This is why you try and have port roundings in fleet races...Bummer for Orange

It just as well could have been the left side of a gate . . .

Anyway, Yellow has no right to mark room. Blue, Green and Gray entered the zone inside overlapped.

Green v. Yellow - DSQ Yellow. RRS 18.2(b)
Yellow v. Orange - DSQ Orange. RRS 10 (RRS 18 does not apply - RRS 18.1(c))
Orange v. Green - dismissed. Green was sailing within her rights as leeward boat over Yellow - Orange is not an obstruction (by definition) since the other boats are not required to keep clear of her.

My interpretation of the diagram:
1) No foul--It appears that Green was unable to "close the door" on Yellow due to Blue (Green bow overlapped outside of Blue stern), so Yellow was taking room that was freely (although most likely unhappily) given by Green. Purple v. Yellow may be a very different story however.
2) DSQ Orange, Rule 10
3) No foul

Agree with Matt with the one addtional comment that its not clear to me if Yellow broke a rule.

Yellow had no rights to markroom but if Green was avoiding Blue and there was room for Yellow she may take it at her own risk.
Yellow appears overlapped to leeward of Blue. Grey does not appear overlapped with Green and it appears that Yellow did not give Grey the Markroom that Grey was entitled to but Grey is not in the protest list.

Were there any facts found that would support the conclusion that Yellow did not give approprite markroom to Green or Grey?

After watching the animation a dozen times, Eric has a point (Case 63). But sussing that fine point out in a real hearing would be difficult at best. Yellow is in an extraordinarily vulnerable position.

I agree with Eric's disagreement with Matt on Q1 because it appears to me based upon the diagram/movie that green left enough room for yellow by rounding more than a boat width away, though yellow has no rights to the room that was afforded her, it seems that is was left her nonetheless.

Agree in the other 2 questions.

My thoughts as follows -
Green v Yellow - Inconclusive from the diagram. The case would turn on whether Green left space and Yellow just sailed into it in which case no rule broken, see WS Case 63. On the other hand if Green had to take avoiding action or could not sail as close to the mark as he wanted DSQ Yellow under 18.2(b) and rule 11, no exoneration under rule 21 as she was not sailing within mark room to which she was entitled.

Yellow v Orange - No part of rule 18 applies see 18.1(c) so Yellow's alteration of course at the mark is governed by rule 16.1. The key question is whether or not after Yellow changed course was it possible for Orange to keep clear. It seems from the diagram that if Orange had luffed a little she would have kept clear so the decion is DSQ Orange under rule 10 .Yellow was right of way boat but as her helm was injured rule 14 has to be considered. Because of the presence of Green it does not appear to be "reasonably possible" for Yellow to avoid contact so no breach of rule 14.

Orange v Green - Not sure what possible basis there could be for this protest. Presumably Orange is claiming that Green should have given Yellow room to bear away but there is no rule that requires this as Orange was not an obstruction to Yellow, see definition. In any even Orange could have kept clear of both Green and Yellow (see above) with a slight alteration of course. No rule broken.

Those are my initial thoughts.

Is anyone other than Orange thinking that perhaps Green intentionally luffed Yellow causing the collision?

Hmmm .. Paul .. interesting question. My thoughts are that :

1) Green's movement seems consistent with rounding the mark, I don't really see a luff as drawn.
2) I could see now green couldn't even see Orange through Blue and realize that Orange wasn't keeping clear until it was too late.

My assumption re: Green/Yellow from the diagram is that the facts found were something along the line of:
1) The bow of Green was outside and overlapped with of the stern of Blue by 2' while the boats were passing the mark
2) There was 1.5 boatwidths between Green and the mark
3) Green did not alter course to avoid Yellow

However, I could easily see the facts found going a VERY different direction if Green's testimony was that they were not overlapped with Blue while passing the mark, but I think the animation would need to be changed to show that more clearly.

Notice how the question is implicit in the diagram and we're programmed to find the Part 2 violation without considering RRS 2. And notice how quickly judges will dismiss any discussion of RRS 2. I would suggest that it is highly likely Green broke RRS 2 here and the jury should vigorously dig into that issue during the hearing. Just as an exercise, write the facts in a comment finding Green broke RRS 2.

And of the people who are letting that scofflaw Yellow off the hook for mark-room, who's thinking redress?

So thinking on this a bit more, I recant my earlier statement that there was "no foul" in a protest between Green & Yellow. I would use the Green protest against Yellow to DSQ Yellow for fouling Purple/Grey. Yellow, IMHO, did not foul Green and was simply taking advantage of the situation where room was left by Green. However, Purple/Grey definitely had to avoid Yellow from the animation, so in that sense you are pinching that "scofflaw" Yellow, but it would be cleaner if Purple/Grey had protested Yellow in the first place.
Re: Yellow and Green, Green appears to be sailing close hauled and not above when leaving the mark, while Blue clearly bears away to avoid Orange. I don't see a Rule 2 issue here at all. If Green was luffing Yellow and as a result failed to give Orange room to keep clear (Rule 16), then that is a different set of facts than the animation is showing, but it still isn't a rule 2 issue. Further it is imposible to know the intent from an animation; perhaps there was some damning testimony that we don't know of?

From the anamation I notice that Blue altered away from Orange and then altered back up to close hauled, in fact Blue made a bigger alteration to avoid Orange than Orange did to avoid Blue. The anamation also shows that Green's course is constant from the point her transom is at the mark to the point of contact. No sails are shown as luffing nor an alteration of course above what would be expected in rounding behind Blue. Orange's course is depicted as altering downward toward the starboard tack boats without any change to avoid the right of way boats after Blue. I find it very hard based on this animation alone to even have a hint at persuing a Rule 2 violation. Also I would find it inconsistent that Green and Yellow should assume (and give way to) a boat that will alter towards them after that boat altered up for Blue. From the animation it looks like Orange altered down after Green reached a consistent course.

This is probably way too much detail to be attributed to the animation but without any testimony or facts found its all we have to go on.

I agree with Brent - at position 7, Blue, Yellow and Green are all on a close-hauled course. Green did not change course from position 5 (just after rounding), so I have a real hard time getting to RRS 2.

I never considered redress for Yellow since she was DSQ in the first protest. If she survived that, then yes, she would be entitled to redress. (RRS 62.1 (b))

Without more information and testimony, only going by the video, I really have a hard time blaming Yellow or Green for anything.

Now, if Green had "love-tapped" Yellow at the bottom of the mark (position #5) .. or if Yellow was forced into the mark at that point without a tap, I think that would indicate that Green had way to round tighter and was prevented by Yellow and that would change my opinion.

Also, without testimoney that Green could even see Orange through Blue and judge that Yellow was going to hit Orange ..
....or at that position #6, that Yellow tried to head down maybe tapping Green in an attempt to avoid ..
...or call Green for room .. .. but we have none of that.

Also, I would note that given Green and Yellows relative angles and speed to Orange .. that's a REALLY HARD position to judge Orange's trajectory and/or changing course from .. especially coming from the backside of Blue.
PS .. (added after post)

Note that Orange's track from position #5 is always turning into the collision, while Green and Yellow's tracks are already set. Orange not only did not try to aviold .. or even hold his course .. but TURNED INTO THE COLLISION.

Good show, Paul, congratulations!!!
I think this Forum needed a clarifing situation about rule 18.s c) (2) like this.
Thak you!!!

A point has been made how we judges always move quickly to look at part 2 infringements without considering rule 2. I make no apologies for this approach as I think it is the correct one. You need to first consider whether or not a rule has been broken before considering whether or not rule 2 was also broken justifying an increaed penalty.

Various appeal cases make it clear that the "principles of sportsmanship and fair play" mentioned in rule 2 are not some personal interpretation up to the judges but in most cases a clearly establish standard set out in the rules. If it were not so the rule would be meaningless - example - A boat sails another boat down the fleet without breaking any rules to improve her series position, some people may think this is poor sportsmanship but as the appeal cases tell us if there is no rule broken neither is rule 2.

The "sportsmanship" mentioned in rule 2 is covered in the Basic Principle under the emonymous heading of "Sportsmanship and the rules". The sportsmanship aspect of rule 2 is contravened if a boat deliberately breaks a rule (breaks first sentence of the BP) or knowingly breaks a rule and does not take a penalty (breaks second sentence of the BP). Pretty well every rule 2 infringement arises from one of these situtions so it is appropriate that the breach of a part 2 rule should first be established.

Finally the need to "clearly establish" that a boat has broken rule 2 raises the bar further and makes it less likely that a boat will be penalised. Example - a boat breaks a rule but claims that she did not think that she had and so took no penalty. You may suspect that she was fully aware that she had broken the rule but the "clearly establish" requirement means that you must have more than just suspicion before you can act.

Looking more closely at the video, I think that Purple is the one that has a case against Yellow as looking at Purple's rounding-track, she stops rounding up to avoid the collision with Yellow's boom and stern. In the hearing I think the PC would question Purple to verify that and if so DSQ Yellow (editied from ‘Green’ in original comment) not for her actions relative to Green (editied from ‘Yellow’ in original comment) but to Purple.

Angelo Guarino

Looking more closely at the video, I think that Purple is the one that has a case against Yellow as looking at Purple's rounding-track, she stops rounding up to avoid the collision with Yellow's boom and stern. In the hearing I think the PC would question Purple to verify that and if so DSQ Green not for her actions relative to Yellow, but to Purple.

Ang

Can you explain your reasoning to DSQ Green? I'm not following that.
As I said earlier, there appears to be a clear rule breach by Yellow with Purple, but I don't see how an inside boat (Green) fouled an outside boat (Purple) from the animation.

Eric. My typo. I meant Purple v Yellow. Thanks! I flipped Yellow and Green in my last sentence.

Hi,
I don't think it's clearly established that orange was given room to keep clear. In a hearing I'd want to ask orange what did she do to keep clear? And green and yellow, did they see orange and did they give orange room?

When green and yellow both established their close hauled course, they are a boat length from orange. If orange said "I saw them all turning, I crossed blue, but when I saw yellow on her close hauled course I thought we were so close that if I headed up I'd swing my stern into yellow, so I bore off to avoid thinking I'd pass along side yellow", she may not have been given room.

16.1 requires a right of way boat changing course to give the other boat room to keep clear. So this post has made me think about what testimony, facts, and conclusions would I need to be sure either orange broke 10, or conclude orange was not given room to keep clear? A good diagram to create discussion.

Blue rounded the mark, saw she on a collision course with orange, and bore off to give orange room to keep clear. I don't think when yellow established her close hauled course orange had the opportunity to head up and keep clear. In a hearing I'd like more information, and just looking at the drawing I think when yellow stops turning at position 6 she's headed right at orange, and orange can't keep clear.

Darryl, adding to (after agreeing with) Clark's comments, have you examined Orange's track closely? It is an arc toward the mark and into the approaching boats. With no boats limiting her to windward and her turn toward to oncoming boats, what would you be looking for from Orange?. - Ang

Clark beat me to it this time . . . (as did Ang)

Orange had lots of options - until she sailed into a position where she didn't. The contact might have been avoided had not borne away at position 6 or had she merely sheeted in.

However, a question should have been asked at the very beginning - "What kind of boats are these?"

HI, Clark and Angelo,
I can't stop the animation, but I've been debating what are orange's and yellow's obligations when yellow reaches close hauled, just before 6. At that moment my interpretation is orange (P) must keep clear, but does not have to have anticipate yellow's (S) course change. Yellow (S) has right of way, but must give orange (P) room to keep clear. If orange (P) changes course immediately and can keep clear when yellow (S) on closed hauled, she'd fulfilled her obligations. If orange (P) can't keep clear, then yellow (S) did not give orange (P) room to keep clear.

This post has made me think through more broadly a starboard tack boat rounding a mark can't assume port has no rights. Port has to keep clear, but does not have to anticipate starboard's course change per 16.1. 18.1(c) turns off 18 in this situation so mark room does not apply. Starboard's obligation is to give port room to keep clear. In this case as starboard changes course and establishes their close hauled course, there must be a way for port to keep clear. It's a different situation than when starboard is on a consistent course and 16 does not apply.

We look at a boat's rights and obligations and in this situation we should look at was port given an opportunity to keep clear? That's my takeaway from this post. You're probably right in this example that orange has room, but good to know the issues I'd like to understand in a real protest.

Thanks

Darryl, above is the freeze-frame of when both Green and Yellow round-up to their close hauled course.

Seems to me at this point if Orange simply doesn't head down that Orange might avoid Yellow and Green and certianly has room and opportunity to avoid AFTER Yellow and Green reach their course.

Hi Angelo,
You asked what specifically what I was looking for from Orange. If you freeze the picture at 5, blue has just come to a close hauled course that is also a collision course with orange. Blue bears off behind orange giving orange room to keep clear.

At position 5 orange is keeping clear of yellow as orange is clearly going to pass to windward of yellow. Between 5 and 6, yellow makes a significant course change ending up on a collision course one boat length away from orange at position 6 . At position 6 if orange heads up immediately does she sail clear or does her stern swing into yellow causing a collision? Without knowing the characteristics of the boats I'm not sure while you are convinced orange could keep clear. I'd ask both yellow and orange if at position 6; 1) when yellow finished her luff, could orange cross yellow if she immediately headed up? 2) Did both boats see each other throughout this incident? 3) Did ether boat attempt to avoid collision? 4) Could orange have headed up and avoided collision? 5) Could yellow head off and avoided collision? I think the answers to these questions would decide the issue.

You know .. Case keeps whispering in my ear when considering Orange v Blue/Green/Yellow.

Though the Case revovles around a "Room to Tack" - "You Tack" Obstruction scenario, I think it does a great job of illustrating the bidirectional rights/responsibilities of both a ROW boat that must maneuver in such a way that a Keep-Clear boat has opportunity to keep-clear .. AND those of the Keep-Clear boat who gains rights to such room to try to use that room afforded her to the best of her abilities to do so.

To me, Case 35 shows that even if the room afforded the Keep-Clear boat requires her to make fairly drastic maneuvers (in Case 35, tacking and tucking to a near parallel course to the ROW boat to clear her), that the Keep-Clear boat's valiant attempt to use the room given her .. and then the resulting success or failure to keep clear .. is compelling evidence whether or not sufficient room was given.

