Case #69 answer
..

----- Original Message -----

From: Al Schonborn

Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:31 AM

Subject: Re: clarification of Rule 11--RRS

 

Hi, Todd:

 

OK, now I'm ready - after a couple of good racing days on the weekend and the subsequent obligatory "feeding" of the Wayfarer web site (Whiffle Web). Will put my opinions in red below.

 

Best regards,

 

Uncle Al (W3854)

 

Boat C was sailing close hauled on the layline for the starboard start mark, with about 30 seconds until the start.  Boat A and B were fetching the starboard mark.  When it became clear that Boats A and B were going to barge at the mark, Boat C began calling for her leeward rights.  Neither Boat A nor Boat B made any change of course.  As the start approached, Boat C continued calling “Leeward!”.   This time, Boat B called for Boat A to give her room (as the leeward boat), but Boat A did not respond and held her course.  Boat C called one last time for leeward rights, and Boat B responded that Boat A would not give her room.  Boat C was forced to bear away to avoid collision just before the start and Boats A and B sailed over her.  Boat C called “Protest!”

 

Boat C protested both Boat A and B under Rule 11, claiming that both boats had failed to keep clear of a overlapped, leeward boat sailing on the same tack.  Perfect! Except that C can only protest the boat which actually fouled her, i.e. B.

 

 

Boat B claimed that she did not have room to keep clear (because of Boat A’s actions). If B wants to use A as an excuse, she must protest A. If that protest is successful, then - and only then - does B get off the hook in the matter of C vs. B. 

 

 

Boat C counter-claimed that Boat B had plenty of time to manoeuvre as it was plain she was barging long before the boats met.  That is true but there is nothing in the Rules that requires her to take anticipatory action, action which it would have been wise for her to take! And not taking such action is no excuse. In the end - as I read the Rules - it comes down to two questions :

1. Did boat C have right of way? - Yes, Rule 11 as you stated.

2. Did the right of way boat exceed any restrictions placed on her, in this case Rule 16.1: " 16 Changing Course
16.1 When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear. "

- No! C did not change course at all and so was not required to give B room to keep clear. Which brings us back to what C pointed out - B ends up having to keep clear and should have anticipated the problem before it was too late. I also find it interesting that 16.1 says nothing about speeding up which in my dictionary would not be the same thing as changing course, and thus, C is also entitled to speed up as one usually does at the start (especially in dinghies!) We have in fact had many an interesting discussion at the bar about this kind of situation. Many of my fellow racers claim that you are no longer entitled to cut off someone who is barging or run them into a Committee Boat. But as far as I can see, 16.1 is the only limitation here. And it does not apply to C in the scenario in your diagrams, since C does not alter course (until forced to do so to avoid a collision). Rule 16.1 would however apply to B who is entitled to push A up in part A of your diagram. But in part B, boat B can no longer push boat A up into the mark since B must give A room to keep clear.  Room is defined in the RRS as " The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvering promptly in a seamanlike way. ",  and forcing a boat to sail over the mark or run into the RC boat can hardly be considered as allowing her to manoeuver in a seamanlike way. However, that limitation/protection only exists if the right of way boat changes course.

So, in part B of your diagram we have an interesting situation. B is no longer entitled to take A up, unless she is forced to by another boat that she must keep clear of. My interpretation of 16.1 is that in this situation, although B is a right of way boat in relation to A and cannot change course of her own free will, she has an overriding duty to keep clear of C who has right of way over B and who is breaking no Rules. And I am sure that any appeal decision would have to see this as the overriding duty, since chaos could easily result if it was seen in any other way. In addition, it hardly seems fair to make C who has sailed perfectly fairly and within the rules, pay for the fact that B was too inept/soft-hearted/scared/dumb to cut off A early enough. In fact, if more people ran bargers onto the wrong side of the line, perhaps these people would be motivated to learn to start fairly and more safely? When someone barges and fouls another boat that worked for a good start as C has done, that (to my mind) is worse than running your motor or paddling while no one is looking. Most of us would never dream of doing that, and yet every race, somebody barges and relies on their foul being overlooked - a foul that is to my mind worse than paddling, etc. since usually someone else who has done things according to the Rules gets screwed at the worst possible time - the start. Pardon the sermon but barging makes me see red - especially when it's done by sailors who should know better. Beginners are excused until the error of their ways has been explained to them over a beer at the bar!

