Tad, I get your point, but do you see the irony here? All those games you played do have rule books - you just didn't read them, either. While I agree with you sailing is wonderful in that you don't need to read the rules to enjoy it, I'm forced to disagree regarding what's considered ridiculous. There's a level in every game at which there isn't a valid excuse for not knowing the rules. Eric and Mike have passed that level - that doesn't make them better people than you, but they do deserve respect for spending the time to become versed in the racing rules of sailing. The rules can be neither a sword nor shield if you're wearing a bucket on your head.
John Williams
- The harder you practice, the luckier you get - Gary Player, pro golfer
After watching Lionel Messi play, I realize I need to sail harder.
So... how do the old rules... of any quad... make this better?
My experience only goes back to the 1997-2000 rulebook. Although the wording of the rules has changed since then, the basic application has not. The obligations of the boats in this situation are the same. As I understand it, there was a time when "no contact" = "kept clear". Skippers notoriously made no attempt to avoid collision and intentionally rammed other boats just to prove their point. The rules were rewritten to their current form in order to simplify them and avoid carnage. Had this event taken place under the 1993-1996 rules, Groupe Edmond could legally have hit Artemis broadside at full speed and cut her in half.
I say we simplyfy the rules and go with "Thunder Dome" rules at the crossings and mark roundings;
Two boats enter, one boat leaves!
Someone at Cowes beat you to it!
OK, it looks like nobody went overboard or got hurt- I hope not.
Let's tackle this one.
The monoslug was luffing the chute, I guess to try and slow down? He couldn't see that tanker coming for at least a 1/4 mile? I think they were below having sex and forgot about the shipping lanes. As long as nobody had any physical damage, that driver deserved that. And If nobody was physically hurt, that was hilarious when the chute caught on the anchor and ripped his whole rig down. Anyone know this person on the monoslug?
You know whats funnier?
I went to the Youtube site, and read most of the comments. There are actually people that somehow think the skipper of the tanker was at fault.
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.
I still think something more quantifiable would be better. This still allows for the sea lawyers to use rules as an offensive tool and for protests based on feel and favoritism. Overlap, port/starboard, 3 boat length circles are all quantifiable.
In a situation like this windward boat has a controlling position. On the port layline this promotes people to try and achieve this and in cases like this port boats reaching into A presenting a potentially dangerous confrontation. At the very least for safety, I would like to see in a situation like this where they are coming in at the mark, the first boat inside the 2 boat circle as long as there is no overlap before the circle maintains rights to maneuver. The port layline at A is already dangerous, you have somebody forcing a controlling position and a few starboards coming in and somebody could die real easy in these boats.
Eric - for "room" do they have be able to be clear to go any direction (tack or duck)?
I think Eric broke down and explained the situation clearly.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the rules that says that a boat has to anticipate what another boat might do!! I hate this idea. They could throw the boat up into the wind like they are tacking and then bear off. They could be going into port with a broken piece. There should never be any idea that a boat needs to anticipate what another boat might do.
This hits close to home because I was told in a protest room that I should have anticipated that a boat would tack and avoided the situation.
Protest room = 50/50 chance. Still does.
Glad they had the photo evidence so they could show they did everything they could and they started much earlier to try to avoid the situation. Could they have crash tacked? I'm not sure but I doubt it. They certainly couldn't have crash tacked from the time the boat went to close hauled on starboard.
The boat ahead could do two things. A. Bear off and create separation so that they can have room to tack. B. Pinch up early to try to get above the other boats line. Probably not a good idea unless match racing because of the loss of speed/vmg.
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.
Quote
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
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.
In a way, Tad is right. You don't HAVE to read the rule book, just sail really, really fast and stay in front, or prepare to go around everyone else at every boat-on-boat situation. That should keep you out of the room...