Facts Found

1. Green was inside and overlapped with Yellow as they entered the zone at the leeward mark.
2. As Green rounded the mark, she was unable to sail close to the mark as she gave gave room to Yellow avoiding a collision with her.
3. As Green rounded the mark, she observed Orange approaching on port on a collision course with Blue, Green and Yellow.
4. Green observed that Blue, on starboard, was required to duck Orange, on port, avoiding a collision.
5. Immediately after rounding the mark, Green luffed to close hauled or above close hauled holding Yellow on a collision course with Orange.
6. Green held this course before, during and after the collision.
7. Yellow was unable to avoid a collision with Orange and the collision caused injury to the crew on Yellow.

Conclusions:

1. Green deliberately held Yellow at close hauled or higher and that action could have no other intention than to cause Yellow to break a rule and or cause a collision and injury. See case .
2. Green deliberately held Yellow at close hauled or higher on a collision course engaging in bullying behavior. See case .
3. Green intentionally sailed at or above close hauled acting recklessly or in a manner that caused injury. See case .

Paul - what were the conditions and type of boats? That should be the first of the facts found.

BTW - love the "His friends call him by his name, his enemies don’t call him anything because they are all dead"

Paul, I can't agree with the R2 violation finding as I still have to hark on the lack of any evidence, by the track or in your findings-of-facts in the case, that Orange made any attempt to use the room afforded her. Your facts also do not contend at all with the track showing Orange sailing towards the other boats, reducing the room provided .. in the context of Case .

That follows to your Fact E .. as how can we put on Green the responsibilty to think that Orange will not take any evasive action .. and sail toward .. not away from from Yellow?

If you can find a way to support putting in your Facts that Orange did something .. anything.... to keep clear of Yellow/Green, then I think that might be different.

So, at the expense of Matt, not to pick on you or anything, I want to point out a real issue we have in the judging community. And I have said this in person at judge's round-tables, seminars and other training exercises. Please pay attention to the point of the exercise. In this example, I drew this diagram to illistrate a specific point I thought interesting discovered over the course of several major events and discussed by many good judges. Despite trying to make that point, the conversation devolves into an argument of irrelevent issues. For example, this is a completely fabricated scenario. I really don't care who broke 18. Really. That is really not controversial nor is there much there in terms of a learning experience. What do we learn in discussing whether Green rounded leaving room - it is enough to identify that that is the issue and leave it alone... But more importantly, the point of the exercise was to highlight issues a jury might overlook in their haste to get a hearing complete. And the added twist in this example, is the potential for the hidden agenda by Green, who, based on my experience, will quite likely be upset with Yellow for taking room and will act very aggressively immediately after.

Instead, the conversaton repeatedy went sideways with assertions that distract from the issue. Do we really need to indicate wind strength know the type of boats or whether Yellow had breakfast that morning? Again, sorry Matt. You just happened to comment when I've enough time to rant. I say this as constructive criticism - withhold those comments unless you're together with a limited group of judges and just want to geek out. It is unproductive, especailly at live events and causes a lot of people to remove themselves from the conversation. You can readily see the pattern in the comments section of these posts. Yes, we should include wind strength in our facts found (I will reluctantly concede that fact to Rob Overton), but do we really need to bring that up here?

Bullying at the leeward mark is a real thing. Recklessness is a real thing. Unless we are willing to recognize it, and try to investigate potential breachs of RRS 2, we ignore what may be the most serious rule breach of an entire regatta. The reason I brought this up is loosely based on a real scenario that sent a kid to the hospital. Doesn't that competitor deserve our attention on this issue instead of instinctively dismissing the idea? And I believe it is especially a teaching moment at youth events where a competitor may become overly aggressive - we have the opportunity to break a pattern that this competitor may use the rest of his life.

Okay, I'll step off my soap box...

And Ang, the point is not to debate the fine points of the facts illustrated in the diagram. No RRS 2 breach will be based entirely on a diagram. The point is to remember to look for the elements of such a breach.

But to your specific argument, it is irrelevent what Orange did or didn't do in relation to the question of whether Green was bullying yellow. I intentionally made Orange very reckless (which happens at the leeward mark because the competitor panics). My invitation was for you to write facts found that could support an RRS 2. No one seems able to bring themselves to do that.

Paul .. if you add to your finding of facts that:

1) Orange tried to avoid or atleast held her course vs Yellow (us imagining a different track than in the drawing), and
2) we also imagine a luff of Green pushing or holding Yellow into the avoiding Orange (again imagining a different track) ...

.I can buy into your Fact E and thus your conclusion.

