Firstly, I'm not convinced that there wasn't a change of course by L; albeit that the helmsperson may not have induced it. My (assumed) findings subject to a clearer answer to the above : L (ROW) lost control of her mainsheet and suddenly altered course and heeled quickly to windward. There was contact between the mast tops of W and L that caused damage. W failed to keep clear of L. L failed to avoid contact with W. My conclusion : W was keeping clear of L until L lost control of her mainsheet. In not keeping clear of L, W broke RRS 11 and 14. L failed to avoid contact with W and broke RRS 14 (and probably 16.1). My decision : The contact with W was caused through no fault of her own (not having time to avoid the contact, albeit not ROW boat, thus need to find on 16.1) and L broke a rule of Part 2. W is exonerated (RDG) for breaking RRS 14 (and probably 11). L is DSQ for breaking RRS 14 and possibly 16.1 as well.
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a). 2. L did broke 14 as she caused contact but exonerated under 43.1(c) as no damage or injury. 3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
There is a third alternative. 14 states "If reasonably possible". It would appear that it was not reasonably possible for W to avoid contact, so no breach of 14 by W. Whether or not it was reasonably possible for L to avoid contact would depend on why the heel (with no change of course) took place. If the PC found that it was not reasonably possible for L to avoid contact, then W would be in breach of 11 and there does not appear to be any basis for 43.1(c) to apply to W.
If W was unable to avoid contact: if L immediately heeling to windward caused the contact then can L be penalized? Then again how is W unable to avoid contact? W could have changed course to windward. Since W is not the ROW boat there should be someone watching L's moves. Avoiding contact is the most important act a skipper can take other than avoiding human injury.
Ah ! That is the trap Chin. If it was not reasonably possible for L to avoid contact with W, nor cause contact between them, then L would not have broken 14, so 43 does not apply at all. Very unfair in these apparent circs, but who ever said RRS were fair ?
I think Matt is correct. It's unlikely that L changed course, especially to windward, given the heel and associated weather helm. This may be one of those unfortunate situations for W that isn't covered by the rules. W was obviously quite close to L. Maybe less than a boatlength to allow this to occur.
W kept clear by definition. L did not change course. W exonerated of contact. L should have taken a turns penalty. Who hailed Protest? Who would dare take the 50-50 shot in the room and file? L should offer over beers to pay for repairs.
Phil- Please 'splain how W kept clear 'by definition'. And when you write the conclusion in the hearing, under what rule would you penalize L? I read the definition of keep clear, and I don't think W kept clear. L was indeed sailing her course, but while doing so, she inadvertently dropped her mainsheet (I know about that!) At that point she would have had to take avoiding action to prevent contact with W, so by the definition it seems to me that W was not keeping clear. I think 'tough luck' for W. And this likely happened in about a second, and L did not break 14.
"b) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact."
Going back to the original post: "J24, lateral separation between boats is 1 hull Length".
If the windward boat is 1 boat length abeam of the leeward overlapped boat, it seems to me that the leeward boat has plenty of room to change course in both directions without immediately making contact, right? How did the windward boat not keep clear?
This seems like an ideal example where Case 77 would apply. In the case, the give way boat didn't violate Rule 14 since it "was not reasonably possible for B to avoid contact with A".
Yes Will More, I consider case 77...that is come to my conclusions as below:
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a). 2. L did broke 14 as she caused contact but exonerated under 43.1(c) as no damage or injury. 3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
This one is dirt simple: Rule 11. Every PC I've ever been involved with, on either side of the table, would penalize W and exonerate L.
I don't see how Case 77 applies as a boat can sail at whatever heel angle she pleases. I.e., heel angle does not have an "equipment in normal position" component.
Furthermore, a windward boat sailing over a leeward boat must certainly anticipate L "standing up" in her wind shadow (been there!). In this case, it supposedly happened because of L mishandling the mainsheet. So what? What if L had just decided that it's time to sail flat? Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule11!!!
Kett, If you want to apply 11 in this case you are saying that W always has to allow space for L to act in this unpredictable way. If this is the case, then start lines would need to be at least three times longer that they are. It could also lead to people deliberately dropping their mainsheet to initiate contact which would be rule 2 imo but almost impossible to prove. The fair result for me in this case would be L broke 14 as she caused contact with another boat but, as she was RoW and there was no damage or injury, she is exonerated under 43.1(c). W was compelled to break 11 by L breaking 14 and is exonerated under 43.1(a). I appreciate the rules are not always fair, but this does not prevent them being applied fairly when necessary.
