New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Tacking in zone
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Tacking in zone

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
sundowner6959 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 01 Nov 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
Post Options Post Options   Quote sundowner6959 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 16 at 10:29am
Yes - when shooting the mark only. The tack below was clean and both boats sailed for a few moments on starboard before P luffed to shoot the mark.
Back to Top
piglet View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 04 Jan 07
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
Post Options Post Options   Quote piglet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 16 at 10:49am
Don't think S was obliged to go above close hauled for P.
Not sure if that would be 11 or 18, no RRS book to hand.
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6364
Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 16 at 11:06am
Not altogether sure about the fine detail of this one.

S, as windward boat, failed to keep clear of P as Leeward boat. RRS11.

If S had to luff above close hauled to keep clear then P broke 18.3. If S didn't luff above close hauled but should have done then I'm not sure that P broke 18.3.

I don't think any of the exoneration rules apply to S because S was not entitled to room of any kind and wasn't ROW boat. Could be wrong about that.

So I think S is penalised for RRS11, and if S actually did luff above close hauled then P is penalised under RRS 18.3. So quite possibly both DSQ.

I'm a bit unhappy about saying that if S didn't luff but should have done then P didn't break a rule, but the trend these days is that you should always keep clear and protest rather than make contact, and that's a pretty good principle.


Edited by JimC - 11 Apr 16 at 11:08am
Back to Top
jeffers View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3026
Post Options Post Options   Quote jeffers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 16 at 11:48am
The rule is pretty clear. 18.3 if P forced S to go above close hauled. Plus remember that as P gained RoW through her tack she MUST give S room to keep clear. S is not require to anticipate that P will tack underneath her and P does not gain Mark Room rights as she tacked in the zone. 

As this took place in the Zone my view would that it would be unlikely that P could give S the required room to keep clear in all but the lightest of conditions (rule 15).
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1045
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 16 at 12:34pm
Originally posted by sundowner6959

Here's another query about tacking in the zone. . . . 
Two boats on opposite tacks approach the windward mark which they are rounding to port. Boat P, on port, tacks below boat S which is approaching on starboard. Boat P's tack is clean and boat S does not have to take any avoiding action. Boat P who cannot lay the mark without luffing shoots the mark and rounds cleanly but Boat S's boom touched Boat P's rigging when this manoeuvre is carried out. 

Should boat S have given more room for P to round the mark or did boat P infringe the rules by tacking below S and then shooting the mark.

This all happened within two boat lengths of the mark.

Here's what I think you described.

In this case, B has never sailed above close hauled, both boats have passed the mark, so Y cannot be said to have prevented B from passing the mark, so Y has not broken rule 18.3.  B, to windward does not keep clear of Y and breaks rule 11 and probably rule 14.

Try this:



Here, I don't think anyone would dispute that Y prevents B from passing the mark.  Y breaks rule 18.3

Now this:


There is contact with B's boom @5.

Boats have not 'passed' the mark, therefore B is, at least' attempting to 'pass' the mark.  Y shall not 'prevent' B from passing the mark.

Y's shrouds, which make contact with B's boom, at least obstruct B from passing the mark.  I think this has to be the applicable meaning given to 'prevent' in rule 18.3.

There is very scant discussion of the 'prevent' obligation in the commentary books.

One way of looking at the 'prevent' part of rule 18.2( a ) is to consider it the 'compliment' of the 'cause to sail above close hauled' part:  where the fetching boat needs to sail above close hauled to avoid contact, but doesn't, isn't that where 'prevents' kicks in?

Back to Top
sundowner6959 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 01 Nov 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
Post Options Post Options   Quote sundowner6959 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 16 at 1:01pm
The bottom graphic is how I saw it happen. 
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6364
Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 16 at 1:23pm
Gosh Brass, you're interpreting 'prevent' very differently from me. I was thinking that it meant forcing the other boat the wrong side of the mark.

Given situation 3 then, where do you see penalties?

The way I read it B is not ROW or entitled to mark room under RRS14. Depending on the speed of boats Jeffers may very well be right and B is entitled to room under RRS15, in which case she's exonerated for RRS11.
B is not entitled to room under a section C rule so can't be exonerated under RRS21.

I'm inclined to say that Jeffers is right about room, that Y didn't give B room under RRS15/16, and so penalise Y and exonerate B.

However if B had luffed up to avoid Y there would be no complication at all, and Y would clearly be penalised, so there's a moral there!
Back to Top
jeffers View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3026
Post Options Post Options   Quote jeffers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 16 at 1:50pm
Sometimes it pays to luff up above close hauled to prove that you felt that a collision was inevitable and you had to take avoiding action and sail above close hauled. Slam dunk case if that had happened in my eyes under 18.3 (as long as B was not way above the layline of course).

Are we assuming B is effectively on the lay line though as the illustrations show B to be above it (this is why judging a layline accurately is important)?


Edited by jeffers - 11 Apr 16 at 1:52pm
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74
Back to Top
sundowner6959 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 01 Nov 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
Post Options Post Options   Quote sundowner6959 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 16 at 2:57pm
The race was on an inland loch with the wind flicking through 30 degrees so whether B was fetching or on the layline is difficult to determine but I would assume he was above the layline.

If Y had not tacked below B but had been abreast and on the same starboard tack and on the layline within 2 boat lengths and the wind shifted 15 deg.(header) would Y not be entitled to shoot the mark with B giving room? 
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6364
Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 16 at 3:36pm
If the boats were overlapped and on the same tack when they reached the *THREE* boat lengths zone then the inside boat is entitled to mark room. That includes room to shoot the mark if needed, but not to tack or go past head to wind.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy