New TR Rapid Response Call 2019.001

World Sailing just released a Rapid Response Call for Team Racing that has a number of interesting interpretations of the rules.  Although Team Race Calls are only authoratative for team racing, they represent the thoughts of a number of rules experts*, and when calls do not involve special rules for team racing (as this RR Call does not) they frequently are useful as interpretations of the rules for fleet racing as well.

Here’s the RR Call:

WORLD SAILING RAPID RESPONSE TEAM RACING CALL 2019.001

Rule 11 On the Same Tack, Overlapped

Rule 18 Mark-Room

Question

B and Y are approaching the finishing line. Y enters the zone on port tack above the finishing mark and clear ahead of B. Y bears away towards B and gybes onto starboard tack as she passes outside the finishing mark. Y then gybes back onto port tack to windward of B and immediately luffs rapidly towards the finishing line. B holds her course and there is contact at position 4. B protests. What is the umpire call? 

Answer

Penalize B.

When Y enters the zone clear ahead of B rule 18.2(b) applies and B must thereafter give Y mark-room. However, when Y gybes onto starboard tack rule 18 no longer applies because rule 18.1(a) applies; see Case 132.

When Y gybes back onto port tack the boats are on the same tack and rule 18 applies. Y is again entitled to mark-room under rule 18.2(b) because it was not turned off by any of the conditions in 18.2(d). Her mark-room is room to leave the mark on the required side.

Y fails to keep clear of B and breaks rule 11. Because Y promptly luffed towards the finishing line, she was sailing within her entitled mark-room and is exonerated under rule 21. B was required to give mark-room to Y and did not bear away to do so. Therefore, B has failed to give mark-room and breaks rule 18.2(b).

See also Team Race Call E10 Question 4.

This call is valid until 31 December 2019.

The main motivation for this call, I think, is the interpretation that, even though Y is sailing downwind for part of the time, the boats are on a “beat to windward”.  This interpretation comes from newly rewritten Case 132, which states that, for the purpose of rule 18.1 (When Rule 18 Applies) boats are on a beat to windward if the proper course for both is close-hauled or if one or both of them have overstood the upwind laylines of a mark.  In the new RR Call, the proper course for B is close-hauled and Y has overstood the port-tack layline of the finishing mark, so according to Case 132 the boats are on a beat to windward, and according to rule 18.1, while they are on opposite tacks rule 18 does not apply to them.  During that time, it’s just port-starboard; Y has right of way over B.

The issue of whether rule 18 applies to boats on opposite tacks at a finishing mark, when one of them has overstood the mark, was widely discussed in rules forums last year.  As Case 132 was written at the time, those boats were not on a beat to windward, leading to the possibility that a boat might purposely overstand the port layline at the port-end pin, then claim mark-room from a starboard-tack boat that was beating to the finish.  World Sailing fixed this by issuing a new version of Case 132 last November.  

So rule 18 turns off at position 2 because Y and B are on opposite tacks on a beat to windward.  Fine.  But when Y jibes back onto port tack, rule 18 comes back in force.  So now, neither boat enters the zone during the current application of the rule, so we need to look at rule 18.2(a), right?

No, according to the RR Call, wrong.  Rule 18 has “memory”:  If rule 18.2(b) is in effect and rule 18 gets suspended, then comes back into effect again, the boat that was clear ahead or overlapped inside at the zone still is entitled to mark-room, unless she tacks, leaves the zone, or has been given all the mark-room to which she is entitled (see rule 18.2(d)).  (None of those exceptions applies in the RR Call scenario.) 

This is not the first time the concept of "memory" has been enunciated.  In Team Race Call E10, the boat required to give mark-room at a windward mark tacks and then tacks back into an inside overlap.  In that situation, it makes a lot of sense to re-impose rule 18.2(b); rule 18.2(d) only turns off rule 18.2(b) when the boat entitled to mark-room tacks, leaves the zone or has been granted mark-room; the other boat cannot escape her obligation to give mark-room by tacking or leaving the zone herself.  And, I suppose, once that “memory” interpretation has been made in Call E10, it must apply even in situations where the boat required to give mark-room doesn’t tack or leave the zone – as in the new RR Call.

