Care to elaborate there Ding?

Nope.

That may be the accepted interpretation, but that isn't what the rule says. The wording is vague and imprecise.

Nevertheless...

Actually Pete, the wording is anything but vague and is very precise and clear. Don't forget these rule wordings have evolved through several iterations and have been tried and tested time and again worldwide in front of very knowledgeable juries. If you look at the wording throughout the current RRS it is clear that a lot of thought has been put into the phraseology.

+1

We experience this commonly on the West River during Tuesday evening racing (A-Cats, single-handed F16s,and double handed N20s). Common practice is to avoid the situation. If it is close, it is not worth getting challenged into a precarious point of sail because the overtaking windward boat has very limited rights and can be "luffed". Ironically, it does not have to be exclusive to sloop vs spin boats. The F16s sail higher than the N20s with the chute.

No I'm not aware of that. If I did I apologize.

If you were fouled, as a minimum you deserve an apology. If I did foul you I should have done a turn.

How about some "cyber justice"? If the jury, here assembled, finds against me I will bring rum to Gilligan's.

This is my interpretation:

Before the start your were on starboard tack approaching the start line. I was basically on a collision course, nose to nose but at some distance away in light air. I jibed in front of you, from port tack onto starboard tack. My boom swung across midline of the boat, putting me onto starboard tack and clear ahead, all the time coming up to weather. You came through my lee and made a good start.

Where is the foul?

To see my point have an English teacher diagram the verbiage.

With that, I am done with this particular argument. If this is the customary interpretation, I'll adapt.

Pete,
You refer to the rule where the leeward boat is overtaking to get the overlap and hence cannot luff. Pepin was windward as far as I can tell by his description and he can then get run up.

Right or not it is a crappy move tactically unless you are match racing just that boat. As the lead boat and you screw up by letting someone up on your hip it is too late to try and run them off. Once they start taking your air dive deep, gain some separation and they will be out of it very quick. Then try and match speed with them and you still have positional rights coming into the next move or mark.

Maybe Ding is referring to the fact you had no rights as you first fouled us barging down the start line.

Let's begin with the rules I've seen quoted that don't apply:

• RRS 15 "ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY" does not apply. Yellow was clear ahead at the beginning, became leeward boat when overlapped, clear ahead, and leeward again. Throughout all that maneuvering, Yellow had right of way. She did not acquire it along the way. Blue did not acquire right of way until she passed Yellow at the very end.
• RRS 17 "ON THE SAME TACK; PROPER COURSE" does not apply. Yellow did not become overlapped from astern (she was ahead). Blue did not become overlapped to leeward (she passed to windward). Neither boat was restricted from sailing above her proper course.

Now, onto the rules that do apply:

• RRS 11 "ON THE SAME TACK, OVERLAPPED" at the times the boats were overlapped, Blue (windward) was obligated to keep clear of Yellow (leeward).
• RRS 12 "ON THE SAME TACK, NOT OVERLAPPED" at the times the boats were not overlapped, Blue(astern) was obligated to keep clear of Yellow (ahead).
• RRS 16.1 "CHANGING COURSE" when Yellow changed course, she was obligated to give Blue room to keep clear.
• RRS 64.1(c)"Penalties and Exoneration".
• Definition of Keep Clear.
• Definition of Room.

Now, the definition of "Keep Clear" reads (in part):
If the boats were only "inches" apart at times, then it is very likely that had Yellow (leeward) changed course any further, she would have immediately made contact with Blue (windward). If so, then Blue was not keeping clear and broke RRS 11.

The definition of "Room" is:
From the description, it sounds like Blue acted promptly in a seamanlike way throughout the encounter. I think Blue has a good argument that Yellow did not give her room to keep clear as required by RRS 16.1.

If the protest committee finds that Blue was compelled to break RRS 11 by the illegal action of Yellow (breaking RRS 16.1), then Blue would be exonerated under RRS 64.1(c), and Yellow penalized under RRS 64.1(a).

