Rules Question: Rule 13 Protest

laserxd

laserxd

Member
In one of the races today I was close hauled on starboard tack on the first upwind leg, a port tacker was approaching, I yelled "starboard" since it didn't look like he was paying any attention, he decided to keep sailing on port and try to tack in front of me and in doing so I was forced to either alter course or make contact, I chose to alter course (head to wind) and avoid making contact since its not bumper boats. I didn't alter course until I was sure that there would be contact, about 2" or less. I thought there would be no question he broke Rule 13. I lost all of my speed by luffing up head to wind and many positions in the race.

The protest comitee said that because he may have passed head to wind (even though I had to avoid him at this time) he aquired the right of way and since I was able to keep clear (just barely) they ruled in his favor.

What is the correct ruling in this situation?
 
I'm not an expert, but Rule 13 says that after a boat passes head to wind (while tacking) she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course. So a port tack boat that tacks in front of a starboard boat doesn't acquire right of way until she is on a close-hauled course on starboard tack. Rule 15 then comes into play which says that when a boat acquires right of way she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear.

So if the protest committee ruled against you because they said that the other boat acquired right of way over you when she passed head to wind, they were wrong.

If you can convince the protest committee that they have made a significant error, they should reopen the hearing under Rule 66, but you have to ask for a reopening within 24 hours of being informed of the decision.

Failing that you could appeal to your national authority under Rule 70.
 
From an "educational perspective", if you feel that you are right and the port tack boat was wrong then, given the protest committee found in port tackers favour, then do re-open the hearing as, the port tacker will be under the impression they did nothing wrong and will keep doing it again and again and when a protest committee finds against them, they will still think they are right, etc. (Not that it is everybody's job to educate "the world" - but where before the hearing port tacker might have been concerned, they now feel their action was correct within the rules and are probably not feeling "relieved at getting away with it" but that they now know the rules better and now know their rights better).

Also, I assume they dismissed the case rather than "found in port tackers favour".

One thing to watch in your case is that almost by definition you did have room and opportunity to keep clear - because you did. Thus, your case must presumably depend on when the port tacker boat tacked and when it acquired right of way.

Ian
 
Also note that a lot of protest committees until you get to the upper levels, have very little knowledge of the rules. There are a lot of well meaning people, but in reality they have little knowledge in how the rules work.
 
The fact found by the protest committee in the case above were:
1/ The port tacker completed his tack and was sailing on starboard tack (i.e. based on the evidence the committee found that the tack was completed NOT just that the boat had passed via head to wind)
2/ At that point the starboard tack boat decided that he would have to alter course to avoid hitting the boat ahead.
3/ The starboard tack boat successfully altered course and avoided hitting the old port tacker

Hence overall the boat tacking had completed his tack and also gave the starboard tack boat enough room to keep clear without a collision
 
Hey Mike, thanks for hearing the protest

I think the problem was probably the way I presented my case and not with the protest commitee's descision.

I was under the impression that even when the tacking boat has completed her tack she is not necessarily in the clear. She mustn't tack into a right of way position (for example clear ahead) If the other boat cannot keep clear without having to anticipate that she'll be there. So if the other boat cannot keep clear withouot having to begin to change course starting from the moment the tacking boat is on a close-hauled course, the tacking boat has broken (rule 15). I thought that he had broken rule 13 or 15 by doing so.
 
laserxd said:
So if the other boat cannot keep clear withouot having to begin to change course starting from the moment the tacking boat is on a close-hauled course, the tacking boat has broken (rule 15).
Click to expand...

Laserxd, I think you are misunderstanding Rule 15 here. Once the tacking boat is on a close-hauled course, it is the right of way boat and if you need to change course immediately to avoid collision than you must do so. Rule 15 only says that the right of way boat must initially give you room to keep clear. If you avoided a collision by changing course starting from the moment the tacking boat was on a close-hauled course then, by definition, the other boat has complied with Rule 15.

Based on the facts found as presented by Mike M, the protest committee made the correct decision. In your initial post here, laserxd, you didn't say that the tacking boat was on a close-hauled course before you needed to alter course. That's a crucial fact that changes who is at fault here. If you actually needed to take avoiding action earlier then you needed to convince the protest committee of that fact to win the protest. Apparently they were not so convinced.
 
I have had a few experiences where a protest committee has come to the "wrong conclusion" or just made a "bad decision". The "wrong conclusion" is invariably due to the evidence available which for more minor incidents is normally one person's word against another. Quite possibly in the incident here the port tacker started his tack, focusing on completing the tack and when he looked round "all was well" as he was on course (beating) you had taken avoiding action, no contact, etc. The exact timing is probably unknown to him so in a protest hearing he is starting from the "all was well" position (no lies, nothing nasty happening). It comes down to fractions of a second as to when he was truly beating and no longer tacking.

Similarly, "bad decisions" I have experienced were when the committee did not have adequate evidence to make a proper decision. I remember a good example where there had been damage done so some decision was necessary (i.e. it could not all be dismissed). Accounts of the situation conflicted. Damaged party eventually hauled in a witness who contradicted their own story regarding the build-up to the incident (i.e. stated that other boat was not flying a spinnaker as damaged boat had claimed) but was rounding outside both protesting boats so did not see the incident. Committee had to take action but felt it had insufficient evidence to identify who was in the wrong - so they penalised both boats !! How does one decide when A says it happened just so and B says "oh no it didn't". They cannot easily base a decision on "person A looked more reliable" or "damaged boat skipper looked shifty". In fairness to protest committees, they do rely on sportsmanlike behaviour. I guess the easiest hearings are when the facts of the incident are not disputed and it comes down to interpretation of the rules.

Ian
 
If that animiation is semi-close to what happened, then your presentation during the hearing must not have been clear.

Your animation shows a port/starboard situation....
 

Attachments

  • Snap1.jpg
    Snap1.jpg
    9.9 KB · Views: 31
I guess we should disregard the sketch/video.

To me, the crucial piece of info that I haven't seen is whether you had to change course prior to the other boat completing the tack. If so, your protest, if presented properly, should have been allowed. However, if the other Laser completed the tack and then you had to change course, my understanding is that your protest should have been disallowed.

If the evidence, as summarized by Mike M is factual, then the proper decision was reached, it seems to me.

Comments?
 
Wavedancer said:
I guess we should disregard the sketch/video.
Click to expand...

Yes, based on the facts found, but if laserxd is convinced his animation is correct (not saying it is and it doesn't seem to match his written description that started the thread), then he will need to determine where he went astray presenting his case.

I didn't stick around for the hearing, but a couple comments on how protests are handled at CPYC frostbiting - first, the protest committee are fellow Laser sailors that were out racing during the day - the usual method is to shanghai the top 3 finishers in the first race, unless one of them was involved or a witness to the incident (IMHO, it's no co-incidence that they usually aren't (read between the lines))
Also, the hearings and jury deliberations are open to everyone so all can listen in and learn.
 
The problem was that I made a big deal about having to alter course but didn't do a good job of showing the situation. Based on that the commitee made the right decision by dismissing the protest. I made the animation to show how I remember the actual event happening on the water. Its my own fault for not making a clear case, I was pretty out of it, tired, dehydrated and having a splitting headache at the time of the hearing and that didn't help.

Thanks everyone for your input
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top