 

 

Have Boats A and B violated Rule 11?  B has violated Rule 11. If I were Committee, I would hesitate to DSQ boat A since B never once even moved towards A to suggest that A should go up. At a crowded start especially, the Protest Committee has to draw a fine line between Rule 14 and the fact that windward and leeward have to come very close to each other before leeward can claim she had to bear away to avoid a collision. That distance will always be a judgment call that takes into account the size of the boats, wind strength and wave height, I should think. In our Class (Wayfarers, 16' dinghy) I don't think anyone even thinks of protesting in a start situation like the diagram or at mark roundings unless there is a collision. But, as long as C got so close to B that a collision was imminent before C altered course, C did exactly what the Rules require and should win her protest.

 

Has Boat B violated Rule 11 even though she had no room to manoeuvre between Boats A and C?   YES. Her #1 duty (see above for my rationale) is to keep clear of C, and it is up to B to do more than she did in these diagrams to try to keep clear. She must keep pushing  A as far as required by her duty to keep clear of C. The diagram suggests to me that B did not make much if any effort. Just yelling is usually not enough. Let's face it, everyone yells at a crowded start. B has to actually sail towards A to underscore her seriousness. Of course, in human terms, B was probably not inclined to push A on the wrong side of the mark since, once she did so, her "buffer" would be gone and she (B) would have no more excuses for barging.

 

If Boat B claimed that Boat C had luffed up (i.e. changed course), could Boat B have used Rule 16 as a defence, saying that Boat C hadn’t given her room to keep clear after changing course?   Yes, 16.1 would then apply if C was not herself being forced to luff up by a right of way boat to leeward of her. But I think a wise Committee never lets 16.1 become a carte blanche for those who want to barge. Having raced most of my life, I realize that without an enforceable anti-barging Rule, the whole start becomes chaos - so why even bother to race??? If I were Committee, B would have to prove that

  • C had altered course intentionally and more than the unavoidable degree or two inherent in normal steering
  • that this course change was the reason B was unable to keep clear
  • that B made every effort to keep clear and was denied the room to keep clear entirely due to the course change by C

before I would rule in favour of B. One other thing to remember - and I think Committees do for the most part - the start is so messy that it becomes difficult to prove who altered course and where - there is just too much to try to keep track of. So in the end, for most of us sailors and protest committee people, it comes down to: When in doubt, nail the windward boat. When I race (which is often, at a reasonably advanced level), I always keep clear of a boat to leeward even though I have no idea whether they are changing course unless such change is pretty major and rapid. By the same token I expect windward boats to keep clear and invite them to do so - loudly at times!

One other incident that - while not the case in your diagram - often happens at the start, is that a boat establishes a leeward overlap from clear astern, in which case "room to keep clear" pops up once more - as part of Rule 15: " 15  Acquiring Right of Way  When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat's actions. "  Here the windward boat is justifiably more protected. The appeals cases point out that "room to keep clear" assumes an immediate reaction from the freshly burdened boat at the moment that boat becomes entitled to room to keep clear. In practical terms, at the start line, this means that the overtaking boat must leave enough lateral distance between the two boats, that the new windward boat can luff up to keep clear without her transom immediately swinging into the leeward boat. Note that the rule says "initially" so that this protection only lasts for a few seconds, after which time it is windward's responsibility to keep clear. If leeward holds her course and gives windward initial room to keep clear, windward is thereafter totally responsible for keeping clear - i.e. if she drifts sideways while sitting and luffing, can't steer well enough, etc., that is her problem. 

 

Best regards,  Uncle Al.

....
Case 70
return to Quiz Index
...
If you have any Rules questions or scenarios that you'd like me to clarify,
I'd love to hear them and add them to this quiz!
Just contact Uncle Al at uncle-al@cogeco.ca