# racing rules question narrow channel



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

I was sailing in the weekly competition in very light wind bf 1/2. The most favourable course to the first upwind mark was to sail between 2 reed islands. I was leading as I entered the narrow channel on starboard tack. The second place boat dipped under me slightly and we both sailed to use the full width of the channel before tacking again. I tacked onto port tack the second place boat onto starboard tack and we approached each other in the middle of the narrow channel. I knew I eyed the boat up and concluded i woud not get passed the starboard tack boat without him clipping the stern of my boat so I tacked under him. So we were in a situation in the middle of the narrow channel where I had tacked and need to gain moment as he began to pass me to windward. AS he began to pass, I said I'll need room shortly. To my astonishment he replied "no, you should've dipped me". As we both started to approach the reeds, both on the same tack just about level with each other, I requested room to tack. He repeated you should've dipped under me. I began my tack slowly as my bow touched the first reeds, repeating I need room. Incredibly, the guy left his tiller and pushed my boat away into the reeds with my hands and then tacked away. I protested. A witness stated that when I tacked I was in the middle of the narrow channel, of equal distance from either reed island. The other boat argued that I tacked myself into the problem and was too close to the reeds to tack. I argued dipping was out of the question as I was too far ahead and would've had to fall away drastically. I would've headed half-wind towards the reeds the other side, which was far worse than taking the moment out of the boat and heading to the other reeds at less speed. I argued tacking was not only a legal option but it was also the safest option.

The jury disagreed, they said I should not have tacked, but should've fallen off.

Funny thing, is the guy in that boat is a national official and protest room jury member for many many years. I feel this is the reason why the less experience jury sided with his take on the situation.

I'd like to know the thoughts of the sailnet racing community on this situation.


----------



## marcusc130 (Oct 8, 2011)

I think he's right. And I'm no sure why you would decide to tack into a position where you're covered by another boat, instead of dipping behind him and staying in clean air?


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

I completed the tack in clean air and was accelerting in clean air . At which point he got the overlap on my stern. As I accelerated he caught me up further, then we were quite parallel but on the same tack and course but I was about 1 metre in front. I asked for room. When he refused my bow touched the first reed and I slowly started my tack (tacking with this big heavy open dinghy is slow!). At which point he stood up and pushed my boat into the reeds and made his tack off the momentum the push gave him.

The alterantive of falling away was risky because I would've sailed half-wind towards the oncoming boat (hard rudder would've been necessry to fall away from the lead position) I was sailing lone an he was with a partner. The dinghy has a 2 sails. Falling away and accelerating towards the other boat and the reed island to starboard and not knowing whether I'd still have the room to tack after he had sailed passed was not an attractive option. Too many unknowns.
However tacking the only problem was that he'd have to give me room and I had the right to tack.

The judgement of the "commitee"essentially says I had no right to tack, despite having the room to tack easily, and had to fall away.

I cannot believe a normal commitee would come to such a decision based on the ituation confirmed by the witness.

I simply saw it as a question of which reed island is it best to sail towards, quickly towards the reed island to starboard, risking a collision with the right of way boat and risking getting stuck in the reeds at speed. Or tacking towards the reed island to port which I might even be able to avoid as the island was ending. If I was on the other boat I would've expected the lead boat to tack and I would've duly given room. 

I try to stay away from this sailor as much as possible when on the water as he is so reckless - then hides behind his reputation as a national sailing referee.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

I think your opponent and the protest committee were wrong.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Ultimately, we weren't there, and we are only hearing your position without having an opportunity to hear the other person explain his own position. When you protested him, it became your obligation to prove that he violated a rule. In a case like this, timing and distances are crucial. It sounds like some witnesses might have supported your claim, and others might have seen it differently. If the testimony of witnesses was conflicting, then the committee probably concluded that you didn't meet your burden of proving the existence of the violation. When the two of you were present and couldn't agree on the facts, and on the application of the rules, and the witnesses are ambiguous, how can you expect the committee to DSQ the other boat?

Personally, I avoid protests like the plague. For a yacht racer, being on the losing end of a protest is like receiving the death penalty. Race committees won't impose the "death penalty" absent clear proof that it is warranted.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

When crossing, you were the give-way vessel, by tacking to the leeward same tack are you allowed to then claim room? Don't you have to allow the windward boat to sail it's normal course as if you weren't there? Meaning you can't force them to head up or tack from it's normal heading, but rather in this situation you needed to leave room for yourself to tack under them if necessary?


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

My protest was about the pushing of my boat and them not giving me room (and worse still pushing my boat into the reeds with their hands). This was not desputed by the other boat. The committee agreed that the other boat was wrong in doing that. 

However, the "committee" also agreed I tacked in the middle of the narrow channel, ahead and beneath the starboard tack boat, but they decided I should not have done this. 

"You broke the rules and he broke the rules so no-one gets DSQ."

I'm wondering which rule they are refering to. Any ideas ?


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

tempest, I tacked ahead of them and under them, they did not need to change course and they did not change course.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

the "committee" and the sole witness were one of the same.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

bobbylockes said:


> My protest was about the pushing of my boat and them not giving me room (and worse still pushing my boat into the reeds with their hands). This was not desputed by the other boat. The committee agreed that the other boat was wrong in doing that.
> 
> However, the "committee" also agreed I tacked in the middle of the narrow channel, ahead and beneath the starboard tack boat, but they decided I should not have done this.
> 
> ...


