When the windward mark rounding goes a bit wrong....

[lpdsn]

So I'm pretty sure that 4 does not in fact break a rule.

I am too. Shooting a mark is within the definition of proper course. Once they tack onto port they don't foul anyone and manage to keep clear and get around the mark.

For clarity, I count boat no. 1 as the one leaving bottom left with spinnaker up early on in the video. I hope they were conforming to rule 55 and not using elastic bands for the hoist.

No.2 was also fine to attempt to shoot the windward mark. They clearly misjudged it probably because of the chop, but were clear to tack onto port (call them lucky). They were established on port tack before the incident with no.3 started to occur. After that I think they would successfully claim they were fouled by boat 3 (which hadn't completed their tack and anyway didn't give them room to keep clear - remember you are not required to anticipate) and did their best to avoid damage under rule 14.

Boat 3 really messed up their tack. Wrong decision. Even if they hadn't panicked and aborted it they wouldn't have come down to a close hauled course on starboard in time to give time and room to boat 2. To avoid fouling they had no option but to be carried off away from the mark on port by boat no. 2 until they could find space to tack or gybe or no. 2 tacked. Annoying when it happens, but...

Boat no 5 I think would claim (again successfully) that he tried to keep clear under rule 14 but was unable to do so. I suspect the helm panicked a bit and ducking the problem would've been better but it was a split second decision. Boat no. 4 was also to leeward of him so that limited that option.

I suspect in general the boats misjudged the effect of the seas so misjudged the layline.

 

[lw395]

I am too. Shooting a mark is within the definition of proper course. Once they tack onto port they don't foul anyone and manage to keep clear and get around the mark.

For clarity, I count boat no. 1 as the one leaving bottom left with spinnaker up early on in the video. I hope they were conforming to rule 55 and not using elastic bands for the hoist.

No.2 was also fine to attempt to shoot the windward mark. They clearly misjudged it probably because of the chop, but were clear to tack onto port (call them lucky). They were established on port tack before the incident with no.3 started to occur. After that I think they would successfully claim they were fouled by boat 3 (which hadn't completed their tack and anyway didn't give them room to keep clear - remember you are not required to anticipate) and did their best to avoid damage under rule 14.

Boat 3 really messed up their tack. Wrong decision. Even if they hadn't panicked and aborted it they wouldn't have come down to a close hauled course on starboard in time to give time and room to boat 2. To avoid fouling they had no option but to be carried off away from the mark on port by boat no. 2 until they could find space to tack or gybe or no. 2 tacked. Annoying when it happens, but...

Boat no 5 I think would claim (again successfully) that he tried to keep clear under rule 14 but was unable to do so. I suspect the helm panicked a bit and ducking the problem would've been better but it was a split second decision. Boat no. 4 was also to leeward of him so that limited that option.

I suspect in general the boats misjudged the effect of the seas so misjudged the layline.

So, on the whole, you're fine with this game of dodgems?
Now, what if someone gets hurt?
That's not actually a big stretch of the imagination when you've got 5 tonne boats crashing about at 6 knots or whatever.

There comes a point where it's not just about RRS, but authorities get involved.
Risk assessments start to get flicked, .. you're not doing that in my Port Area...

Frankly, IDGAS how fat their wallets are, they need a good talking to.
We have children sailing toppers who put them to shame.

 

[ckris]

So, on the whole, you're fine with this game of dodgems?
Now, what if someone gets hurt?
That's not actually a big stretch of the imagination when you've got 5 tonne boats crashing about at 6 knots or whatever.

There comes a point where it's not just about RRS, but authorities get involved.
Risk assessments start to get flicked, .. you're not doing that in my Port Area...

Frankly, IDGAS how fat their wallets are, they need a good talking to.
We have children sailing toppers who put them to shame.

No-one said they were fine with the game of dodgems, it was clearly a mess and lucky nobody was injured. It is not often though that you get such a clear piece of aerial footage of an incident like this and it is interesting that even with the hindsight footage there is not agreement on what caused it. One of the reasons the RRS are there is to prevent this kind of pile up, so either some specific rules were broken or the rules framework is flawed. If we can understand exactly what rules were broken maybe, just maybe, we will be better sailors and less likely to cause an incident like this in the future.

