I posted this quiz to highlight a change in the rules. If you were not aware 17.2 is deleted in the new rules. This rule didn't allow yellow to sail below her proper course. Therefore, under the old rules at both position 2 and position 5 yellow would have broken old rule 17.2. As I think this scenario demonstrates this rule is completely unnecessary. There are plenty of rules to protect the leeward/clear astern boat on a run. I can honestly say I routinely ignored 17.2 coming into a leeward mark when trying to make sure there was no overlap at the zone.
As for the correct answer all were correct that Yellow should be DSQ. I think the writers of the question failed to give us an important piece of information. Was there an overlap established when yellow turned down between positions 4 and 5? Since the question did not indicate an overlap, I would say technically the correct answer is Yellow breaks Rule 16.1, and Blue breaks Rule 12 and is exonerated. However, practically looking at the diagram it is hard to see how yellow can turn down as she did and not create an overlap. So a Rule 11 violation for Yellow and 16.1 for Blue with Blue being exonerated, is also a reasonable answer. Either way Yellow is DSQ and Blue is exonerated.
1. y rule 12
ReplyDelete2. @1 B ROW rule 11
3. @2 Y ROW rule 12
4. @5 Y breaks no rules
5. @5 Y breaks rules 11 and 14
6. @5 B breaks rules 16.1 and 14
7. Y rule 11
@5, B is changing course and contact occurs therefore B, when changing course has not given Y room to keep clear (rule 16.1). B, however is changing course to comply with her rule 14 obligation to avoid contact with Y who is breaking rule 11 by failing to keep clear of B to leeward of her. B is exonerated of her breach of rule 16.1 because Y's breach of rule 11 compelled that breach (rule 64.1(c)).
@5 contact occurs and both boats break rule 14, but, there being no damage or injury, in accordance with rule 14(b) NEITHER boat can be penalised under rule 14 because:
* B was ROW boat, and
* Y was a boat entitled to room to keep clear.
1. Yellow rule 12.
ReplyDelete2. Blue rule 11
3. Yellow rule 11
4. None. Because when yellow changes course towards blue, (the ROW) boat, blue does not have to alter course to avoid yellow and then yellow remains far enough away from blue so that blue can change course without immediately making contact with yellow.
5. Yellow breaks 16.1 and 14.
6. Blue breaks 12 and maybe 14.
At line items 5 and 6 I come to some different conclusions than Brass. At positions 3, 4, and 5 I see yellow as the ROW boat since she is clear ahead. The diagram does not show there to be an overlap in which case blue would be the ROW boat as Brass has said which lead to his different conclusions.
5. The facts found (description of the incident and the diagram in the quiz) show that at position 4 yellow is clear ahead and thus the ROW boat. Then, yellow changes course between positions 4 and 5 where blue’s spinnaker contacts yellow’s backstay.
I don’t think yellow breaks rule 11 at position 5 since there is no overlap. In my interpretation I would say yellow has broken rule 16.1 at position 5 because of the very significant fact found that says that yellow bore away "significantly". I am interpreting significantly to mean that yellow bore away rapidly. If the facts found had said that yellow bore away moderately then yellow would probably not have broken 16.1.
I agree with Bass that yellow has broken rule 14 here because she could have avoided the contact by not bearing away so rapidly but, as Brass points out, there is no damage so yellow, the ROW boat, cannot be penalized per 14(b).
6. Again, I come to a somewhat different conclusion than Brass. At position 5 blue is clear astern and is the keep clear boat and so cannot break 16.1. But she does break rule 12 and maybe rule 14. Then, as Brass point’s out blue will be exonerated for breaking both rules because of the very important fact found that, “blue bore away immediately” to try and avoid yellow.
My interpretation is that blue is exonerated for breaking rule 12 by rule 64.1(c). But as far as rule 14 goes I struggle as to whether blue is to be exonerated under 64.1(c) or, if in fact, the protest committee could find that blue did not break rule 14 because blue could not avoid the contact due to yellow's rapid change of course.
Perhaps my struggle to list the correct rules broken by blue is moot because the results are the same?
7. Yellow should be DSQ for breaking rule 16.1.
Blue is exonerated for braking rule 12 and either found not to have broken rule 14 or is exonerated because she was compelled to do so by yellow breaking 16.1.
C'mon folks, don't just leave it to me and Dick
ReplyDelete1. Yellow Rule 12
ReplyDelete2. Blue Rule 11
3. Blue Rule 11
4. None
5. Yellow breaks Rule 11, 14
6. Blue Breaks Rule 14 & 16.1
7. Yellow Rule 11
At (5) when yellow sails lower creating the overlap again with the spinnaker, she must stay clear of Blue and avoid contact.