Just a few points to (hopefully) clarify some other things:
A definition:
Mark-Room: Room for a boat to sail to the mark, and then room to sail her proper course while at the mark. However, mark-room does not include room to tack unless the boat is overlapped to windward and on the inside of the boat required to give mark-room.
My opinion is that A broke the second half of the Mark Room definition, as well as Rule 13 (tacking too close).
That might help clear up some of the recent posts here about the lead boat having impunity.
As for anticipation, that is another concept that causes lots of discussion.
First, can someone show me where the word "anticipate" exists in the RRS? I did a search and did not find it.
So, while no rule requires you to anticipate, common sense (and good seamanship, as Mark mentions) requires you to do so.
Conversely, there is no rule that says you do not have to anticipate. I think some people over-read Rule 14, and it is often discussed at seminars. Here is Rule 14:
14 AVOIDING CONTACT A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room (a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and (b) shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage or injury.
My take-away is this: --If you are ROW, you need to anticipate and be ready to maneuver promptly, but do not have to start your maneuver until the other boat creates the problem. --If he creates the problem at a point that you can no longer avoid him, he has broken a rule. --However, any time there is damage, you run the risk of a PC tossing the ROW boat too.
I think people have a tendency to replace the words "act to avoid contact" with "anticipate" which is really bad in practice.
The port layline at A is already dangerous, you have somebody forcing a controlling position and a few starboards coming in and somebody could die real easy in these boats.
The rules don't prevent you from sailing into an untenable position.
Quote
Eric - for "room" do they have be able to be clear to go any direction (tack or duck)?
The rules don't define "avoiding action". Nor do they stipulate how a boat must choose which actions to take. Check the definition of "keep clear", as well as ISAF Case 50 for clarification.
The argument that Artemis kept clear because Groupe Edmond could have waited for Artemis to complete her tack, and then have room to tack (in a seamanlike way) herself is a real stretch here. I don't believe it would prevail in a protest hearing. All GE has to say is that she had a reasonable and genuine apprehension of collision (validated because she could not avoid contact despite having taking prompt action), and that her snap decision was that a crash-tack was too risky so she attempted a bear-away.
So, while no rule requires you to anticipate, common sense (and good seamanship, as Mark mentions) requires you to do so.
Actually, RRS 18.2(e) implicitly requires an outside boat to anticipate the mark-room needs of an inside boat. That, however, is a different discussion.
Quote
Conversely, there is no rule that says you do not have to anticipate.
Perhaps we're getting bogged down in the semantics of the word "anticipate". Of course, one should attempt to forsee upcoming encounters and plan ahead. Rule 14(a), however, makes it quite clear that "...a right-of-way boat or one entitiled to room or mark-room need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room...". ISAF Case 27 also explicitly states "a boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule".
In fact, ISAF Case 27 is a very close match to what happened between Artemis and Groupe Edmond. I encourage everyone here to look it up. It involves a port-tack boat that tacked onto starboard inside the zone in front of an oncoming port-tack boat. The only difference is that Groupe Edmond tried to avoid contact but the boat in the case did not. The case concludes "...while it was obvious that AS would have to tack to round the mark, BP was under no obligation to anticipate that AS would break rule 15, or indeed any other rule".
Quote
I think people have a tendency to replace the words "act to avoid contact" with "anticipate" which is really bad in practice.
I agree. Let's talk in terms of "act" and "react". When, for example, a right-of-way boat changes course (acts), a keep-clear boat must react promptly, and in a seamanlike way. The keep-clear boat is not required to react before the right-of-way boat acts, regardless of what she may anticipate.
[quote=Matt M]The port layline at A is already dangerous, you have somebody forcing a controlling position and a few starboards coming in and somebody could die real easy in these boats.
Matt, this is EXACTLY the type of post that has turned this into a 10-page discussion, filled with red herrings. These two boats were the leaders in the fleet, there were NO boats coming in on starboard. If there were starboard boats, that would be a different situation; and other rules, obligations and options would need to be considered, but that is NOT the situation here.