 

[ckris]

I am too. Shooting a mark is within the definition of proper course. Once they tack onto port they don't foul anyone and manage to keep clear and get around the mark.

For clarity, I count boat no. 1 as the one leaving bottom left with spinnaker up early on in the video. I hope they were conforming to rule 55 and not using elastic bands for the hoist.

No.2 was also fine to attempt to shoot the windward mark. They clearly misjudged it probably because of the chop, but were clear to tack onto port (call them lucky). They were established on port tack before the incident with no.3 started to occur. After that I think they would successfully claim they were fouled by boat 3 (which hadn't completed their tack and anyway didn't give them room to keep clear - remember you are not required to anticipate) and did their best to avoid damage under rule 14.

Boat 3 really messed up their tack. Wrong decision. Even if they hadn't panicked and aborted it they wouldn't have come down to a close hauled course on starboard in time to give time and room to boat 2. To avoid fouling they had no option but to be carried off away from the mark on port by boat no. 2 until they could find space to tack or gybe or no. 2 tacked. Annoying when it happens, but...

Boat no 5 I think would claim (again successfully) that he tried to keep clear under rule 14 but was unable to do so. I suspect the helm panicked a bit and ducking the problem would've been better but it was a split second decision. Boat no. 4 was also to leeward of him so that limited that option.

I suspect in general the boats misjudged the effect of the seas so misjudged the layline.

Agree with most of this except boat 4 being innocent. If you pause the video on 9 seconds boat 2 has just completed their tack. At this point if everyone keeps going in a straight line there is no incident, assuming boat 2 sheets in and builds speed on port they will keep clear of boats 4,5 and 6 (the starboard tackers) who all pass behind boat 2. What happens next is that boat 4 luffs and closes the gap to the back of boat 2. Boat 5 has no choice but to head up as well and as soon as this happens the collision with 2 is inevitable. Boat 2 at the point 5 alters course cannot do anything more to keep clear, they are moving too slowly.

So boat 2 breaks rrs 10 for not keeping clear of boat 5 on starboard but should be exonerated under 64.1 because boat 5 broke rrs 16.1 by altering course without giving boat 2 room to keep clear. However, boat 5 is in turn exonerated because they were compelled to break 16.1 because of boat 4 luffing. Boat 4 should be penalised under rrs 16.1 for altering course and not giving boat 5 room to keep clear (remember room includes the space to comply with her obligations under the rules of part 2).

Boat 3's second broach tack is clearly the other main cause, but even if boat 3 was not in the picture I think boat 4s subtle alteration of course causes a collision.

Anyway, that is how I would call it.

 

[lw395]

Boat 2 caused the whole thing by tacking when it had no right to do so. Flick.
Boat 3 then tacks back on to starboard. It has to initially give 2 time to keep clear, which it clearly did not do. Flick.

And so it goes on.
These don't look like excusable errors of judgement, more like Rule 2 territory.

 

[lpdsn]

So, on the whole, you're fine with this game of dodgems?
Now, what if someone gets hurt?
That's not actually a big stretch of the imagination when you've got 5 tonne boats crashing about at 6 knots or whatever.

There comes a point where it's not just about RRS, but authorities get involved.
Risk assessments start to get flicked, .. you're not doing that in my Port Area...

Frankly, IDGAS how fat their wallets are, they need a good talking to.
We have children sailing toppers who put them to shame.

I'm talking about the RRS. I assumed you knew them. Your mindless rant adds nothing.

 

[lpdsn]

If you pause the video on 9 seconds boat 2 has just completed their tack. At this point if everyone keeps going in a straight line there is no incident,

Exactly.

Boat 2 tacked into clear water - events could've been very different and they made a mistake attempting to shoot the mark from that distance in those conditions - but at the time they tacked that had clear water in which to do so and didn't break any rules.

I don't believe anyone is denying an inside boat can shoot a windward mark and that is its proper course- we might argue about whether they stood a reasonable chance of doing so - at some point just luffing at a windward mark isn't a realistic attempt to shoot it so can't be proper course. I'm inclined to believe that they genuinely misjudged the amount of way they would lose in those seas.

