Hi All,
A
rules question came up last night that I'd love to get some more
opinions on. This has to do with the classic "room to tack at an
obstruction", where two overlapped port tack boats are approaching a
starboard tack boat and safety requires that the inside port tacker
wants to tack in order to avoid the outside port tack boat. Rule 20
(it used to be 19) basically requires that the boat hailing has to give
the hailed boat time to respond, and that the hailed boat needs to
respond "either by tacking as soon as possible" by immediately replying
"You tack" and then giving the hailing boat room. Appeal 54 (pasted
below) says that if the hailed boat doesn't respond, the hailing boat
needs to hail again louder.
All of this is well and good in a big boat regatta, where boat
speeds are much lower relative to the size of the boat and thus there
is more time available to hail and react. In dingy racing, boats are
moving much faster relative to their length and thus everything
develops much faster. In my experience in the V15 fleet (I never
sailed in college), what happens is that the inside port tack boat
hails "starboard tacker, need to tack" and then pretty much immediately
puts his tiller down. More often than not, the outside port tack boat
does the same (sometimes cascading up the line) and everything is
fine.
My questions are:
In college sailing, with "real protest
committees" (assuming they have them there?), does anyone know if the
requirements of Case 54 to hail louder are actually enforced?
Is
the hailing boat required to hail well before the starboard tacker
approaches so as to give the hailed boat time to respond? I don't
think that this is practical in dinghies, since small changes in
pressure or direction can quickly change your ability to cross or
requirement to tack, and if the hailing boat hails too early, they can
be penalized for asking for room to tack when it simply isn't required.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this one?
While
I'm on the rules curiosity parade... I am VERY happy to see most folks
spinning when they are protested on the water for breaking a rule.
Generally, I think that we've cleaned up our act HUGELY over the past
few years. That said, our Thursday night rules require that we take a
TWO TURNS PENALTY for fouls committed within the ZONE (other than
touching marks) and I saw two people try to exonerate themselves last
night for fouls within the zone by taking only one turn. When asked,
one (who shall remain nameless) responded "yes, that is the rule, but
no one else spins twice so why should I?" So, my question is... should
we (i) self enforce by DSQing folks who ignore the rules and spin only
once for fouls in the zone (other than touching marks), knowing that it
might discourage some guilty parties from accepting responsibility, or
should we (ii) change our rule to lessen the burden and continue to
encourage folks to take responsibility?
Thoughts on this one too, would be appreciated.
Adam
Adam Spiegel
(415) 515-5396
20 ROOM TO TACK AT AN OBSTRUCTION
20.1 Hailing and Responding
When approaching an obstruction, a boat sailing close-hauled or
above may hail for room to tack and avoid another boat on the same
tack. After a boat hails,
(a) she shall give the hailed boat time to respond;
(b) the hailed boat shall respond either by tacking as soon as possible,
or by immediately replying ‘You tack’ and then giving
the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her; and
(c) when the hailed boat responds, the hailing boat shall tack as
soon as possible.
20.2 Exoneration
When a boat is taking room to which she is entitled under rule
20.1(b), she shall be exonerated if she breaks a rule of Section A or
rule 15 or 16.
20.3 When Not to Hail
A boat shall not hail unless safety requires her to make a substantial
course change to avoid the obstruction. Also, she shall not hail if the
obstruction is a mark that the hailed boat is fetching.
CASE 54
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 20.1, Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Hailing and Responding
When a boat approaching an obstruction has hailed for room to
tack, the protest committee should normally accept her
judgment as to when safety required the hail. When the hailing
boat observes no response to her hail, she should hail again
more loudly. If after hailing she waits only a short time before
tacking, she deprives the other boat of a choice of actions and
risks contact with her. If a boat fails to keep a lookout she may
fail to act reasonably to avoid contact.
Summary of the Facts
A and B, close-hauled on starboard tack, were approaching the shore, with
A a hull length ahead and one length-and-a-half to leeward. A hailed for
room to tack but B did not hear the hail. After waiting for a short interval,
during which time there was no response from B, A tacked onto port.
Then, in spite of bearing away as rapidly as possible with her sheets free,
A hit B’s leeward side. A protested B under rule 20.1(b) and B protested A
under rule 10.
At the hearing, B acknowledged that she was aware of the position of A
before A tacked, but B’s helmsman and crew had not observed A during
the thirty seconds before the collision. The protest committee dismissed
A’s protest and disqualified her on the grounds that she had hailed for
room to tack when not in imminent danger of running aground and that her
hail was inadequate, since B had not heard the hail or responded.
A appealed, claiming that the protest committee had improperly
substituted its own judgment for A’s as to her safety. In addition, she
argued that when two close-hauled boats are approaching an obstruction,
the boat to windward is obligated to expect and be prepared for a hail.
Decision
The protest committee should accept a leeward boat’s judgment that safety
required her to change course unless there is little or no doubt that the
boat’s hail was earlier than necessary. Concerning the hail, when the
hailed boat fails to respond in any way, as B did in this case, the hailing
boat should hail again, more loudly. A did not do so. Also, A gave B little
or no time to respond, thereby depriving her of the choice of actions
provided in rule 20.1(b), and also risking contact with her. A broke rule
20.1(a), and also rule 14 because clearly she could have avoided contact
with B by complying with rule 20.1(a). By failing to keep clear of B she
also broke rule 10.
B also contributed to causing the collision. Rule 14 required her, as well
as A, to avoid contact ‘if reasonably possible’. This requirement means a
boat must do everything that can reasonably be expected of her in the
circumstances to avoid contact. This includes keeping a lookout, especially
when two boats approach an obstruction together. B’s failure to observe A
for a 30-second period was in this case a clear breach of rule 14.
The appeal is dismissed. A was correctly disqualified, not only for
breaking rule 20.1(a), but also rules 10 and 14. B is also disqualified, for
her breach of rule 14.
USSA 1971/147
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://myfleet.org/pipermail/sfv15/attachments/20090626/819ffced/attachment.html>
