that's good to know. I was wondering what Artemis could have done short of sail way past the mark and hand the lead to GE.

You're right. Rule 18.2(c) did change in 2010, and I quoted the old version. The updates had slipped out of my rulebook (I guess I should have pasted them in). Instead of reading "if either boat passes head to wind", it now reads "if the boat entitled to mark room passes head to wind". The change was made because some team racers had found a way to exploit that loophole to turn off rule 18. The change doesn't affect this scenerio though, because it was Artemis who tacked.

In that scenerio, rule 18 doesn't apply because boats A and B are on opposite tacks on a beat to windward (see rule 18.1(a)). It's a simple rule 10 situation.

I hope that helps,
Eric

At time 0:14, Artemis passes head-to-wind. I see Groupe Edmond bearing away at 0:15, and I see the mainsail eased at 0:16. Both actions were taken while Team Artemis was the keep-clear boat.

No. Rule 14 requires all boats to avoid contact if reasonably possible. Slowing down constitutes "avoiding action", and is a reasonable one to take. If a right-of-way boat maintains course but slows down to avoid a give-way boat, then the give way boat does not keep clear.

Regards,
Eric

Thanks Eric, I could never keep all this stuff straight.

Had this occurred away from any marks or laylines, GE would likely have tacked and had ample time to do so. It was only after they committed to ducking that the wind shifted and the boat powered-up and get out of control. They had plenty of time to tack but it was not preferred to them so they unsuccessfully tried to shoot behind. It took Artemis only 3 secs to tack!!!

This situation (tacking too close) does happen away from marks or laylines. It happened twice at the Tanzer 16 Nationals (one of which was in front of me causing me to crash-tack) and I saw it happen on Hobie 16's at the Special Olympics last week.

As I count it, Artemis took 8 seconds to tack (2 to go head-to-wind, and 6 more to reach a close-hauled course). I saw GE taking avoiding action 6 seconds before contact, so I'm not sure that a crash tack would have been different except for where the boats hit.

Bear in mind that when GE bore away, she was the right-of-way boat. Even without contact, Artemis still broke rule 13. There was only one second at the most between Artemis gaining right-of-way and the collision. That is not "ample time" to tack.

Thank you Eric, It seems A was much more at fault here, IMHO

Hmmm....I count Artemis on starboard and close haul at 16 sec, started tack at 13. It was at 21 sec contact with GE. Had GE started to tack at 17 sec, she would have slowed up considerably and easily avoided contact. Extreme 40s seem to tack quickly but have real issues bearing off.

GE misjudged the duck not expecting Artemis to come out of the tack as slowly as it did.

Well, we watched the same video and came up with very different sets of facts. That is one reason photo evidence is treated with skepticism. I doubt, however, one will convince a jury that a 40' catamaran can tack in 3 seconds. I see Artemis turning all the way to 0:20.

Regards,
Eric

I think you see Artemis turning all the way to 20 seconds because they are not coming out of the tack on a close hauled course, they overstood the mark and are bearing away to go to the mark. I think if Artemis had accelerated out of the tack close hauled, GE would have cleared their stern. It looks like Artemis spends at least 1-2 seconds spinning their boat to the mark instead of accelating close hauled.

I understand but disagree with the rationle.

Firstly, we are sailing catamarans not 4ksb and I posit the damage to both boats in the case at hand. NOT anticipating is inherently unsafe.

Secondly, we are discussing an approach to A mark. Where else was Artemis going to go?

I feel the starboard right of way rule should be strengthened.

Again, thanks to Eric for all his work. Somebody has to try and keep us straight and I appreciate it.

Me too.

A was starboard, GE was port. Simple enough to me.

I disagree. It only seeks to confuse us. Who the hell can run through that whole rule analysis on the water in order to determine who needs to do what? Throw it in 4 boatlengths from the mark while blowing 20knots. I know that my mind is devoted to keeping the pointy end up.

Furthermore the more complicated the rules are, the easier it is for situations like this to pop up where both boats think that they are doing the right thing and therefore crash thinking "well its the other douchebag's fault!"

Seriously the rules we have are not practical and the fact that we need certified judges to figure out who was at fault for, what appears to be a simple port/starboard incident really chaps me the wrong way.

G'mornin' sunshine!

I had some vague notion of a rule set based on the traffic light. If port is red and starboard is green, you just look at the boat you're approaching and stop or go. Mentally extending the bows to a potential point of impact would quickly determine who has right of way.

Obviously I've not put a great deal of thought into it. Jus' sayin'...

I really dislike the current rule as it leaves too much room for interpretation.
Who is to say how much room is enough?

These guys bore off on a boat known for stalling. The lead boat appeared to over stand the mark so it appeared there would have been room for a tack and then GE would have had rights for buoy room and could have easily avoided a collision as the boat can tack that fast, where they just stalled the rudders in the bear off. At the least they should bear responsibility for not avoiding the collision – it was not very avoidable they way they went about it, but that was not the fault of the other boat.

As the rule is better understood it will invite more agressive port tactics with similar results, imo.

GEDR is sailing from clear astern of A entering circle so owes room per rule 18. GEDR sails straight on proper course to mark , but open commiting to the mark rounding (early), A shuts the door, and puts GEDR in the squeeze. A heads down to mark, pinching, sailing slow. Easing his sails to accel, trims and begins maneuvers to head back up, when GEDR, attempting to avoid hits A. In question is whether rules engine penalizes GE for 18, or A is DSQ'd for unseamanlike rounding.

Given the proximity to the circle, A did not make a seamanlike rounding (rule 18), and was intentionally short on the rounding. (A tactical squeeze to slow down/stall GE.) Because of position of both boats in the circle at the time of contact the decision by A to not afford GEDR sufficient room inside the circle, and at the mark, A has fouled GEDR, as A's aggressive sailing did not leave GE room to keep clear as per rule 11 (GEDR was leward boat entering the circle). 16.1 also applies as maneuvering boat (A) did nothing to keep clear of GEDR who was on proper course. Rule 18 takes precedence because it is in Section C of the rulebook. Therefore A must give GEDR room to round the mark, but instead, maneuvers to round mark.

My opinion is that A should be DSQ'd. I don't have any favorites here; its' just what I saw. and I'm offering my 2 cents.

Pete,

Both boats came in on port. Both were taking a chance there was not a starboard boat approaching This has nothing to do with the mark or laylines. This is simply...don't tack in front of me. Not arguing if there was enough time or if he could have tacked, but the rule has nothing to do with the mark.

No way - or at least not often in the instances I have seen collisions and protest in these situations. The aggressive tactics come from the port tackers who use ambiguity in the rule to push situations. Your behind but you might win in the protest room.

A boat has to provide opportunity to avoid, they do not have to provide opportunity for the other boat to do whatever they want. In my view the lead boat accomplished their tack and was sailing. I do not agree there was a broken rule then because GE appeared to have both time and room to accomplish their own tack, but they did not, they forced a protest and lost their boat for a few days. The still could have tacked and protested, but it is a lot more visual to the judge boats to try a spectacular bear away.

The judgment call comes from how much room is required to be clear ahead for a maneuver. In the crappy video shot, it appeared to me to be enough. Eric and the judges saw it as not enough. As the lead boat was on or even past the lay line there was also then plenty of opportunity for GE to realize a tack was coming – not part of the rule, but something that should be considered in the decision of determining that all was done to avoid a collision.

Again, Eric has the credentials so his opinion will carry the day.

Cheers!