Boat 3 tacked to give boat 2 room under rule 18.

So we have two boats that are now on port and are sailing clear of the fleet. No rules broken yet. Rule 18 turned off between them and never turned on between them and the boats clear astern. Boat 3 can't tack because she can't do so and give boat 2 room to keep clear. She does have luffing right though because boat 2 became windward boat by their own actions and in a short while boat 3 could make life unproductive for boat 2 and make her tack back, both boats would've lost places but everything would've been fine.

Boat 3's tack is just silly. They obvious broke rule 13 never mind anything else. And of course they broke the rule of common sense, so lw395 can rant at them. I don't know why they did it, error of judgement thinking they could get behind boats 2 or just plain not looking. I don't believe it was a broach in any way, jib was across and ready to be sheeted in before they realised their mistake and stopped the tack to limit damage (rule 14).

Agree with most of this except boat 4 being innocent.

Boat 4 and boat 5 are then approaching the mark. They see boats 2 & 3 heading off on port and are not expecting what happens next. Boat 4 legitimately luffs to shoot the mark - same discussion as before on shooting the mark and whether it ceases to be proper course if it is an unrealistic attempt. They misjudge it and don't get around the mark by shooting it but thereafter find enough water in which to manouvre without fouling anyone.

Boat 5 goes to tack to keep clear of boat 4. Boats this size don't tack on a whim like a dinghy. "Tacking-3-2-1-Tack" is needed to get the crew going. Say it at a reasonable speed whilst watching the video.

On watching it again I'm convinced that boat 5 was committed to the tack before they could've realised boat 3 was tacking rather than just doing a luff on 2. Boats 2 & 3 collide. Boat 5 sees that if the continue their tack they'd clunk boat 3 hard with potentially the bow going into the cockpit so they abort and go for a much gentler nudge between boats 2 and 3.

Boat 3 is the one to blame.

 

[lw395]

I'm talking about the RRS. I assumed you knew them. Your mindless rant adds nothing.

You were talking nonsense about the RRS.
Boat 2 tacks failing to 'keep clear' within the definitions.
13 WHILE TACKING
After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats
until she is on a close-hauled course. During that time rules 10, 11 and 12 do not apply
def: Keep Clear A boat keeps clear of a right-of-way boat
(a) if the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take
avoiding action and....

Yes you may shoot a mark, but 2 had zero chance of achieving this. Once they passed head to wind they were stone cold in the wrong.
Dangerous chancers.

 

[dunedin]

I think that it is maximum of 4 Pro's on board - but it's an owner driver class so the helm has to be an amateur and is normally the owner of the boat, so doesn't necessarily get that much time to practice and may not have much experience of what to do when everything in front of them goes pair shaped.

These are not weekend sailors! Look at the entry list, whilst the owners may be the one with the hand on the helm, all have dedicated Tacticians, skipper in every sense except the title. It is the tactician who makes the calls on mark laylines, when to tack, whether to try to shoot the mark or duck it.
And the list of tacticians involved are people like Dean Barker, Adrian Stead etc etc. Some of the most experienced (and expensive) professional sailors in the world, with lots of match racing and America’s Cup events (super professional class).
Which makes this shambles even more surprising.

 

[lw395]

Boat 2 loses all rights under R 18 the moment she passes head to wind.
18.1 When Rule 18 Applies
Rule 18 applies between boats when they are required to leave a
mark on the same side and at least one of them is in the zone.
However, it does not apply
(a) between boats on opposite tacks on a beat to windward

defs;
Tack, Starboard or Port A boat is on the tack, starboard or port,
corresponding to her windward side.

 

[lpdsn]

Yes you may shoot a mark, but 2 had zero chance of achieving this. Once they passed head to wind they were stone cold in the wrong.
Dangerous chancers.

Your rant is just getting silly now.

Boat 2 tacked into clear water and were on port before no.3 started their tack. If there hadn't been clear water they'd have had to bear off, miss the mark, gybe round and try again and would've lost a lot of places before they found a gap, but those circumstances never occurred. You're trying to pin the blame on no. 2 for something that never happened.

