How do you decide this case?
A good discussion and I will summarize the issues and give you how I would decide it based on the facts in the Scenario.
1. You should notice that there is a major change in the rules that applies to this scenario. Under the old rules rule 16 did not apply to a right of way boat that was changing course to round a mark (Rule 18.2(d)). In this case the right of way boat is Blue and she changed course head to wind to round the mark so Rule 16 didn’t apply under the old rules. Yellow would be DSQ under Rule 11 because she forced Blue to bear away to avoid her and she was not entitled to room by Rule 18.2(b). There was no need to discuss proper course because the rule was just turned off. The new rule has a new Section 18.5 Exoneration that says a boat will be exonerated by part (b), “if, by rounding the mark on her proper course, she breaks a rule of Section A or Rule 15 or 16.” Now you need to determine if the boat was rounding to her proper course to be exonerated for breaking a rule of Section A or rule 15 and 16.
2. Did Blue break Rule 16? Rule 16.1 says, “When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear. Room is, “The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while maneuvering promptly in a seaman like way.” When Blue forces Yellow into the mark Yellow was not able to maneuver in a seaman like way so clearly Blue breaks rule 16.1.
3. Did Blue sail her proper course? Because Blue was clearing her air I believe this can be considered her proper course and she should be exonerated by Rule 18.5. If you take Green out of the scenario, I would not exonerate Blue under 18.5 because luffing head to wind can not then be justified as a proper course.
4. This last issue was pointed out to me by my 13 year old daughter. Wasn't Yellow compelled to break the rules by Blue’s breach of 16.1, so shouldn’t she then be exonerated by 64.1(c)? Has my daughter found a flaw with the new rule structure of not turning off certain rules but just exonerating a boat for a breach of the rules? I frankly can’t find a way out of this. Anyone else have any ideas? perhaps 64.1 needs to be rewritten so as not to apply 64.1(c) when the other boat is exonerated by another rule.
My decision, until convinced otherwise, is to exonerate both Blue and Yellow. Blue under 18.5 and Yellow under 64.1(c).
I have been convinced that Yellow still breaks 18.2 (b) and cannot be exonerated under 64.1(c) for that. She can be exonerated for hitting the mark but would still be DSQ for 18.2(b). And, if we decided Blue didn't sail her proper course then Blue would be DSQ for 16.1 and Yellow would not have broken 18.2(b) and would be exonerated under 64.1(c) for hitting the mark. Oh well it was fun while it lasted.
Yellow is not entitled to mark room, she was clear astern when Blue entered the zone (18.2(b)
ReplyDeleteYellow has to keep clear under 11.
Blue is entitled to mark room as wel as being RoW-boat under 11.
First the PC should determine if Blue's luffing broke Rule 16.1 or not. If not Yellow is DSQ.
If it did break 16.1 the second question would be: was that luff at the mark her proper course? In other words, would she have done it if Yellow hadn't been there? If yes then Blue is exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 and Yellow will be DSQ'd. If not then Blue is breaking rule 16.1 as RoW boat and Yellow is exonerated for not keeping clear and hitting the mark.
I don't see how luffing head to wind can be Blue's proper course. I think Blue should be tossed for 16.1
ReplyDeleteWe have evidence that Blue was changing course to head to wind to stay out of Green's bad air. That's a reasonable proposition unconnected with Yellow, the other boat referred to in the rule. Just because this also shuts out Yellow, as she richly deserves, doesn't necessarily make it not Blue's proper course.
ReplyDeleteRounding the leeward and briefly luffing head to wind would be the proper course of a boat wanting to get to the next mark in the shortest possible time. It avoids bad air from green and gives the boat a higher lane to sail.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that Blue breaks 16.1. The diagram and scenarios shows Yellow was able to keep clear. Doesn't that mean that Blue didn't break 16.1?
ReplyDeleteWait a minute here, I 'm not sure I like what has happened to this rule. I look at my old red book and 18.2(d) said that 16 doesn't apply. I look at my new blue book at 18.5 and it says I only get "exonerated" if I break 15 or 16 while rounding to my proper course.
ReplyDeleteSo if you take green out of the scenario Blue gets tossed for sure for breaking 16.1 when she would have been well within her rights to luff head to wind under the old rules.
I guess I'm going to have to have better roundings to keep Downing from sucking inside at the mark.
Not sure if all the Anonymous posters are the same person so I will give them numbers.
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with Jos and Anonymous #1 on this one. This scenario is described and discussed by Rob Overton in his 2nd posting related to the new rule 18 on Butch Ulmer’s racing rules Blog at the UK Halsey sailmakers site. I tend to agree with the rational made by Overton that it will be hard for a party to a hearing to convince the jury that luffing head to wind was his proper course in this scenario.
I would disagree with Brass and Anonymous #2 that Blue’s luffing, to get out of Green’s bad air, is his proper course. It may be faster than being stuck in green’s bad air but isn’t a proper course one that blue would take in the absence of green? And I also would disagree with Anonymous #2 that a jury would be convinced that luffing to get in higher lane would be faster than to continue sailing closehauled in the lane you are in.
Anonymous #3. I believe the scenario does say that yellow hits the mark because he is avoiding blue and thus cannot avoid the mark. It’s my newly acquired understanding that: when Blue is required to give room to yellow when blue changes course that; that room also includes room to maneuver in a seamanlike way. So if yellow is forced to hit the mark that would be unseamanlike of yellow and since blue made him do it blue breaks 16.1. If I got this wrong someone please correct me.
And finally Anonymous #4, in his comments on the UK Halsey Butch Ulmer Blog I believe Overton says exactly that. Old rules you could luff but with the new rules you will break 16.1 unless you can prove luffing was your proper course.
Dick,
ReplyDeleteHey, I never said that HTW was Blue's proper course. I just said the fact that it shuts out yellow doesn't make it NOT Blue's proper course. In general I would think that pointing fully HTW, except possibly to keep clear of an obstruction or other boat, or maybe the very last gasp shoot to a finish line, is very unlikely to be a boat's proper course.
When rule 18 applies to Yellow and Blue, then Blue's proper course is defined as the course she would sail ... in the absence of Yellow, being the boat concerned in the rule 18 situation. It's perfectly ok for Blue's proper course to be influenced by Green or any other boat that is not involved in the primary rule situation.
Anon 3 is right to have doubts about whether rule 16.1 is broken if there is no contact, but it plays like this:
* where boats have room to manoeuvre freely, it's usually a good argument that if the keep clear boat avoided contact she was not denied room to keep clear (all the MR calls about breaking rule 16.1 involve contact, except call UMP 20, which is the anti-dial-down call.
* where boats are constrained in their movements by something that it would not be seamanlike to hit, hitting the object when there is no room to do otherwise is good evidence that the right of way boat did not give room. Match racing Call UMP 29 specifically deals with this.
But there's still a lot to be said for the old 'underground' advice "If you're going to hit the outside boat and the buoy, let the outside boat hit you before you hit the buoy", that way you can argue that you were unable to keep clear, that as well as rule 16.1, O broke rule 14 by hitting you, and that the rule 14 contact was what compelled you to hit the mark.
Bottom line here is that Dick's correct: once Blue has forced Y to hit the mark, then Blue breaks rule 16.1. Diagram shows that there was insufficient room for Yellow to avoid hitting it.
Brass said; ” It's perfectly ok for Blue's proper course to be influenced by Green or any other boat that is not involved in the primary rule situation.“
ReplyDeleteHmmm! After a goods night sleep I had a vague recollection of an Appeal or Case that might be related. After a little looking I found Case 14 which seems to confirm what Brass has said; that Blue’s luff to get clear of Green’s bad air could be blue’s proper course.
So now I see the error in my thinking and how a jury has reason to say that blue was sailing her proper course. Nice, very nice.
