I thought this deserved its own thread.
Seems many feel that tacking or to tack includes bearing off to a close-hauled course. Personally, given "room to tack" was in def: mark-room all those years could not have meant that ...at least in that context (I hope we aren't saying that "room to tack" meant one thing in def:MR and another in RRS 20).
Anyway ... why endure this mystery? Can't we have a clear definition of this term since it's so basic?
Here's my proposal (draft submission). Upon examination, there are 2 different styles of defining verbs in Definitions. We have fetching and racing, and then we have start and finish, each pair phrased in a similar way. I decided to follow-suit with the fetching/racing style .. but maybe following start/finish could be clearer.
Please make suggestions or comments.
Tack, Starboard or Port; [Tacking/to Tack]
A boat is on the tack, starboard or port, corresponding to her windward side. [A boat is tacking from the moment she passes head to wind until she is on a close-hauled course.]
Then RRS 13 can be simpler (if one wanted to leverage the term).
13. WHILE TACKING
After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course. [While tacking, a boat shall keep clear of other boats.] During that time rules 10, 11 and 12 do not apply. If two boats are subject to this rule at the same time, the one on the other's port side or the one astern shall keep clear.
The benefit ... clarity in the use of the term and clarity in "room to tack"
Or it might be clearer to split the noun & verb into two separate definitions.
Kett
In at least two rules the word tack is used twice with different meanings:
We Jibe, when passing the stern through the wind.
Could we define and use the phrase " coming about" when referencing passing head to wind?
I can't think of very many scenarios where the proper course for a boat would be to sail just past HTW and not continue down to at least close-hauled. So I think we are good there.
That's why I put "to tack" in the definition alongside "tacking". The option there would be to italicize both "to tack" or just "tack" and let the "to" guide to the verb definition.
This brings up the benefit of the other verb-style .. used in "start" and "finish". In those styles, the phasing is "A boat starts/finishes/tacks when, .."
I thought of a couple approaches using that style.
One would be say (noun) and (verb).
You can see above it incorporates both tacks and "to tack". I'm not sure that's clearer. I think I like the first one better.
Another interesting case is a boat that passed HTW, but never gets down to close hauled, but instead passes back through HTW. In this case are they still tacking when they are back on the original tack? I think so as they have effectively tacked twice but not completed the second tack. Thus perhaps this could be clarified with:
A boat is tacking from the moment they change tack by passing head to wind, until they are on a close-hauled course on either tack
Edit: added "change" that I thought was there
Regarding a boat changes tack instantaneously .. yes .. that's correct. In that use, tack is the noun form and "change" is the verb ... so not a problem and that change of tack can be done doing passed HTW or gybing the main.
We use these terms easily all the time, intermixing the noun and verb forms.
The bigger question is whether or not this is the actual correct definition. That "to tack" includes coming down to close-hauled.
Since tacking refers to the verb form and tacking end at close hauled, then "to tack" must be the long form and not the instantaneous "to change tack". I think my proposed form of words is technically not necessary, but makes that distinction clear but using the phrase "change tack" described as a moment.
As for pronouns, either there plural or singular works and the choice of either doesn't require anybody to SHOUT any anybody else!
So I still like:
A boat is on the tack, starboard or port, corresponding to her windward side. A boat is tacking from the moment she changes tack by passing head to wind, until she is on a close-hauled course on either tack.
Anyway ... putting in "change tacks" is unnecessary as that happens automatically when a boat passes HTW .. so it's redundant.
I've interfaced with the Rules Comms with different (insert hair brain) proposals of mine over the years and they are reductionists at heart. They trim and trim until only what is necessary is there.
For historical perspective, there were two main reasons why the proposed definition of "tacking", meaning being past head to wind and not yet on a close-hauled course, was removed from the RRS in 1997: (1) We had a general principle that if a definition only applies to one or two rules, and the concept can be stated briefly, it's better to have the words in the rule itself than in a definition; and (2) More importantly, we try to have definitions that refine the ordinary meanings of words, rather than imposing some artificial meaning*. That allows the reader to get a good idea of what a rule says without referring to the definition; once they have that idea, they can read the definition and refine their understanding. In ordinary terminology, "tacking" is the maneuver that begins with luffing up above close hauled, then passing head to wind, and then bearing off to a close-hauled course. For example, if you're crewing on a racing boat and the skipper says, "Tacking in 3, 2, 1 ... Tacking", they're not talking about when they will pass head to wind -- they're talking about when they will put the helm down to ... well, tack.
The verb "tack" and the noun associated with it are used several times in the RRS, and in the Case Book and Call Books, with the ordinary meaning. For example, match-race Call N6 says that says a boat that passes head to wind and then goes back through head to wind is not tacking, because "tacking" means going from close-hauled on one tack to close-hauled on the other.
The proposed definition is, in my opinion, a step backwards, and not desirable. If we were to have that definition, we would never be able to know what a person means when they say a boat is tacking -- does that mean the boat is tacking, or that she is tacking?
*We don't always succeed, as shown by the definition Obstruction, which does not require that the defined object obstructs anything.
I totally agree that it is technically redundant. However, I believe that it is not functionally redundant, as it adds clarity by using the noun and verb form in the same phrase. Specifically it illustrates the key difference between "changing tack" (a momentary thing) and "tacking" ( a prolonged state). Note that you cannot just say "change tack" there because you can "change tack" by gybing. So it adds further clarity expanding that you do not need to tack in order to change tack. But yes it could be reduced to:
Until this year, the phrase "room to tack" was both in def: MR and RRS 20. Now it's only in RRS 20. (it being in def:MR and the fact that MR turned off after passing HTW created confusion of the meaning of the term).
So, what is "room to tack"? Now that it's out of def:MR, the questions introduced by its presence there are no longer an issue.
I think there is still ambiguity in that phrase. Maybe it doesn't need a def ...but how about proposing a Case to add clarity?
Here are simple Facts/Q's/A's.
If "to tack"/"tacking" .. .
Facts:
Q1:
A:???
Q2: what if L had to pause her turn just past HTW to avoid contact with W, and came to a near stop .. and then protested W. Can W successfully claim that she gave L "room to tack and avoid her" based on the fact that L eventually reached close-hauled and avoided her?
A:????
Q3: what if the contact happens before L reaches HTW, is she sailing within her "room to tack" and therefore is exonerated for breaking 16.1? (if "to tack" includes the maneuver that begins with luffing-up ... ")
A:???
Niko, I like your thinking when you say:
However, I am surprised that no one has gone back to their basic English grammar classes at school. As used in your examples the italicised 'tack' and 'tacks' are both nouns. In the other two cases where the word is used in the infinitive form of the verb ... 'to tack'.
From the Oxford English dictionary we are reminded of the many forms of the word:
We could just go back to language basics and define "tack (n)" and "tack (v)" separately in the definitions which would ensure that all of the different noun and verb forms are covered by the appropriate definition. I note that 'tacking' is an interesting one in that it can be both 'gerund' or a 'present participle' although I sincerely hope no one's brain is bleeding as a consequence of this thought.
Then I look at the definition of 'Start' a couple of lines above and wonder is this the noun or the verb? It is clearly a verb but when we talk about the 'start' in our SIs it is generally a noun. Ho hum!