Facts Found:
1. When Blue enters the Zone Green and Yellow are clear astern of Blue.
2. When Green enters the Zone she is overlapped to leeward and inside of Yellow.
3. At position 1, Blue luffs head to wind to finish and tacks to port to clear the finish mark. Blue stalls and is moving slowly away from the mark on port tack.
4. If Yellow continues on a straight line course she would clear Blue’s transom by 2 feet.
5. When Green is ½ boat lengths from the mark, she luffs sharply head to wind to sail her proper course at the mark and finish.
6. Yellow responds to the luff, but is forced into Blue’s transom.
7. Yellow keeps clear of Green and both Green and Yellow clear the finish mark.
Determine the rules that apply, your conclusions and decision based on the above facts.
An interesting problem and a real situation that happened to my daughter in her last regatta of the high school sailing season. There was no protest so we will never know how it would have been decided by a PC. The following is how I would decide it, and to be frank I'm not sure it is correct:
Rules that apply: 16.1, 18.2
Conclusions:
1. When Green, the right-of-way boat and a boat entitled to mark-room, changed course she did not give Yellow room to keep clear. Green broke rule 16.1.
2. When Yellow, the right-of-way boat, changed course she did not give Blue room to keep clear. Yellow broke rule 16.1.
Decision:
1. Green is exonerated under rule 18.5(b) because she is rounding the mark on her proper course.
2. Yellow is exonerated under rule 64.1(c) because she was compelled by Greens breach of Rule 16.1 to foul Blue.
I sent this case off to higher authorities within the sailing community to get their input as to the application of the new rules and I'll share with you what they say if I get a response.
As to Dick's contention that Blue should be DSQ for a Rule 10 violation. I would suggest you look at these same facts in the middle of the line nowhere near a finish mark. When Green luffs to finish she breaks rule 16.1 by forcing Yellow into Blue. Yellow also breaks 16.1 by heading up and hitting Blue. But I would exonerate her because she was compelled to hit Blue by Green breaking Rule 16.1. Blue was minding her own business keeping clear by a good two feet if they don't change course. Even if she were not stalled there is no maneuver she could make to avoid the contact and keep clear. Therefore, I could not DSQ Blue. I would DSQ Green if it were in the middle of the line. The only thing that saves Green is the fact that there is a mark, she is entitled to mark-room and to sail her proper course at the mark, and therefore entitled to exoneration by 18.5(b) for breaking rule 16.1.
18.2(b) required G and Y to give B mark room, until B passed head to wind; they did so.
ReplyDelete13 required B to keep clear until on a close-hauled course; B did so.
10 requires B to keep clear of Y; B broke rule 10.
16.1 requires Y to give B room to keep clear while Y changes course; Y broke 16.1. 16.1 requires G to give Y room to keep G changes course; G broke 16.1
(The conclusions about 16.1 require the judgement of the protest committee; I am imaginging they agree 16.1 was broken but I do not think it obvious.)
G and Y luffed while each was sailing her proper course at the mark, so 18.5(b) says we shall exonerate them from breaking 16.1.
Y and B made contact but it was not reasonably possible for either to avoid it; they comply with 14.
B might argue that Y breaking 16.1 compelled B to break 10. I think Y's luffing did not compel B to be moving slowly on port tack in the likely path of a maneuvering starboard tack boat, so no 64.1 exoneration.
Y might argue that the un-maneuverable B is an obstruction, but it is not because Y is not required to keep clear of port-tack B.
If there was a valid protest and no penalty taken, disqualify Blue for breaking rule 10.
This situation involves lots of rules and invites the complaint "the rules are too complicated for sailors", but I don't know any better simpler rules. I wrote down what I might be thinking on the water, if I were driving each of these boats, to maybe post after I read others' responses.
The only issue I have with what you said is that B was keeping clear by rule 10 until the right of way boat changed course and made it impossible for her to do so. If according to your answer she couldn't have avoided contact for rule 14, how can she be DSQ for not keeping clear?
ReplyDeleteConclusions.
ReplyDeleteBlue, was entitled to mark-room under rule 18.2(b), but when blue passed head to wind rule 18.2(b) ceased to apply to her.
After Blue passed head to wind Yellow established an inside overlap on blue and then rule 18.2(a) applied between Blue and Yellow.
Blue did not give Yellow mark-room to sail her proper course at the mark. Blue broke rule 18.2(a).
Blue on port did not keep clear of Yellow on starboard. Blue broke rule 10.
It was not reasonably possible for Yellow to avoid contact with Blue. Yellow did not break rule 14.
It was reasonably possible for Blue to avoid contact with Yellow. Blue was not the right-of-way boat or a boat entitled to room. Blue broke rule 14.