If boats 2 and 3 had sailed off on port then 3 could've protested 2 if they felt like it and they could've discussed the attempt to shoot the mark in the protest room. It didn't however cause any collision. Boat 3's tack did.

I suspect they were used to shooting the mark from that range in flatter water and misjudged it.

 

[lw395]

Boat 3 should indeed protest boat 2 for forcing them to tack onto port.
Boat 3, having been forced onto port is now keep clear boat wrt all the incoming boats on starboard. As is boat 2.

Boat 3 can require Boat 2 to tack with it.
Bearing off would be high risk as the boat would accelerate and it's not clear that there was


Boat 2 is also required to keep clear of all the incoming starboard boats. Its only option is to tack off.
Wallowing about with no way on is not keeping clear, nor is it an option which relieves 2 of any responsibilities to keep clear.

 

[lpdsn]

Boat 3 should indeed protest boat 2 for forcing them to tack onto port.
Boat 3, having been forced onto port is now keep clear boat wrt all the incoming boats on starboard. As is boat 2.

Boat 3 can require Boat 2 to tack with it.
Bearing off would be high risk as the boat would accelerate and it's not clear that there was


Boat 2 is also required to keep clear of all the incoming starboard boats. Its only option is to tack off.
Wallowing about with no way on is not keeping clear, nor is it an option which relieves 2 of any responsibilities to keep clear.

Boat 3 cannot force boat 2 to tack. Rule 18 is history by that stage. Unfortunate position for 3 to get into but they can only tack when they have room to get down to a close hauled course AND give 2 room to keep clear. That never happens. They do have luffing rights though, but in the video they clearly and deliberately go through head to wind and anyway never give 2 time & room to keep clear.

If boat 3 hadn't tacked away when 2 tried shooting the mark, boat 2 would've had to go below the mark. There was nothing stopping them doing so and it was up to them to do it in a seamanlike manner and no reason to believe they'd have any difficulty doing so. But that whole scenario never occurred and is irrelevant.

There is no requirement for a boat to keep clear of a boat clear astern when on teh same tack, in fact it is the reverse. If they end up wallowing around then the other boats have to go around them. Nobody but 3 even came close to having an overlap with boat 2 when they entered the zone.

However once boat 2 is on port they have no right to mark room and it's a clear rule 10 situation against boats 4, 5 and later. But there is no issue there as they are clearly sailing away on port until boat 3 fouls them. They only ultimately end up wallowing about because of their own actions under rule 14 and the collision caused by boat 3.

 

[lw395]

Boat 2 should indeed have gone below the mark, gybed and come in behind the pack. It's the price of not laying the mark.
It would not have cost much more than sailing off on port with the incoming fleet passing behind them.


They were windward boat and were required to be keeping clear of 3, right up to the point when 3 passed head to wind. There is a definite period when they failed to do this. At 12 seconds, 3 is close to head to wind, 2 is still bearing off towards them.
At that point, if 2 cannot keep clear of 3 by crossing its bow, they are in the wrong. They don't have the way on to do so.
The fact that 3's action was a poor choice as it turned out, does not alter 2's obligation to keep clear so long as they are windward boat.

 

[lpdsn]

Boat 2 should indeed have gone below the mark, gybed and come in behind the pack. It's the price of not laying the mark.
It would not have cost much more than sailing off on port with the incoming fleet passing behind them.


They were windward boat and were required to be keeping clear of 3, right up to the point when 3 passed head to wind. There is a definite period when they failed to do this. At 12 seconds, 3 is close to head to wind, 2 is still bearing off towards them.
At that point, if 2 cannot keep clear of 3 by crossing its bow, they are in the wrong. They don't have the way on to do so.
The fact that 3's action was a poor choice as it turned out, does not alter 2's obligation to keep clear so long as they are windward boat.

Boat 2 was established on port tack before 3 went for it. They could be luffed but boat 3's actions (even if they hadn't gone through head to wind) didn't give them the required time and room to clear. If 3 had luffed less aggressively then I believe 2 would've been able to keep clear.

