A got to the the circle first and GE was not overlapped so GE was not entitled to bouy room. That situation never changed even after A tacked the bouy room issue was settled when A got to the circle first and GE had no overlap, GE would have had no rights for room no matter what. The issue remains tacking too close and port starboard and depending on those in the room it could go either way IMO and it has.

That's why we're discussing it now - so that when you're out on the racecourse you'll know that you can't blindly turn into other boats. Think through common scenerios before racing so you'll know what to do when they pop up. Look outside of the boat and determine your options and obligations before you reach oncoming traffic. Plan your actions ahead of time -- don't react in panic. I'm sure that the crew on Groupe Edmond were watching Artemis like a hawk, and had already decided what their course of action would be if she tacked. It takes time to notice that another boat is changing course. It takes time to assess one's options. It takes time for the crew to act. It takes more time for the boat to respond. I count 3 seconds between Artemis starting to head up, and when I see Groupe Edmond's boat turning down. It's entirely possible that GE planned the bear-away before Artemis moved, and acted the moment they saw her change course.

Come on. The rules of Part 2 "When Boats Meet" are only 6 paperback-size pages long. That's a lot shorter than the rules of little league baseball, and the kids don't have any problem learning them. It doesn't take a certified judge to understand the RRS, just a willingness to open the rule book and read. This is not a simple port/starboard incidient. In fact, Artemis is on starboard tack for only a small part of the encounter. Right-of-way changes twice. Please read rules 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.1, 18.1(a), 18.2(c), and the definitions of "keep clear" and "room". Pay attention to the obligations rather than fixating on "rights".

What? What interpretation.
.... Starboard has ROW.... BUT with a restriction...

How much room was enough ?
Ugh... well if you go boom... it was not enough... if you miss the SOB.... it was enough. Artemis Failed here.... clearly not enough room (even when Baron started ducking before they were required to)

Do you think Port WANTS to smash Starboard??? The rules don't anticipate Port pulling a miracle out of their butt. Do you think Starboard is going to walk in the room and say to port... you did not do enough to avoid me... you should have done more (go for that miracle). No! .. they are going to say... I left plenty of Room and Opportunity for port to duck and Port Screwed up... they did not manage their boat in a seamanlike manner.

While there is no burden... they are going to ask port... WHEN did you drop the traveler... Again... they ONLY have to do this when Starboard actually gets on starboard.

Do you think Port is going to protest Starboard after he just misses starboard and say... Oh you did not give me enough room... Answer... Of course I did... you missed me...
Baron does not protest Artemis if he successfully ducks. He protests when he can't duck and this resulted in the collision.

Port is going to protest Starboard ONLY when they crash tack to avoid a collision. AND they only have to do execute the crash tack when the tacker actually gets on starboard..... So... the critical evidence will be... where did the boats wind up after port's crash tack. (was it really a crash tack... or did port panic and protest to screw with starbord out of pique)

Oh... and Starboard can't go into the room and say to Port... Oh You SHOULD have crash tacked to avoid the collision...
Crash tacks are NOT seamanlike handling of your boat.

In the past... You had bozo's lunging for the boom to shove it some place and try to avoid responsibility for the crash tack that port had to execute.

IMO... the current wording of the rule is far better then past versions.... It balances the obligations of port and starboard and tacking extremely well. The language allows for the timing issues / wiggle room to work itself out.

You need to go back to a version of the RRS with a tacking rule that you like and defend the Artemis protest with those rules.... Otherwise your argument
is just silly.

Your analogy is flawed. Here is one that is more apt.

Imagine that you are driving in the right lane of a multi-lane road (in the US). There is another car behind you driving in the left lane. You approach a cross street and decide that you want to turn left. Your legal options are to change lanes, slow down (allowing the other car time to avoid you), and turn; or to slow down, let the other car pass, and then change lanes and turn. Instead, you enter the intersection and turn left in front of the other car. It brakes and swerves but still hits you in the rear quarter. Now, ask yourself who was at fault:

1. You, because you turned in front of the other car, or
2. him, because he should have anticipated your turn and slowed down to avoid you before you even reached the intersection?

No. As the rule is better understood, leeward boats will be less agressive tacking in front of windward boats.

Eric, I acknowledge your expertise but we stopped talking rules and started talking human nature a long time ago!