Eric, we're on the same page, I don't see a real need to break down my post, it was really just in response to the prior posts about PCs stating that a boat should anticipate the actions of another boat.
It's ALL about semantics in this thread. My point was, that while the word "anticipate" doesn't appear in the rule book, it is still likely to be discussed (and have merit) in a protest.
.....her snap decision was that a crash-tack was too risky so she attempted a bear-away.
There is a HUGE control disparity between tacking and ducking with the Extreme 40s. It was too risky to bear-away. Most footage that I have seen, confirms that they tack on a dime and are beast when bearing away and thus the question was "room" required to either direction.... I don't think so.
The phemonena is similar to when first learning to fly the chute on a beachcat but in the inverse way. Most instictively headed-up not bore away when the chute heated up. We are applying our own beachcat experiences that are not typical of the Extreme 40s. I don't believe GE had a choice, he needed to tack but it would have been iffy to make the mark so he tried to duck expecting A to be out of the way in time. Most beachcats duck without loosing control, rudders are more in proportion to the boat and the main can be unsheeted in an instant. Accordingly, we think that ducking was a safe option..not on an Extreme 40. It's a whole paradigm shift, just like when first learning to fly the chute.
Could Groupe Edmond have tacked safely? Maybe. If GE had tacked, would she have avoided contact with Artemis? Maybe. If GE had tacked and avoided contact, would A have broken all the same rules? Other than rule 14 (Avoiding Contact), Yes. Would GE have broken any rules? No. Would the outcome of the protest hearing been any different? No.
[quote=Matt M]The port layline at A is already dangerous, you have somebody forcing a controlling position and a few starboards coming in and somebody could die real easy in these boats.
Matt, this is EXACTLY the type of post that has turned this into a 10-page discussion, filled with red herrings. These two boats were the leaders in the fleet, there were NO boats coming in on starboard. If there were starboard boats, that would be a different situation; and other rules, obligations and options would need to be considered, but that is NOT the situation here.
Eric, we're on the same page, I don't see a real need to break down my post, it was really just in response to the prior posts about PCs stating that a boat should anticipate the actions of another boat.
It's ALL about semantics in this thread. My point was, that while the word "anticipate" doesn't appear in the rule book, it is still likely to be discussed (and have merit) in a protest.
Mike
There no red herrings here, but you are building a strawman argument.
This is not a business meeting of USS. There is no published agenda to adhere to nor is it an ad hoc discussion. Why are you trying to regulate it?
Last edited by pgp; 08/10/1103:27 PM.
Pete Pollard Blade 702
'When you have a lot of things to do, it's best to get your nap out of the way first.
No agenda, no formality. Was just trying to keep the discussion on topic, because the tangents were getting nuts, including people suggesting rule changes.
Two boats came in, alone, on port. We don't need to start asking for rule changes because starboard boats might have been there, in another universe, at another time. There are already enough rules to handle that scenario anyway.
I've lookat this a lot and my view is that they did not have cat sailors on the jury and so did not ask some crucial questions....
1, Sp; you chose to Duck, whay was that -> Expected answer / reading between the lines - it was the tactical option 2, Why was the jib eased early, before the rudders had gripped and the bear off started -> Opps we fecked up; cats don't work like that 3, Why did you not dump the traveller quickly; you know these bats do not bear off well -> Opps we fecked up 4, Why did you not dump more mainsail when attempting to bear off -> Opps we fecked up 5, Why did you not tack as these boats are difficult to bear off -> as stated the tactical opt..... Opps we fecked up....
The esecond they chose to bear off they were in trouble; maybe because they are not as "auto experienced" as some cat sailors KNOWING that you dump the main and start to bear off and once the rudders have gripped you dump the jib; maybe they were too dialied into the tactical options and made a bad call.
IF the rudders had not stalled they would have avoided them; if they had tacked they would have avoided them. IF they has sailed the boat properly they would ahve avoided them.