If I had been you, I would have argued that the only question before them for decision was not whether *I* committed a violation, but whether *he* committed one. I would have said, "...even *he* knows I didn't commit a violation. *He's* an acknowledged rules expert, and if he thought I violated a rule, he would have protested *me*. Since the only protest before the committee is mine, the only question for the committee to decide is whether my protest is valid. Since he *admits* the violation, it seems to me that the answer, and the committee's duty, is clear."

That having been said, I still think there was enough ambiguity in the facts that we have been provided so that we can't fairly say that the committee made an incorrect decision.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

Difficult to state all the facts but I tried. If he'd cause damage to the boat, I don't think his insurance company would have a leg to stand on - he had time to give room, space to give room and nobody asked him to push my boat into the shallows when I luffed up to avoid them. 

In the middle of the channel when I gave way. He wanted clean wind and a clear lead and was annoyed that he didn't get it so took action by making sure I sailed into the reeds (and as I was luffing up to avoid them he made doubly sure by pushing me back into them).

You'd think a rule book would prevent such childish, tempetuous behaviour. 

So the root cause lies with the rules (and perhaps his upbringing - his father is an ultra competitive racer in frequent contat with his insurance company). 

In all other sports I can think of the rules are not open for interpretation. If the same mentality was applied you'd have judgements like "he tackled you and broke your hand but he only did it because you pushed him over 2 minutes previous - so that makes you both even."

So I guess m conclusion is: When will the ISAF get their act together and create complete indesputable rules?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"You'd think a rule book would prevent such childish, tempetuous behaviour. "
It does. Ungentlemenly conduct is reason for a penalty, including being banned from racing.
Leaving your tiller and leaving your boat out of control might not be banned in the rules--but I'd sure as hell like to hear an explanation of how abandoning the helm is proper conduct. Likewise, ANY contact or assistance to another boat is frowned upon, and piushing another boat away with your hands--except as a LAST resort to prevent collision, is most unusual.

The rules say that if you are entitled to room, you're entitled to room. They don't differentiate between "I'm here because I made a dumb move" and "I'm here because aliens abducted me" they say, plainly, if you're entitled to room you're entitled to room. And part of racing, and using the rules to your advantage, is to FORCE another boat to fall back because you can claim rights over them. Duh? That's normal racing practice, if you can gan and exploit and advantage, you do.

Impossible to say why what happened, but it wouldn't be the first time a racing committee was wrong, and that's why the USYRA (excuse me, USSA) publishes a book of appeals, to try showing committees how not to go wrong. 

"He said, she said" is always going to be a problem though.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

bobbylockes said:


> tempest, I tacked ahead of them and under them, they did not need to change course and they did not change course.


Then it appears that you are claiming that Rule 20 would apply here " Calling for room at an obstruction" ?

The leeward boat ( you) calls to the windward boat for room to tack at an obstuction. The windward boat can then either tack and give you room, or, if they feel that you have room to tack under them can call back and say 
" You tack" If the windward boat tacks to give you room, then you must tack immediately after, you cannot continue sailing, even if it might give you advantage.

In your situation, it sounds like you did not have room to tack and the windward boat needed to give you room to tack or, tack away.

The other boat seems to be claiming that though you were leeward in the narrow channel, you placed yourself in the situation by making two choices, 
One, to tack under them rather than dip. And, two, by not leaving yourself enough room when doing so to tack away from the obstruction without forcing them to tack.

So I would ask, by what rule does the other boat claim that they were not required to honor your request for room? Leaving aside for a moment the fact that they interfered with your boat by pushing it


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

bobbylockes said:


> ...So the root cause lies with the rules (and perhaps his upbringing - his father is an ultra competitive racer in frequent contat with his insurance company).
> 
> In all other sports I can think of the rules are not open for interpretation. If the same mentality was applied you'd have judgements like "he tackled you and broke your hand but he only did it because you pushed him over 2 minutes previous - so that makes you both even."
> 
> So I guess m conclusion is: When will the ISAF get their act together and create complete indesputable rules?


There is no such thing as indisputable rules. That's why we have protest committee hearings and courts of law and appeal courts and supreme courts - to settle such disputes. The facts are often vague and subject to interpretation, depending on all the attending circumstances, and, in courts of law, the trial judge makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the appeals courts review those findings and conclusions ad infinitum. The difference between a judge in a court of law and a protest committee is that the former is college trained and licensed by the state, and judging is his profession, while the latter is often a mere part-time, occasional volunteer, hopefully (but not always) with a little training and experience. By comparison with courts of law, not much is really at stake in a racing protest. What is settled usually amounts to bragging rights, and maybe a decorative piece of brass or glass. We can always hope and strive for perfect justice, but realistically, we can't expect it.

In a football game, highly trained referees are stationed all around the field to observe and call violations when they see them. It's hard enough to find trained volunteers for race committee, and it would be impossible to find enough volunteers to act in a similar capacity for yacht races, and to station them all around the course to act as on-site referees.

IMO, the fault here probably does not lie with the rules or with the protest committee, or with the ISAF. It is possible, however, that the protest committee here might have not been sufficiently knowledgeable of the rules. In some small sailing venues, the protest committee will consist of anyone who can be prevailed upon to serve on short notice, even if they aren't very familiar with the rules.