Decision.
Blue is DSQ for breaking rules 10, 14, and 18.2(a).
Anony, I don't know if I applied the rules properly, but I can tell you what I was thinking. Blue sailed herself into a position where she had a responsibility to keep clear (port tack) but no ability to keep clear (no momentum, little steerage). Maybe Yellow, the right of way boat, made it impossible to keep clear, but as I read the rules that by itself does not remove Blue's responsibility. I don't expect the rules to seem fair to me in every situation. I am just hoping to understand them well enough that they are predictable.
ReplyDeleteDick, you applied 18.2(a), and I applied 18.5, between Yellow and Blue while they were on opposite tacks on a beat, which is an exception listed in 18.1. Thinking again, I would now say Yellow complied with 16.1 because the room for Blue to keep clear was open, right there in front of Blue.
OHara,
ReplyDeleteI saw that you had applied 16.1 to yellow and then exonerated her under 18.5(b). I did not go down that path because the facts found given to us made no reference to blue testifying that yellow did not give her room to keep clear.
I agree with your follow up observation that it was Blue's responsibility to keep clear and that she cannot escape that requirement because of poor helmsmanship.
I am not sure that 18.1 applies since rule 18.2 kicked in when blue entered the zone and all boats were on the same tack at that time. It is my understanding that once 18 kicks in it cannot be turned off by 18.1(a).
But then, your ref to 16.1 for yellow made me take a look at green in terms of 16.1. I suppose it could be concluded that Green broke 16.1 if his SHARP luff forced yellow into blue’s transom. But then, green would be exonerated for that breach by 18.5(b) and then yellow could be exonerated for hitting blue by 64.1(c).
In the end, after all the exoneratetions, I will still decide that only blue is DSQ.
I guess I have to disagree about DSQ of Blue. 18 doesn't apply because they are on opposite tacks on a beat to windward. So take away the fact they are at a mark when looking at the rules that apply between Blue and Yellow and Blue and Green. If this happened in the middle of the race course Blue would not be DSQ. Both Yellow and Green Break rule 16.1. This fact doesn't change just because they are near a finish mark. You can't change course and hit someone without giving them room to keep clear when you're a right of way boat. Exoneration is in order for Green as it applies to her breach of 16 with Yellow. I'm not as convinced Yellow was compelled to break 16. She could have tacked sooner and sayed out of the mess.
ReplyDeleteOk Annon, lets say you are right and 18.2(a) does not apply to yellow and blue since they are on a beat to windward. I can agree with that.
ReplyDeleteStil, rule 10 applies to blue. And I would argue that blue had plenty of room to keep clear of yellow if it weren't for her poor helmsship.
Blue then breaks 10 and 14.
I'm convinced now; I think Yellow broke 16.1, and Blue kept clear (as conveniently defined at right) until the course change by Yellow. This is a difficult situation. Here's hoping our host has a satisfying authoritative solution.
ReplyDeleteI said I had written down what I might be thinking on the water. As Yellow, starting from before B's tack:
I need to keep clear and give room to both B and G. B is far enough ahead, not an issue. Just be ready for G to luff.
B luffed and is slow, so now I might get caught in between. Maybe I should tack, but then I would lose to G...
Oh good, B tacked to port so now I have right of way; just let her know I'm here. "Starboard boat down here!"
Why is B not moving? G is coming up. Uh oh. Avoid collision!
I sympathize with Yellow.
Ok I will go along with my fellow protest committee members, OHara and Anon, and agree that rule 18.2(a) does not apply to yellow and blue because they are on different tacks per rule 18.1(a).
ReplyDeleteIn return I would pose these questions to my fellow protest committee members for their reconsideration.
1. If you conclude yellow broke 16.1 why do you not also conclude green broke 16.1 when the facts found #5 say green "luffed sharply"? Then of course green is exonerated under 18.5(b).
2. And, why do you not exonerate yellow for her breach of 16.1 under 64.1(c) when fact found #6 says yellow "is forced into blue's tramsom" , which I conclude was due to the sharp luff of green and her breraking 16.1?
3. Then remains the issue of blue breaking 10.
I would agree that blue would have not been given room to keep clear by yellow and thus did not break 10 IF, blue had, or was, making some attempt, any attempt to keep clear.
From the facts found it seems blue was not trimming her sails or otherwise making any attempt to keep clear but was just sitting there like a bump on a log drifting along on port tack.
Thus, for not taking any action, or make any attempt to keep clear, I have reasonable doubt that blue did not have the time and room to keep clear of yellow.