" The fair result for me in this case would be L broke 14 as she caused contact with another boat but, as she was RoW and there was no damage or injury, she is exonerated under 43.1(c). "
In the description of the incident there was damage, which changes the situation
If there is contact between boats one of them needed to take action to avoid the other, so one of them has not kept clear and a right-of-way rule must have been broken.
With about 1 hull length separation between boats, W is keeping clear until she isn't.
A give way boat can always sail as close as she likes to a right-of-way boat, but she takes the risk that she will fail to keep clear.
I also think that if there is contact (and no room or mark-room applies) it is always reasonably possible for a give way boat to have avoided contact by keeping clear as she was required to do.
Ant, I'm not convinced that there wasn't a change of course by L; albeit that the helmsperson may not have induced it.
I don't think that's a very good line of argument.
As a judge you may not be convinced, but until a party brings evidence that you can evaluate on balance of probabilities that the boat changed course, you can't find that as a fact.
And until one of the parties advances the proposition that the boat changed course, I think a judge asking whether a boat changed course would be impermissibly leading.
John, you've got to my point. Helm says I did not do anything to alter course. Next question to L : Did the boat change its heading after the mainsheet was released ? Then : Once L had regained control of the mainsheet, what was the distance between the hulls ? What actions did W take after the contact occurred ? Releasing the mainsheet changes the centre of effort on the sails significantly. In 15 knots of wind I don't see that there wouldn't be a change of course. Judges are required to use their own sailing experience to help come to a determination of what most probably happened.
All the rules make the assumption that the boats are handled in a seamanlike manner. Suddenly releasing the main sheet is not seamanlike. No foul on w as the incident was caused by L.
Facts (from your sketch) Both boats are on the same tack. L is the leeward right-of-way boat under Rule 11. W is required to keep clear. They are sailing at about 15 knots. L did not alter her heading, but suddenly missed the mainsheet, causing the boat to heel rapidly to windward. As a result, the windward side of L rose into contact with W. There was no serious damage.
Rule 11 W must keep clear of L. The definition of Keep Clear requires that L be able to sail her course and, while overlapped, change course in either direction without immediately making contact. If W was sailing so close that a sudden but unusual heel of L caused contact, I would ask whether W was, in fact, keeping clear.
Rule 16? Probably not. Rule 16.1 only applies when a right-of-way boat changes course. If the committee finds that L's heading did not change, only her angle of heel changed because the mainsheet was briefly released, then Rule 16.1 is not engaged. A boat can heel substantially without changing course.
Rule 14 Both boats had a duty to avoid contact if reasonably possible. If the contact was instantaneous and caused solely by the unexpected heel, it may not have been reasonably possible for either boat to avoid it.
Relevant(ish) Case Law The most relevant authority is Case 74:
"There is no rule that dictates how the helmsman or crew of a leeward boat must sit. Contact with a windward boat does not break rule 2 unless the helmsman's or crew's position is deliberately misused."
Although Case 74 concerns crew position rather than heel, it reinforces the principle that a leeward boat's normal movements do not, by themselves, constitute unfair sailing.
Also relevant is Case 91, which states that a keep-clear boat must keep clear of another boat's equipment when it has been out of its normal position long enough to have been seen and avoided. While this case concerns equipment rather than heel, it illustrates that the keep-clear obligation extends to foreseeable movements of the right-of-way boat.
I would make the following findings:
L remained the right-of-way boat under Rule 11.
L did not change course, so Rule 16.1 did not apply.
The rapid heel did not remove W's obligation to keep clear.
If the heel was an ordinary consequence of sail handling, W failed to keep clear and broke Rule 11.
L would only be penalised if the evidence showed that she could reasonably have avoided the contact under Rule 14 and failed to do so.
Windward boat (W) is disqualified for breaking Rule 11.
My new thought after aware there are damaged.. 1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a). 2. L broke 14 as she caused contact and not exonerated under 43.1(c) because there are damage. Penalized L. 3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
One could argue that her action (suddenly and unexpectedly releasing the main sheet causing L boat to stand up) didn't give W opportunity/time to stay clear, thus causing the rigs to collide, and her action was not seamanlike
Rene said Reply to: 21970 - John Standley It could also lead to people deliberately dropping their mainsheet to initiate contact which would be rule 2 imo but almost impossible to prove.