The next question answered in the new RR Call is whether Y is sailing within the room to which she is entitled.   There are two interesting issues here.  First, the only room BB is required to grant to Y at positions 2 and 3 is room to round the mark as required to sail the course and room to leave the mark on the required side (see the definition mark-room).  Y could take that room by sailing out and around astern of B, but the RR Call asserts that when Y cuts inside B she is sailing within the room to which she is entitled.  In other words, the definition should be read in a common-sense manner and Y is entitled to carry out the rounding and passing maneuver in the natural way, inside B. 

The second issue is whether Y "takes too much room" during the scenario.  According to the text of the Question, as soon as Y jibes onto port tack she “luffs rapidly”, implying that after she jibes she takes the minimum space she needs to round inside B (the boats are keelboats, so Y’s arc seems unnecessarily wide to dinghy sailors, but the words about luffing rapidly assure us she is not taking too much room in positions 2-3).   However, if we look at her entire track since she entered the zone, she clearly takes more space than she needs to sail to the mark and round it on the required side.  The key here is she doesn’t need the protection of mark-room until she jibes back onto port tack, so before that moment she can sail where she pleases.  When Y loses her right of way just after position 2, she is entitled to the space she needs to round the mark in a seamanlike way, starting at that position.

To see a common application of this principle in another context, consider the diagram below.  Yellow enters the zone at a leeward mark clear ahead of Blue.  Because she is clear ahead, she has right of way; and in any case, Blue cannot reach her.  Until position 2  Yellow does not need to rely on her right to mark-room, so, instead of sailing to the mark she sails wide (but not wider than her proper course – see rule 18.4).  When she jibes onto port tack, she is required to keep clear of Blue, who is on starboard tack.  Blue has to take avoiding action, so according to the definition keep clear, Yellow breaks rule 10 (Port-Starboard).  

Suppose Blue protests Yellow for that infraction.  Yellow’s defense is that she was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled, and is therefore exonerated under rule 21 (Exoneration).  Blue argues that Yellow’s entitlement was room to sail to the mark, room to round it as necessary to sail the course, and room to pass it on the required side.  Yellow, she says, was sailing outside the room to which she was entitled in two ways.  First, she didn’t sail to the mark wen Blue gave her room to do so, and second, the definition room includes the word “promptly”; by sailing wide on her proper course instead of sailing directly to the mark, Yellow failed to carry out the mark-rounding maneuver promptly.  Therefore, Blue says, Yellow should be penalized for breaking rule 10 just before position 3.  

The protest committee should decide that when Yellow was clear ahead she was not required to approach the mark “promptly” because she had right of way.  Once she lost that right of way and thus really needed mark-room to protect her, she was then obliged to sail to the mark and round it promptly, as she did, so she is exonerated under rule 21.  And that is the principle used in coming to the conclusion in RR Call 2019.001.

*Note: I am a member of the World Sailing Team Race Rules Working Party, which edited and approved the new RR Call, but the views expressed here are my own and do not represent the views of that working party or of any of its other members.

ISAF publishes Test Rules for Match Racing

ISAF has released a set of new Test Rules for Match Racing. These rules will be tested in events worldwide in 2015, and, presumably, if the tests go well, adopted in the 2017 match-racing rules.

The Test Rules involve four changes to the Racing Rules of Sailing: they add a new rule 7, 'Last Point of Certainty'; they replace rule 18 (Mark-Room) with a much simpler rule from the America's Cup; they change the definition of 'Mark-Room'; and they replace rule 17 (On the Same Tack, Proper Course) with a much more complicated rule from the Alpari World Match Racing Tour. I quote each of the Test Rules below, followed by my commentary. A zip file with the new rules, official explanations of what the changes mean, and revised Match Race Calls for these rules, can be found at http://www.sailing.org/documents/racingrules/experimental-rules.php. In that same zip file is an “Implementation Document” describing how to write Notices of Race and Sailing Instructions to implement the new rules.

It is not clear yet what events will use these rules, but any event that wishes to do so must obtain specific permission from ISAF (under rule 86.2) or their national authority (under rule 86.3). In the United States, event organizing authorities should go to http://www.ussailing.org/race-officials/rules/experimental-rules/ for instructions about how to get permission under rule 86.3.