And, Blue probably should have anticipated that yellow would take advantage of her rights to sail head to wind to finish and blue should have been doing something to be prepared to keep clear when yellow sailed head to wind.
Thus, blue breaks 10 and is DSQ and yellow does not break 16.1.
Responding to Dick's points, out of order,
ReplyDelete3. Blue broke 10 because a starboard boat was unable to sail her course without hitting her. I don't think we need to examine the efforts of Blue to decide this.
Here's why we think Yellow broke 16.1 when she changed course.
Before the luff Blue was keeping clear (2ft and stationary meets the requirements in the definition);
no rule requires Blue to anticipate the luff (see Cases 53 and 93);
and Blue would have been unable to keep clear, given "the existing conditions" of being stalled, even if she did "maneuver promptly" after the luff.
1. I think all comments above agree that Green likewise broke 16.1 because her luff left Yellow no room to keep clear without being unseamanlike and hitting Blue.
2. I agree that Yellow should exonerated under 64.1(c) for breaking 16.1 -- and Anony sounds like he could be convinced.
Generally, we think rule 18 requires Yellow to anticipate the paths of the boats owed mark-room, but it really only requires that she give the room. No rule required Yellow to tack away early, and
by giving room to Green as soon a she luffed, Yellow met the letter of rule 18. Since Yellow had not broken any rules before Green's luff, I can agree that the luff compelled Yellow to hit Blue.
This leaves me with each boat being exonerated, and no boat to DSQ.
Determining who breaks a rule when an incident involves the obligations of a Keep Clear boat to keep clear and the obligations of a ROW boat, under 16.1, to give the Keep Clear boat room to keep clear, is probably the toughest rules situation for me to make a conclusion on.
ReplyDeleteThis Finish quiz is an excellent learning opportunity for me to gain further insight into how to best arrive at that conclusion.
I will make this follow up attempt to explain my reasoning for concluding blue breaks rule 10.
I would agree that when there is only two feet of separation between yellow and blue that yellow has to be careful to give blue time to keep clear. But, blue also has an obligation to comply with rule 10 and this obligation includes to immediately comply with that obligation by increasing the separation between him and yellow.
Further, if there were only two feet (just 2 inches more than two sheets of 8-1/2 X 11 pieces of paper laid end to end) of separation between blue’s stern and yellow, after blue tacked, then I would argue that blue did not keep clear because, yellow could not, “sail her course with no need to take avoiding action”, regardless of yellow’s rate of change of course. If blue does not get out of the way yellow will hit her no matter how fast or slow she changes course when she luffs head to wind.
Hopefully the BISF guys “higher authority” contact will offer an opinion on the incident that will resolve our different conclusions and set us free.
I forgot to include a reference that would seem to support my conclusion.
ReplyDeleteIt is ISAF Q&A 2009-004, Answer 2, which speaks to a boat making any attempt to keep clear.
Dick, I understand your perspective. Earlier, I had the same.
ReplyDeleteI can also understand our host's thinking. Notice that for boats on opposite tacks, "keep clear" requires no allowance for course changes. I think thoughtful sailors all agree that when Port is about to cross clear to windward of me on Starboard, if I get a lift, I may not head up if that makes it difficult for Port to remain clear. (We seem to interpret 'room' as being "the space" and time "a boat needs".)
Case 76, with Starboard and Port at the a finish line, says 16.1 constrains Starboard's course changes even where Port could have expected Starboard to head up. I can read Q&A09-004 answer 2 to mean that the attempt, or lack of attempt, of a give-way boat to keep clear is irrelevant to deciding if the right-of-way boat breaks 16.1; the question is only whether right-of-way allowed sufficient space (and time) for a competent attempt to succeed.
A very important thing I have learned from this exercise is that when ever an incident involves rule 16.1 and a give way boat's obligation to keep clear, I will seek out testimony and evidence regarding time and distances.
ReplyDeleteThese will include the separation of the boats, the rate of change of the keep clear boat, the time from when the ROW boat started to change course and when there was contact and, if, when and how the keep clear boat responded to the ROW boat's change of course.
Deja vue or what?
ReplyDeleteIf any of our participants or lurkers have been following the Fact Finding Friday exercizes on the Look To Windward site you will see that the current exercise, Gullwing VS Heron, is eeriely similar to our just completed finishing quiz, but with more facts found as to to the distances, and testimony by the port tack boat as to why she was stalled on the line.
Surely a second chance for me to voice my conclusions.
adidas tubular shadow
ReplyDeletecheap jordans
authentic jordans
cheap jordans
longchamp
yeezy boost 350 v2
nike zoom
kobe 11
yeezy shoes
atlanta falcons jersey