Anchor Ball

[prv]

Does anyone on here think it is a bit pretentious to show one sometimes ?

I can sort of see where you're coming from, though I like to do things correctly regardless. However, in my case the question is answered for me, because the ball is attached to my anchor light and I wouldn't dream of not showing the light at night. So when the anchor is down the ball and light go up, and when it gets dark the light automatically switches on.

Pete

 

[trapezeartist]

You mean that 'fishing' boat with his shapes welded in place and doing 20kts back towards harbour is actually supposed to be fishing and the 'dive' boat doing the same with his fixed painted wooden 'A' flag actually must have divers under it, I hope they have crash hats on.:disgust:

No. I think that just means they aren't complying with colregs. But just because some people do it wrong is no reason for the rest of us not to do it right.

Is it true (as some posts seem to imply) that you don't need an anchor ball/light when "moored"? I recently had cause to pass through some moorings in pitch darkness, with a hefty tide running through as well. The anchor lights on some boats were a great help, while the absence of lights on others gave us a couple of hairy moments despite us using a powerful torch.

 

[l'escargot]

You mean that 'fishing' boat with his shapes welded in place and doing 20kts back towards harbour is actually supposed to be fishing and the 'dive' boat doing the same with his fixed painted wooden 'A' flag actually must have divers under it, I hope they have crash hats on.:disgust:

Yes, to comply with ColRegs they are supposed to only display those shapes and flags whilst engaged in those activities but I know many disregard the rules. It doesn't make it right though or mean that the practice is acceptable, especially if they expect different treatment because they are displaying them incorrectly.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I don't think that and haven't said that anywhere, I am working on the assumption that people display the correct shape to their vessel or situation.

And if they don't? Which do you think counts - what they are showing or what they are (or are doing)?

And you are under weigh before you get under way - you can weigh your anchor before making way - and under weigh is a common place alternative spelling to under way just as gaol is a common place alternative spelling to jail. Neither is wrong.

Nope, sorry. Weigh and way are two different words which sound the same. Homonyms, we call 'em.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Again I have not claimed a vessel gets the rights and responsibilities "...even if these are wrong". You introduced that concept not me. It would be ridiculous to suggest that a yellow flashing light on a small sailing vessel turns it into a hovercraft and the only person to suggest that is you...

Or, as you previously wrote

Lots of places. A motor cone places on you the obligations of a motor boat and not a sailing boat, an anchor ball places an obligation on everyone else to avoid colliding with you...

If a motoring cone places on me the obligations of a motor boat, and an anchor ball places an obligation on everyone else to avoid colliding with me, why shouldn't a flashing yellow light confer upon me the rights and privileges of a hovercraft?

Or, to put it another way (note spelling), if a flashing yellow light does not confer upon me the rights and privileges of a hovercraft, why should an anchor ball alone give me the privileges of an anchored craft or a motoring one give me the responsibilities of a motor boat?

Or, to put it another way, which rules says that give way / stand on is determined by lights or shapes and not by type of craft or activities?

 

[l'escargot]

Or, as you previously wrote



If a motoring cone places on me the obligations of a motor boat, and an anchor ball places an obligation on everyone else to avoid colliding with me, why shouldn't a flashing yellow light confer upon me the rights and privileges of a hovercraft?

Or, to put it another way (note spelling), if a flashing yellow light does not confer upon me the rights and privileges of a hovercraft, why should an anchor ball alone give me the privileges of an anchored craft or a motoring one give me the responsibilities of a motor boat?

Or, to put it another way, which rules says that give way / stand on is determined by lights or shapes and not by type of craft or activities?

You are starting to muddle obligations with rights and privileges.

As I said, I was working on the assumption that you were displaying the correct shape/signal in accordance with the rules and you have an obligation to do that. If you choose to ignore the rules I can't do much about it other than try to avoid you if you are stupid enough to put up the wrong one and expect to be treated accordingly.

The expectation of the rules is that the signal is in accordance with the type of craft or activity.

 

[l'escargot]

And if they don't? Which do you think counts - what they are showing or what they are (or are doing)?

In the absence of any other information I have to treat them as they are signalling until Rule 2 comes into play to avoid a collision.

For instance if I see a stationary boat with an anchor ball up, I should consider it to be anchored and go round it. If the situation changes and it suddenly starts to motor towards me and is not anchored, I should avoid it as it is clearly displaying the wrong signal. Rather obvious really I would've thought.

...Weigh and way are two different words which sound the same. Homonyms, we call 'em.

and "under weigh" and "under way" are alternative spellings of the same phrase... Miriam-Webster is a recognised dictionary, see here : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/under weigh and there are many others. Perhaps you should write and tell them all they don't know what they are talking about, you're right and they're wrong. Actually you are starting to come over a bit like that chap in your link from a few posts back...

 

[JumbleDuck]

As I said, I was working on the assumption that you were displaying the correct shape/signal in accordance with the rules and you have an obligation to do that. If you choose to ignore the rules I can't do much about it other than try to avoid you if you are stupid enough to put up the wrong one and expect to be treated accordingly.

The expectation of the rules is that the signal is in accordance with the type of craft or activity.

You said that it was showing the signal which gives the rights. Can you back that up with evidence or not, please?

 

[JumbleDuck]

In the absence of any other information I have to treat them as they are signalling until Rule 2 comes into play to avoid a collision.

Says which rule?