In what follows, I designate Test Rules as “TR x.x” and current rules as “RRS x.x”. Remember, these rules are for match racing only. Rules that are perfectly reasonable when there are only two boats involved might not work at all well for larger groups of boats.

TR 7 LAST POINT OF CERTAINTY

When there is doubt as to the relationship or change of relationship between

boats, the last point of certainty will apply.

My comment: The principle of Last Point of Certainty is already in the Match Race Call Book, so this will not have any effect on match racing.  (The principle, as stated in the Call Book, is that “umpires will assume that the state of a boat or the relationship with another has not changed until they are certain that it has changed. For example, a boat is not judged ‘beyond head to wind’ until the umpires are certain that she is so.”)

TR 18 MARK ROOM

TR 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 between a boat approaching a mark and one leaving it.

TR 18.2 Giving Mark-Room

(a) When the first boat reaches the zone,

(1) if boats are overlapped, the outside boat at that moment shall thereafter give the inside boat mark-room. 

(2) if boats are not overlapped, the boat that has not reached the zone shall thereafter give mark-room.

(b) If the boat entitled to mark-room leaves the zone, the entitlement to mark-room

ceases and rule 18.2(a) is applied again if required.

(c) If a boat obtained an inside overlap and, from the time the overlap began,

the outside boat is unable to give mark-room, she is not required to give it.

TR 18.3 Tacking or Gybing

When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat must tack or gybe at a mark to sail

her proper course, until she tacks or gybes she shall sail no farther from the

mark than needed to sail that course. Rule 18.3 does not apply at a gate mark.

My comments:  TR 18.1 is considerably shorter than RRS 18.1. Of the three conditions in RRS 18.1 specifying when rule 18 doesn't apply, TR 18.1 keeps just one: TR 18 doesn't apply between a boat approaching a mark and one leaving it. That means TR 18 applies at windward marks to boats on opposite tacks, whereas RRS 18 does not. And because TR 18 applies to them, boats beating on opposite tacks can now be overlapped when one of them reaches the zone – which is generally not true of boats on opposite tacks on a beat to windward under the RRS (see the last sentence of the current definition 'Clear Astern; Clear Ahead; Overlapped'). This is a huge change from the current rule.

RRS rule 18.2(a), which grants mark-room to an inside boat when RRS 18.2(b) doesn't apply, is gone.

TR 18.2(a)(1) is just the overlapped part of RRS 18.2(b). If one of the boats reaches the zone while the boats are on opposite tacks, the inside boat gets mark-room throughout the rounding, regardless of whether she tacks later or the overlap changes.

At first glance, TR 18.2(a)(2) looks like the clear-ahead part of RRS 18.2(b), but it's not. Instead of the clear-ahead boat becoming entitled to mark-room, under the Test Rules the boat that reaches the zone first, either clear ahead or clear astern, gets mark-room.

This worries me. When RRS 18 was written (and rewritten), the authors were careful not to use the order of entry into the zone as the criterion for which boat gets mark-room, for the simple reason that the order of entry can be much harder to determine than whether there was an overlap when one of the boats reached the zone.

Frequently, but not always, it's easy to see which of two non-overlapped boats enters the zone first – she's the one in front. But not always, if the boats are separated laterally. Consider the scenario shown below, where the boats are coming to a starboard-rounding windward mark on starboard tack, with Blue on the starboard-tack layline and Yellow about 1.5-2 hull lengths ahead and to leeward of her. At position 3, it's clear that both boats are in the zone. But which entered first? Note that 'Last Point of Certainty' doesn't help in this situation – the last time we're certain about anything, both boats were outside the zone.

TR 18.2 is copied verbatim from the rules for the 34th America's Cup, where it was used in both the lead-up series in AC 45's and the match race series in AC 72's. But those boats carried systems which tracked the boats in real time to within a couple of centimeters and not only informed the crew of exactly when their boat entered the zone but also notified the other boat of that fact, by means of bright lights on bow and stern. Of course, other match races will not have access to such technology, and I foresee a problem with scenarios like the one shown here.

The question in my mind is, why this change? The criterion in RRS 18.2(b) is just as short and uncomplicated, easier to judge, and in cases of doubt can be resolved by the Last Point of Certainty (i.e., RRS 18.2(d)).

