The game has not changed ... what the rule changes tried to do was remove the need for collisions as the means to prove your point. They also did not want to go so far as putting protective bumpers around Yachts as in the Vanderbilt days.

Matt made this point.


This statement was made under a system where ONUS was assigned. The person that tacked had to make the iron clad case that he provided room and opportunity.

So.. Port would walk in and say... Had no choice...of course I hit him.. had no choice.

Now this fellow would have to provide some testimony as to where he was, what he did and what happened to make hitting B unavoidable. The boat tacking still must provide evidence that he DID provide room and opportunity... just as in the good ol days.

I think the balance is appropriate.

A couple of points ... In all of these tacking/jibing to acquire ROW... The boat that initiates the action CAN'T create a puzzle for the other boats that requires a single solution to avoid a collision!

Many people now agree that Artemis tacked to close to allow Baron to bear off and duck. BUT... they now argue that Baron Could have and SHOULD have tacked..
Had they tacked... No foul.. no collision. So... you should still flick Baron..

Of course you can't know how this would work out... BUT... the rules don't allow you to put Baron in this box with ONLY one way out. He has to be able to duck or tack in a seamanlike manner.

Had Artemis been further ahead... Barron could have ducked or tacked and that is the fair way to play the game. You can't force the boat to solve your puzzle to escape the box you put him in..

Second point. The natural tendency is to look at the "leading" boat and say... they earned that spot.. they are winning.. they are entitled to certain advantages over the guys they are beating. As a NA Lightning champ and now cat sailor explained at a clinic... The course is dynamic, a wind shift will instantly change leading and trailing. The nature of the rules when a tack/jibe or rounding is involved will dominate the leading/trailing judgment. Winning is determined at the finish line.

Finally, I think people read statements like Port need not anticipate when the Tacker will be on his new course and then have to take seamanlike actions to keep clear misunderstand what anticipate means.

Of course they anticipate the options they will have available a few seconds in the future. ... BUT... they don't have to actually change course (ie anticipate)... until the rule says... The CREW has to be seamanlike in getting the boat ready to change course as needed... The boat initiating the tack or jibe has to factor in the type of boat and the reasonable seamanlike actions that the boat can actually do.