But, yacht racing is supposed to be a gentlemen's sport, in which we respect and comply with the rules, and we acknowledge our own violations, and we voluntarily sail our 360s or 720s, as appropriate. Most racers are gentlemen...some aren't.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

It's basically a social sailing club that is run by a strange clique who like to maintain their championship title. I posted a more dangerous incident last year. There is no real commitee or true witnesses. The witness in this situation was actually the offenders team-mate who was sailing on a different boat for a change ( I could believe it when he confirmed that I was in the middle of the channel and instead of toeing the line of his team-mates' story). However as expected, the offender did not get disqualified for breaking rule 20 because it was in the witnesses interest of keeping the championship to ensure his teammate won the race. Which he did by saying I should fallen off and not tacked.

Their respective ages are 65 an 36. They essentially run the club and don't like people who beat them. A couple of years ago a young team joined and they started winning races. The young team had sailed together since they were kids. Within one season the 65 year old and 36 year old (chairman and secretary of the club) had an argument with them after a particular race. These 2 new members were the race referees (every team must do this at least once a season). The chairman and secretary came second and disputed the decision of shortening the course. The young team were of course utterly suprised by the ridiculous argument and the ensuing intimidation, after all they were the race referees only because they volunteered. Much to my annoyance, these good sailors never came back for another season. 

I think my time has come not to sail with that club any more. This "national sailing referee" didn't even apologize for pushing the boat.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

If an experienced national race referee doesn't honour the rules AND gets away with it, then there is really something very wrong with the rules. 

similarly with the law: if anyone breaks the law regularly and always gets away with it - then the law gets changed.

That book sounds like a good idea, is it publicly available on the internet? The rules should be available in a wiki so that everyone can learn and the rules can evolve more naturally.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Here's an appeals decision:

CASE 33
A boat that hails for room to tack before safety requires her to tack is entitled
to receive room under rule 20.1(b), but by hailing at that time she breaks rule
20.3. An inside overlapped boat is entitled to room between the outside boat
and an obstruction under rule 19.2(b) even though she has tacked into the
inside overlapping position.

From.. http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/CaseBook20092012updatedNov2011-[11669].pdf

The USSA Book is available on their website: Appeals


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

good links. 

That reads like an offical appeal that exonerates me from my tack in the middle of the channel which my commitee considered an offence.


----------



## WDS123 (Apr 2, 2011)

Just have fun - it is just a bunch of middle aged guys doing beer cans. 

Most important race question
'who brought the beer'

2nd most important
"is the beer going to stay cold there"

My most enjoyable racing memories are of racing on a mid fleet boat - after the chute was hoisted, the music would come on, and a portable blender would come out, tropical drinks served, 

We always came into the club smiling and happy.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

WDS123 said:


> My most enjoyable racing memories are of racing on a mid fleet boat - after the chute was hoisted, the music would come on, and a portable blender would come out, tropical drinks served,
> 
> We always came into the club smiling and happy.


Now THAT'S racing.


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

Regardless of the rules, pushing another persons boat is bad sportsmanship. I would try to take the high road, and not further compound anothers bad sportsmanship with my own, however if the deck is stacked there is no point in further competition. 

There are plenty of race clubs, where the competition is fair, and rules are enforced evenly, (with some allowance for newbe's). And the other members are friendly, and work toward the best possible race for all, not how to take out the other boats.

I have gotten good advice from other club members, as well as techniques on how to improve my time, and abilities. I would go where I could sail and be appreciated.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

its just a social evening sailing as they reminded me when I protested.. however collisions are not social events. I can't think of more anti-social behaviour than pushing a boat into the reeds after screaming that "should've fallen away". If the incident was a one-off I would've forgotten it but these incidents follow this sail referee like a bad smell. I'm indeed wondering where else I can sail.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Honestly it sounds like the guy's just a peckerhead. I think you need to repeatedly humiliate him on the course in the next few races. That always works.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

How do the other racing members of the club feel? Perhaps it's time for new administration.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

I suspect no-one else would run the administration of the 'club'. No-one is particularly enthusiastic.

They have been the core members of the club since its inception 12 years ago, it is only the past 2 years that they took over because no-one else wanted to do it. They are doing their best to promote the club and get sponsorship (they used to run a harbour on the lake so they know alot of people) but despite their efforts the better sailors are leaving or have left. I'm also part of the club committee , but more a silent member with no real function just to make up the numbers so the club could deemed a legal club in the eyes of the local council. Year on year for the last 5 years members have been cancelling their subscriptions. I think its dropped from 200 to 36 paying members. There used to be at least 10+ boats each friday with 2 or 3 people in each boat. Now its barely 6 and some are single-handed. Other clubs on the lake are suffering a similar fate though. It makes me mad to think of their behaviour and how good sailors cancelled their subscriptions. My girlfriend just told me that she never became a member because of the shouting, aggressiveness and arrogance. Before I became a member they would tell yarns of fist-fights back on the dock after the race because someone cheated. It's such a shame these people can't play fairly without the need for a referee because it's such a nice lake and course.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Sounds like the ship is sinking and it is time to go elsewhere.

Send in your notice: "You are all wankers and I'm going to sail with real sailors."

Best of luck. I feel for you.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"I think its dropped from 200 to 36 paying members."
So where did the other 164 people go? And if they didn't go somewhere else, that's your chance to ask them to form a new club with some different attitudes.