The application of rule 18 to boats on opposite tacks on a beat to windward will have substantial impact on match-race tactics for beats. For example, consider the scenario shown above and suppose the mark is displaced to the left in that diagram, so it's clear that Yellow entered the zone first. Then, even though she's the left-hand boat on the beat, she's entitled to mark-room. So she simply goes to the port-tack layline and tacks. Under TR 18.2, Blue has to duck her and let her round the mark.

On the other hand, under RRS 18 when boats are approaching a starboard-rounding windward mark on opposite tack a starboard-tack boat has a little problem, because when she tacks to round the mark she risks breaking rule 13, Tacking. Under TR 18.2 she has no such worries – she is entitled to mark-room regardless of whether she tacks.

TR 18.3 limits the right-side boat's advantage, however, in that scenario. Under RRS 18.2, the starboard-tack boat solves her problem with rule 13 by dialing down (if she can force the port-tack boat to go below the port-tack layline) or dialing up until the boats are both nearly head-to-wind. Because the starboard-tack boat can tack away or break off the dial-up when she wishes, she frequently gains two or three lengths by that maneuver. But if the port-tack boat is above the port layline, this play requires the starboard-tack boat to extend her tack past the layline to intercept the other boat, and under TR 18.3 she will no longer be allowed to do that – she must tack for the mark when she reaches the layline. Of course, she can tack and then luff, but that move risks getting rolled, and generally is not nearly as effective as a dial-up.

TR definition of Mark-Room

Mark-Room Room for a boat to sail her proper course to round or pass the mark.

This definition of Mark-Room is breathtaking in its simplicity and, I think, will work for match racing. I do not think it would be good for fleet racing. At a leeward mark, a boat's proper course is a big, wide turn that allows her to maintain her downwind speed through the mark rounding. The current RRS definition of mark-room entitles a boat only room to sail to the mark and round it – a much tighter rounding than her proper course. In fleet racing the Test Rules definition would be problematical because the inside boat would use up much of the zone in her turn, forcing all boats outside her to sail even farther from the mark (and outside the zone). In match racing, I think it will make little difference to the game; but why change the perfectly good definition in the RRS? In my opinion, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

TR rule 17 [ON THE SAME TACK; PROPER COURSE] (with new parts underlined):

After the starting signal, if a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above her proper course while they remain on the same tack and overlapped within that distance, unless in doing so she promptly sails astern of the other boat.

This rule does not apply if the right-of-way boat is on a leg to a leeward mark or the finishing line, or if the overlap begins while

(a) the right-of-way boat is on a leg to a leeward mark,

(b) the windward boat is required by rule 13 to keep clear, or

(c) both boats are OCS.

My comments: Effectively, this change means rule 17 only applies on windward legs and when the overlap was established after the starting signal. This means the sailors and umpires don't have to keep track of how overlaps were established in the prestart, and it also means that on a leeward leg, if the trailing boat can get a 'hook', that is, a leeward overlap from astern, she can luff the other boat (subject to rule 16.1).

Under RRS 17, if Blue establishes a leeward overlap on Yellow from astern on a leeward leg, she is required to gybe for the leeward mark when she is clearly at the layline to that mark. Under TR 17, Blue can simply sail straight, holding Yellow out until Blue wants to jibe for the mark – which could be when they've passed the mark completely and have to beat back up to it, with Yellow in Blue's bad air. To my mind, this allows an exciting tactic and eliminates a difficult and inconsistent call. My only question is, why only downwind? It's much harder for a boat to get a hook on a beat, and if one does, why not let her luff the other boat?

All in all, the Test Rules for Match Racing raise some questions about suitability for non-instrumented boat, which will no coubt be addressed by the authors in the next couple of years. They raise far more questions about their suitability for fleet racing, and I'll address some of those questions in another posting on this blog. Meanwhile, remember: these Test Rules are only for match racing.

By the way, the boats in the diagram above reach the zone simultaneously, at position 3. See the same diagram, below, with the zone drawn in.

Answer to Leeward Mark Rules Quiz

It's been a week since I posted the leeward mark question, so I think we've received all the answers we'll probably get.. If you haven't read the preceding post and responses by John, Hans and me, you'll need to do so, to understand this follow-up post.

