.1(c).
G. It was not possible for B to avoid contact with G.
H. It was not possible for G to avoid contact with B.
Decision
B is disqualified.
Not sure about the format for this, but I'm saying blue is in the wrong. He tacks in a way that makes yellow go above close hauled when yellow is fetching the mark, plus he doesn't have right on green once he is tacking (13) and doesn't give green time to respond anyway. Red ducks, so he is fine. Green probably would have been in trouble with yellow in a different situation, but it didn't quite get there in this situation, so hard to say. Close (though informal)?
ReplyDeleteFacts Found
ReplyDelete1. Yellow was on starboard tack, fetching the windward mark.
2. Green and Blue were approaching the windward mark on port. Green was windward of Blue.
3. Blue tacked onto starboard, inside the zone, ahead of Yellow.
4. After Blue passed head to wind, Yellow luffed above close hauled, to avoid her.
5. After sailing one boat length on starboard tack, Blue was hit by Green who was still on port.
6. Green had sailed into a position where the mark was half a boat width to port and Yellow was converging, half a boat length away, on starboard. Blue sailed between Green and Yellow.
7. Blue pushed Green onto the mark.
8. There was no damage.
9. No boat took a penalty.
Conclusions
1. While tacking in the zone, Blue did not keep clear of Yellow and caused Yellow to sail above close hauled: Blue broke rules 13 and 18.3.
2. Green, on port, did not keep clear of Blue, on starboard, and broke rule 10.
3. Blue tacked onto starboard without initially giving Green room to keep clear and broke rule 15.
4. Green broke rule 31 by touching the mark.
5. Green, the give-way boat, sailed herself into what was an obvious untenable situation. Had Blue not broken rule 15, Green would nevertheless have broken rule 10. Green broke rule 14 and is not exonerated from breaking rules 10 and 31.
6. Blue broke rule 14 but she is not penalised under that rule because she had right of way and there was no damage.
Rules Applicable
10, 14, 15, 18.3, 31, 64.1(c).
Decision
Green and Blue are DSQ
18 does not apply between Yellow and any others.[18.1a+b]
ReplyDeleteYellow on starboard is an obstruction to all others.[10,Def.]
Blue may choose to pass Yellow on either side.[19.2a]
Green SHALL give Blue room between herself and Yellow.[19.2b]
Blue MAY hail, but not SHALL hail, for room to tack.[20.1]
Green DSQ.
All others clear or exonerated.
Diagram endorsed by the PC.
ReplyDeleteFacts Found
1. G and B approached the windward mark to be left to port, on port tack, G on the layline, B two boatlength below.
2. Y was approaching on the starboard layline.
3. B tacked onto starboard inside the zone.
4. Before B assumed a close-hauled course, Y had to luff above close-hauled to avoid B.
5. At the moment B reached starboard-tack close-hauled course, her bow was less than half a boatlength apart from G's bow, on a collision course with G.
6. Contact occured between G's bow and B's port forward quarter.
7. R passed astern of B and circled back.
Conclusion
1. B caused Y, who was fetching the mark, to sail above close-hauled. B broke rule 18.3.
2. When, after tacking, B acquired right of way over G, she did not give G room to keep clear. B broke rule 15.
3. G broke rule 10, but was compelled to do so by B's breach of rule 15. G is exonerated under rule 64.1(c.).
4. It was not possible for G to avoid contact.
5. It would have been reasonably possible for B to avoid contact. B broke rule 14.
6. It was not R who caused Y to sail above close-hauled.
Decision
B to be scored DSQ for breaking rules 15 and 18.3
(and for breaking rule 14 if damage or injury occured).
@Thorsten
ReplyDeleteMost of my comments I've send to you already privately.
You’ve got the rules, the exoneration and the facts. It’s primarily language and how to write.
And distances! You must clarify distances. Look at it this way: Someone who has not seen the picture, must be able to draw it, from the facts found you write.
This would pass the test, imho, but you can score better if you get the wording a bit better.
J.
@Wag
ReplyDeleteI agree with your decision about Blue.
But what about Green? If you do not want to disqualify her you must conclude that and write why. She broke several rules.....
J.
@Brass
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I disagree with you is about rule 14. I think that Blue could have avoided the collision by not tacking so close to Green, but for the rest 'spot on' imho.
J.
@Anonymous in comment 5:
ReplyDeleteYes, I think you got the heart of the matter correct.
If you want to do this in a PC, you might consider learning to write the protest. (Look at how Thorsten's or Brass' comments)
Green probably would have ended up in lots of trouble, but because she was 'fouled' by Blue she never got that far. You can't penalize a boat for something she hasn't actually done.
J.
@John G.
ReplyDeleteI seem to remember that there was a Red boat in there somewhere as well.