Meanwhile...you get a 10# Danforth and about six feet of line, attach it to your friend's keel, and watch the show when he gets into shallow water and his boat simply bogs down and anchors itself.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

I'm in the club committee with these 3 other guys from the other team. I've penned a very short email (one sentence) to cancel my subscription from next year. And another email with the link to the rule that Tempest posted and that my decision to cancel description is not just based on the one incident but the atmosphere has been bad for some time. Not sure whether to send both, one, or none. Many thanks for the balanced responses to this. Much appreciated as I enjoy sailing on this lake from that harbour on a friday evening. I love the challenge of trying to sail as efficiently as possible. I only started sailing 7 years ago. It's pure magic plucking horse-power out of thin air, literally magic. Having passionate sailors to sail against is also important, however sailing against habitual aggression and disrespect cancels out enjoyment like a hole in the boat. It's a very, very tough decision! all the comments are very much appreciated. together they give a very balanced view. 

Thanks!


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Everyone has a different tolerance level for BS. This is supposed to be fun for you. If you find that it's more BS than you need then finding another more pleasant club might be the ticket.

On the other hand, I've never let anyone or anything drive me away from something that I love. I've always outlasted my enemies, detracters, distracters..
In my experience... they all step on their own [email protected]@ks sooner or later. 
So if this is a place that you really enjoy, would like to be part of, and feel that you can contribute to it's improvement, then stick around, kill em with kindness and professionalism and let them impale themselves. They will eventually self-implode. 

If you do stick around, Gentle pressure- Relentlessly Applied.. could effect the changes you desire.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Tempest said:


> Everyone has a different tolerance level for BS. This is supposed to be fun for you. If you find that it's more BS than you need then finding another more pleasant club might be the ticket.
> 
> On the other hand, I've never let anyone or anything drive me away from something that I love. I've always outlasted my enemies, detracters, distracters..
> In my experience... they all step on their own [email protected]@ks sooner or later.
> ...


This^

And like I said, just start beating the guy consistently. Winning's the best revenge.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

tempest, smackdaddy I think you are right. gentle pressure might be worth ago before deciding to cancel my membership. 

Funnily enough he just sent me an email to apologize for pushing my boat into the reeds but still thinks I was wrong for tacking in the middle of the channel.
Now to apply gentle pressure as I feel I have nothing to lose. I'm sending him the link you posted to the ruling from november 2011. He's a national sail referee. at least thats what he tells everyone.

This gentle pressure applied using the findings of ISAF will hopefully make him think twice next time before assuming he knows the rules better than anyone. Anything to dilute his cynical sailing tactics, before I really resign from the club!


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Bobby, I have a couple of questions if you don’t mind? Where are you located? (I’m suspecting not in the USA?) What was the type of boat you and the other guy were sailing on? (model and length please) How wide was the channel? (in boat lengths) And how long was it (how many tacks to pass through it) And, were the weed patches labeled as obstructions? 

Now, don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t there and the protest committee had access to all the facts, not me. It sounds like you tacked over to the weeds in order to avoid ducking that other boat as well as at least one other? I’m inclined to agree with the findings of the committee. After you tacked, how much time passed before you were in the weeds? I’m assuming that the other boat was on the verge of tacking as he too, was only seconds before the weeds himself. Ordinarily, weeds wouldn’t constitute and obstruction. It has been a long time since I read Case 33, but wasn’t that situation where the two boats were beam reaching on a lee shore of a river?

If you feel you are absolutely in the right, you can always appeal the case and try to win it that way. I’m inclined to trust the judgment of the more experienced sailors on the scene. The big thing you should take away from all of this is you need to learn how to duck! If you were able to duck, you would have “owned” all the other boats on your next tack. Work on your tactics and boat handling skills.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Bobby,

I'd hold off on sending him case 33, see George's post above. I'd simply accept his apology graciously and as George says.. improve your tactics, get better! you were, after all, leading at the time you tacked. And as Smack says..go out and win. 

When you're the first boat over the line consistently, that will be all the statement you need.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

Hi George,

Thanks for the time in replying. Ive added a gif of the exact spot on google earth. the reeds cant be seen on he photo so Ive pretended tat the land was the reed. I was in the red boat and the other guy in the blue boat. the white dots are the course I wouldve taen had I decided on falling away after seeing that I wasnt going to make it in front of the starboard tack boat

Where are you located? 
Holland

- What was the type of boat you and the other guy were sailing on? 
6.5m open boat called a polyvalk like this one







http://www.eilandvanmaurik.nl/cmslib/www.eilandvanmaurik.nl/maurik/lastminute/huge/polyvalk_actie.jpg

- How wide was the channel?
tricky to say because it was between the reeds at the land (to port) and reeds at an island to starboard), the contours of both vary but roughly follow the picture. What also made falling away tricky was I couldnt see the contours of the reed island behind his sail. However assume abut 4 or 5 boat lengths(in boat lengths) where we crossed paths.

- And how long was it (how many tacks to pass through it)
it took 3 tacks for both of us to pass through it completely.

-And, were the weed patches labeled as obstructions? It is acceped they are obstructions because they signify shallow water - keels have been damaged by people who ignore the reeds.

-Now, don't get me wrong, I wasn't there and the protest committee had access to all the facts, not me. It sounds like you tacked over to the weeds in order to avoid ducking that other boat as well as at least one other?

No just me and him at the time. I avoided ducking because I was ahead after my first tack in the channel,ducking wouldve brought me to the reedsisland ti tarboard alot quicker than tacking and I wouldnt have been sure I could've made the tack as the contour of the reeds to starboard couldnt been seen as they were behind his sail, but I knew the amount of room reduced cause that was the narrowest point of the channel.

- I'm inclined to agree with the findings of the committee. After you tacked, how much time passed before you were in the weeds?

about 1 minute bf 1 or 2. we were traveling at very very low speed, the boats are heavy.

-I'm assuming that the other boat was on the verge of tacking as he too, was only seconds before the weeds himself.