Ok, more sleep and more thinking. I probably should have said that Case 14 (plus US Sailing Appeals 13 and 14) makes the point to me that wind and waves and current can be a factor in determining ones proper course. And, the bad air of green is wind. Right?
ReplyDeleteThen after several re-reads of the definition of the term Proper Course I think it has dawned on me what Brass was saying, something I never picked up on before. The part where it says in the absence of the boats referred to IN THE RULE USING THE TERM.
So now I might agree that blue may head up to his new (higher) proper course to clear green's bad air. I say might because I may want to flip flop again.
But, does blue’s right to head up to a new proper course to clear herself of green's bad air, or due to a wind shift while in the zone, permit blue to sail that new proper course in it's relationship with yellow under rule 18?
And if we answer yes to this then should, all those like yellow, who would seek to take room to which they are not entitled, be warned that you are putting yourself at risk not knowing what the proper course for a boat entitled to Mark Room, may be when you are along side the mark?
Dick,
ReplyDeleteI understand that an enterprising signmaker approached US Sailing proposing to sell them a bulk quantity of red flashing neon signs to be attached to all marks saying 'Go Inside Late at Your Peril' but US Sailing turned him down. Apparently US Sailing considered that everybody knew that and those that didn't would bloody soon learn.
You should realise that only being given the right to sail her proper course at a mark is a considerable softening of the 2005 rules which permitted a boat while changing course to round or pass a mark to luff as she pleased, without rule 16.1 applying.
Good points and Amen for me.
ReplyDeleteMinds may differ about whether Blue did or did not sail above her proper course. The words Ed uses to justify that Blue was not sailing above her proper course 'Because Blue was clearing her air I believe this can be considered her proper course' don't do the full job of justifying proper course: 'finish as soon as possible'. Would any of you Starboat sailors, or anyone wlse really put a boat right up head to wind to get clear air? You might scallop up to 10 degrees apparent, by accident as high as 5 degrees, but dial it up the whole way? I don't think so. That's an interboat tactic relative to Yellow. While I agree that Blue can change course considerably above the proper course to the next mark on account of Green, here I conclude that Blue was above her proper course, with the consequent changes to the remaining conclusions and decision.
ReplyDeleteDing Ding Ding. Congratulations Ms Ed. You have spotted a consequence of the exoneration structure that I don't think was ever intended.
But I don't think it does any harm. The purpose of giving O exoneration from rule 16.1 while sailing her proper course at the mark is to enable O to sail to the next mark at her best possible speed. The intention of the mark-rounding rule has never been to expose I to a tactical attack: that was an incidental consequence of the old rule, which has now been taken away.
See the way Ed has decided the case. Blue goes her merry way, and Y, who has been forced HTW and substantially slowed can now sail on with that as her only 'penalty'. Of course this would be a very bad risk management decision for Yellow if anyone has protested. She shouldn't rely on a PC to give her exoneration in this clever and (up to now, novel) way. Yellow's safe course, if someone is protesting it to take her one turn penalty.
The portion of this example that is confusing is Yellow clearly failed to establish overlap before the zone. The rules clearly state that if doubt exists, it should be assumed that she did not. Thus Yellow should be thrown out based on breaking this rule. She shouldn't be able to escape this penalty. Everything that occured afterwards during the mark rounding shouldn't be able to negate this action.
ReplyDeleteOk. If I were on the jury I might find the following facts and conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI would not find a fact or make a conclusion that luffing, at that moment, was blue’s proper course unless there was clear and overwhelming evidence to support it. And where would such evidence come from? In this case I would then conclude there was no evidence that it was green’s bad air, or a wind shift or a wave or the current that had affected or changed blues proper course. Maybe even finding fact that blue did sail above her proper course perhaps evidenced by testimony by the parties and witnesses that blues sails were luffing. With this fact found I would think that blue would not prevail in an appeal. And he could go try his fancy pants, misdirection, ambush argument on some other jury.
