I think this has been an interesting discussion the answers given by Dick and Brass were spot on. We all have to remember that although they haven't defined continuing obstruction, they have defined what it is not, "a vessel underway including a boat racing is never a continuing obstruction". This has changed a few things in the rules and some of the cases and appeals will need to be updated for this change. Under the old rules Vicky's interpretation could have been correct with yellow being a continuing obstruction. But, not with the new definition of obstruction.
If you get a chance go to the SA post by Brass. It is evident that the way that rule 20 is now structured has many confused as to what are the responsibilities of the hailed boat when there is an improper hail. In the old rules the rule didn't apply in certain circumstances and the hailed boat could safely ignore the hail without breaking the rule in those cases. This does not appear to be true any more. It seems that the hailed boat must respond to the improper hail and then protest. I assume this was changed due to concerns over safety if the hail is ignored.
If you get a chance go to the SA post by Brass. It is evident that the way that rule 20 is now structured has many confused as to what are the responsibilities of the hailed boat when there is an improper hail. In the old rules the rule didn't apply in certain circumstances and the hailed boat could safely ignore the hail without breaking the rule in those cases. This does not appear to be true any more. It seems that the hailed boat must respond to the improper hail and then protest. I assume this was changed due to concerns over safety if the hail is ignored.
Bring your questions to the seminar tomorrow and we'll see what insight Dick Rose can give us.
I've posted a case and an appeal for a response to Dick's comment.
I've posted a case and an appeal for a response to Dick's comment.
1. Blue Rule 12
ReplyDelete2. Blue Rule 11.
3.Since blue has not changed course between position 2 and position 3 then green has kept clear and breaks no rule.
4. Since blue opts to pass to leeward of yellow he must give room for green, the inside boat, to also pass to leeward of yellow. Blue breaks rule 19.2(b).
I disagree with Dick on #4. 19.2(c) should apply, not 19.2(b). Blue and Green are passing a continuing obstruction. At Position 1, Green was clear astern and was therefore required to keep clear. Although Green did establish an overlap at Position 2, Blue did not alter course, and, (if the diagram is correct) there was no room for Green to pass to leaward of Yellow when Green established the overlap. Green is not entitled to room under 19.2(b) and must keep clear. Neither Blue nor Green violated any rule.
ReplyDeleteAha! But Rule 19.2(c) pertains to a continuing obstruction and does not apply. Per the last sentence of the definition of Obstruction "a boat racing is never a continuing obstruction".
ReplyDeleteHowever, per 19.2(b), if blue had been unable to give room from the time when green obtained the overlap then blue would not be penalized. In the diagam given for the quiz it seems obvious that blue is able to give room to green from the time the overlap began.
Also, I think with the new rules there is no "zone" around an obstruction as referred to in the quiz. No 3 length zone not even a one length zone.
What about the lack of a hail for room at the obstruction?
ReplyDelete1. B rule 12
ReplyDelete2. B rule 11
3. None
4. 19.2(b)
5. B, but only if G or someone else protests. If somewhere between @2 and @3 B hardened up to voluntarily pass to windward of Y, then B has not failed to give room.
Anon: why would any boat not sailing close hauled or above in accordance with rule 20.1 hail at an obstruction?
Anon, to add to Brass's comment. Unlike rule 20.1, which applies to a boat hailing for room to tack, I think there is no requirement for an inside boat, entitled to room at an obstruction (or at a mark), to make a hail to the outside boat to be given the room it is entitled to.
ReplyDeleteOf course it might be smart of green, and possibly of some influence on a jury in a subsequent protest, if green were to hail blue that he has overlap and expects to be given room.
Wouldn't Rule 20.3 apply for the hail?
ReplyDeleteAnon asked "Wouldn't Rule 20.3 apply for the hail?"
ReplyDeleteRule 20 now separates out what a boat shall not do into rule 20.3, leaving some other conditions in rule 20.1.
Whether a boat can be disqualified for hailing under rule 20 when she is not close hauled above seems to depend on how you construe 'may'.
An interesting question which I have now posed in the Sailing Anarchy forum at
http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=85105
Brass
Brass, I looked at the SA presentation, since the diagram differs expect different interpretation to the hail issue. With the original diagram had both boats continued without course change a collision would have occurred. Wouldn't this fall under the safety issue? Also, since overlapped & an a slightly moving obstruction the 3 boat length issue doesn't apply or does it? Blue had time to give room had they been hailed.
ReplyDeleteHe He, I'm getting _lots_ of different interpretations on SA. The point of that presentation was to focus on the question of can a boat be disqualified by reference to rule 20.1 or only rule 20.3.
ReplyDeleteIn this BISF original situation, Blue is passing to leeward of Yellow, and Blue must give Green room to pass on the same side of Yellow (rule 19.2).
This is not a situation as described in Case 11, where Blue is close hauled or above, pointing at the obstruction and has the option of bearing away or hailing for room to tack.
While Blue's course, as illustrated, is to pass clear astern of Yellow, then, indeed, safety does NOT require her to make a substantial course change to avoid Yellow, as required by rule 20.3, and Blue breaks rule 20.3 if she hails for room to tack. If, however, Blue, @2.5 had come up a little so that she was no longer passing clearly astern of yellow, and would thus have had to make a substantial course chanbe back again to avoid Yellow, she would then not break rule 20.3 if she hailed for room to tack, although, if she was not close hauled or above, she would not conform to the requirements of rule 20.1.
Under the new rules this is not a situation at a mark under rule 18 so the three boat length zone doesn't enter into it. Rule 19, Room to pass an obstruction doesn't use the three boat length zone at all.
There are only two occasions where 'hails' form part of the rules:
* hail for room to tack under rule 20.1, and
* hail of 'Protest' under rule 61.1(a)
In no other situations do any rights or obligations under the rules depend on a hail.
Blue has time and space to give Green room to pass, regardless of whether Green hails for room or not, and is obliged to give Green room without Green having to 'hail for it'.
On the rule 20 issue, which, of course was not an issue in the original problem.
ReplyDeleteNone of the usual commentaries (Elvstrom, Twiname, Willis, Perry) since the 2004 rules has suggested that non-compliance with conditions permits a hailed boat to not respond.
Dave Perry's 2005-2008 book says flat out
'when L or A adequately hails, W or B has only two choices for a response: either tack as son as possible or immediately reply "you tack". W or B does not have the option of disputing L or A's judgement about her need to hail.
None of the rules authorities would agree that "In the old rules the rule didn't apply in certain circumstances and the hailed boat could safely ignore the hail without breaking the rule in those cases."
The concern of the drafters of the new rules was that the rule might be incorrectly interpreted in that way, and that restructuring it as they have done would lessen the liklihood of such misinterpretation.
Dave Perry's 2009-2012 book now says the hailing boat can only be disqualified under rule 20.3.
Did anyone ask Dick Rose if a hailed boat can be disqualified under rule 20.1?
Brass
Brass,
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you on the old rule 19. Dave Perry in his book, "Understanding the Racing Rules through 2008", on page 200 he writes, "But if she can 'fetch' it she does not need to respond at all (though it is good seamanship for her to do so). In this case you will have to gybe or bear away and tack around to try again."
This has always been the interpretation of what happens when the rule doesn't apply under the previous version of the rules. Now the rule does not say it doesn't apply when the boat being hailed can "fetch" the mark. It has Section 20.3 When Not to Hail. So I believe you must respond and then protest for the violation of 20.3.
The only time where the rule specifically does not apply is at a starting mark surrounded by navigable waters. And this is because all of Section C does not apply by the preamble. In this case I believe you can still ignore a hail for room to tack and not break the rule.
As far as Dick Rose we spent most of the time on Rule 18 and just a very short time on 20 and I forgot to ask him.
Then it seems that Dave Perry said different things in different places. My cite was from p196. Once I found that unequivocal statement I stopped looking.
ReplyDeleteThis of course is now of only historical curiosity.
Rereading old rule 19.2, I agree that it expressly switched rule 19.2 off in the fetching situation.
I also agree that even new rule 20.1 does not apply at a starting mark surrounded by navigable water, but only when boats are approaching it to start, but rule 20.1 holds with full force at other times during the pre-start and before.
Thanks for this rules series and the blog generally.
Brass
I might be catching on to the interpretation of rule 20 but a few things still need to be resolved in my thought process.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Dave Perry says in part, on page 201 of his 2009-2012 Understanding The Racing Rules Of Sailing book regarding 20.3, “The purpose of this rule is to permit a closehauled boat caught between another boat on the same tack and an obstruction to avoid the obstruction without loss of distance when a substantial change of course is required to clear it”
Is Dave Perry saying that a boat may hail for room to tack for tactical reasons?
Secondly, how about the following regarding the safety issue in rule 20. PW and PL are approaching a starboard tack boat. At 10 boat lengths, then at 9 boat lengths, then at 8 boat lengths and at 7, 6, and 5 boat lengths it is apparent to PL that he is on a collision course with a starboard tack boat. But PL continues to hold course and sails himself into a coffin corner so the only escape is to hail for room to tack to avoid a collision.
Dave Dellebaugh and Dick Rose have said something in their writings regarding rule 18 and I would like to apply their comments to this rule 20 scenario question.
In Speed and Smarts issue #104 in reference to when rule 18 begins to apply, on page 3 in item 4 Outside The Zone, Dave Dellenbaugh says; “However, an outside boat that will need to give mark room when she reaches the zone may have to anticipate this obligation before she gets there.”
Dick Rose says the following on page 3 in his writing comparing the old and new rules with regard to when rule 18 begins to apply.
"One of the advantages of the ‘about to round or pass’ criterion for old rule 18 being ‘switched on’ was that, in fast boats, very strong wind or strong favorable current, it could be argued that rule 18 began to apply further from the mark – at a (rather vaguely specified) distance from the zone. That is no longer the case. However, it should be noted that, when boats have been overlapped for some time before either of them reaches the zone, the outside boat’s obligation under rule 18.2(b)’s first sentence begins the moment one of the boats reaches the zone. Therefore, in order to comply with rule 18.2(b), a fast moving boat will have to anticipate this by sailing a course for some time before either boat reaches the zone so that she will be in compliance with the rule at the moment she reaches the zone. This means that if, while outside the zone, an outside right-of-way boat forces an inside boat to a course that does not enable the inside boat to sail to the mark in a seamanlike way, the outside boat risks breaking rule 18.2(b) at the moment rule 18.2(b) begins to apply."
If I apply this principle to rule 20 then should PL have anticipated the eminent danger that at one boat length from starboard he would be on a collision course that would require PL to tack? , (starboard has not made any course changes).
Could I say that a boat that will need to avoid an obstruction will need to anticipate this obligation before she gets there and therefore not sail herself into a coffin corner?
By continuing on the collision course and not starting to prepare to duck, has PL broken rule 2, perhaps for tactical reasons?
Dick,
ReplyDeleteI've posed an appeal and a case that I think will clarify the points you bring up. I believe this will be in the new case book when it comes out with the rule numbers changed for the new rules.
In Case 54 it makes it clear when you use this rule you need to give plenty of time to the boat being hailed. in Appeal 45 it is clear that the boat being hailed does not need to anticipate your intentions and that you will be DSQ if you wait too long to hail. I hope this helps.
