Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
US Appeal 130 - Interpretations of Mark Room (Hot off the presses!)
The USS Appeals Comm addresses some of the topics we have discussed since the new quad. Specifically they address "leave astern" and how to interpret mark-room after the removal of "as necessary to sail the course" (they don't address the removal directly, but rather apply the rule in its absence).
Answers in Question 1, dealing with cases where the course to the next mark is either a beat or a square run, but does not deal with the case where, because of observed wind gusts or shifts, or tide effects, a boat's proper course is to gybe or tack immediately at the mark to secure the wind/water advantage.
Interesting John. The appeal seems to differentiate between the course one has to sail, for which mark room to gybe is available, and the course one would like to sail, for which it is not.
Given a leg on which boats will need to sail on both gybes then there will normally be a proper course leaving the mark on either gybe. But although there may be more than one proper course, there's a very sound argument that on one side of a big shift everyone would gybe in the absence of other boats. Is that enough?
To me the appeal suggests that if there's a reasonable chance of reaching the next mark without gybing again then one is entitled to room to gybe. But that seems to suggest that if a shift making the leg one sided is permanent then one is entitled to room to gybe, but if it shifts back then not. Rather messy!
Jim re: "The appeal seems to differentiate between the course one has to sail, for which mark room to gybe is available, and the course one would like to sail, for which it is not. "
To my mind (though there may be some subtle difference that I have yet to discover) this Appeal supports USS Judges and racers to go back to "as necessary to sail the course" (basically) when thinking about MR.
In the previous quad, we applied that exact standard to differentiate the difference between "need" and "want" on be part of the MR entitled boat. I think their interpretation and application examples shake out the same as in the previous quad (in other words ... no game-change)
Any comments?
Given a leg on which boats will need to sail on both gybes then there will normally be a proper course leaving the mark on either gybe. But although there may be more than one proper course, there's a very sound argument that on one side of a big shift everyone would gybe in the absence of other boats. Is that enough?
To me the appeal suggests that if there's a reasonable chance of reaching the next mark without gybing again then one is entitled to room to gybe. But that seems to suggest that if a shift making the leg one sided is permanent then one is entitled to room to gybe, but if it shifts back then not. Rather messy!
To my mind (though there may be some subtle difference that I have yet to discover) this Appeal supports USS Judges and racers to go back to "as necessary to sail the course" (basically) when thinking about MR.
In the previous quad, we applied that exact standard to differentiate the difference between "need" and "want" on be part of the MR entitled boat. I think their interpretation and application examples shake out the same as in the previous quad (in other words ... no game-change)