The Racing Rules of Sailing
Boat hits Vessel - Preamble Part 2
When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules.
A vessel at anchor is hit by a boat as described above, with no injury or damage. The vessel's owner makes a report to the OA, RC and PC. No other boat in the race protests the boat.
What if anything can the vessel-owner, OA, RC and/or PC do?
Created: Yesterday 10:44
Comments
Format:
You must be signed in to add a comment.
The vessel is not entitled to protest a boat. Only a committee or a sailboat subject to the rules as defined in the RRS may protest a boat (RRS 60.1).
The OA, if so minded, can politely suggest to the owner of the boat that he or she should negotiate with the owner of the vessel.
Nothing in the IRPCAS imposes any obligation on any vessel, including a sailing vessel, with respect to a vessel at anchor.
The race committee and protest committee should mind their own business.
I have no idea.
Around here they don't.
The point is, the law of negligence, without the aid of regulations, is sufficient to resolve any claim.
The vessel is underway. Contact occurred between a boat and the vessel. There is damage but is it not serious. The vessel owner claims that the boat broke a govt ROW rule in a report to the OA, RC, PC.
In my opinion, this is a civil claim for damages, or an allegation of a criminal offence. Either way the race committee and protest committee should stay out of it. They are not the police.They will be running perilously close to making decisions about civil liability, See RRS 65 and the various MNA prescriptions.Race committees conduct races.
Protest committees resolve disputes about racing, brought before them as valid protests.
The OA may have a good neighbor policy, and they may direct the race committee to protest in accordance with RRS 90.1. The OA has no power to direct the protest committee.
I think that the report to the OA, is a a report from a person with a conflict of interest, so any protest by a race committee or protest committee based on it would be invalid in accordance with RRS 60.4(b)(3).
EDIT MY BAD
Unless the incident may have resulted in injury or serious damage, in which case RRS 60.4(c)(1) makes a protest by the protest committee valid.
I'll shift my ground here.
If the incident clearly does not involve injury or serious damage, the complaint from the vessel owner cannot be the basis of a valid protest, and neither the race committee nor the protest committee should attempt to protest the boat.
If the incident may have resulted in injury or serious damage, the protest committee, but not the race committee, may validly protest the boat (and in a hearing, when initially considering validity, the protest committee must [take relevant evidence and] consider whether there actually was injury or serious damage, and if not, close the hearing in accordance with RRS 63.4(a)(2)).
So, if the incident actually involved injury or serious damage the protest committee may initiate and hear a protest against the boat involved, and penalise the boat, within the scope of RRS 60.5(c), or possibly RRS 69.2(h).
I remain of the view that the protest committee will be running very close to making decisions about civil liability, See RRS 65 and the various MNA prescriptions, and should be very careful about how they word their written decision.
The report by the vessel is obviously a prelude to a claim of a wrongful action by the boat concerned.
The reporting owner
(a) may gain or lose as a result of a decision to which that person contributes,
(b) may reasonably appear to have a personal or financial interest which could affect that person’s ability to be impartial, or
(c) has a close personal interest in a decision.
RRS Definitions, Conflict of Interest.
And any protest by the protest committee would be based on the report by the vessel owner, which is a report from a person with a conflict of interest (other than a representative of the boat herself), which makes the protest invalid in accordance with RRS 60.4(b)(3).
EDIT SEE MY EDIT TO MY PREVIOUS POST 22362
If the incident may have resulted in injury or serious damage, the protest committee, but not the race committee, may validly protest the boat in accordance with RRS 60.4(c)(1).
(3) a report from a person with a conflict of interest (other than a representative of the boat herself)
I read that as meaning that a report from a vessel owner makes for a valid protest, as the vessel owner is a representative of the boat herself. What have I missed?
IRPCAS Rule 3 (f) The term “vessel not under command” means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
18 (b)
A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.
Yes, and each of those terms is defined in Rule 3, and the vessel Angelo described is not one of them.
Rule 3(g)
The term “vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre” means a vessel which from the nature of
her work is restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore
unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term “vessels restricted in their ability to
manoeuvre” shall include but not be limited to:
(i) a vessel engaged in laying, servicing or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable
or pipeline;
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo
while underway;
(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) a vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and
her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.
Why should this need to be part of an NOR/SI? Seems quite silly to me that the RRS define a rule that, if broken, can't be brought forward without another boat racing and not involved in the incident but having witnessed ... then lodged a protest.
