Hi all i have 2 questions on 18.3 that have been bugging me.
Question 1
On a windward mark round to port, boat P tacked safely without interfering with the boat (rule 13 and 15 does not apply) close to the mark from port to starboard in the zone and was the inside boat, Boat S was on starboard when entering the zone and was fetching the mark.
As the boats were about too round the mark they touched gunnel to gunnel, windward leeward. The starboard boat was sailing close hauled but not above it and did not try to avoid the other boat even though she could have sailed above close hauled.
I would assume the following.
18.3 is on 18.3(a) never on as the starboard boat never sailed above close hauled.
“18.3 (a) shall not cause the other boat to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact,”
Therefore, Rule 11 applies and Boat S is at fault?
Question 2
Same first part as above but this time, there was no contact as they were about to round the mark the wind shifted to a header that now puts boat S above close-hauled and thus cannot round the mark without contacting boat P.
Has boat P effectively but caused the other boat above close hailed, just by being at the wrong place at the wrong time when the wind shifted?
My thinking is yes P broken rule 18.3.(a)?
Both scenarios I have seen happen with radio sailing where skipper and boat are quite a distance apart and sailed in shifty winds.
Many Thanks
Nick
Leeward in 1 not 2 seems to have broken no rule as w does not go ebove closehaulled.
W is always w so breaks that rule.
She would be exonerated if she had mark room, here i need to check but my suspicion is she does not.
Question 1
I would say that S has broken rule 11 as she is the windward boat and required to keep clear. P does not break 18.3(a) until S goes above close-hauled, up until that point, it is simply a windward/leeward. Neither boat is entitled to mark room as 18.2 does not apply. S also breaks 14 as she could have avoided the contact by luffing. P is the right-of-way boat so does not break 14 as it is highly unlikely that she could have done anything to avoid the contact once it was clear that S was not going to keep clear.
Question 2
I would say that P has broken rule 18.3(a) as S had to sail above close-hauled. The rule does not say anything about why S had to sail above close hauled, it is just that if S does sail above close-hauled then P has broken the rule.
Actually, 18.3 uses the word "cause" .. so we are in a cause-conundrum .. just like the new RRS 14 (b) and (c).
What does it mean to "cause" a boat to do something ... and can we apply that consistently through 18.3 and 14?
PS: For instance, if one boat does not force a course-change in another boat, can the first boat be said to "cause" some result for the 2nd boat (as in Nick's Q2)?
Re Q2 and the "cause conundrum", note the rule says "cause the boat to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact." It's P's presence that would cause the theoretical contact, and avoiding contact that would cause the pinching.
That "to avoid contact" removes some of the "cause conundrum". "Sail above close-hauled" can mean either "turn above close-hauled" or "continue to sail above close-hauled." I think in most cases, it is P's presence that causes S to sail above close-hauled, even if a shift alters the geometry... that's the risk you take tacking inside of 3 lengths.
What I'm still not sure about is (new) Question 2b where in the shift, Starboard can still fetch, but only by staying above close-hauled. P is undoubtedly forcing S further above close than otherwise, but if they agree S would have been above close-hauled regardless in order to remain "fetching", then is P breaking 18.3?
I don;t think it matters that S must sail above close-hauled to round the mark. The question I would ask is , If S were to bear away to close-hauled, would she avoid contact with L? If the answer is no, then S must have to sail above close-hauled in order to avoid contact and therefore L breaks 18.3
Or can she still be fetching if bearing below close-hauled gets her the speed to round even if she momentarily isn't pointing above the buoy?
Windward could have held course and avoided contact. It was the windshift that caused Windward to sail above close-hauled.
That said, IMO, absent an agreement by both parties that this shift actually occurred, it would be nearly impossible for Leeward to convince a PC to hand-off the "cause" to a perfectly timed "wind shift" and let them off the hook, if facts were found that Windward sailed above close-hauled in the presence of reasonable apprehension of contact.
As long as a boat is able to pass a mark while remaining on the same tack, she is fetching the mark. So she is able to go as far as head-to-wind, but not beyond, in order to pass the mark and still be considered fetching by definition. Whether she is pointing at, above, or below the mark at any time has no relevance to the term "fetching", only that she can pass the mark without changing tack.
Angelo,
Even though the windshift is the intial cause of S sailing above close-hauled, in the absence of L, she would be able to bear away to a close-hauled course. However, in order to avoid contact with L, S must continue to sail above close-hauled and therefore L causes S to sail above close-hauled when she she otherwise could have borne away to close-hauled.
This is why I have repeated (and consistently) referred to the "cause" in RRS 14 (b)/(c) and why I referred to it initially as the "cause-conundrum". That broader application of what "cause" means (as you applied above) does not seem to be the direction that leaders in RRS interpretation are taking us.
I feel we should have a common standard of what "cause" is in the RRS.