No when I tacked he wasnt in the middle of the channel, he was approaching and behind me (but to my windward after I tacked under him)

-Ordinarily, weeds wouldn't constitute and obstruction. It has been a long time since I read Case 33, but wasn't that situation where the two boats were beam reaching on a lee shore of a river?

sorry, I dont know.

-If you feel you are absolutely in the right, you can always appeal the case and try to win it that way. I'm inclined to trust the judgment of the more experienced sailors on the scene.

well I would too except they are in the same team and frequently push the rules in their favour.

-The big thing you should take away from all of this is you need to learn how to duck! If you were able to duck, you would have "owned" all the other boats on your next tack. Work on your tactics and boat handling skills.

If I'd have ducked I would've immediately have had to tack after he passed see dots on image) as I wouldve been a few seconds from sailing into the reeds island to starboard. The contours changed and the channel gets to its narrowest point. Exactly how close it was impossible to tell because the island was behind his sail. Like I said I was ahead on port tack by about 5m and the boats are 6.5m so I had to give way to his starboard tack. Tacking in front and under is the standard option in competition as ducking from such a lead would require giving up windward territory and more time to execute the ducking perfectly, (which is not possible when sailing singlehanded as I was). after my first tack I didnt really have alot of time left to decide what to do even though we were travelling at 1 knot towards each other( if that!!).


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

the scale on the googe maps picture I posted actually shows that the narrowest point was 100 metres between isalnd and headland (approximately where I tacked). However with the reeds growing before the island and overhanging trees the sailable width is pobably half that (that said it mustve been 5 boats lengths wide easily). with regards to the contour of the island, it points in from the point the blue boat tacked, narrowing the navigable area. This narrowing to my starboard, hidden behind his sail, was not something anyone would want to fall away into. But like I said I couldnt see the exact contour of the reeds, I just knew there would be less space. And of course tacking before and under a boat is the usual thing to do when ahead but must give way. Had I not been in fron, I wuld certainly have dipped as I would've had room and would been able to see oncoming island and reeds clearly, and I wouldnt have been sailing higher in the channel. Yet falling away from the lead poition would've forced me to sail towards an unsighted island and consequently forced me into an immediate tack away from the reeds. Had I dipped the blue boat and tacked to avoid the island reeds, blue would've passed me later on board tack and not have had to give way. This is why I believe blue was so furious that I didnt dip. He knew his gain was less than he had wanted, a major falling away on my part would've ensured he would not have been in a position to give way to me after his following tack onto port tack. I knew this too. Blue was furious enough to immediatey play judge hury and executioner when I requested room as we approached the land reeds to port (blue said before the committe later: "you were not allowed to tack, it was a narrow channel, I did not have to give you room, you had to fall away"). However His sketch that my boat was next to the reeds and that I tacked into the reeds, did not match with reality, as confirmed by the witness. I was in the middle of the channel and did not tack into the reeds. This was also confirmed by the simple facts that I had completed the tack and accelarated to his boat speed before requesting room (to get up to speed takes at least a couple of boat lengths on these boats).

I realise this is my side of the story . Blue didnt say much in front of the committee except this: in his opinion I tacked into the reeds, was not in the middle of the channel and therefore should've fallen away. Despite the commitee saying blues sketch was incorrect, that I was in the middle of the channel and did not tack into reeds, the committe judged that I shouldve fallen away towards the reeds to starboard and that blue should not have pushed my boat.

Hope this helps a definitive interpretation of the sailing rules for this situation. Essentially I cant believe the racing rules force me to fall away when falling away wasnt the only option and certainly not the safest option at the time.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

I'm watching the match races at the olympics and its incredible. Based on the way these competitors tack every 30 seconds and the way they give room, I definitely did not break any rule by tacking under him. Tacking below and in front is the bread and butter of these match race. Following the behaviour of the olympiads he would've immediately tacked away (but understand why he didn't because he would've had to put in another quick tack and lost too much ground. )

I had to give way which I did and he had to give room when I ran out of water. It's that simple. That he then pushed my boat into the reeds is just a straight forward DSQ. How on earth can the rules be bent to justify that I was wrong to give way by tacking under him in the middle of the channel is beyond me. It's written in black and white. Thats what I thought at the time of tacking. It's a concern that the rules can be interpreted in such a way that a right becomes a wrong. That is proof that the racing rules are not strong enough.

George, much appreciate interest, comments and opinions!


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Bobby, thank you for your additional information and insights. You certainly have a nice looking boat. You say that it has a keel? I would have thought that most of the boats in the Netherlands would be of centerboard design. In the USA, the roughly equivalent boat would be the Ensign class which is 19 feet long, open cockpit, jib and mainsail but with a full keel. Now, remember that I am just offering comments and what we in the USA like to call “food for thought”. You were there, not I. I’m inclined to disagree with the notion that you were “leading” when you first tacked to starboard. If you were leading, you would have passed safely ahead of the blue boat. At best you were “tied” and of course, the tie goes to the boat on starboard tack. Another way of looking at it was when you were both on the same tack, you would have had to pass through the blue boat to get to the finish line.

Out here in San Francisco Bay, the sailing instructions for each race call out the restricted areas and note the obstructions. In those areas boats are obligated to tack away and give you room. Our restricted areas tend to be rock jetties and It is up to your local YRA to identify weeds as an obstruction. The only analogy I can think of out here are patches of kelp seaweed and I know that racers are not obligated to give room for those. Research the rule book as well as the published cases. They will tell you if the blue boat had to give you room or not. It has been a long time since I did any race management so my memory of the specific rule or nuance is not clear.

