Forum: Rule 18 and Room at the Mark

Mark-Room and Room to Pass an Obstruction who wins.

Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Actions
As two boats, Sleigh Ride and Polar Express, approached a permanent mark on starboard tack to be rounded to port, Polar Express reached the zone while Sleigh Ride was overlapped to leeward and called for room at the mark. A floating Christmas Tree, which annually decorates the bay, was moored about two hull lengths to windward of the permanent mark. These Christmas Trees feature a square base with a 12-foot tall square pyramid on top, wrapped in Christmas lights.

As Sleigh Ride approached the mark, Polar Express hailed for room to pass to leeward of the tree, the same side that Sleigh Ride was passing. Sleigh Ride did not bear away until she was at the mark and rounded close to the mark. At which point Polar Express did not feel there was sufficient room to pass between Sleigh Ride and the tree. Polar Express luffed sharply and passed the tree on the opposite side to Sleigh Ride. Polar Express hailed protest.




Polar Express protests Sleigh Ride for not giving room between her and the obstruction as required by rule 19.2(b). 

How should the protest committee rule.
Created: Today 00:28

Comments

Format:
John Christman
Nationality: United States
100
Tips
Interesting question.

Here's how I break it down.

  • Polar Express, windward & overlapped, is required to keep clear of Sleigh Ride, leeward & overlapped, RRS 11, and does so.  No rules broken.
  • RRS 18 applies while the boats are in the zone.  Polar Express, outside & overlapped, is required to give mark-room to Sleigh Ride, inside & overlapped, RRS 18.2(a)(1) and does so.  No rules broken.
  • RRS 19 applies at the obstruction, neither 19.1 (a) or (b) are true.  Sleigh Ride as the right-of-way boat gets to choose which side of the obstruction she is going to pass the obstruction on, RRS 19.2(a).  Sleigh Ride, overlapped & outside, is required to give room between her and the obstruction to Polar Express, inside & overlapped, RRS 19.2(b).  Sleigh Ride does not give Polar Express room between her and the obstruction and breaks RRS 19.2(b).
  • Looking at 43 - Exoneration
    • 43.1(a) Sleigh Ride was not compelled to break rule 19.2(b) because of another boat breaking a rule, so no exoneration here.
    • 43.1(b) Sleigh Ride is sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled and breaks a rule.  However, the list of rules for which she is exonerated for is Section A of Part 2 (RRS 10-13), 15, 16, & 31.  She has broken 19.2(b) which is not in the list, so no exoneration here.
    • 43.1(c) No contact occurred, so no exoneration here.

 I am left with Sleigh Ride breaking 19.2(b) and no exoneration and Polar Express not breaking any rules.

The next question is suppose Polar Express forces her way between the obstruction and Sleighs Ride and Sleigh Ride hits the mark as a result.  There is no contact between the boats or with the obstruction.

Now you have:

  • Polar Express breaking RRS 11 & 18.2(a)(1).
  • Sleigh Ride breaking RRS 31.
  • Polar Express is exonerated for breaking RRS 11 by 43.1(b) as she is sailing within the room she is entitled to.
  • Polar Express is not exonerated for breaking RRS 18.2(a)(1) as it is not in the list of rules she gets exonerated for in 43.1(b).
  • Sleigh Ride is exonerated for breaking RRS 31 as it is in the list of rules she gets exonerated for.
Created: Today 01:04
Al Sargent
Nationality: United States
Reply to: 20023 - John Christman
Great to see your thought process on this John. It’s not enough to know the rules; it’s also important to know how to apply them. Thanks for sharing. 
Created: Today 03:44
Bill Stump
It’s Christmas … have another eggnog!  
Happy 2026!  
Created: Today 02:47
P
Kim Kymlicka
Well, it looks to me like Slate Ride (SR) gave, or at least tried to give, Polar Express(PE) room as required by R 19. The problem is, there was not enough room to give. PE did what she had to, as keep clear boat. I do not see any issues for SR. PE could as for redress. This was an omission on the part of the RC to select a course that allowed for this situation to occur. 
And now, I will get another eggnog, Bill.
Kim
Created: Today 03:08
Paul Murray
Nationality: United States
Reply to: 20031 - Kim Kymlicka
What error did the RC make? I agree it was a poor choice, but is it an error?  
Created: Today 04:02
Giff Constable
Nationality: United States
Reply to: 20031 - Kim Kymlicka
I see it the same as you, Kim, from a RRS 19 perspective. Given that Sleigh Ride passes close to the mark and that Polar Express determines there isn’t room for two boats, it seems to me that the “unless” part of 19.2(b) comes into play and that SR doesn’t break the rule. Happy new year all.
Created: Today 04:40
P
John D. Farris
Nationality: United States
They placed the windward mark too close to a known, fixed obstruction (the moored Christmas Tree), inside the zone, without ensuring there was adequate space for boats to round the mark properly on the required side. The RC may not have broken a rule. Still, they failed to provide a fair and navigable mark rounding area by placing the mark so close to a known obstruction without either 1) moving the mark to allow fair rounding, or 2) declaring the obstruction in the Sailing Instructions as affecting rounding.

