Trapezing and Windward Boat

Originally posted by Brass   I'ts an artifact of the RRS that they only contemplate boats rotating around the yaw axis (changing course). A boat that rotates radically around the roll axis, doesn't get an obligation to give room to keep clear. That's just the way it is. And there is no 'if reasonably possible' in the right of way rules. In the case of a boat capsizing 'under your nose', and you hit it: * it might not be reasonably possible for your to avoid contact, so you do not break rule 14, but * If you hit her before the masthead is in the water, you break rule 12, boat clear astern keep clear, * if you hit here after her masthead is in the water, then 'reasonably possible' kicks in via rule 22. The rules don't look at 'the point where she losses control', which would be endlessly disputable, but at the much clearer point where 'her masthead is in the water'. In either case where boats are on the same tack and overlapped or not, the boat clear ahead, or overlapped to leeward is the right of way boat and is an obstruction, all the time.

Originally posted by sargesail I disagree that Case 107 is relevant. In that case the boats were always there and closing. On the start line L checks and sees Clear Astern. When they commit to go on the wire CA has become windward. How would you find if L projected on the wire, made contact with the jib of W and was then injured by W’s shroud?

I disagree with your disagreement <g>.

Case 107 says very clearly that everybody, including right of way boats must keep a good lookout.

I think that What your are arguing about is what constitutes a 'good lookout'.

I've previously said that this means 'seeing what's there to be seen'.

As you now pose the problem, L has seen W, before the contact, judged that it is possible to hike out without contact, and committed to do so, and then finds that it's not reasonably possible to 'unhike' or bear away in time.

You've almost got me convinced.

I'm mindful of JimC's wise advice

There's danger of too much logic chopping here

However,

While rule 14, very pointedly, avoids avoids addressing who hit whom, it is sometimes useeful to identify a 'hitter' and a 'hitee'.

The picture I've had in mind up to now, is that L's crew extends on trap and in the act of extending, touches W. That is, L moves towards W and contact occurs. In that case, arguably, it is reasonably possible for L to have avoided contact simply by not extending [any further].

An alternative picture is that L's crew is fully or partially extended, and W accelerates or decelerates and by that change in motion, touches L's crew. In that case, I would agree that it was not reasonably possible for L, once her crew had reached that position, to avoid contact.

Lastly, if there's any injury or damage, exoneration goes out the window.

I always enjoy the rules threads, I even read the book, I know a bit weird   (I have a collection of Cricket rules books, from the 1800's to today), think a lot of it can be dropped for club handicap racing.

Originally posted by ohFFsake I guess this swings on whether a capsizing boat is "sailing her course"? Taking it to the next logical step, if a boat unexpectedly capsizes in front of you then you would surely not expect to be penalised for failing to avoid her if you were unable to do so. So in this case could it perhaps be argued that at the point the leeward boat loses control she switches from being ROW boat (rule 11) to becoming an obstruction, which establishes a new obligation on W and with it the defence that she did not have room to avoid? Also seems unlikely that L would drop a mainsheet and capsize without changing course, which again gives W a valid defence?

Originally posted by Mozzy Originally posted by 423zero You are talking a sizeable space to allow for L boat to be able to capsize without touching W, seems to be a gamble by W on a crowded start line, perhaps RO should call any  boats that are to close ? It's an interesting one, not sure who sailed in to the start line gap. But more often than not it is the leeward boat that sails in from astern and close to the windward boat, to then give them maximum space to bear off and accelerate. I wasn't involved in the incident, only had it told to me second hand. The contact happened shortly after the start. I wonder if the windward boat ever had opportunity to get more than a mast length to windward before the leeward boat capsized.  I also forgot, I think the windward boat, whose sail was torn, also got DND as damage was caused in the collision. So instead of getting redress they expected, they ended up with a DND and  RTD.

I guess this swings on whether a capsizing boat is "sailing her course"?
Taking it to the next logical step, if a boat unexpectedly capsizes in front of you then you would surely not expect to be penalised for failing to avoid her if you were unable to do so.

So in this case could it perhaps be argued that at the point the leeward boat loses control she switches from being ROW boat (rule 11) to becoming an obstruction, which establishes a new obligation on W and with it the defence that she did not have room to avoid?

Also seems unlikely that L would drop a mainsheet and capsize without changing course, which again gives W a valid defence?