If you feel strongly that you were still wronged, you may appeal to your local YRA and then on to your national organization. In the USA, you need pay money up front to do this and you forfeit the money if you lose the appeal. If the blue boat skipper or race committee are acting in an unsportsmanlike manner, you can report them. Out here if an experienced skipper calls “starboard” when he is actually on “port”, he can be banned from racing for up to a year. I can only assume that the penalty for a corrupt race committee is much worse. I would be very careful, because if you were wrong in your accusation, you may find racing very difficult for you in the future.

I still think that your best tactic was to duck the blue boat or duck and immediately tack over to starboard. As I said earlier, I believe that you were actually behind the blue boat and staying on opposite tacks was your best opportunity to pass him. Being leeward of him on the same tack took away all of your options for passing (assuming for a moment that the island wasn’t there). Don’t tack into an overlap, and if you do, make sure that there is enough separation to tack underneath him in order to break the overlap. A well executed duck requires less effort than tacking and with practice, take up far less room than what you showed in your graphic. I was also wonder if you could have sailed up the backside of the “reed island” and tacked through the little channel on the left? Being short handed, this would have been fewer tacks in total and you would have kept your boat speed up.

I agree, the blue boat skipper should have acted more courteously. But he is trying to reach out to you now and I think that you have an opportunity to talk to him. This would be a good time to discuss the rules and find out how he understands them and perhaps you can learn something that you can use in the future. And like Smackdaddy said: “Keep racing”. Your best revenge is beating him so go out, get some regular crew to help you and get back into the fray! I look forward to your next report when you tell us how you pulled off your next victory!


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

Hi George,

Thanks for your input. 

I think I can summize succinctly: The "sailnet racing commitee of this thread" could not reach a conclusion based on the facts presented. 

Assuming that the members of sailnet who read this thread in the racing forum are average sailors with average racing experience we may conclude that the racing rules fall short of their audience and do not serve the sport of sailing competition.

I don't know of other sports where average amateur players of the sport cannot reach a conclusive verdict on a ruling. Racing rules have alot in common with the rules of the 21st century financial industry ie anything goes as long as you can get away with it. 

This is why people like the national sailing referee on the blue boat push the rules as far as they think they can get away with . That pushing, if left unchecked, is potentially very dangerous. Therefore the rules themselves, due to their ambiguity and subjective nature, must take responsibility for the development of dangerous situations. After all, what one man might consider dangerous another will consider fun.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

-I still think that your best tactic was to duck the blue boat or duck and immediately tack over to starboard. 

believe me if you were on the boat at the time you and could not see where the reeds where lying because his sail and boat was in the way you wouldve done what the I and the olympiad match racers do, tack below and ahead of the right of way vessel and go for giving him foul wind (upwind foulwind) and also gaining luffing rights.

-As I said earlier, I believe that you were actually behind the blue boat and staying on opposite tacks was your best opportunity to pass him.

I wasn' t behind, but I had to give way. Watch the olympic match racing and you'll see that the port tack vessel that tacks under and ahead of the starboard tack vessel is not only considered ahead but is ahead, with clean wind and luffing rights.


- Being leeward of him on the same tack took away all of your options for passing (assuming for a moment that the island wasn’t there). 

Incorrect. a leeward boat ahead yet overlapped by a windward boat has luffing rights and will successfully use them if the leeward boat maintains his clean wind. The windward boat suffers from foul wind from the leeward boat that is ahead yet overlapped, consequently the best opton for the windward boat is to tack immediately. Again, watch the olympic match races and you'll see what I mean.

-Don’t tack into an overlap, and if you do, make sure that there is enough separation to tack underneath him in order to break the overlap.

Under the current rules an overlap exists when the bow of a boat is passed the stern of the other boat. This was the case here, again check out the olympic match races for boats tacking under the right of way boat. leeward boat has got luffing rights that can break the overlap and if the leeward boat is ahead, it also generates upwind foul wind for the windward boat.


- A well executed duck requires less effort than tacking and with practice, take up far less room than what you showed in your graphic.

had I wanted to duck successfully I wouldve had to have decided immediately after my first tack in the channel and even before he;d completed his tack. As I was clear ahead before my first tack in the channel I got up to speed before eyeing up whether or not I would have to give way. Had I assumed I'd have to give way immediately after the tack and assumed incorrectly, I wouldve felt an idiot because one rule in sailing I live by is "never assume". And also, if you are forced to assume, chose the option with the least number of assumptions which n this case was tacking in the middle of the channel.

- I was also wonder if you could have sailed up the backside of the “reed island” and tacked through the little channel on the left?

I agree but unfortunately there is another island windward and perpenducular to the reed island on the picture. So not only would you sail into a wind shadow but you'd also have to fall away to get round it. The other benefit of sailing the narrow channel is that the first mark comes clearly into view. The mark is always floating round behind those islands somewhere and sailors frequently overshoot the mark. The teams who chose not to go through the channel last fridat, over-sailed the upwind mark and had to fall off to it, so the race was quickly split into 2 fleets. 

It is the islands, reeds and outcrops of land that make racing on this lake so much fun!

Racing in san franscico sounds like alot of fun. I read somewhere there is a fearsom tide on those waters.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

bobbylockes said:


> I think I can summize succinctly: The "sailnet racing commitee of this thread" could not reach a conclusion based on the facts presented.





