.....
| Dear Auntie Alb,
My wife and I have just returned from an Open Meeting angry and upset. We haven't been to many before, and after what happened in the second race, it will be a long time before we go to another. We enjoyed the first race, finishing in the middle of the fleet, but in the second race we made a much better start and so rounded the windward mark much higher up. As we tried to sail past to windward of another boat, we were luffed. The helm just put his helm down and sat out hard. We just didn't stand a chance. I tried to respond, but as his sails lost the wind he heeled viciously to windward and his spreader punctured a hole in my sail. I called "protest" and put up our protest flag. The helm of the leeward boat then seemed to lose his temper and started shouting obnoxious and abusive things such as "get back to your part of the fleet!" I brought up what he said at the protest meeting thinking that it would count in my favour. I also pointed out that under rule 16 he should have given me "room", and under rule 14 he should have made a "reasonable" attempt to avoid contact. To cut a long story short I was disqualified from the race. His place was confirmed even though there was "damage". I am sorry to have gone on for so long but I am so angry. Not only do I feel that we were stitched up but I have also lost my crew who simply doesn't want to go to any more Open Meetings. I also have to pay to get my sail repaired. Do you think I could have appealed? Angry of Luffenham |
What an experience! I'm not surprised that your wife does not want to travel to Open Meetings any more. Racing Albacores is meant to be fun and clearly, it wasn't for you.
Reading your letter carefully I can identify three issues which we need to look at. I reckon that in descending order of importance they are:
1. the bullying behaviour of the other sailorI hope it does not seem strange that we should look at the incident itself last of all. However, if you think about it carefully, a race is an ever-unfolding series of situations where boat meets boat. These situations then descend into incidents only if human error lets them. Human error in this instance includes lack of foresight, inexperience, and sheer bloody-mindedness. In other words, it is the way sailors behave in situations/incidents that we need to look at.
2. the interpretation of the Rules by the Protest Committee
3. the incident itself
1. Dealing with bullies
The Albacore Class unfortunately (like all dinghy classes) has always had its share of bullies – simply, I suppose, because there are bullies in all walks of life.
I agree with you that, as they lose control of themselves, they spoil it for everyone else. Luckily, the Racing Rules are clear on how to deal with such people. Fundamental Rule 2, right at the front of the book, states that "a boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognised principles of sportsmanship and fair play". Rule 69 is also clear on what action a Protest Committee should take when it believes that a competitor "may have committed a gross breach of a rule or of good manners or sportsmanship”.
So the weaponry is there to deal with the bullies. All the rest of us have to do, is make sure that we use these Rules. In any case, the very best way of dealing with such outbursts is to ignore them and get on with the race. If we allow the abuse to affect us, our own sailing performance will deteriorate. You can bet that theirs has already gone down the tubes, and so it is a golden opportunity to gain some distance. Stay cool.
2. Dealing with the Protest Committee
Protest Committees have a pretty tough job these days. Even though we have been using the new Rules for three years, many sailors are still struggling to come to terms with them.
Not only are the new Rules much more simple than before (even though they have to cope with the same complicated issues), but they also start from a completely different premise. The intention of the new Rules is absolutely clear: Contact is to be avoided. Sailing is no longer a contact sport. Nowhere is this clearer than in a luffing incident. In the old days, a leeward boat could luff no matter how violently and provided that the damage caused was not "speed reducing" she could ram the windward boat. Nowadays she has to give the windward boat "room" to "keep clear".
Now you obviously have a good understanding of the new Rules. It may well be that the Committee wasn't so confident. Although we don't know the details of how they arrived at their decision, or even how they arrived at the “facts found", it does seem strange that they ignored the power of Rule 14 on Avoiding Collisions. Even if they disqualified you, they certainly should have examined the actions of the leeward boat's helm and confirmed the angle of his tiller at the moment of impact.
Recent interpretations from the RYA Appeals Committee state that in a luffing situation, the leeward boat's tiller must be down the centreline of the boat. In other words the helm must not be altering course because if the tiller was to one side or the other, then he could be preventing the windward boat from keeping clear. He would then be subject to Rule 14. I would further believe that this interpretation should have applied to the heeling to windward and what the helm did to reduce this.
I therefore think that you would have good grounds for an appeal.
3. Dealing with the incident itself
The diagram shows how the incident developed. At position 1, L (Leeward) and W (Windward) are sailing parallel courses. W can "keep clear" by maintaining this parallel course. Of course she has to beware that L may luff and so she must be ready for it
At position 2, L luffs and
W must
respond immediately - but she only has to luff until she is on a
parallel
course again. She does not have to go further to windward. She is, of
course,
still "keeping clear" because
L can alter course in either direction without there being "immediate
contact".
NB. The definition of "keeping clear" is in the Definitions at the end
of the Rules Book.
.....
 |
At position 3, L luffs again and the two boats get closer. Once again W must of course respond immediately.
Now the boats are so close that rule 16 kicks in and L must not luff any further. Otherwise, she would be preventing W from keeping dear. The two boats are in the lock-up position as neither can alter course without there being a collision.
At position 4, L keeps luffing through the lock-up position. She also heels to windward and because W can no longer keep clear, the inevitable collision occurs.
So how should the protest committee have sorted this out? All it has to do is clear up the following questions:
1. Did the windward boat (W) respond immediately to the leeward boat’s luff? By responding immediately, she would be doing all she needed to under Rule 11 in order to "keep clear". If there had been a delay, then she would not be complying with this Rule.
2a. Did the leeward boat (L) comply with Rule 16 as she luffed (i.e. altered course) by giving the windward boat "room" to "keep clear"? NB The definition of "room" is again at the back of the Rules Book.
2b. Did the leeward boat (L) comply with Rule 14 by making a "reasonable" attempt to avoid contact as soon as the boats reached the lock-up position?
No matter what the committee decided, what is for sure, is that the new Rules have seriously weakened the power of luffing as a defensive weapon. This can be seen by looking at the result of recent appeal cases, where in 4 out of 5 luffing incidents the leeward boat has been disqualified.
Auntie Alb
P.S. The only way to get out of the lock-up position is for one or other of the boats to slow down. This normally happens automatically once the windward boat takes the wind out of the sails of the leeward boat.