That would then be a Rule 14 violation.
Agree, 2025 RRS 14(b) causing contact between boats.
Now I'm starting to think that even inadvertently dropping the mainsheet would cause the contact, so L breaks RRS 14(b), whether deliberate or not.
Would it have been reasonably possible for her to not drop the mainsheet?
Christian One could argue that her action (suddenly and unexpectedly releasing the main sheet causing L boat to stand up) didn't give W opportunity/time to stay clear, thus causing the rigs to collide, and her action was not seamanlike
No rule requires a boat to sail in a seamanlike way.
W was keeping clear in situation 1 to 3, as L, the right-of-way boat, could sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and also change course in both directions without immediately making contact (see defnitio Keep Clear). Therefore, W did not break RRS 11.
L did not change course. Therefore, RRS 16.1 did not apply.
It was not reasonably possible for W to avoid contact with L. Therefore, W did not break RRS 14(a).
It was reasonably possible for L to avoid contact with W. Therefore, L broke RRS 14(a). The diagram states: "Not a serious damage". If this means that the contact caused damage (no need to be serious), L was not exonerated under 43.1(c). Penalize L for her breach of RRS 14(a).
However, if the contact did not cause damage or injury, L was exonerated under 43.1(c) for her breach of RRS 14(a). No penalty.
I’ve just lost a draft post with detail on heel angles and distances….
With a hull width of 9 feet, air draft of 35 degrees and maximum upwind sailing heel angle of 12 degrees the boats can be separated by no more than 2.75 feet (less than 1/3 of a hull width) for this scenario to occur.
L would have to heel to windward by 26/27 degrees to hit W who has a 5 degree normal heel if they were one hull width apart.
She can’t do that if she’s got a legal weight crew aboard. And she’d be slipping sideways at a rate of knots!
But reimagine the scenario with credible distances and W ain’t keeping clear.
I’ve just lost a draft post with detail on heel angles and distances….
With a hull width of 9 feet, air draft of 35 degrees and maximum upwind sailing heel angle of 12 degrees the boats can be separated by no more than 2.75 feet (less than 1/3 of a hull width) for this scenario to occur.
L would have to heel to windward by 26/27 degrees to hit W who has a 5 degree normal heel if they were one hull width apart.
She can’t do that if she’s got a legal weight crew aboard. And she’d be slipping sideways at a rate of knots!
But reimagine the scenario with credible distances and W ain’t keeping clear.
I’d say no John. Firstly I don’t think it would happen that way….then If the waves were coming in at a size to do that from a normal direction then:
1. No-one should be racing. 2. The waves would be travelling at a speed such that both boats would be heeled by them before contact occurred. 3. If the waves were that big then at one hull width (even without considering rigs) W wasn’t keeping clear.
If the waves were from an abnormal direction (change of wind) maybe then
1. Definitely no-one should be racing.
I say that based on real J24 experience….including the French J24 Nationals at Port Crouesty in the early noughties. A F7-8 blowing straight into a mighty ebb out of the Gulfe De Morbihan produced the conditions that I would most and least want to experience again.
I did the geometry work because I wanted to understand how the question was so polarising….and how anydody could think this was anything other than a W not keeping clear issue.
I think the reason that L can’t hit W with heel unless the gap is much smaller than specified.
Thus if you look at the gap as one hull width W must be keeping clear.
But if you look at what happens W can’t be keeping clear.
I be interested to know from the OP if this was set-up deliberately….
The artificial paradox created makes for some interesting my view unhelpful attribution of fault to L.
I understand your concern about the artificial nature of the scenario, Matt.
However, I do not see this as an attribution of fault to L, but simply as applying the rules to the assumed facts.
If W satisfies both parts of the definition of Keep Clear, she does not break rule 11 merely because L subsequently heels rapidly to windward and contact occurs. Rule 14(a) needs to be considered separately for each boat.
If the geometry is changed so that W no longer satisfies the definition of Keep Clear, then of course W breaks rule 11. However, that would be a different set of facts.
On those revised facts,
W is penalized for breaking rule 11. She does not break rule 14(a) because it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact with L, and
L is penalized for breaking rule 14(a) because it was reasonably possible for her to avoid contact with W. Since the contact caused damage, L is not exonerated under rule 43.1(c).
