SailGP Final Aarus

It looks like a messy rule set. 18.3b applies tp an inside boat with ROW, but in this case the inside boat didn't have ROW!

As already noted, none of rule 18.3b applies to this case.

As is so often the case, to interpret the rules requires careful consideration of the definitions, which are also in the document I linked.

We can be clear that JPN was entitled to Mark Room as they entered the 45m circle first.

From video it appears that the SailGP boats need about two boat lengths from starting to turn to completing the tack. JPN were approaching tight to the mark, so couldn't start turning until past the mark. I think there probably was room to tack, but not enough to be called ample. Bearing in mind the catastrophic consequences of collision it wasn't unreasonable for JPN to consider it unsafe to try a tack, or unreasonable for the Umpire to agree. It certainly wasn't a foul under standard RRS, but that's the problem with changing the rules. These rules give a big advantage to a port tack inside boat. I wonder if it was intended?

Originally posted by ohFFsake That's an interesting bit of lateral thinking, but surely any rights for room at the other mark would only kick in when JPN enters the zone belonging to that mark?

The trouble with ditching the entire rule book is that you've ditched the entire rule book. So none of the case book applies. Nevertheless maybe the principles do.
Case 50 says "When a protest committee finds that in a port-starboard incident S did not change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the committee finds that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P should be disqualified. "
So if you consider the general principle might apply then do we end up with "was there a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of JPN?" Especially when considering the time available for a decision and the closing speed.
I submit that its possible to consider that tacking into that gap at that speed would have been a risky manouver, and that risky manouvers at that sort of closing speed should not be attempted in those boats. If that was the belief of the umpires then I suggest their call, even though marginal was, if not definitively correct, at least defensible.



Edited by JimC - 24 Aug 21 at 3:30pm