And to the conundrum that Ed’s daughter presents. Is it possible to say that the room that yellow is entitled to under the definition of Room is not available to yellow in this situation because; she is taking room she is not entitled to under rule 18. And since she does that without being compelled to she cannot be exonerated under 64.1(c)?
Dear Anon of Jan 29 06:44AM,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to misunderstand rule 18.2 It does not say that a boat shall not go inside late, it just prescribes consequences and obligations on her if she does.
Dear BISF Ed,
ReplyDeleteA couple of little comments on your suggested solution if I may, which I hope will help people along with their understanding.
BISF Ed said in 1:
In this case ...under the old rules ... Yellow would be DSQ under Rule 11 because she forced Blue to bear away to avoid her and she was not entitled to room by Rule 18.2(b).
It's a quibble, but B was clear ahead of Y when B reached the zone. Under the old rule 18.2(c) Y was obliged to keep clear of B until they both had passed the mark. Y would have been DSQ under rule 18.2(c), not Rule 11.
BISF Ed said in 1:
There was no need to discuss proper course because the rule was just turned off.
Not exactly. The reason proper course was irrelevant was that neither of the old rules about proper course (rules 17 and 18.4) applied, not that they were turned off.
BISF Ed said in 1:
Nothing about whether Y broke rule 11 or not.
I think you needed to state the conclusion that Y breaks rule 11.
BISF Ed said in 2:
Blue breaks rule 16.1.
Absolutely agree.
I think that you need to make a conclusion about whether or not Y was compelled to break rule 11 as a consequence of B breaking rule 16.1.
BISF Ed said in 3:
I would not exonerate Blue under 18.5 because luffing head to wind can not then be justified as a proper course.
I agree with you.
BISF Ed said in the very last paragraph:
I have been convinced that Yellow still breaks 18.2 (b)
What you seem to be arguing is that at some point before reaching head to wind, and thus not yet sailing above her proper course, B was not given room to sail her proper course at the mark by Y.
I could be persuaded that somewhere between @3 and @4, B ws prevented from coming up to her proper course as fst as she would like, but the facts you give do not support this. Facts found say what happened @3, which discloses no breach and @4 when B is head to wind. There are no facts found about what happened in between. I think the PC would have needed to tease out a few more facts found to get to the mark-room breach between @3 and @4.
Without more facts, this is a 'room given and room taken' situation.
I certainly agree that IF the PC concluded, based on sufficient facts found, that Y did not give B mark-room, while she was obliged to do so under rule 18.2(b), before B stepped outside the proper course envelope she was allowed, then Y breaks rule 18.2(b), and B has not yet broken rule 16.1, so there is no exoneration under rule 64.1(c)for Y.
BISF Ed said in the very last paragraph:
[Y] can be exonerated for hitting the mark [The 'Ms Ed' Twist] but would still be DSQ for 18.2(b).
Agree, subject to having facts found to support Y not giving mark-room before B sailed above her proper course.
BISF Ed said in 4:
Wasn't Yellow compelled to break the rules by Blue’s breach of 16.1, so shouldn’t she then be exonerated by 64.1(c)? Has my daughter found a flaw with the new rule structure of not turning off certain rules but just exonerating a boat for a breach of the rules? I frankly can’t find a way out of this.
Why should this be regarded as a flaw? I would agree that it was probably not intended by the rules drafters, but I do think that one of the intentions of the new rules to diminish the rights to make a 'hard luff' that were retained from 1995 by old rule 18.2(d). New rule 18.5 allows a boat to change course as fast as she likes to sail her proper course fastest to the next mark, but does not allow her to 'draw a foul' from an inside boat.
Why would you want to 'find a way out of this'? Just apply the rule.
BISF Ed said in the very last paragraph:
Oh well it was fun while it lasted.
Agree, this has been an interesting discussion. I think Ms Ed has made a significant new discovery. I wonder what Jos and the boys on the LTW RRSStudy blogsite will think about it.