Don't Apply Part-2 Rules to the Wrong Boat

 

I’ve had a series of rules discussions with various people in the last few weeks, in which I’ve heard a common theme: They think that wording in a rule that applies to one boat in an incident somehow applies to the other boat, as well. The fact is, except for rule 14, Avoiding Contact, each numbered rule of Part 2, When Boats Meet, speaks to only one boat -- there is nothing the other boat can do, that breaks that rule.

This misunderstanding seems to happen mainly when it comes to the rules about giving room, in Sections B and C of Part 2.  For example, consider rule 18.2:

18.2 Giving Mark-Room

        (a) When boats are overlapped the outside boat shall give the inside boat mark-room, unless rule 18.2(b) applies.

        (b)  If boats are overlapped when the first of them reaches the zone, the outside boat at that moment shall
               thereafter give the inside boat mark-room. If a boat is clear ahead when she reaches the zone, the boat
               clear astern at that moment shall thereafter give her mark-room.

        (c) When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b),

            (1) she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins;

            (2) if she becomes overlapped inside the boat entitled to mark-room, she shall also give that boat room to sail
                 her proper course while they remain overlapped.

The rule goes on from there, but (a)-(c) are the salient parts, for the purpose of this discussion.  Note that this entire rule restricts the behavior of only one boat -- the one required to give mark-room.  It does not restrict the behavior of the other boat.

Consider the following scenario (see the animation below).  Boat IW enters the zone of a leeward mark to be left to port overlapped inside boat OL.  As they approach the mark, IW sails an approach for a “wide then tight” rounding, rather than sailing directly to the mark, which is what she is entitled to room to do (see the definition Mark-Room).  OL sails alongside her while hailing “Hey!  You’re taking too much room!”  OL protests, alleging that IW broke rule 18.2(b); but the protest committee denies the protest.   

 

What was the protest committee thinking?  Well, according to rule 18.2(b), OL must give mark-room to IW; the rule says nothing about what IW might or might not do.  Put another way, there’s no rule against “taking too much room”.  So in order to be disqualified, IW would have  to break some other rule, and since she was the keep-clear boat, that means she would have to fail to keep clear under rule 11, Overlapped on the Same Tack.

This takes us to the definition of Keep Clear, which says, “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, (b) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact.”  Did OL ever have to take avoiding action?  No; she simply sailed her course alongside IW.  Did the boats ever come close enough that OL could not change course without immediate contact?  Again, no.  So IW broke no rule.

This is sometimes referred to as “room freely given”, using the words of World Sailing Case 114, but, with apologies to the Casebook writers, I think it’s a mistake to use that expression.  I think that, to the extent possible, we should not create concepts that aren’t in the rules themselves.  The same Case could have come to the same conclusion by simply stating that the boat required to give room did so and the other boat broke no rule.

If OL wants to protest IW, she must force the issue by luffing slowly, giving IW room to keep clear of her.  If IW does not respond by changing course to sail directly to the mark, and OL has to bear off to avoid hitting her, then OL can protest IW for breaking rule 11 -- OL had to take avoiding action.  IL is not exonerated under rule 43 because she didn’t begin sailing a course directly to the mark until after position 3, when she had already broken rule 11. 

Note that if one boat's behavior is restricted under one rule and the other boat must keep clear under another rule, both rules still apply.  In particular, the keep-clear boat is not freed from her obligation to keep clear (though she will be exonerated if she sails within the room to which she is entitled).  A good example of this is rule 17, On the Same Tack; Proper Course.  That rule says that under certain conditions, when a boat establishes an overlap to leeward of another boat from clear astern she shall not sail above her proper course.  Rule 17 only refers to the proper course of the leeward boat – it says nothing about the course of the windward boat, and it does not free the windward boat of her obligation under rule 11, Overlapped on the Same Tack, to keep clear.  So, for example, if the leeward boat carries an asymmetrical spinnaker and the windward boat carries a symmetrical one, the course the windward boat will have to sail to keep clear under rule 11, Overlapped on the Same Tack, is usually going to be much higher than her proper course, even if the leeward boat obeys rule 17.  In the scenario below, Yellow could not change course to windward at position 3 without making immediate contact, so Blue breaks rule 11.

Here’s another example, from an incident a couple of weeks ago, in which a boat thought wrongly that a rule applying to her also limited the other boat.  WS and LP were sailing downwind on port tack, with WS overlapped to windward of LP (see scenario, below).  WS jibed onto starboard and the boats converged.  LP held her course until WS had to bear off to avoid contact.  Then LP jibed away and there was no further incident. 

 

LP protested WS under rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way, which says, “When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat’s actions.” 

The first issue here is whether WS initially gave LP room to keep clear.  In the discussion, I asked LP whether she had kept clear after WS jibed, and she replied “Yes.”  I asked her whether she had done anything unseamanlike, and she said she hadn’t.  So I asked her how she could claim WS hadn’t given her room to keep clear, when she had kept clear and in a seamanlike manner.  She said, “When WS jibed, she had to let me sail my course without taking avoiding action.  That’s what the definition of Keep Clear says.  And because I had to jibe away, she broke that rule.” 

I think she got that definition backwards.  As we saw earlier, the definition Keep Clear speaks only about the right-of-way boat taking avoiding action.  LP was, from position 3, the keep-clear boat, so the definition doesn’t say anything about whether she was needed to take avoiding action; she needed to do whatever it took, in a seamanlike way, to keep clear.

The second issue is whether LP herself broke any rules.  In my opinion, LP broke rule 11.  It’s true that LP didn’t have to begin to take action until position 2 to keep clear – there’s no requirement in the rules to anticipate a change in right of way – but she does have to begin to take action immediately when WS's mainsail crosses her center-line, just before position 2.  These particular boats were about 21’ long and traveling at about 6 knots, so they would sail a boatlength every 6 seconds or so;  that means LP sailed something like 20 seconds before she jibed.  20 seconds seems to me to be a very delayed reaction. (If you don’t believe that, imagine the skipper of LP saying "Jibing!" at position 2 and count out 20 seconds while visualizing the action aboard LP as they prepared to jibe.)  So, to my mind, LP broke rule 10, On Opposite Tacks.   

There’s one additional fact in this scenario that would, I believe, have helped a protest committee decide to penalize LP: the boats were only 5 or 6 boatlengths from the finish line and WS was on the layline to the starboard end of that line (see diagram below).  One of the things judges must do in considering the evidence is to understand the tactical significance of the boats' actions; this is one reason why it’s so important for judges to have extensive racing experience.  In this case, there’s an easy explanation for LP’s failure to respond to WS’s jibe: she wanted to get to the finish line without having to jibe twice.  That’s not conclusive evidence, of course, that she didn’t respond promptly to WS’s jibe; but it would help the protest committee determine the credibility of LP’s claim that she needed all that time to prepare to jibe.