1. Okay. Let's assume that Orange tried to avoid. Luffed hard. Does that change the fact found that Green intended to luff Yellow into the oncoming boats?
2. Or. let's assume Orange turned down even further. Aimed right at Yellow, but had Green turned down, Yellow would still have had room to keep clear. Isn't that still evidence of intent?
3. Let's also assume Green said during the hearing that she luffed Yellow because she had no right to be in there and it didn't matter that there was no room for Yellow to keep clear because they had right-of-way? And let's assume Orange did not change course at all - didn't see the oncoming boats so was negligent in keeping watch. Does that change the fact that Green was luffing Yellow into oncoming boats?

Again, I'm not trying to document facts that will either convict or relieve Green. That is not the point. So the significance of your question is, "are the actions of Orange relevant?" I would suggest they contribute to the weight of the evidence, but Green does not get a get-out-of-jail free card just because Orange did something stupid.

Paul;

Your animation does not match the facts found. When presented with an animation and asked to find facts we (speaking collectively for the group) have no ability to decern "intent" of a competitor and therefore must rely on the information provided without drawing in personal beliefs or bias. Its a basic aplication of the rules to what the boats are doing relative to one another, their relative speed, course changes and distances.
On the other hand, when presented with facts (absent the animation) derived from a hearing where the true "intent" of a competitor may be revealed a completely different conclusion could be made.
Your exercise very likely would have yeilded a completely different discussion had you presented the Facts Found instead of the animation.
I will agree that Rule 2 is sometimes overlooked in a hearing; judges seem to seek its application only when no other rule applies to a competitors actions. But, from the animation I have no reason to even consider Rule 2 or to pursue any course of action to open the door for redress to be granted to either Yellow or Orange. However, from the Facts Found (absent the animation) there is a slightly different thought process applied. However, in the end is there a significant change to the Decision? Orange is DSQ for Rule 10 with Blue and Yellow is DSQ for Rule 18 with Green and/or Purple; no change from the Decision derived from the animation. The only change is that Green is now DSQ for Rule 2, but that doesn't provide an avenue for redress for Orange or Yellow from their infractions that were separate from and prior to the incident created by Green being a "reckless bully".
I do not believe that agressive sailing is against the rules; sometimes the rules are a shield and, like it or not, other times they are a sword. I have been both the victor and the victim at the leeward mark of a hard luff exiting the mark when one side of the course was favored and I would never say that was reckless or bully behavior in and of itself; it is just part of the game. Deliberately holding a weather boat in a "no out" scenario that results in a collision is a completely different situation, and that is where the animation and the facts provided are in gross disagreement.

Fair criticism Eric. I'll admit to intentionally laying a trap by just posting a diagram. However, it's hard to not give away the punch line with just a statement of facts.

But I will disagree with your conclusion that the diagram excludes the possiblilty of a finding that Green broke rule 2.

And I think Case 138 indicates that you are incorrect about inferring intent. We don't have determine intent to find a breach of RRS 2. Behaviors and actions are enough. We don't need to determine that Green intented to luff Yellow into another boat. We merely need to determine that Green luffed Yellow acting recklessly or in a manner that does or is likely to cause damage or injury. Clearly, based on the diagram, we have the elements of Green luffing Yellow and an injury to one of the competitors.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that there is no other interpretation based on the diagream. Given the scenario, we could construct many different statements of fact. However, my invitation was to construct a statement of facts finding Green broke the rule, and my subsequent attempt at writing those facts were just in response to no one else willing to participate. Again I will point out the resistance to considering RRS 2 is a problem for a lot of judges. And as I've said before, I think judges place much more stigma on the finding of a breach of RRS 2 than do the competitors.

Paul - no worries about making an example at my expense - I've broad shoulders; earned more as a race officer than a judge. My point about conditions / types of boats goes to their manueverability / ability to avoid a collision. An Ensign does not maneuver like a Tartan 10 or a Laser.

And I agree with Eric - there's no way do infer intent from an animation. At least not to the extent of your facts found.

Thank you for initiating this discussion, though. I enjoy the mental exercise.

Thanks. I do appreciate your comments and participation. You can tell I like the exchange as I keep posting these things. I've got another one in front of me now that got a lot more response in a recent roundtable than I expected. I'll post it in the next couple days...

This has been a very good discussion. Differing views are definitely a useful learning tool and we don't all have to agree all of the time.
Personally I have a hard time lobbying for a Rule 2 DSQ/DNE in any hearing without compelling testimony and without competitors themselves pointing the discussion towards a Rule 2 issue. In other words, if the competitors don't see an action as reckless or bullying or unfair, I'm not likely to find as a conclusion that it was. That speaks to my resistance to get to a set of facts found related to Rule 2 from just a diagram.

Perhaps I can bring a transatlantic perspective to what seems to be a very North American discussion. At the risk of stating the obvious the reason that there has been a reluctance to consider Rule 2 based on the original animation is that there is no evidence from that animation of the slightest breach of that rule. Green assumes a close hauled course which may or may not be slightly higher than other boats - her sails are full so there is no suggestion of luffing or indeed any change of course other than that required to round the mark. Yellow (ignoring any rule 18 issues) is meeting her rule 11 obligations to keep clear of Green.

