• Giving Mark Room on opposite tacks
  14 Comments
  Greg Wilkins Yesterday 10:54
• Sticking to a mooring buoy
  9 Comments
  Charles Darley Wed 16:50
• Hailing "I need room to tack"
  20 Comments
  David Chudzicki Wed 13:28
• The 2025-2028 RRS changed 44.3(c) to the nearest 10th of a point
  10 Comments
  Jerry Thompson Mon 18:40
• OCS vs DNS; Which is More Appropriate?
  15 Comments
  Hugh Morrin Sun 23:55

• Hailing "I need room to tack"
  All the rules in Part 2 are safety rules! They are all designed to avoid contact.
  
  This interpretation for R 20 is negating the safety of the boats involved just because someone failed to use the right words.
  
  John
  John Ball Yesterday 23:13
• Giving Mark Room on opposite tacks
  US Appeal 130 has various diagrams for mark-room.
  Diagram 2 and 3 are similar to the question.
  
  Gybe promptly is noted.

  

  
  
  
  

  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Diagram 8 shows when a boat had left the mark astern
  

  

  
  
  
  Wayne Balsiger Yesterday 17:52
• Sticking to a mooring buoy
  Good - do you accept my point that a boat which doesn’t secure to the bouy is not in breach of Rule 45?
  Matt Sargent Yesterday 17:01
• RRS vs. Colregs
  Absolutely: the reason we were late giving way was because we didn't realise we were the give way vessel because of the steaming light.  And bear in mind I'm in the English Channel, which we share with some very large commercial traffic.  Whilst hopefully the racing yacht would know that IRPCAS applies for interactions with large vessels, I think she would be disappointed if the yacht displaying a steaming light expects a container ship somehow to know that she is under sail and take appropriate action (with potentially much more serious consequences, see recent report from CIC Normandy channel race).  
  
  Not to mention that displaying the correct lights is both international maritime law and required by RRS 56.1.
  
  Going back to the original question about use of Appendix RV, this does illustrate my point - I've no idea if the other boat was racing (I'd assumed not as I believed she was motoring but boats cruising do also fly spinnakers); she would have had no idea whether we were racing; and even if we had both been racing, we would not have known if Appendix RV applied to the other race.  
  Kirsteen Donaldson Yesterday 16:20
• The 2025-2028 RRS changed 44.3(c) to the nearest 10th of a point
  > Isn't worsening a boat's place in a race or series penalising her?
  
  Interesting and very reasonable point. Practically speaking any adjustment of a boats score potentially affects other competitors race order and more importantly series places, so I go to my dictionary and get penalise - subject [competitor] to disadvantage or penalty. So on one reading one may certainly say that any redress award may penalize other boats, and therefore is forbidden. Clearly that's not the intent of the rule! But can we look at it another way? Redress comes up as put right again, restore equality etc. Redress is not a bonus for the boat receiving it, its the PC's best attempt to restore the race results to what they would have been had the improper or illegal action not occurred. So may we argue that the pre-redress award placing was actually a temporary artefact of the scoring process, rather than a genuine result, and therefore should be corrected just as any other scoring error would be corrected? And further may we argue that in detail the boats below the redressee are actually slightly benefitted, since they receive a score one point better than they would have done had the redress been unnecessary and the redressee finished in the place they should have done? 
  
  I'm not sure I've phrased this as well as I might, but hope the thread is intelligible.
  Jim Champ Wed 11:59

Forums Leader Board

This Month