In all honesty, however, I think most protest committees would rule that Blue kept clear and therefore neither boat broke any rule. It is possible (depending on how the PC determines the facts) for this protest to go either way. <edit addition> I should say that this would be a difficult protest to win. The most likely outcome is no foul. The next most likely outcome is Blue is disqualified. Protest Committees will most often side with the right-of-way boat, unless the give-way boat can demonstrate that the other boat's action made it impossible for her to keep clear, despite her best and most seamanlike action. Blue has to make a very compelling argument in order to win. <end addition>

Some instructive cases are:

Capsizing is not considered "seamanlike". If a leeward non-spin boat rounds a windward spin-boat up so high that she capsizes, then the leeward boat breaks rule 16.1.


This means that Blue was not obligated to anticipate Yellow's actions, only to respond to them (contrary to previous posts).

I hope that helps,
Eric Rasmussen
US Sailing Certified Judge

We had to alter to avoid contact with you while you were still on port and before you flopped onto starboard. If we had not altered you would not have been able to start your jibe and would been forced into a head on situation with us and the fleet on our hip and behind us. You could not have continued on port because you were already at the boat, you couldn't tack because you would have been over early, your only out was to jibe and foul us and hope you got a pass, and you did get a pass. Although you fouled us you really screwed the boats behind us because you plugged up the boat end nicely.

Pete when you completed your jibe you were never clear ahead you were at our beam and the situation went from P/S to W/L, if you were clear ahead you would have been over early and we would not have had to alter course to avoid you. All this took please at t-20.

If this had been a crowded agressive start and you attempted to jibe down into an oncoming starboard fleet at the boat there would have been mucho contact. There would have been no place for the starboard boats to go.

NONE; however, The leeward boat needs to give room; if I’m already sailing as high as possible to pass and they want take me higher; I MIGHT argue that once they start to luff; In order for ME to luff I need to take the kite down. It would be a moot point. IT COULD get interesting if the windward boat did capsize and landed on the leeward boat in insurance terms.

Simple solution is to get in a decent passing lane and pass to leeward; or sail extra high and pop the kite and sail over them.

If this is in fact the case, then I would agree with others that have stated during previous threads that spin & non-spin boats should not race, or perhaps even be on the same course together. In fact, any boats that have grossly varying downwind sailing characteristics should probably not be on the same course. Clearly, this interpretation of Rule 16.1 would give the windward boat a serious advantage when passing a leeward boat - the leeward boat has no defense.

sm

I think we've beaten that horse to death already. I don't see how rule 16 changes things any.

Regards,
Eric

court adjourned. I'll bring rum, what flavor?

Eric,

Great post - thanks. I would agree that it is not seamanlike to capsize.

"Maybe Ding is referring to the fact you had no rights as you first fouled us barging down the start line."

Jeez! I'll bring a BIG bottle of rum.

I had no idea. We need to go back to protest flags.

Not the easiest of scenarios to analyse properly. Yellow has one more position point than blue!

Well in the context of this scenario, it means that the leeward, right of way boat, must have a thorough understanding of the handling limitations of the windward, give-way boat. If she does not, then she must expect that any alteration of course could cause the give way boat to have to act in a non-seamanlike manner.

Not saying you're wrong (clearly, you are most certainly right), just that the interpretations that you've cited effectively put serious limitations on the the right-of-way boat. The windward boat doesn't have to anticipate that the leeward boat will try to luff her, yet the leeward boat has to anticipate that her luffing could cause the windward boat to capsize- hence the leeward boat has virtually no defense against a boat passing to windward. Something about that doesn't seem right to me.

sm

Rule 16 is a shield, not a sword.

It limits the actions that a right-of-way boat can take. It does not bestow any tactical advantage on the give-way boat. If a windward boat (W) establishes an overlap on a leeward boat (L) such that L cannot change course without making contact, then W is clearly breaking rule 11. If L luffs up to protect her position, she must do so in a way that allows W to keep clear. As long as she does, W must respond promptly and in a seamanlike way.

My statement was that L cannot luff up so hard and so suddenly that W has to do something unseamanlike, such as crash-tack or capsize. If L luffs high enough, W might have to douse her chute - in which case L must give her room to do it.

The rules do not prevent a boat from sailing into an untenable position. If W allows herself to get so close that she cannot respond to a luff, then she's out of luck. She can't use rule 16 as a weapon against L.

That holds true no matter what kind of boats are sailing, and no matter how little or how much each skipper knows about the characteristics of the other boat.

Sincerely,
Eric