Orange is required by rule10 to keep clear of Yellow and Green and fails to do so. Orange makes contact with her boom end (suggesting a mis judgement) so contact could probably have been avoided simply by sheeting in. In any event Orange makes no attempt to avoid contact and in fact turns towards the point of contact throughout the incident. Had Orange luffed even slightly contact would have been avoided. Neither Green nor Yellow are required to anticipate that Orange will break a rule and by the time it becomes apparent that she is there is nothing that can be done. In summary the only poosible breach of rule 2 would be if Orange's actions were interpreted as "acting recklessly" (Case 138 Answer 1 Point 5) when she made contact which would be a strange decision for what amounts to an error of judgement.

I am also a little concerned that the term "bullying" is being used in the context of a boat expecting her right of way to be respected. Using the rules to gain an advantage (as long as the obligations of rule 14 are observed) is not bullying, it's part of the game. I don't believe the use of the word "bullying" in Case 138 Answer 1 Point 3 is intended to cover this situation but to deal with non rules related bullying in the more conventional use of the word as evidenced by the other words contained in the same point..

Bill, I appreciate your perspective on this. However, your comment is exactly why I posted this example. Judges around the world generally resist looking at the possbility of RRS 2. Just because Green is following the rules, doesn't mean she isn't bullying Yellow. The are at least two elements of bullying as interpreted by case 138 in the diagram. I promise you this has been discussed by more than one multi-national panel of judges, so this is not just a north american issue.

Bullying happens regardless of a boat's right-of-way or obligations. In fact, I would propose it probably happens more often by a boat that has right-of-way. Finding an RRS 2 violation does not require that any other rule be broken. RRS 2 is an obligation on its own. Bullying happens on the water as well as off. So I would not expect that case 138 would be limited to any paticular kind of bullying. I'm not sure what you mean by "the more conventional use of the word" in the last sentence of the second paragraph but I don't think being aggressive on the water is unconventional bullying if we decide it is bullying.

And I strongly disagree with the concept that a competitor can do whatever they want as long as they follow the rules. Bullying is bullying no matter if it comes from a boat that has right-of-way or not. Just because I'm the leeward boat doesn't mean I can abuse the windward boat with a barage of yelling and coercion to get them to tack. Likewise, luffing another boat into a collision with an obstruction or another competitor is not unconventional bullying if it is bullying. Competitors are given rights and obligations by all the rules. RRS 2 is just another of those obligations and those obligations are not dependant or limited by compliance (or not) with any other rule.

Additionally, your argument misses the concept of recklessness. Even if theere was no bullying, there are several elements of recklessnes here. Again, case 138 provides the interpretation on this.

Let me ask how many of you would protest a boat if while on the water you saw her hit a mark of the course where you were convinced the competitor knew they hit the mark and they did not do a penatly for that infraction? How many would assert it is an RRS 2 violation?

I'm afraid I am at a total loss on this. Green rounds up at a leeward mark and sails close hauled up wind. Green's course (which pretty much looks like here proper course) does not change after the rounding. Green's course requires Yellow a windward boat to keep clear of her. Orange who is obliged to keep clear of both Green and Yellow fails to do so even though she easily could have done with a minor alteration of course. It would not be apparent to Green or Yellow that Orange was going to break the rules and make contact until impact was imminent and nothing could be done.There is nothing there that could even remotely be called bullying. Please explain which "recongnized principle of sportsmanship and fair play" has clearly been violated as would be required to penalize a boat under rule 2.

In order for rule 2 to be considered you would have to find that Green should have anticipated that Orange would have broken a rule, Case 27 covers exactly this point in connection with rule 2 and states that - A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule.

Paul said ..

you were convinced the competitor knew they hit the mark and they did not do a penatly for that infraction? How many would assert it is an RRS 2 violation?

In the previous thread where we were discussing when it was approriate for RC's to protest boats, that's the exact case I put forward where R2 could be considered. In my case I think I said if the RC witnessed crew pushing off the mark to prevent a tangle .. or saw the skipper leaning over the rail seeing the hit ..something very clear. If there is a reasonable doublt that the boat was aware of the hit, then I dont think R2 should be added.

Paul, I think I can see what you were trying to get after here. It's just it seems that some (or many) of us here simply can't see how a PC would derive the clear intent within the scenario as presented without basically an admission of guilt by the accused during the hearing ... or a substantial changing of the diagram and facts in the case.

Orange is acting unexpectedly in your scenario and because of that causes a collision. To somehow gleen malisous intent by others not reacting fast enough to Orange's unpredictable behavior is too far for me given this scenario and facts.

So, yes, IMO bullying will be hard to decern and thus substantiate including R2 if it is subtle and accomplished within the rules and the fog of war.

Interesting discussion though.