For instance if I see a stationary boat with an anchor ball up, I should consider it to be anchored and go round it. If the situation changes and it suddenly starts to motor towards me and is not anchored, I should avoid it as it is clearly displaying the wrong signal. Rather obvious really I would've thought.

But you wrote "an anchor ball places an obligation on everyone else to avoid colliding with you..."

 

[l'escargot]

You said that it was showing the signal which gives the rights. Can you back that up with evidence or not, please?

No, I have said it places obligations on you. You have introduced rights and taken things out of context/changed contexts. I can't back up your statements and hypothetical constructs with evidence and have no desire to, I am afraid you will have to tilt a windmills alone...

 

[l'escargot]

Says which rule?

But you wrote "an anchor ball places an obligation on everyone else to avoid colliding with you..."

You're just being silly now, the whole of ColRegs is about avoiding collisions, the clue is in the name, and I don't think you could justify colliding with an anchored boat because there is no rule that specifically says "you must not collide with anchored boats" or "all vessels must give way to anchored boats".

If you like, how about I change the wording to "vessels under weigh have an obligation to avoid colliding with anchored boats" or "boats under weigh shall give way to anchored boats" - are the semantics (if not the spelling) easier for you to accept?

Now before you ask, no I cannot point to a specific rule that says either of those things but I think any reasonable person can accept that it is certainly inferred by the rules. I would be interested to see any argument that you put forward to say that it isn't and that it would be defensible to collide with anchored boats or that an anchored boat is the give way vessel in the absence of a specific rule to the contrary...

 

[alan_d]

and "under weigh" and "under way" are alternative spellings of the same phrase... Miriam-Webster is a recognised dictionary, see here : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/under weigh and there are many others.

The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea agrees with you, albeit reluctantly, " ... under weigh being a modern spelling distortion of the older term."

A recent BBC news item reported a vessel travelling at so many "knots per hour". How often will this have to happen for the usage to become accepted as correct?

 

[prv]

You're just being silly now, the whole of ColRegs is about avoiding collisions, the clue is in the name, and I don't think you could justify colliding with an anchored boat because there is no rule that specifically says "you must not collide with anchored boats" or "all vessels must give way to anchored boats".

But JD didn't write "anchored boats", he wrote "boats displaying an anchor ball". The whole thrust of this rather silly argument you two are having is that those two things are not the same.

Rather embarrassingly, I once motored right up the Portsmouth entrance channel while displaying an anchor ball...

Pete

 

[l'escargot]

The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea agrees with you, albeit reluctantly, " ... under weigh being a modern spelling distortion of the older term."

A recent BBC news item reported a vessel travelling at so many "knots per hour". How often will this have to happen for the usage to become accepted as correct?

I don't think the two examples are really comparable - one is an alternative spelling of a word with no right or wrong, which is not unusual in the English language; the other is the wrong definition of a unit of speed probably just ignorance on the part of a journalist.

 

[l'escargot]

But JD didn't write "anchored boats", he wrote "boats displaying an anchor ball". The whole thrust of this rather silly argument you two are having is that those two things are not the same.

Rather embarrassingly, I once motored right up the Portsmouth entrance channel while displaying an anchor ball...

Pete

No he didn't, nor did I say he did. I have said several times that my assumption is that a boat displaying an anchor ball is actually anchored, he chooses to ignore that. But yes it is rather a silly argument and I have in fact pointed it out, but he seems to be enjoying it...

I motored half way across Osborne Bay with mine the other week, but probably like you I didn't think it gave me any rights related to being anchored at the time

Edit

I do think though that there is an equal obligation not to collide with "anchored boats" and "boats displaying an anchor ball" even if they aren't the same...

 

[Daydream believer]

You said that it was showing the signal which gives the rights. Can you back that up with evidence or not, please?

There is the case of an italian motorboat that rammed a yacht & killed a crew member
The mobo escaped prosecution as the yacht was motoring & did not display a motoring cone

 

[snowleopard]

I recall being anchored at East Head many years ago when the CH guys collecting harbour dues were giving a b*llocking to anyone not showing a ball.

I also recall the story of a guy in a small boat anchored in Portsmouth harbour, displaying the correct ball, who was mown down by a Hooray Henry in a yacht, resulting in his anchor cable being severed. The yottie just yelled 'power gives way to sail'. The ball gives you the right not to be run down but doesn't make you idiot proof.

 

[Catamaran]

I have never known a forum for like-minded people, where there are so many petty and pointless pi$$ing contests/arguments.

 

[LadyInBed]

Just to throw in my 2d's worth.
I thought Col Regs were written from the point of view of what YOU should do, not from IMPOSING obligations on others.
ie. YOU put your anchor down, YOU put up your ball.
YOU see another boat floating around on the water YOU make every effort not to hit it.

I may be wrong, I often am!

 

[l'escargot]

Just to throw in my 2d's worth.
I thought Col Regs were written from the point of view of what YOU should do, not from IMPOSING obligations on others.
ie. YOU put your anchor down, YOU put up your ball.
YOU see another boat floating around on the water YOU make every effort not to hit it.

I may be wrong, I often am!

I think you're right, but it always involves at least two people to avoid a collision, there is another YOU who has obligations interlinked with your obligations - a sailing boat has an obligation to display a cone when motoring, you have an obligation treat it as a motor boat.

Edit

**I suppose I should qualify that for the sake of accuracy before it is misunderstood and "used against me", I actually meant "..a vessel that is sailing and motoring" as in: "A vessel proceeding under sail when also being propelled by machinery...".