John says: X breaks no rule, A breaks rules 11 (windward/leeeward) and 18.2 (mark-room) with respect to X, and Y is exonerated for breaking those same rules, plus rule 31 (touching a mark) because she was taking room to which she is entitled.

This was, in fact, the call made on the water and was my original opinion, as well.

Hans agreed with this in his first comment, but in his last comment, some doubt creeps in. 'It is not quite clear from the drawing if Y [gives] mark room to X,' he says.

And that's where the other umpires discussing this call finally ended up. It's a well-established principle of the RRS that a boat's obligation to give mark-room is not restricted to the boat right alongside her, but applies to any boat affected by her behavior. For example, if there are 5 boats coming into a leeward mark side by side, all of them overlapped for a long time beforehand, and the outside boat crowds in so that the innermost boat can't pass the mark on its required side, we DSQ that outside boat even though she isn't in the zone. She was overlapped with the inside boat when the latter entered the zone and thus, owes her mark-room.

In the present case, X entered the zone clear ahead of Y, so Y owes her mark-room. Because X cannot sail her proper course when Y goes in between A and the mark, Y breaks rule 18.2. Y was not compelled to go between X and the mark, so she's not exonerated under rule 64.1(a).

Final answer: DSQ both A and Y.

But this raises an interesting additional question: At some point X is no longer rounding the mark and thus is no longer entitled to mark-room under rule 18.2 (see my post, 'When does rule 18 turn off?'). Or, suppose X's course is above her course to the next mark (which, according to the facts, is off to the right somewhere)? Then A and Y don't break rule 18 with respect to X. A still breaks rule 11 (Windward/Leeward) with respect to X, but Y doesn't. So NOW do we exonerate Y?

The answer is “no”, and the reason is rule 19. As a leeward boat, X is an obstruction to both A and Y. When A and Y become overlapped to windward of X, the outside boat Y owes the inside boat A room to pass the obstruction X. She could have easily given that room by passing the wrong side of the mark, so by “going in there” she voluntarily breaks rule 19. No exoneration under rule 21 for that, and none under rule 64.1(a), either. So the answer is the same: DSQ A for failing to keep clear of X and DSQ Y for not giving A room to pass X.

If we back away from the specific rules for a moment, we see that this is the answer we'd like to get. Neither A nor Y had any rights in there with respect to X, who was both a leeward boat and entitled to mark-room, and neither of them were compelled to go between X and the mark. So we'd expect them to both be DSQ'ed, and that's what we're going to do.

Leeward Mark Rules Quiz

Here's a scenario that came up at an umpire debrief at the 2014 Hinman, which is the US Team Race National Championship.  Simple as it seems, it had the sailors and umpires discussing what rules applied for hours after the debrief.  And again the next morning.

Even after the event was over, several of the umpires, including some International Umpires and International Judges, continued to chew over the call via e-mail.  Finally, several of them wrote it up and submitted it to ISAF as a proposed Team Race Rapid Response Call.

X and Y were on the same team and A was on the opposing team. The incident happened at mark 3 of a digital N course, meaning that the next mark was off to the right, a little to windward of the direction X is headed at position 4.  X entered the zone clear ahead of A and Y, who were overlapped at the zone with Y inside A.  Boat A took a course to pass between X and the mark, and Y went in with her. There was contact between all three boats and Y hit the mark. There was a valid protest. What should the call have been?

This time, rather than giving my opinion I'm asking yours.  You can decide there was no foul, or that one or more boats should have taken a penalty.  The hard part is, you have to say why -- who, if anybody, broke what rules and who, if anybody, should have been exonerated under rules 21 or 64.1(a). 

In case you don't know much about team racing, I think it doesn't matter.  The only special team-race rule that might apply here is that in team racing, boats can break rules with respect to their own team-mates, but only if there is no contact and the incident didn't involve the other team.  In this case there was contact and the incident clearly involved both teams, so that rule didn't apply.  So the answer should be the same in fleet racing as in team racing.

I'll give you one hint:  It's more complicated than it might seem at first, and X is an obstruction to the other two boats (see the definition Obstruction). 

In my next post, I'll tell you what the august body of Hinman umpires finally decided!