Created: Today 04:07
Chin In
Nationality: Malaysia
Reply to: 20034 - John D. Farris
Thanks John... And merry Christmas.... 
Created: Today 04:26
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Replace the moored Christmas tree with a capsized boat, the problem is the same and the issue of whether this is a redressable issue is moot.
Created: Today 04:17
P
John D. Farris
Nationality: United States
I see the point, but a capsized boat is a temporary obstruction, part of normal racing. The Christmas Tree is fixed and known in advance, and the Race Committee chose to place the mark right next to it. That’s a different issue. It’s not about the obstruction itself, but whether the course was set fairly. That’s why it’s still valid to ask for redress. 
Created: Today 04:20
P
John D. Farris
Nationality: United States
Full disclosure, I was the PRO in a similar situation. In my case, it wasn’t the windward mark but the pin/leeward mark and a fixed government mark causing trouble. I was the PRO, judge, and scorer all rolled into one. I had to call a redress hearing for the entire fleet... never again! 😅 
Created: Today 04:33
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
If Sleigh Ride requested redress for an improper action or improper omission of the race committee I would struggle to get past the "through no fault of her own." 
The placement of the mark did not cause Sleigh ride to break rule 19.2(b). Sleigh Ride could have ducked the mark and given Polar Express room at the obstruction. 
Created: Today 04:43
P
Donald Wieneke
Nationality: United States
Protest denied and no rule broken. When Rule 18 applies, an outside boat cannot invoke Rule 19 to limit an inside boat’s entitlement to mark-room unless the obstruction is the mark.
:-) 
Created: Today 04:44
P
John D. Farris
Nationality: United States
Reply to: 20042 - Donald Wieneke
Re Don: I totally agree. If the obstruction overlaps with the mark zone, the requirement to give mark-room and room to pass the obstruction must be satisfied simultaneously, even if it complicates the rounding.   

Re Mark: Good point, but it’s not Sleigh Ride asking for redress, it’s Polar Express who might. The issue is that, through no fault of her own, she couldn’t round the mark with the room she was entitled to. Sleigh Ride didn’t do anything wrong, but the way RC set the mark may have taken away a fair rounding option. That’s why redress could still be on the table, for me.
Created: Today 04:49
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
I don't agree with Kim's statement. 
Well, it looks to me like Slate Ride (SR) gave, or at least tried to give, Polar Express(PE) room as required by R 19.
Sleigh Ride could have ducked the mark and given Polar Express room as required by rule 19.


Created: Today 04:52
P
John D. Farris
Nationality: United States
Reply to: 20044 - Mark Townsend
Or Polar Express could have sailed above the obstruction, leaving the mark to port, but that meant sailing further than necessary, something she wouldn’t have had to do if the RC had set the course fairly. That’s the core of the redress question. 
Created: Today 04:58
Giff Constable
Nationality: United States
Reply to: 20044 - Mark Townsend
So interesting.
PE owes SR mark room, which includes the right to pass on required side.

Rule 19.2(b) says the outside boat owes the inside boat room, but “room” includes the space to comply with her Part 2 obligations, which includes 18 mark room. Of course 19.2(b) actually says “room between”, but that “room between” doesn’t exist… not if PE complies with her Part 2 obligations… so I’m back to thinking that the “unless” clause is still triggered and SR doesn’t break 19.2(b).

Or so my brain can convince itself :)
Created: Today 05:18
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
John, How is Polars Express's position made significantly worse? She was behind Sleigh Ride and is till behind Sleigh Ride.   
Created: Today 05:12
P
John D. Farris
Nationality: United States
Reply to: 20046 - Mark Townsend
Totally fair point, PE might not have lost a spot to SR, but redress isn’t just about position changes boat-for-boat. If PE had to sail an extra distance, take avoiding action, or miss out on a tactical opportunity because of how the RC Set the course, I believe that could still counts as being significantly worse off. It’s more about the fairness of the situation than just the scoreboard. 
Created: Today 05:20
P
John D. Farris
Nationality: United States
Reply to: 20046 - Mark Townsend
RYA 1989/10 decision: Specifically referencing Rule 61.4(b)(1) and Rule 61.4(c) concerning Redress Decisions. The case establishes that redress may be given for a race committee’s failure to provide suitably equipped marks, and that in cases involving errors by the race committee, any doubts should be resolved in favor of the competitor. To summarize the precedent: In the RYA case, the outer limit mark of the finishing line was attached with semi-floating cordage that proved too long in shallow water. The excess line created a submerged hazard extending a few yards to leeward of the mark, unseen by approaching boats. Several competitors became entangled, hit the mark, and took penalties. Only one, Instant Sunshine, requested redress. Though the protest committee initially denied it, the appeal was upheld because the equipment provided did not minimize the risk of interference, and thus redress was warranted. But US Sailing Appeal 10 completely counters this decision.

Created: Today 05:44
P
John Quirk
Nationality: New Zealand
My go at it: Protest invalid - Sleigh Ride following her proper course and Polar Express had the means & opportunity to still safely follow Sleigh Ride around the mark, despite the Xmas tree. PC to take-up the matter of the Xmas tree with the RC (ie not an ideal mark placement, and potentially a dangerous situation - was it placed there unnoticed after the mark was laid or otherwise etc)
Created: Today 05:30
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more