> Assuming that the members of sailnet who read this thread in the racing forum are average sailors with average racing experience we may conclude that the racing rules fall short of their audience and do not serve the sport of sailing competition.


 That is not a reasonable assumption. There are some average sailors with average racing experience, but there are also some outstanding racing sailors here who have been racing 40 years or more, serving on race committees, studying the rules, writing published articles, and teaching others. Racers with that much experience are smart enough to know that there are two sides to every story, and we have only heard your side.



> I don't know of other sports where average amateur players of the sport cannot reach a conclusive verdict on a ruling. Racing rules have alot in common with the rules of the 21st century financial industry ie anything goes as long as you can get away with it.


 Are you serious? Even the most knowledgeable baseball afficionados can differ vehemently on whether any given pitch is in the strike zone, and it is easy to disagree with the exact placement of a football at the end of a down, even though a game can turn on that placement being established an inch either way.

Speaking as one who spent a career writing and rewriting laws, I can tell you that you can't solve every problem or right every wrong by writing a new law. You can't write a law or a rule so clearly that it cannot be perverted by someone who is willing to lie to circumvent it. In such case, the problem is not with the rule itself. The problem is with the integrity of the individual. The rules already contemplate that racers are intended to police themselves. That requires honor and integrity. Some folks have it and some do not. One of the greatest dangers with any rule is that someone might try to tinker with it who doesn't understand it. The racing rules have evolved through the efforts of not just average racers, but through the combined efforts of the smartest, most experienced racers in the world. IMO, the rules are not insufficiently clear in this case. What is insufficiently clear are the facts. Fair-minded people want to hear the explanations of both sides, and we haven't heard his side, except as filtered through you.

Based solely on what you told us, it appears that there's nothing wrong with the rules. The problem arose from a person who behaved badly and without integrity. It might have been exacerbated by a protest committee that was intimidated by the prospect of being haranged, demeaned and bullied by the same person. That isn't a problem that can be fixed by re-writing the rules. Diplomacy is needed to correct the problem over the long run, and you have received some good diplomatic advice already.

If you want to win a competition, or a battle, you have to be smart. Your persistence in blaming the rules and trying to change them isn't your route to victory.


----------



## MITBeta (May 13, 2011)

So why didn't you luff him up instead? Or tack and get out ahead of him? Or slow down, let him go by and tack under him?

I'm not saying you weren't right, but you still had a lot of options.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

I mentioned the racing rules are written by gentlemen for gentlemen to my girlfriend. "Gentleman?" she said, "you are racing in holland..." !!!

MITBEta,
I did try to luff up but he repeated that I should've fallen away. So I fell back to avoid a collision as it was clear he wasn't going to luff up with me. I could've slowed down by letting the jib off, I could've given way in that manner yes. But thats an option that I never thought of as I always fall away or tack in front. Slowing down is worse than falling away as it takes time to lose speed and alot of time to regain the speed (its a hevy boat) and also the rudder is less effective at lower speeds, which is potentially dangerous.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

svauspicious,

thanks for the balanced email. I suppose you are correct, the blue boat skippered simply abused his knowledge, experience in the protest room and standing in the club to successfully cheat and behave onthe psot like the judge, jury and executioner. There is no rule that exists that says I couldn't tack in the middle of the channel in order to give way. I was equal distance from reeds both sides of the channel as the witness confirmed. takcing was the lesser of 2 evils.

ultimately in amateur sport requires gentlemanly conduct. And thats what is missing in his boat. You are right rules can't enforce integrity. They can try but I suppose the rule book woul be as big as there are situation.

thanks.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

I'm astounded that anyone would suggest that you can't tack under someone and have all rights to luff up within two boat lengths. As described--and we only have your perspective--the other skipper was not only wrong but rude.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

luffing up is something the blue bost skipper has never done. He always comes out with the infamous excuse that he wasnt given enough time to luff up. as the rules dont stipulate a time he always gets the benefot of the doubt due to his knowedge of the rules.

I understand the rules such that the 2 boat lengths between boats during luffing up is irrelevant when sailing upwind. 2 boat lengths is only relevent when sailing correcct course downwind. but anyway when I started the tack I was clear ahead and he didnt acquire overlap by the time my boom was on starboard tack, which means I was clear ahead and had luffing rights. Upwind the correct course is sailing as close to the wind as you like as possible. However it's another vague gentlemanly aspect to the rule that the windward boat has enough time to luff up. A gentlemen has patience and takes his time obviously and that is the explanation the blue boat skipper uses when saying he doesnt have time to luff up.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

bobbylockes said:


> I understand the rules such that the 2 boat lengths between boats during luffing up is irrelevant when sailing upwind. 2 boat lengths is only relevent when sailing correcct course downwind.


Sorry - I wasn't clear.

My understanding is that if a burdened vessel changes course to become the stand-on vessel, the previously-burdened vessel needs to BE the stand-on vessel for two boat lengths before actually privileged.

My understanding could easily be dated as I race with pretty laid-back people and I haven't been in a protest room for a long time.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

Thats why I aborted the idea of luffing up, I give him the benefit of the doubt. I decided just concentrate on getting speed up, ready for a tack at the reeds. What bugs me the most is that if he'd have been in my position and I'd been in his position, I would've expected him to tack under, and like him I would not have protested. Yet unlike him I would've certainly have given room. And rightly so. 

He didn't just want the lead, he wanted to dominate. The arrogance bugs me as well as the unsportsman-like behaviour.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Which returns me to my original reaction. He was 1. rude and 2. wrong.