A. Gear failure. B. A wave (maybe what John A was getting at). C. Dropping the mainsheet while wrestling the tiller with both hands while attempting to bear away in order to increase separation.
W knows the risk of being so close and that any contact occurring would be attributed to not allowing enough room to keep clear. Having done similar many times one knows and accepts the risk being taken. It's a classic case of risk/reward. In this case W lost.
Adrian said If W satisfies both parts of the definition of Keep Clear, she does not break rule 11 merely because L subsequently heels rapidly to windward and contact occurs.
I think if contact occurs then the right of way boat necessarily needed to take action to avoid any the give way boat will always break a right of way rule.
My (assumed) findings subject to a clearer answer to the above :
L (ROW) lost control of her mainsheet and suddenly altered course and heeled quickly to windward. There was contact between the mast tops of W and L that caused damage. W failed to keep clear of L. L failed to avoid contact with W.
My conclusion :
W was keeping clear of L until L lost control of her mainsheet. In not keeping clear of L, W broke RRS 11 and 14.
L failed to avoid contact with W and broke RRS 14 (and probably 16.1).
My decision :
The contact with W was caused through no fault of her own (not having time to avoid the contact, albeit not ROW boat, thus need to find on 16.1) and L broke a rule of Part 2.
W is exonerated (RDG) for breaking RRS 14 (and probably 11).
L is DSQ for breaking RRS 14 and possibly 16.1 as well.
Let the debate begin.
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a).
2. L did broke 14 as she caused contact but exonerated under 43.1(c) as no damage or injury.
3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
This may be one of those unfortunate situations for W that isn't covered by the rules. W was obviously quite close to L. Maybe less than a boatlength to allow this to occur.
L did not change course.
W exonerated of contact.
L should have taken a turns penalty.
Who hailed Protest?
Who would dare take the 50-50 shot in the room and file?
L should offer over beers to pay for repairs.
"b) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact."
Going back to the original post: "J24, lateral separation between boats is 1 hull Length".
If the windward boat is 1 boat length abeam of the leeward overlapped boat, it seems to me that the leeward boat has plenty of room to change course in both directions without immediately making contact, right? How did the windward boat not keep clear?
This seems like an ideal example where Case 77 would apply. In the case, the give way boat didn't violate Rule 14 since it "was not reasonably possible for B to avoid contact with A".
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a).
2. L did broke 14 as she caused contact but exonerated under 43.1(c) as no damage or injury.
3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
What equipment on L is out of its normal position?
I don't see how Case 77 applies as a boat can sail at whatever heel angle she pleases. I.e., heel angle does not have an "equipment in normal position" component.
Furthermore, a windward boat sailing over a leeward boat must certainly anticipate L "standing up" in her wind shadow (been there!). In this case, it supposedly happened because of L mishandling the mainsheet. So what? What if L had just decided that it's time to sail flat? Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule11!!!
If this is the case, then start lines would need to be at least three times longer that they are.
It could also lead to people deliberately dropping their mainsheet to initiate contact which would be rule 2 imo but almost impossible to prove.
The fair result for me in this case would be L broke 14 as she caused contact with another boat but, as she was RoW and there was no damage or injury, she is exonerated under 43.1(c). W was compelled to break 11 by L breaking 14 and is exonerated under 43.1(a). I appreciate the rules are not always fair, but this does not prevent them being applied fairly when necessary.
In the description of the incident there was damage, which changes the situation
If there is contact between boats one of them needed to take action to avoid the other, so one of them has not kept clear and a right-of-way rule must have been broken.
With about 1 hull length separation between boats, W is keeping clear until she isn't.
A give way boat can always sail as close as she likes to a right-of-way boat, but she takes the risk that she will fail to keep clear.
I also think that if there is contact (and no room or mark-room applies) it is always reasonably possible for a give way boat to have avoided contact by keeping clear as she was required to do.
I don't think that's a very good line of argument.
As a judge you may not be convinced, but until a party brings evidence that you can evaluate on balance of probabilities that the boat changed course, you can't find that as a fact.
And until one of the parties advances the proposition that the boat changed course, I think a judge asking whether a boat changed course would be impermissibly leading.
Helm says I did not do anything to alter course.
Next question to L : Did the boat change its heading after the mainsheet was released ?
Then : Once L had regained control of the mainsheet, what was the distance between the hulls ? What actions did W take after the contact occurred ?