I agree that it appears that the OA/RC/PC cannot protest the boat based on the report without such an NOR/SI.
Also, when these govt ROW rules apply between racing boats ... penalties at the time of the incident are not available .. unless NOR/SI make it so (another short coming IMO of this preamble provision).
IMHO .. I think 60.4(c)(1)should be changed to ....
See my edit to my previous post 22362
I don't think we've arrived at that point
Where the basis is a complaint by the vessel owner, who indubitably has a conflict of interest, If the incident may have resulted in injury or serious damage, the protest committee, but not the race committee, may validly protest the boat in accordance with RRS 60.4(c)(1).
In Kirsteen's example, the basis of the protest is a complaint by a government official pursuant to their public duty. There is no question of conflict of interest and nothing to inhibit the race committee or protest committee protesting the boat, whether their is injury or damage or not.
A rule can have:
When we say something in the NOR/SI like 'The race committee may protest a boat ...'
Repeating rules from the RRS in NOR/SI is contrary to the NOR/SI Guide Principle 4, no repetition, and OA/RC should be very sparing with this, but it may effectively mitigate a risk.
I don't think there's any need to suggest changes to the RRS.
Would it not be "the ordinary practice of seaman" for a boat underway to not collide with anchored/moored boats?
One think that was sorta assumed was that the anchored boat was properly anchored in a proper location (not drifting for instance) and properly signaling as an anchored boat (anchor light at night for instance). Different sized vessels require different signalling.
Anyway, this case actually shares fault between both vessels given these particular facts.
Like I said, to me it's awkward that there isn't a direct way in the RRS for reports from non-racing vessels to put reports to the PC directly and let the PC decide whether or not to pursue a protest. Of course, if the incident was witnessed by another racing boat, that boat would be in a position to protest the boat.
Also, such a vessel's representative could not be made a party to the hearing. So, if the PC had the direct ability to protest a boat based on a vessel report, the vessel representative would have to participate as a witness for the PC. A boat breaking a gov't ROW rule vs a non-racing vessel may have gained a racing advantage, so might be worth the PC's time to protest based upon a report.
Non-racing vessels aren't going to willy-nilly make reports to the OA/RC/PC .. I'd imagine it'd have to be something scary or serious to meet the bar 99% of the time .. so I think it'd be worth having it built into the RRS.
The other thing that came to mind was that when gov't ROW rules have replaced Part 2, RRS 44 penalties are not available to a boat that may have broken a gov't ROW rule. In these cases, maybe RRS 44 penalties could be modified by SI to include a 2 turn penalty when a gov't ROW rule may have been broken as long as it didn't involve contact between the boats.
That's really old law.
If your interested, look up 'causative potency'.
I apologise if I forcefully steered this thread in the wrong direction
If an incident may have resulted in injury or serious damage, the protest committee may validly protest the boat in accordance with RRS 60.4(c)(1), regardless of whether the protest is based on a report from a person with a conflict of interest, or not.
Where the the basis of the protest is other than a complaint from a person with a conflict of interest, any committee may protest a boat, whether their is injury or damage or not.
So the only thing the protest committee can't do is protest a boat, based on a report from a person with a conflict of interest, where there is no injury or serious damage: that is to say, where the incident is trivial or vexatious.
Yes, and pursuant to a good neighbour policy.
It is:
I don't think that's a good idea. RRS 42 penalties are about adjusting advantage/disadvantage between boats racing. If a boat breaks a government regulation, that's serious enough to go to a hearing and DSQ.
That latter point was about when govt ROW has replaced Part 2 between boats racing ... so I think non-contact govt ROW "fouls" might be written in the SI's as a change to 44.
On the other points .. the need for an officious bystander to report or another racing-boat to protest is exactly my point. That seems very silly to me. IMO, a report from a non-racing vessel should be grounds on par with a report of serious damage. You disagree .. that's fine.
Let's say there is contact between a vessel and a boat and there is damage. In that case, COI (a) and (b) seem to be satisfied.
However, if the boat while breaking a govt ROW rule simply scared the crap out of the vessel owner and there was no contact, damage or injury, I can see your point. I do think their interest in seeing that this boat be reported to the racing authorities meets COI (a), (b) or (c).
So .. serious damage .. the report is ok. Minor damage not ok. No damage ok.
That again sorta makes my point again. Seems silly to have that divergence.