I still vividly remember that port tacker appearing out of the crowd and heading straight into my bows! That and the drive are the reasons I don't do Juana's anymore.

I’ve been I a protest room where the defending a position actually used the phrase; “Of course I was unable to avoid a collision – I hit him didn’t I?” Brilliant defense

Some interpretation is unavoidable, unfortunately. But where is the line, is he clear behind by 4 boat lengths or 6 when the lead boat can tack? Maybe we institute a 3 boat circle or something more identifiable. Anyone who races has been in both sides of this situation. Usually there is no issue, sometimes there is yelling, and on rare occasions there is an accident. Unfortunately the occasions I have seen it go to protest have been mostly port boats trying to use the rules as an offence. Not always the case (and not here either as I doubt GE wanted to wreck their boat) but it happens.

The next move on the course was to tack to starboard. There was more than enough room (again in my view and the argument) to pull off a normal –not crash tack- tack. GE was going to protest either way if they felt they were not given enough time, the act of crashing had nothing to do with that.

A good protest committee will avoid off-the-hip conclusions such as "It looked like enough room to me" or "It didn't". Instead, they will break down the incident into a sequence of steps, and analyze the obligations of each boat at every point that they change. PC will nail down hard facts, such as boat proximity, speed, and closing times. Proximity and speed can be very difficult to estimate, so unless instrumentation is available, closing times are generally more accurate.

Now, we are seeing widely varying estimates of distance, speed, and course from watching this video, so it's no surprise that different people reach different conclusions based on what looks like "enough" or "not enough room". Therefore, let's try to be more analytical. As I said before, I see Artemis begin to head up at time 0:12. I see her jib luffing about her mast at time 0:14, so that's when I call her head-to-wind. I see Groupe Edmond changing course beginning at time 0:15.

Now, at the moment Artemis passed head-to-wind, she forfeited right-of-way (see rule 13), and entitlement to mark-room (see rule 18.2(c)). Instead, she is obligated to keep clear of Groupe Edmond. One second later, GE starts taking avoiding action (changes course and slacks sheets). I think one would have a very hard time convincing a jury that Artemis completed her tack, and then gave Groupe Edmond enough room to keep clear all within that one second. Personally, I don't believe that a catamaran that takes 2 seconds to go from close-hauled to head-to-wind, can go from head-to-wind down to close-hauled on the opposite tack in less than that. GE had to take avoiding action while A was still tacking and therefore the keep-clear boat. Thus I conclude that Artemis broke rule 13. Given that Groupe Edmond continued to take avoiding action but could not prevent collision is (in my opinion) prima facie evidence that A did not not give GE room to keep clear after completing her tack. Therefore Artemis also broke rule 15. I don't see anything to indicate that Groupe Edmond's actions were not prompt, nor unseamanlike, so I don't believe she could have reasonably avoided contact. Therefore, GE did not break rule 14. Artemis, however, could have avoided contact (by not turning so close) and therefore did break rule 14.

It appears to me that Artemis (A) tacked between 2-3 boatlengths from the mark, so I conclude that she entered the zone on port tack clear ahead of Groupe Edmond (GE). While A remains on port tack, she is not obligated to give GE mark-room. Instead, GE is obligated to give A mark-room under rule 18.2(b). When A passes head-to-wind, the obligations change. Rule 18.2(b) no longer applies (see rule 18.2(c)). That happens two seconds into the encounter, so rule 18 never really comes into play.

Do the rules require that Artemis give Groupe Edmond enough room to duck Artemis, or just enough room to keep clear?

I agree that there wasn't enough room to duck. But it looks like they have plenty of time to tack. Artemis was head to wind within 3-4 seconds of starting the tack and effectively stop. The crash happened at 0:21. So, Groupe Edmond could have begin the turn at 0:17 which was after Artemis was on a starboard tack. All of that is assuming that Groupe Edmond will continue going toward Artemis at the same speed even though it began the tack. More likely, 2 seconds into the tack they will be moving at 1/3 of the speed.

There is no way to set a fixed distance for "room". There is simply too much variation in maneuverability between different boats and in different conditions. This is always going to be a judgement call.

If GE had sheeted in the jib, and the hard over rudders had not stalled out, and a collision was averted; could GE get a judgement for Artemis tacking to close?

So... how do the old rules... of any quad... make this better?

