New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Trapezing and Windward Boat
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Trapezing and Windward Boat
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
jcooper View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 16 Dec 15
Location: Hampshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20 		Post Options Post Options   Quote jcooper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Trapezing and Windward Boat
    Posted: 28 Mar 22 at 8:03pm
How do the rules see the following situation: Two boats are close together on start line,  both on starboard.

The gun goes,  the crew of leeward boat goes out on the trapeze and comes into contact with windward boat.....probably sails or rigging. 

Is the windward boat simply in the wrong under rule 11 or does the leeward have some responsibilities under rule 14?   

I'm assuming that rule 16 has no bearing here as the leeward boat has not changed course, even though the space it needs has suddenly increased significantly.

The implication of rule 11 seems to be that if you are starting to windward of a trapeze boat you had better allow room for the trapezing!  (We all try leave that distance above a leeward boat at the start, but don't always manage it).
Back to Top
GML View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 24 Jul 11
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 94 		Post Options Post Options   Quote GML Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Mar 22 at 8:35pm
The leeward boat does have responsibilities under RRS14, and indeed has broken RRS14, but provided that the contact did not cause damage or injury she is exonerated under RRS43.1(c).

And as you say, provided that the leeward boat did not change course then RRS16.1 does not apply, but boats often do change course at the start, and if the leeward boat luffed as well as the crew going out on the trapeze then potentially she may have broken RRS16.1.


Edited by GML - 28 Mar 22 at 8:38pm
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6644 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Mar 22 at 9:34pm
The twin cases 73 and 74 are highly relevant to this.

CASE 73
Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
When, by deliberate action, L’s crew reaches out and touches W, which action could have no other intention than to cause W to break rule 11, then L breaks rule 2.

Facts
W and L were overlapped on starboard tack beating towards the windward mark. The crew of L, who was on a trapeze, reached out and deliberately touched W’s deck with a hand and hailed that W should retire. L protested W. The protest committee disqualified W under rule 11 and she appealed.

Decision
W’s appeal is upheld and she is reinstated. Because L could sail her course
with no need to take avoiding action and there was no risk of immediate
contact had L changed course in either direction, W was keeping clear of L. Therefore, W did not break rule 11. The deliberate action of L’s crew, which could have had no other intention than to disqualify W, broke rule 2. L is penalized for breaking rule 2, and therefore her score is changed to ‘Disqualification that is not excludable’.


CASE 74
Rule 2, Fair Sailing
Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped

There is no rule that dictates how the helmsman or crew of a leeward boat must sit. Contact with a windward boat does not break rule 2 unless the helmsman’s or crew’s position is deliberately misused.

Facts
W was overtaking L in sub-planing conditions on a close reach. L luffed slightly, the helmsman’s back making contact with W just forward of the shroud. At this point the hulls were about an arm’s length apart. Neither boat took a penalty. W protested L under rule 2. The protest committee penalized L under rule 2, stating that W was correctly trimmed with full sails and her crew sitting by the leeward shroud. ‘Contact’, it continued, ‘could only have been made if L’s helmsman was sitting out flat. In the prevailing conditions this was significantly beyond the normal sailing position required.’ L appealed.

Decision
L’s appeal is upheld; she is reinstated and W disqualified under rule 11. In Case 73 it is clear that L’s crew deliberately touched W with the intention of protesting her out of the race. In this case there was no such deliberate action by L. There is no rule that dictates how a helmsman or crew must sit and, in the absence of deliberate misuse of his positioning, no breach of rule 2 took place.


It seems to me that if the crew of Leeward cannot get on the trapeze without making contact then Windward has already broken RRS 11. And Case 74 suggests to me that if the trapeze crew accidentally makes contact then they have not broken a rule. Its interesting that the Case book doesn't mention Rule 14.

Edited by JimC - 28 Mar 22 at 9:40pm
Back to Top
GML View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 24 Jul 11
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 94 		Post Options Post Options   Quote GML Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 22 at 6:20pm
The Case Book generally only mentions RRS14 if that is what the case is specifically about, so I wouldn't read anything into its omission from Case 74.


