FWIW, I agree with parts of what both of you are saying. "Reasonable" without the video is going to be almost impossible. Even with the video, it might be hard for some juries to get there. It was a fast incident, near a mark that starboard boats normally round and turn downwind. I know that P doesn't have to anticipate S's course change, but it is a very basic part of the game to round that mark in the manner that they did. No excuse at all for S not watching for traffic, however.

Separate from 10 and 14, here's something I would also discuss during a hearing: As I noted above, S was changing course throughout, both in rounding the mark and the "deer" wiggle. P could make a compelling case that under 16.1, S should be DSQ.

Mike

At time 0:33, M87 (Port) was still sailing a course (or could turn to a course) to sail behind H7 (Starboard). M87 does not turn in front of H7 until 0:36.

H7 was not obligated to anticipate M87's turn-down and attempt to cross. She had every reason to expect M87 to avoid her. See ISAF Case 27, which states "a boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule".


I have watched the video and did not see another boat on a collision course with M87. There is another boat that could have read-ended H7 if she turned down, but she did not.


Yes. I do not think it is reasonably possible to turn a 28ft boat that is going over 7kts 90 degrees within a 6ft radius in one second in a seamanlike way given no time plan the maneuver nor inform the crew .


I've looked at Case 123 and don't believe it applies. At time 0:33, which is when you say H7 needs to react, it is not "clear to a competent, but not necessarily expert, sailor...that there is a substantial risk of contact". At that time, M87 could still pass above H7. She doesn't commit to the cross until time 0:36.

I thought for sure you'd refer to Case 26


Have you determined from the video evidence that there was damage or injury? It isn't clear to me that there was either. Even if you feel H7 broke rule 14, she might be exonerated under rule 14(b). Oh, and by the way 14(a) is the exception part of the rule, stating "need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear".

Regards,
Eric

Thanks all for contributing to this learning. I've got another one for ya, probably much simpler, but I'll save that for another time. I've been able to cut down the video to about when windward enters the zone. Admittedly you cant see leeward or the contact directly. You can see/ feel and possible here it. What I'm interested in now is, did I described the situation correctly? When I desribed the situation, I tried to take a facts found approach and was able to get both boats to agree on the facts... mostly. Leeward thought they were overlapped. Incidentally, most people think they are overlapped I'm finding.

Video here: http://youtu.be/5btrp8opIuQ

Are you saying that at time 0:33, M87 (port) is already unable to avoid contact? It appears to me that M87 could avoid H7 at least up until time 0:35, by slowing down, luffing up, or tacking.

I invite you to produce a diagram that perfectly matches the text description without any inconsistencies, artifacts, nor room for interpretation.


While it is true that diagrams do not tell the whole story, it is also true that text does not either. Both, when presented by parties or witnesses, constitute testimony. Both, when supplied by or endorsed by protest committee, constitute facts found. Neither supercedes the other. See Case 104 which states "neither written facts nor diagrammed facts take precedence over the other".

It's a mistake to dismiss diagrams as "just pretty pictures".

Eric, you obviously have more time to devote to this than I do.

I will agree to disagree.

BTW, if there was no damage/injury as a result of a 1700 lb boat+crew t-boning another boat, I'm Father Christmas.

I'll explain how avoiding contact works, both practically and under the rules.

When two boats meet, and let's say it is a starboard/port situation, there is a last possible moment when each boat may act to avoid contact. I'll call them TS (time starboard must act) and TP (time port must act). The two times are not necessarily the same -- in fact, they are usually different times. It is entirely possible that TS is earlier than TP.

At time TS, the starboard tack boat (S) has a "genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision", and may take avoiding action. The port boat (P) then breaks rule 10. See ISAF Case 50. When I'm the starboard boat in this situation, I wait until the last possible moment when I can insure there will be no contact and act then. I believe that is good practice and encourage others to do the same. In the scenario in question, that might be time 0:33.

That is not, however, what the rules require. RRS 14(a) states "a right-of-way boat ... need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear". Even though it's a good idea to act at time TS, boat S is not required to act until time TP. At time TP, it may well be too late for S to be able to keep clear. Even if there is contact, and even if that contact causes damage or injury, boat S does not break rule 14.

I refer again to ISAF Case 26, which states "A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid a collision until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear. However, if the right-of-way boat could then have avoided the collision and the collision resulted in damage, she must be penalized for breaking rule 14". Again, when "it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear" means time TP -- that is when boat S must act.

And I also refer again to ISAF Case 27, which states "A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule". Boat S is not required to act at time TS (when she could anticipate that P will break rule 10).

And, I refer once more to ISAF Case 87, which states "a right-of-way boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other
boat is not keeping clear". S may wait until P actually fails to keep clear - which is at time TP.

Which brings us back to the video in question. Could boat H7(S) have avoided contact by changing course at time 0:33 (when she had a "genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision" - i.e. time TS)? Yes. Did rule 14 require her to? No. She was not obligated to act until boat M87(P) actually was unable to avoid contact (when it became "clear she is not keeping clear" - i.e. time TP), which was about time 0:35-36 in the video. By then, unfortunately, H7(S) was not reasonably able to avoid contact. Therefore, H7(S) did not break rule 14.

Although not absolutely required, I recommend sailors act at time TS and avoid contact (and possible damage/injury), not to wait until time TP like boat H7 did.

I hope that helps,
Eric

P is not required to anticipate S's change of course, but she must respond to it - which she does not do.

Looking over the video yet again, I see boat H7(S) making two course changes. One is when she rounds the mark at time 0:32-0:34. The other is the "wiggle" at time 0:35-0:36.

During the first course change, boat M87(P) is still 2-3 boatlengths away. I believe that P had ample opportunity to keep clear (by slowing down, heading up, or tacking) during that time.

At time 0:35, however, P is committed to the cross and unable to keep clear by luffing. S makes a quick turn to her right but is unable to avoid P. S then turns quickly back left, taking contact on her bow. P is already not keeping clear so there is no possible way for S to give her room. If you insist on applying RRS 16.1 to the second course change, and conclude that S breaks it, then you should exonerate her under RRS 64.1(a).

Remember, the purpose of rule 16 is to protect a give-way boat from an overly aggressive right-of-way boat. It does not excuse an overly aggressive give-way boat for failing to meet her obligation to keep clear. A port-tack boat can't just sail into a line of starboard tack boats rounding a mark and say "oh, they should have held their course". The starboard-tack boats may not turn into P, but P can't use rule 16 to justify sticking her nose into a place where she isn't able to keep clear.

Regards,
Eric

Eric,

Thank you again for being so diligent about helping to explain application of the rules and succinctly describing obligation vs rights.

+1
Terry

At 34-35 seconds, I see H7 (S) make a sharp turn to starboard to avoid P and, in my opinion, was early enough to completely avoid the collision. The problem is that P made a similar and identically timed turn to port meaning both boats continue heading right at each other. Upon realizing this, S reacts to turn back down to port but P reacts in the same identical manner to starboard. After the two zag zigs, there was nothing left to do. The angle of the video makes it a little difficult to see H7's initial turn to avoid P - which was, in my opinion, clearly substantive and early enough to avoid. The problem was that P matched S's moves exactly and there was no avoidance because of the situation P created.

This might sound odd, but let's back up and pretend that the wiggle and smash never happened, but just look at it until the point where the wiggle started.

As I see the video, S never stopped turning down. Even if she had, that would have given P only 1-2 seconds to avoid. Either way, that's not enough time for P to keep clear (in those conditions on those boats, etc.).

You can disagree, but that's how I see it.

Mike

S did absolutely stop turning down. You can see them turn sharply to starboard for about 1/2 second upon realizing that P appeared to be intent on crossing. If you can't see it by looking at the boat, look at her wake and use other boat wakes for comparison. You'll also see her start to heel more dramatically (and accelerate) as she turns to starboard to attempt to avoid. I see two distinct sharp turns by H7 (S) - one to starboard to avoid and, upon realizing P changed course, and one sharp turn to port. That's about as fast as you can expect those scows to turn at those angles. I think if you have a video from on board of H7 looking forward, you would have no doubt that they made a significant attempt to avoid P. I'm not sure why several of you don't see H7's actions in this video. With it maximized in HD, I can even see H7's tiller move sharply as he tries to turn both directions.

Once this sequence has happened, if I'm at the helm, I've got two things in my mind. 1) collision is now unavoidable. 2) I'm in the middle of a lot of other boats (including another port tacker trying to cross this mess). As a result, I would try to minimize my maneuvering to reduce the chance that I create more carnage around me with my actions and reduce the chances of hurting anyone...I would just take it square on the bow just like H7 did. I'm blown away by the number of you experienced guys that are holding H7's feet at (partial) fault for the impact. It makes me realize how much of a gamble any protest hearing can be.