Releasing the mainsheet changes the centre of effort on the sails significantly. In 15 knots of wind I don't see that there wouldn't be a change of course.
Judges are required to use their own sailing experience to help come to a determination of what most probably happened.
There was damage so L cannot be exonerated.
Both boats are on the same tack.
L is the leeward right-of-way boat under Rule 11.
W is required to keep clear.
They are sailing at about 15 knots.
L did not alter her heading, but suddenly missed the mainsheet, causing the boat to heel rapidly to windward.
As a result, the windward side of L rose into contact with W.
There was no serious damage.
Rule 11
W must keep clear of L.
The definition of Keep Clear requires that L be able to sail her course and, while overlapped, change course in either direction without immediately making contact.
If W was sailing so close that a sudden but unusual heel of L caused contact, I would ask whether W was, in fact, keeping clear.
Probably not.
Rule 16.1 only applies when a right-of-way boat changes course.
If the committee finds that L's heading did not change, only her angle of heel changed because the mainsheet was briefly released, then Rule 16.1 is not engaged. A boat can heel substantially without changing course.
Both boats had a duty to avoid contact if reasonably possible.
If the contact was instantaneous and caused solely by the unexpected heel, it may not have been reasonably possible for either boat to avoid it.
The most relevant authority is Case 74:
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a).
2. L broke 14 as she caused contact and not exonerated under 43.1(c) because there are damage. Penalized L.
3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
RRS 43.1(a) requires that for a boat to be exonerated, she must be compelled to break a rule as a consequence of another boat breaking a rule.
What rule do you say L broke that compelled W to not keep clear?
Agree, 2025 RRS 14(b) causing contact between boats.
Now I'm starting to think that even inadvertently dropping the mainsheet would cause the contact, so L breaks RRS 14(b), whether deliberate or not.
Would it have been reasonably possible for her to not drop the mainsheet?
Wow, with RRS 14(b) that's looking sort of persuasive.
No rule requires a boat to sail in a seamanlike way.
I’ve just lost a draft post with detail on heel angles and distances….
With a hull width of 9 feet, air draft of 35 degrees and maximum upwind sailing heel angle of 12 degrees the boats can be separated by no more than 2.75 feet (less than 1/3 of a hull width) for this scenario to occur.
L would have to heel to windward by 26/27 degrees to hit W who has a 5 degree normal heel if they were one hull width apart.
She can’t do that if she’s got a legal weight crew aboard. And she’d be slipping sideways at a rate of knots!
But reimagine the scenario with credible distances and W ain’t keeping clear.
I’ve just lost a draft post with detail on heel angles and distances….
With a hull width of 9 feet, air draft of 35 degrees and maximum upwind sailing heel angle of 12 degrees the boats can be separated by no more than 2.75 feet (less than 1/3 of a hull width) for this scenario to occur.
L would have to heel to windward by 26/27 degrees to hit W who has a 5 degree normal heel if they were one hull width apart.
She can’t do that if she’s got a legal weight crew aboard. And she’d be slipping sideways at a rate of knots!
But reimagine the scenario with credible distances and W ain’t keeping clear.
Would some wave action do the trick?
1. No-one should be racing.
2. The waves would be travelling at a speed such that both boats would be heeled by them before contact occurred.
3. If the waves were that big then at one hull width (even without considering rigs) W wasn’t keeping clear.
If the waves were from an abnormal direction (change of wind) maybe then
1. Definitely no-one should be racing.
I say that based on real J24 experience….including the French J24 Nationals at Port Crouesty in the early noughties. A F7-8 blowing straight into a mighty ebb out of the Gulfe De Morbihan produced the conditions that I would most and least want to experience again.
I think the reason that L can’t hit W with heel unless the gap is much smaller than specified.
Thus if you look at the gap as one hull width W must be keeping clear.
But if you look at what happens W can’t be keeping clear.
I be interested to know from the OP if this was set-up deliberately….
The artificial paradox created makes for some interesting my view unhelpful attribution of fault to L.
However, I do not see this as an attribution of fault to L, but simply as applying the rules to the assumed facts.
A. Gear failure.
B. A wave (maybe what John A was getting at).
C. Dropping the mainsheet while wrestling the tiller with both hands while attempting to bear away in order to increase separation.
It's a classic case of risk/reward. In this case W lost.
You mean like this?
I think if contact occurs then the right of way boat necessarily needed to take action to avoid any the give way boat will always break a right of way rule.