Like I stated in the previous comment, Green is indeed sailing into a very precarious situation. But she was forced to break rule 10 & 31 by Blue and must be exonerated for that. She cannot be DSQ-ed for something she has not actually done. She also did not break rule 14, only Blue could have prevented this collision.
Nevertheless your facts found are adequate (save for Red) and your conclusion is supported by them.
Like in any test - you don't have the benefit of actually hearing the evidence. So as long as you conclusion and decision are supported by the facts, you will pass.
J.
@Philip
ReplyDeleteRule 20 dictates that Blue must hail if she wants to tack to avoid the (Yellow) obstruction.
There's no fact supporting that she did hail.
So rule 20 is not applicable, in my opinion.
Her tack directly in front of Green did not give Green enough room to keep clear. Green only had to respond after Blue completed her tack and was on a close hauled course.
I'm sorry Philip, no sigar. Please try again.
J.
@Agnes
ReplyDeleteAlmost perfect. I would have liked Red in the facts found with the other three, in the beginning.
And your facts have Yellow avoiding Blue before she was on a close hauled course. That means Blue also broke rule 13.
But for the rest, well done!
J.
As you have said, green would have been in trouble with yellow (rule 10) but for blue. When blue became ROW with respect to green, green did not have room to keep clear and so gets away with colliding with blue and breaking rule 10.
ReplyDeleteI am glad I wasnt there.
Wag
Jos
ReplyDeleteThank you for the problem and your comments. I learnt a lot from the 2009 FFF series, so I really pleased that you are running another series this year. I hope you don’t mind if I ask lots of questions.
I have three questions from the first problem.
The first question relates to boat Red. Can you please explain what relevance Red had to the outcome of the protest. If she didn’t have any relevance, why is it necessary to mention her? I realise that Red had to take avoiding action when Green was entangled with Blue, but then Green did everything she could be expected to do to keep clear. She was (to use a match racing phrase) in the “bambi” situation (as in Call Ump 11). In fleet racing there are often 20 boats at the top mark at once, so they cannot all be mentioned if there is an incident there. Where do you draw the line?
The second question relates to Green’s exoneration. It was apparent that Green was sailing an untenable course, and she would have broken rule 10 in regard to Yellow, if Blue hadn’t sailed between them and collided with her. You (and everyone else) seem to be saying that Blue compelled Green to break rule 10 while at the same time she was preventing Green from breaking rule 10. How can you compel something by preventing it in the same incident? This isn’t a question of disqualifying Green for something she hasn’t done – no one would suggest that she be penalised in regard to Yellow. It is a question of whether she is entitled to an exoneration from what she has done, which is quite different. Whether, to use the words in case 10, she was the innocent victim.
My third question is a bit off the topic. I got the impression, from something Brass wrote somewhere, that there may have been a final instalment of the 2009 FFF series that was never posted. It may have been a wrap up. Is that correct?
@ John G
ReplyDeleteFirst Q: Because Red had to bear away from Green at the end, she’s part of the incident. Green was also exonerated for breaking rule 10 against Red, by Blue infringement of 15. I agree there’s a line in how many boats you need to involve, but in this case Red was part of it. She even complied with 14!
Second Q: If Green is prevented from breaking a rule (whatever the reason), she does not break that rule and cannot be penalized for it. Not even in this case by another boats infringement of a rule. Likewise for exoneration. There’s no provision in rule 64.1(c) stating that a boat shall not be exonerated if she would have broken a rule if not prevented.
That would have perhaps appealed to everybody’s idea of fair, but as long as it is not in the rule, we can’t do so. Green – although clearly sailing into a very dangerous situation and potentially risking a gross breach of a rule – is very lucky with this outcome.
Third Q: I will check back, but I don’t think so.
Jos,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words, but I don't think I was as 'spot-on' as all that. Thanks to JohnG, I think I need to add:
Fact 12: G touched the mark.
Conclusion A*: B, having changed tack and being subject to rule 13 within the zone, caused Y, who was fetching the mark, to sail above close-hauled to avoid her. B broke rule 18.3(a).
Conclusion B*: G while racing touched the mark. G broke rule 31.
Conclusion F*: F. G was compelled to break rule 31 by B breaking rule 15. G shall be exonerated for breaking rule 31 under rule 64.1(c).
You have persuaded me that B could have avoided contact by not tacking at all. I guess I was just looking at the situation from the time after B passed HTW.
Jos, JohnG, everyone,
ReplyDeleteI was going to do a summary and overview of the last FFF series, but I didn't get around to it.
I think there were four or five topics that came up out of that series: would you like me to submit posts for discussion to Jos to be run in conjunction with his present series?
@Brass
ReplyDeleteYour input is welcome.