Currently, PORT has to make their case...with respect to a forced crash tack that did not result in a collision.

What is offense action by port.... A initiated the tack.

They have to provide evidence that were NOT provided room an opportunity...

You the tacker (A) has to provide evidence that you held up your end of the tacking deal...eg.. provided room and opportunity. AND YOU KNOW YOU HAVE TO COLLECT THIS EVIDENCE because the boat is behind you... you know what kind of room and opportunity that boat is capable of and in your judgment they can bear off and take your sterns... OR they can tack underneath you... or they can cross ahead of you. BUT... your obligation (since you chose to tack) is to have that evidence that the boat had one??? TWO?? of those three options available to them.

I tacked cleanly and I thought they had enough room is weak.... you initiated the when boats meet... you have starboard rights and the obligation... you need to make sure you meet your obligations... or you should be in trouble.

As you stipulate... probably not.

Had GE.... stalled their rudders, plowed the bow and just missed Artemis..... That would hardly be viewed as seamanlike... IMO, they could protest and win.

I don't think "seamanlike" enters into this situation. That phrase only appears in reference to mark roundings when talking about "room" to round the mark. It's just time and opportunity in this case - no?

Jake,
I think seamanlike is NOT a definition in this cycle...
So it is just the ordinary understanding of the word.

Probably better term for me to use would be GE could sail behind Artimis. So, Bow down, rudders stalled would not be my understanding of sailing...

The actions of the crew would be unseamanlike in having to avoid Artemis.

I have NO citation for this one that I can remember though. I will check Perry when I get a chance.

At any rate... the standard to meet is room and opportunity ... I could see the PC judging that Artemis was too close.
irrespective of the words used to describe the near miss.

Agree with all of Eric's points. At the end of the day, it's a judgement call based on the PC's understanding of the performance capabilities of the boats.

There is absolutely no port/starboard issue here, there is no starboard tack parade coming into the mark, these guys were not on suicide port. Guys, please stop making references to situations in other regattas that are totally unrelated to this one.

Tacking too close is tacking too close. The boat behind is in control. One really good defense I have seen is to pinch up like mad and tack right after the mark. Odds are, the boat behind won't be able to follow and stop you from tacking.

A's biggest tactical error was that they came in several boat lengths below the layline, so they weren't able to tack around the mark, using it as a pick. This is one of those situations where you need to commit (you're either pregnant or not, as they say)... Of course, 9 times out of 10, you don't want to be on a layline and get stuck with a shift that you can't take advantage of, so that's a really tough call to make further back on the leg.

Looking at the design of these boats, it amazes me how small those rudders are, relative to the size of the hulls. If we were sailing our beach cats with rudders of a similar scale, we would never be able to turn, either.

Mike

Yes. GE took avoiding action while A was tacking. Even if contact had been avoided, Artemis still broke rule 13. Take a look at RRS 13, and the definition of "keep clear".

Take a look at rules 15, 16, and the definition of "room".

The fact that a single scenario "when boats meet" requires 6 pages of rules is - by itself - ridiculous. Am I to recall and analyze 6 pages of rules and all the countless endless monotonous tedious lethargic coma-inducing examples every time I encounter another boat on the course? You do realize how silly it is that the "rules are only 6 pages" ... for a single "section" of the rules. I played many sports growing up as a kid. Football, Soccer, Tennis, Lacrosse.... NONE of them required me to read a rule book, much less 6 pages of rules.

Whats even more hilarious is that you've rattled off the number of rules that you need to keep in mind when crossing boats. I can't tell if you're trying to be facetious or its just coming off like that because its really hilarious to me. "Please read rules 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.1, 18.1(a), 18.2(c), and the definitions of "keep clear" and "room"." Thats 2 definitions and 9 rules (with all of their implicit definitions) that I need just for when I get close to another boat. Am I to conduct this mental exercise before during or after I'm done with the 10 other things that I need to be doing just to keep the boat from flipping over?

Maybe you can think about all the rules scenarios in your head while you're doing all this. Personally, I've gotten by without hurting anyone by just ... avoiding situations where I know there could be trouble. Often at the expense of a place on the race course. (Thats not to say that I haven't scraped gelcoat before - I'm guilty as charged on that account)

The mere fact that we have an 8 page long thread on which boat broke the rules is in itself hilariously pathetic.