There is nothing in the RRS that says you can't tack when that might mean you are luffed a few boat lengths later. Boat 2 was quite entitled to tack and deal with being luffed. They could've done so. They were fouled by 3 tacking into them. I'm sure 3 wouldn't have deliberately engineered a collision so I can only assume they didn't look.

Lots of poor choices there - they should've been watching the boats in front to see whether they were laying the mark and I'm sure any boat that tacked ten boat lengths out to get back a bit above the layline would've gained by it. I suspect all or most of them misjudged the effect of the seas as they came along the starboard layline. There were sensible options for 2 & 3 to minimise their losses from the positions they'd put themselves in without there ever being a collision, but nethertheless only boat 3's actions were a clear breach of the rules (as well as being a stupid mistake).

 

[dunedin]

The drone footage makes analysis easy, well, easier anyway. I am trying to imagine what each boat made of the mess unfolding, what the protest forms would have looked like and what the protest committee would have made of it all.
Perhaps all sailors need a drone in "follow me" mode but then we would need an addendum to the RRS to cover drone rights of way and collisions. Maybe solved with declared flight heights before the race.

Probably no protest forms at all, as this was a major league event with America’s Cup megastars calling the shots (badly). Note the on course Umpire boat that nearly got squeezed in the chaos.
Can read the report of the event, the RC44 World Championships. Mentions “collisions and penalties aplenty”, so must have been a few penalties issued. But sounds like RUS18 was deemed most at fault with a 4 point penalty.
http://rc44.com/news/team-ceeref-on-a-charge-at-rc44-world-championship

Looks like Adrian Stead was in the leading boat that got clean away. And in the chaos a boat that had been OCS and gone back at the start was sufficiently far behind the chaos to bypass the lot and claim second place. Not a good day at the office for some of the professional tacticians.

 

[lw395]

The wind is not straight down the page.
At 13 seconds, 3 is on starboard, below close hauled. At this point 2 needs to start keeping clear, which she doesn't do.

I wouldn't lend any of them my old laser.

 

[lpdsn]

I wouldn't lend any of them my old laser.

I doubt they'd want it.

 

[ckris]

Probably no protest forms at all, as this was a major league event with America’s Cup megastars calling the shots (badly). Note the on course Umpire boat that nearly got squeezed in the chaos.
Can read the report of the event, the RC44 World Championships. Mentions “collisions and penalties aplenty”, so must have been a few penalties issued. But sounds like RUS18 was deemed most at fault with a 4 point penalty.
http://rc44.com/news/team-ceeref-on-a-charge-at-rc44-world-championship

Looks like Adrian Stead was in the leading boat that got clean away. And in the chaos a boat that had been OCS and gone back at the start was sufficiently far behind the chaos to bypass the lot and claim second place. Not a good day at the office for some of the professional tacticians.

RUS 18 I am pretty sure is boat 2 in the video and did cop the penalty from umpires, however they did not have the benefit of drone footage before coming to a decision. Shame as would have been curious to see the protest form for this if it had not been umpired.

Also worth mentioning that I am pretty sure the RC44s sail under there own version of racing rules so our debate about who would be at fault under rrs (which is more useful for me to understand) may actually not apply in the rules these guys are racing to!

 

[ckris]

The wind is not straight down the page.
At 13 seconds, 3 is on starboard, below close hauled. At this point 2 needs to start keeping clear, which she doesn't do.

A few posts earlier you claimed that at 12 seconds 3 was luffing and not yet passed head to wind, that is an impressive tack to get from there to below close hauled on starboard in 1 second. I do not believe 3 ever gets to a close hauled course on starboard so is keep clear boat from the point of passing head to wind under rule 13.

The more interesting point, that I think is little understood, is that when on port 3 was not free to luff 2 with impunity. As right of way boat they need to give 2 room to keep clear if they alter course. Room includes the space 2 needs to fulfill their obligations under the rules of part 2. From 9 seconds onwards that means allowing 2 to keep going in a straight line because any luff or tack means 2 would not be able to clear the starboard tackers steaming in.