At (5) Blue must avoid contact and allow time for Yellow to stay clear
1. Y rule 12
ReplyDelete2. B rule 11
3. B rule 11
4 None
5. Y breaks 11 & 14 . Yellow cannot avoid creating another overlap between position 4 and 5 as she turns down and consideration for the fact that Blue is sailing faster. The new overlap requires Yellow (windward) to stay clear of Blue (Leeward) and the fact that the boat touch at position 5 indicates the overlap was never broken.
6. None
7. Yellow rule 11
--jr
1. At Position 1, Y has the ROW according to Rule 12 and shall keep clear of the boat clear ahead.
ReplyDelete2. At Position 2 (assuming that B's spinnaker is really overlapped with Y's stern), B has the ROW under Rule 11 and Y shall keep clear.
3. Y has the ROW at Position 5. Blue's earlier overlap had been broken.
4. Y broke no rule at Position 2. B has a right to sail her proper course. Although Y altered course and sailed low, Y didn't interfere with Blue at Position 2.
5. Y broke Rules 16.1 and 14 when she changed course without allowing B room to keep clear.
6. B broke Rule 14 when she failed to keep clear of Y. B also broke Rule 12 when she failed to keep clear of a boat clear ahead.
7. Although B broke Rules 12 and 14 when she failed to keep clear of Y at Position 5, she should be exonerated under Rule 64.1(c) for both violations, as she did not have a chance to keep clear. Y should be disqualified for breaking Rule 16.1.
Thanks everyone for pitching in to an interesting discussion.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me apologise for carelessly mistyping my answer to Q3: I put 'Y rule 12', when I meant to type 'B rule 11', which would be consistent with my answers in Q5 and Q7.
I suspect that Dick also might have mistyped his answer to Q3 as 'Y rule 11' instead of 'Y rule 12', to be consistent with his answer in Q6.
I agree with Ed that this problem was probably written to test old rule 17.2, or test the deletion of that old rule. I am also pretty sure that the problem @5 was intended to be resolved by rule 12 Clear Ahead/Clear Astern.
To be honest, I pitched in the rule 11 line as a curve ball because I thought the thread could do with a little stimulation. I expected to be monstered on the rule 12 line. Who'd have thought that a couple of anonymous Star sailors would pick up on a spinnaker technical overlap :)
I don't agree with Ed that there is insufficient information.
You can deduce that B and Y are overlapped @5 by necessary inference as follows: a small distance and time before contact occurs at position 5 (5 - delta) , part of B's spinnaker is flying vertically above Y's deck, so the boats are technically overlapped
Discussion/description of technical overlap here
Look to Windward (RRS) blog
http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/2008/05/winging-it-3.html
ISAF Umpires and Match Racing Manual E15
http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/iu_manual_6_2005-[923].pdf
I only put up the technical overlap issue as a 'straw man'. I think that the problem is best resolved using rule 12.
Case 30 explains conceputally how this works. At a little time before @5-delta Blue, not yet overlapped and still keep clear boat under rule 12, was so close astern of Y that Y 'needed to take avoiding action' (definitions 'keep clear') and at that time Y broke rule 12.
This approach can also come in handy for resolving protests, starting from clear astern, where, for instance with a canoe stern boat ahead, contact occurs on one or the other side of the ahead boat: although at the time of contact boats were W/L, as evidenced by the place of the contact, a few seconds the astern boat was clear astern and failed to keep clear. Absent any rule 16.1 breach on the ahead boat, her subsequent failure to keep clear was caused by the astern boat's previous failure to keep clear.
Discussion of this problem has also raised two interesting issues about rule 14.
Where there is no injury or damage contact and you are moving towards exonerating a boat under rule 64.1(c) you must logically conclude that she never broke rule 14 in the first place: if she was compelled to have contact with another boat, then it was not 'reasonably possible' to avoid that contact.
Also, with a no injury or damage contact whenever rule 16.1 is broken then NEITHER BOAT can be penalised under rule 14, because one will be the ROW boat and the other will be the boat entitled to room under rule 16.1, so both will be protected by rule 14(b).
Again, thanks for the discussion. Hope this is helpful.
Brass
hermes belts
ReplyDeletenike air max
chrome hearts
michael jordan shoes
yeezy boost 350 v2
adidas nmd
nike dunks
yeezy
curry shoes