Bill, I'm not saying that she broke the rule based on the diagram. I'm saying that when we see this pattern, we should ask enough questions to be sure that we're comfortable there was no bullying here. The reason bullying is likely at this mark, is that competitors, from kids through professionals, really get upset when someone takes room to which they are not entitled. I'm not saying it happens all the time, nor even most of the time. But the odds of it happening there are high.

In your last comment you made some assumptions. Why would it matter what Orange did or did not do. Her position may or may not go to the weight of the evidence, but if Green intentionally pushes Yellow into a collision with Orange, it just doesn't matter where Orange is or what she is doing except that it may go toward whether Green could anticipate her position enough to push Yellow into her. In the diagram Green pushed Yellow into a collision and caused injury - two major elements of the violation. You also assume that Green and Yellow could not anticipate Orange would break a rule. Green witnessed Orange breaking a rule with Blue. Isn't that evidence that she knew Orange was a problem? You also assume that Green and Yellow could not avoid Orange. Maybe. But if Green could have given room and didn't, isn't that evidence as well?

We tend to dismiss the idea of RRS 2 too quickly. Look for all the elements of an RRS 2 violation where you see some of the elements popping up. We do it with RRS 10. Why not 2?. The kid laying in the hospital with a broken head deserves our inquiry.

And don't get stuck on "recognized principle of sportsmanship and fair play." That is the language in RRS 2, but the interpretations gives you some specifics as to what that means. Bullying has clearly been on the radar for a while (forgotten which case, but yelling Starboard while on Port is bullying). And recklessness is an RRS 2 violation.

Case is significant in that it better defines some of the concepts around RRS 2 and 69 in a way we've not seen in an interpretation before. I'm not saying that RRS 2 is broader or covers more issues now. I'm saying we have a foundation for better applying RRS 2 based on those interpretations. And significantly, we now have discretion in the penalty we apply for RRS 2. So we can apply a penalty based on the degree of the violation.

Ang, case 138 gives you the tools to find intent. You don't have to know what is in the competitor's mind, you can derive intent from behavior and actions.

you can derive intent from behavior and actions.

Roger that .. I am just not clearly seeing intent from the behavior and actions of Green given the facts in your scenario. It's going to have to be clearer to me. - Ang

Paul - What Orange did or did not do does matter, in fact it's central to the issue. If Orange did everything she could to avoid contact but was unsuccessful then Green has indeed sailed Yellow into an unavoidable contact which resulted in injury and Green has broken rule 2. If on the other hand Orange was able to meet her obligation and avoided contact then Green has broken no rule, In the animation Green sails Yellow to a position where there is potential for contact but if Orange does what the rules require then there would be no contact so again no rule broken by Green.

I think you are missing my point on Case 27. You say that Green and Yellow could have anticipated that Orange was going to break a rule from her actions with Blue. Perhaps they could, perhaps they couldn't but the Case is very clear on the subject. In regards of rule 2 a boat is not obliged to anticipate another boat breaking a rule and whether she could/should have done doesn't come into it - that;s what the case says.

Finally I have never regarded the language of the rules as something to get "stuck" on. I regard it a something to be applied to the letter as required by rule 85.

There is a good example of a finding of a breach of RRS 2 is in Decision 18 in the recent Formula Kiteboard Worlds. The conclusion was that "it was clear he could not cross." I suggest that this is a finding of either intent to break a rule or recklessness. In this case, the jury found it egregious enough to impose a DNE. Either way, it's a good example of a jury seeing an RRS 2 violation in a Part 2 hearing.

But I urge caution in responding to the issues in Decision 18. It is important to recognize that, while we can observe the outcome of that hearing, we shouldn't criticize or phrase it such that we're relitigating that protest.

OK Paul, I'll bite with maybe a clearer-cut example.

Below is a scenario in which Blue knowingly fouls Green. There is communication between the boats prior to contact .. and no damage. Would you say because Blue knowingly broke the rule, you'd consider R2?

I really get what you are saying and maybe suggesting should be the new normal .. but I think that it would represent quite a large shift for a lot of folk, PC's and racers alike. - Ang

"it would represent quite a large shift for a lot of folk" which is exactly why I think it's an interesting and important issue. But I think it's more than a shift. I think it's a lack of experience with applying the rule and a perceived stigma. So I think the conversation about RRS 2 is important for all of us.

Included in your statement is the conclusion that "Blue knowingly fouls Green." If we have that conclusion, we have a violation of RRS 2. Perhaps we would want the conclusion to be a bit more precise - "Blue intentionally did not keep clear." But I would expect a jury that finds Blue intentionally broke a rule would impose RRS 2.

But let's leave the conclusion out of your statement and just look at the diagram. If this is a match race, is there any doubt that this competitor would get a red flag for turning down and behaving in such a way so that the umpires would infer that Blue is intentionally breaking a rule? Accordingly, I absolutely believe that a jury should consider RRS 2 given this scenario. And in fact if Blue did not have a believable explanation for her behavior, she should be found to have broken RRS 2 based on her behavior as we should conclude she intentionally did not keep clear (assuming they are approaching the line to start).

