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

[lw395]

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 timings are all +/- a second or so as I can't go frame by frame with proper time stamps.
So it could be up to 3 seconds?
I think 3 gets very close to a close hauled course, even if it's higher than the boat astern of her, which would be laying the mark comfortably, in the absense of muppets. 3's sails don't fill, but that is not the point, it's close hauled course.
I think she must have assumed 2 would tack, 2 was in a position to lay the mark, but had little way or control, and was maybe hoping to take 3 away from the mark on port?
On balance, I think boat 3 has a pretty weak case.

 

[lw395]

...

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.

That is a good point clearly stated.
But initially, 3 is not 'luffing' it is sailing its proper course (well close hauled anyway!) on port, with 2 not making much way, heading low and going sideways. 2 is already failing to <keep clear> at this point.
I'm not convinced 2 was actually going to clear those starboard tackers, even if 3 wasn't there. Which is probably why 3 expected them to tack and why I had some sympathy with 3, whose prime thought was possibly 'must avoid stbd traffic'.

So, DSQ all round, as per my first post.

Thank you for arguing this through in a civilised fashion. I find these debates help improve my admittedly limited rules knowledge.

 

[lpdsn]

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.

A very good point. I hadn't considered that and I've never seen it explicitly written down in the context of a port tack luffing match in front of starboard tackers, but as you can't luff a boat into an obstruction it makes sense that you can't luff a port tacker to a halt in front of starboard tackers.

I genuinely believe from the video that boat 3 went for a tack, passed through head to wind, then went oops and thereafter were trying to avoid causing damage or injury under rule 14. They could've got down to close hauled on starboard but that would've just made the impact worse.

The whole thing does show how useful drone footage is. They may not be cheap but neither are the RIBs used by the umpires, so it could be cost effective to use drones for bigger events, even if only for key parts of the course. It would help protest committees find the right facts.

 

[TLouth7]

6, 7 and 8 basically drove straight into what was clearly already a serious incident.

Given that neither 7 or 8 collided or caused a collision I think you would be hard pushed to penalise them. Both kept well clear, given the capabilities of these boats.

6 perhaps forced 3 to tack into 2. Is it better under the rules for 3 to hold her course and foul 6, or tack and foul 2? I guess there is a reason I don't volunteer to sit on the juries that have to unpick these situations. My interpretation of fault by boat is:

1 - not involved
2 - probably legitimately luffed for the mark, then legitimately tacked onto port (after 3 went). Failed to keep clear of 5, failed to give 3 room to keep clear of 6 (but had no time?)
3 - legitimately tacked onto port, unclear to me whether they should have gone back onto starboard
4 - acceptable to luff for the mark, but had to give 5 room to keep clear (of her, or of everyone?). As per Flaming's early post 2 is not an obstruction, but should 4 make allowance for 5 needing to give 2 time to keep clear?
5 - completely stuffed from the moment she enters the frame, arguable does her best to keep clear
6, 7, 8 - keep clear adequately

 

[lw395]

6,7,8, to varying degrees, sailed towards and close to, boats which were colliding.
Is that safe and seamanlike?
Might that have limited the colliding boats ability to act in the best interests of safety?

Where does Rule 1.1 start to suggest keeping out of the way of boats in trouble might be called for?

Should the committee have abandoned the race?

It seems to me that in this sort of racing, the penalties for serious, potentially deadly collisions are far too trivial.

 

[lpdsn]

It seems to me that in this sort of racing, the penalties for serious, potentially deadly collisions are far too trivial.

Interesting that no boat was disqualified under rule 14. And from what I've seen in races I've participated in it is enforced pretty generally.

Interesting also that no boat felt unable to continue racing. Even the removal of a stanchion or two would've made things difficult for the crew to sit on the rail within the rules never mind hike.

Nobody complained about damage to their boat in the race.

Whatever other mistakes and fouls were committed it does seem that they all acted according to RRS14 to minimise damage whenever collisions became inevitable.

 

[lw395]

I wonder if the advanced FEM-based design process of these hi-tech ultra-light hulls models the effects of bashing them together at sea?
Sailing is supposed to be a non-contact sport.
In the case of 40.7s, that includes contact with the ground.