Dick,
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your question about tactical reasons, rule 20 diminishes the tactical advantage that a windward boat has over a leeward boat when beating, in a controlled and limited way, so as enable the safety of the leeward boat, when threatened in a particular way, to be maintained. Rule 20 is about not allowing a tactical disadvantage of a leeward boat to become a catastrophe.
Suggest you don't try to apply commentaries on one rule to another (particularly Dave Perry's: his book is very thorough and any general principle coming from one rule, he will discuss in full in each other rule). Note the rule 18 stuff about an inside boat being prepared to give room to sail to the mark before the obligation actually happens is based on the 'instantaneous' nature of the 3 boatlength zone. That factor does not apply to rules 19 and 20.
Your example of approaching a stbd tacker is one example of using rule 20 to gain or maintain a tactical advantage. PL can hail for room to tack so as to end up lee bow on the stbd tacker instead of having to duck the stbd tacker and allow PW room to do likewise. This gains or maintains a tactical advantage over stbd. Whether it gains an advantage over PW depends on how astutely PW choses his option to tack or hail 'You Tack'.
In the stbd tacker situation PL must make her first hail for room to tack at least this much time away from the stbd tacker
Time to make the hail +
Time to listen and observe for response +
Time to make a second louder hail +
Time to listen and observe for response second time
I can't judge a tack or cross with certainty at 10BL, but about then, I would be hailing PW 'I have a stbd tacker coming here, I may call for water', then be making my decision and hailing about the 7 BL point: If I got a friendly acknowledgment to my preliminary hail like 'OK, hail when you need it and I will tack' I might leave it a bit later.
You ask: 'Could I say that a boat that will need to avoid an obstruction will need to anticipate this obligation before she gets there and therefore not sail herself into a coffin corner?'
My answer would be, a give way boat has to do whatever she needs to do to keep clear of a right of way boat, including anything necessary by way of anticipation (such as getting crew into station, lines out of cleats etc etc). All the cases and appeals about 'not required to anticipate' apply to right of way boats. Whenever approaching any obstruction it is sensible to exercise anticipation so as to choose the best way of passing clear of the obstruction. Apple pie and motherhood are also good things. So what?
You also ask 'By continuing on the collision course and not starting to prepare to duck, has PL broken rule 2, perhaps for tactical reasons?'
I'll assume you meant to prefix this with 'By hailing late and by continuing on...' If PL leaves her hail late she risks that PW will become unexpectedly hard of hearing and not hear her first hail, and will only respond to PL's second hail, by which time S may prudently have changed course to avoid contact with PL and protested, or there may be insufficient room for PL to tack and keep clear of S, so she either does a deer in the headlights and T Bones Stbd or puts in a massive bear away: either way PW protests PL for breaking rule 20.1(c). Is there some way that PL can gain an unfair advantage in this scenario that I have missed?
Another word of caution: if you use 'perhaps' in a proposition don't even think about rule 2. Rule 2 is a thought-crime rule, and involves proving that there was a knowing deliberate breach of a rule. Bad seamanship or stupidity are not grounds for a rule 2 protest.
BISF, thanks for reference to Case 54 and Appeal 45. These references and those of Brass to UMP 20 and UMP 29 are always most helpful to me in acquiring a clear understanding and application of the rules.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, the through and articulate response by Brass to my questions has given me a far better understanding of rule 20 and rule 2.
Likewise, Brass’s explanation as to why being prepared before an obligation begins applies to 18 and not 19 and 20 provides some clarity to me on that issue. In addition, the comment by Brass that all the Cases and Appeals about “not required to anticipate” apply to right of way boats is enlightening.
I wonder then, would it be correct to say that it is expected, or reasonable, or an obligation of a keep clear boat to anticipate that a right of way boat is anticipating that the keep clear boat will keep clear? I don’t really anticipate an answer to that rhetorical and confused bit of logic.
hermes belts
ReplyDeletenike air max
chrome hearts
michael jordan shoes
yeezy boost 350 v2
adidas nmd
nike dunks
yeezy
curry shoes