I think it's a lack of experience with applying the rule and a perceived stigma. So I think the conversation about RRS 2 is important for all of us.

I think what you wrote here is maybe at the heart of the issue, but to get to the "heart', we have to get past the peripheral arteries first.

IMO, the more pervasive issue to get past first (in non-judged fleet racing) is to get racers to stop doing a sort'a "match-racing" analysis in regards to whether or not to protest in the first place.

I can not tell you how many times I've been approached after protesting or filing a protest against another boat, where someone will ask me to justify the protest based upon whether or not the infraction effected MY score or standing. That somehow, in real-time on the water or later on shore, I'm supposed to this multi-threaded permutation analysis projecting possible outcomes .. or after the race .. do the calculation in the series to see if a successful protest will change the standings . and if not, it's all just a waste of all our times.

IMO, what is a prerequisite to this issue you've brought-up, is instilling the idea that it's not a question if a rules infraction effected ME, but rather owning the responsibility that the infraction advantaged the competitor doing the infraction and that by protesting the other boat, you are protecting the fair playing field for OTHERS.

Stigma is a large part of it. I've actually gotten emails after protesting saying things to the effect, " .. you have to watch your reputation" .. or "... you don't want to be that guy".

So, until we figure a way to break that cycle, I think it's going to be really hard to get people to toss R2 violations into the mix except in the most egregious cases.

Who knows though, maybe raising the bar and bringing R2 into it can change the mindset from above and we'll get a trickle-down effect.

You bring up a very significant issue. I'm not sure it's an antecedent to enforcing RRS 2, but it is a big problem that we have created and enforce a social stigma against filing protests. I think you should start a new post on the issue as it was the subject of some extended conversation at the last round-table I attended.

Hi Paul and Angelo,
I've been thinking about what you have written about rule 2, and what I think we are not taking about is the preamble in Basic Principles. I think everyone is overlooking "A fundamental principal of sportsmanship is when a competitor breaks a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire." When sailors are only doing turns on the water when someone yells protest, or are only retiring after they see a written protest form, then they are not promptly taking a penalty. Sailor are thinking that if they break a rule they may be DSQ, and I don't think they know they are also risking a DNE.

We often discuss a rule like 18 in great detail, but in the rule books and rules seminars I've been part of the preamble is not emphasized. I think that in a hearing if it's established a competitor knows they broke a rule, that violates the preamble, and that can be a rule 2 DNE penalty.

At the time of a foul, I think most sailors think 'should I take an on the water penalty now, or risk a DSQ in a protest?' Should they also be thinking 'if know I broke a rule, should I be risking a rule 2 DNE?'

This would be a good thread discussion or round table topic.

I am a little surprised that consideration of rule 2 appears to be such a "new" idea. With every PC or Jury that I sit on (and certainly when I am chair) if we decide a boat has broken a rule we then consider two questions -
Did the boat deliberately and knowingly break the rule to gain an advantage ?
Should the boat have been fully aware that she had broken a rule and did not take a penalty ?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes then a rule 2 penalty would be considered taking into account the greater level of proof necessary to penalise under that rule. The biggest debate we have had on this subject is that as since 1st Jan we have discretion as to DSQ or DNE when should which penalty be applied. For what it is worth my view is that if the answer to either of the above questions is yes then it's DNE.

1) Did the boat deliberately and knowingly break the rule to gain an advantage ?
2) Should the boat have been fully aware that she had broken a rule and did not take a penalty ?

Bill,

To Paul's end, I nominate your 2 questions for addition to both:

1) Appendix M
2) 2nd page of the RRS Protest Form (under "This side for protest committee use") RRS Protest Form

Wonder if that's worth floating up the chain?

We don't have any statistics about how it is applied, so there is no real analysis on how it is used, but my experience has been that local juries rarely invoke RRS 2. And when they do, they tend to over-emphasize and dramatize the infraction. And I would suspect, and Bill suggests, RRS 2 is applied differently in different areas of the world simply because of the lack of shared training. It is my experience that at larger events, RRS 2 is applied with little hesitation. I think conversation about how it is applied is important to dispel much of the mystery and myth associated with it and promote a more uniform application of the rule at all events.

And Daryl, I'm with you on applying RRS 2 for an infraction where the jury is convinced that the competitor knew they broke a rule and didn't do a penalty turn. Where a competitor knows they broke a rule, but didn't do a turn because they believed they wouldn't be protested, or the jury wouldn't find the protest valid, we should use a DNE. I believe it encourages competitors to police themselves. However, where the competitor is in doubt, in any way, that they broke a rule, it's hard to get to RRS 2 unless it is reckless behaviour.