----------



## MITBeta (May 13, 2011)

SVAuspicious said:


> My understanding is that if a burdened vessel changes course to become the stand-on vessel, the previously-burdened vessel needs to BE the stand-on vessel for two boat lengths before actually privileged.


I don't think there's anything in the rules about boat lengths, but the privileged boat definitely needs to give the give way boat time to react when asserting that privilege. I was in a race a month or two ago where I was downwind of another boat on the downwind leg of the race, both of us on port tack. The boat upwind of me jibed, called "STARBOARD TACK" and immediately banged into me. In his defense, he apologized and claims the boat got away from him in the jibe, but the point is the same: he didn't give me time to react to his jibe. (No damage done, by the way...)


----------



## rgscpat (Aug 1, 2010)

I wonder: Might the other skipper's behavior improve if you had a GoPro or similar video camera on your boat? 

I do not understand the title "referee" although ISAF does have the very similar title of "International Umpire" along with international race officers, judges, and measurers. Holland has only one international umpire, but does have several international race officers and more than a dozen judges. National authorities such as the watersportverbond.nl can also appoint national, regional, or local race officials; I don't know how this is organized in Holland. Jos Spijkerman's rrsstudy blog at blogspot.com might be a good place to find out what is the actual status is of the person on the other boat.


----------



## svzephyr44 (Jun 26, 2000)

Just as a aside I find Racing Rules of Sailing - Look to Windward a great site for racing rules discussions


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

This rules discussion is intriguing for its lack of reference to any actual rules. What rule requires a boat to duck another, instead of tacking below them? This is apparently the rule that the "committee" is using to penalize Red, the Original Poster, advising him that he should not have tacked below Blue, but should have ducked him mid-channel. When Blue reaches out to leeward and pushes Red into the reeds, (even while Red is calling for obstruction room) isn't that a breech of rule 11? No one seems to be following (or mentioning) the actual rules here very much. 

Based on the original post, it would appear that Red is entitled to obstruction room under rule 19.2.b: Red, to leeward of Blue, was almost touching the reeds. (Please note these are reeds - indicating unnavigable areas and thus an obstruction, not weeds like seaweed that grow in deep water which would be an annoyance, but not necessarily an obstruction. Some posters appear to be confused about this.) Did Blue not have steerage, and was therefore unable to provide room? In any case, rule 20 comes into play. Rule 20 says you have to hail for room, which Red did. Red then has to give Blue time to respond. (rule 20.1(b)). It seems Red did give Blue time to respond. Blue's response seems to have been to push Red into the obstruction. As mentioned above, this is a breech of rule 11. After being hailed, rule 20.1(b) requires Blue to either tack herself as soon as possible (to get out of the way) or to tell Red to tack and then stay out of Red's way. After Blue responds, Red has to tack as soon as possible (rule 20.1(c). If Blue doesn't respond quickly enough, rule 20.2 exonerates Red if she "breaks a rule of section A, or rule 15 or 16." This means that Red, coming up to an obstruction, can essentially hail for room and after waiting (a reasonable period, eh?) for a response, tack to avoid the obstruction, regardless of where Blue happens to be.
Red is entitled to avoid the obstruction, and can tack. If she is "tacking too close" - that is a Right of Way rule (rules 10, 11, 12, & 13) from Section A, and Red is exonerated; there is no penalty on Red. Rule 15 does not apply here, since Red was tacking onto Port. Rule 20.2 says that Red does not have to worry about giving Blue room to keep clear (rule 16) either; Red is exonerated because of her need to tack due to the obstruction. If Red HITS Blue when tacking to avoid the obstruction, rule 14 states that Red SHALL NOT be penalized unless there is contact that causes damage or injury. The light conditions suggest no damage, and the only injury appears to have been to Blue's pride. 
All this makes me think that the rules may have changed a good deal since Blue sat on an actual Protest Committee. What was the actual outcome of the protest? The posts state that Red "shouldn't have tacked" mid-channel. Was he scored DSQ? Was the protest disallowed? Did the gentlemen sweep it under the rug with tacit nods & wags? What appears to be happening does not seem to be paying any attention to the rules. Read rules 2 and 69. I know of sailors who have been tossed from a series for swearing at fellow competitors. Ben Ainslie is a good example of what should happen when you lay hands on another's boat.


----------



## bobbylockes (Dec 20, 2010)

The jury did nothing. Blue wasn't disqualified and I never went back. It was the last race I sailed with them.


----------



## Peter06420 (May 14, 2006)

The best strategy would have been to duck if you couldn't cross. that would hav put him at the disadvantage at the next cross.

But, if you tacked & got down to close hauled _course_ while the other boat was clear astern, (providing, of course that you allowed him the opportunity to keep clear - e.g. your track was to leeward of his, not right on his bow) then you had the right to luff him up (again, allowing him the opportunity to keep clear)

If you hail for room to tack, the other boat has 2 options; tack immediately or respond "You Tack!" & give you room. Failing to do either is a foul and warrants DSQ.

It has nothing to do with your previous tack into a lee-bow or clear-ahead position. the protest is about rules, not good or bad strategy. You had every right to tack in mid-channel as long as he could keep clear and you don't foul him before getting down to close-hauled.

However if you tacked and _immediately had to hail for room to tack, well, that _is_ questionable and risky. However, I know of no rule that says how long you have to be on that tack to qualify for room to tack.

Assuming he was windward or astern, His putting hands on your boat was a subsequent foul and also warrants DSQ - or taking turns.


----------