Here's the video link again...this time queued up to the moment H7 starts to round the offset.

http://youtu.be/s2mwGyQljgc?t=31s

+1
It seems to me the "duty of the boat with rights to avoid a collision rule" was written to keep boats from bumping while taking up another boat or a way to avoid massive damage to prove your point, not a scapegoat and a way to pin the stupidity ,of the guilty port boat in this case, on the other guy, as some of you seem to be trying to do.
As Jake said a gamble in the protest room ,but it also makes me wonder how much of a gamble it is being on the race course with some of you, if that's the way you think.

Back up before the wiggle and calm down. Can't we have an open minded discussion about this without directly or indirectly insulting one another?

My opinion: I see S as changing course (turning down) continuously until she turns up (start of wiggle). To me, she didn't ever straighten her course before turning up to avoid. If you follow 16.1 as written, S cannot do that, as P needs to be able to keep clear. P was sailing a course to the weather mark, and took the stern (kept clear of) the prior starboard boat. S was rounding the mark, and turning the whole time.

It's easy to blame P for the whole thing, but 16.1 is a very important rule.

Mike

I should have left the time stamp on the first image, but here is the video at 32 seconds, where S would have HAD to begin aborting her bear away in order to do what you ask of her to avoid breaking 16.1. In my opinion, there is absolutely no way S could even begin to fathom that P would continue on their course into the string of starboard boats and I wouldn't expect her to start taking avoiding action. In particular, P has plenty of room to maneuver to her left to avoid the starboard boats. With regards to rule 16.1, at T-32 seconds, S is within about 10 degrees to her starboard downwind course and even if she holds this higher angle, P has PLENTY of room to keep clear with the course S has established. S's manuever to turn downwind was also concise (not to mention completely expected- although I realize this isn't part of the rule).

This is at T=32 seconds


Now, moving forward just a little less than 2 seconds, it becomes clear that P is intent on passing through the string of boats. S starts taking an avoiding action to starboard precisely at this point. If P had held her course, S would have been able to avoid her with her action. Unfortunately, P did not hold her course and steered up instead.

A little less than 2 seconds later:


So, I guess your argument boils down to at what point you think S should have identified P as a possible collision course. I think the point where it was clear that P was not keeping clear was at T=34seconds - precisely when S did attempt to maneuver to avoid P.

I think the reason that we (and by "we", I mean several of us) reach different conclusions, is that we look at the video and see different things. Because we disagree on the facts, we will disagree on the decision - and there may be no choice but to "agree to disagree".

If you believe that at time 0:31, that P is fully committed to passing in front of S, and that from that time there is nothing that P can subsequently do do avoid contact then yes, S later turns down and breaks rules 16.1 and 14. In that case, P should be exonerated for breaking rule 10 (under rule 64.1(a)) and, because it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact, P does not break rule 14.

If, on the other hand, you think that P could reasonably have taken some action to avoid contact at times 0:32-0:34, but did not, then S does not break rules 14 nor 16.1. P breaks rules 10 and 14 and is not exonerated.

When I look at the video, I feel that P could have acted to avoid S at times 0:32-0:34 but did not. Therefore, I conclude that S broke no rules, and P broke rules 10 and 14.

Although you may look at ISAF Cases 60 ("when a right-of-way boat changes course in such a way that a keep-clear boat, despite having taken avoiding action promptly, cannot keep clear in a seamanlike way, the right-of-way boat breaks rule 16.1") and 92 ("when a right-of-way boat changes course, the keep-clear boat is required to act only in response to what the right-of-way boat is doing at the time, not what the right-of-way boat might do subsequently") and place the burden of keeping clear on boat S, you should also look at Case 75, which states "a starboard-tack boat that changes course does not break rule 16.1 if she gives a port-tack boat adequate space to keep clear and the port-tack boat fails to take advantage of it promptly". I believe that M87(P) failed to take advantage of the space that H7(S) gave her. Therefore, H7(S) did not break rule 16.1.

I hope that helps,
Eric

Well I think we can conclude that P is a bonehead, butt, nimbwit to think she could ever shoot that gap. . .

I didn't think I was, but if anyone feels like I was being insulting, I apologize. It was not my intent.

I didn't see any insult and if there was... yikes, we have become quite delicate! Heck even Todd was pleasant, well pleasant for Todd anyway :-)

Oh wait now I see it... F@!#k you Jake!

Thanks. Case 75 helps a lot. I think we all agree that P had plenty of water to turn upwind sooner. I am just trying to determine when she HAD to.

FWIW, I've been trying not to let my gut feelings dictate, which are screaming to chuck P at all costs...

Mike