As regards RRS14 - accidental contact is still contact, and if it would still have been reasonably possible to avoid that contact even if the leeward boat did not take action to avoid it until it was clear that the windward boat was not keeping clear then the leeward boat has broken RRS14. But as per my earlier post, if there is no damage or injury then as right-of-way boat she is exonerated for breaking RRS14 under RRS43.1(c). Being exonerated for breaking a rule doesn't mean the rule hasn't been broken, it just means that the boat doesn't have to take a penalty and can't be penalised for breaking the rule (see RRS43.2).
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 22 at 9:18pm
Originally posted by JimC

It seems to me that if the crew of Leeward cannot get on the trapeze without making contact then Windward has already broken RRS 11.

Referring to the definition of Keep Clear, exactly how do you make that out?



Originally posted by JimC

And Case 74 suggests to me that if the trapeze crew accidentally makes contact then they have not broken a rule. Its interesting that the Case book doesn't mention Rule 14.


I agree with GML

Originally posted by GML

As regards RRS14 - accidental contact is still contact.


there was contact. That contact could reasonably have been avoided by the crew of L not touching W.

Case 74 was originally published in 1971, when the no contact rule was much softer than it is now. I think that's the reason why it omits rule 14, which, as GML describes, in the example, inevitably gains exoneration.
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 22 at 9:19pm
Originally posted by GML

The Case Book generally only mentions RRS14 if that is what the case is specifically about,


Are you sure about that?

Have you checked in detail?

I haven't, but it doesn't ring true to me: the Cases usually reference every rule applicable to an incident, even if it is not determinative of the incident.
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6644 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 22 at 8:23am
Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by JimC

It seems to me that if the crew of Leeward cannot get on the trapeze without making contact then Windward has already broken RRS 11.

Referring to the definition of Keep Clear, exactly how do you make that out?

The crew is entitled to get out on the wire, yes? And if they get partially out on the wire so they are 1/4 inch short of touching windward then surely the condition "can change course in both directions without immediately making contact" is not met.

The alternative would seem to be that the leeward ROW boat is prevented from sailing her course in her desired manner by the windward give way boat, which seems perverse. It would require the ROW boat to change course to leeward in order to have enough space for the crew to get on the wire.

Its well established that Give Way does not need to anticipate gear being moved out of its normal position. But in this case the crew is moving into normal position. Does that have implications?
Back to Top
The Q View Drop Down
Posting king
Posting king


Joined: 07 Feb 22
Location: Norfolk Broads
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 116 		Post Options Post Options   Quote The Q Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 22 at 12:21pm
Doesn't the leeward boat have to give time to manoeuver? 
Still sailing in circles
Back to Top
PeterG View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 12 Jan 08
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818 		Post Options Post Options   Quote PeterG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 22 at 2:59pm
That's my view - 16.1

Interesting in terms of interpretation if the crew goes out on the wire while holding a steady course, but in the majority of cases on the start line there is going to be a change of course too as they harden up.

A slightly different case is a leeward boat on a steady course in variable wind. It's harder to see 16.1 applying there.
Peter
Ex Cont 707
Ex Laser 189635
DY 59
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1458 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 22 at 4:43pm
Let’s follow that logic train….a leeward boat on a steady course in variable wind doesn’t break 16.1 by extending on the trapeze and making contact.

Let’s imagine that the same conditions apply on the start line…..if we accept the logic above them Leeward didn’t break 16.1.

Now on a normal start the wind doesn’t change but there is a need to accelerate the boat. So leeward sheets on and as a consequence the crew must project more. I don’t see how this is any different from the first case I mention.

Furthermore imagine we’re not in a trapeze boat but hiking…..as I switch from leaning in to perched my lower back makes contact with windward’s jib. Did I break 16.1 - nope…..windward was within 10 inches, less than the distance I might reasonably sit out….I didn’t break 16.1.

Same applies if windward is within my trapeze distance then it’s not keeping clear. I don’t break 16.1
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy