I think there are two separate issues here. The first is consistency in the rules. Consistency is good because consistent language makes the rules easier to read and, more importantly, easier to remember. So on that level, Butch is definitely right: using boat and equipment to determine starting, finishing and overlaps, and then using just hull length to determine whether a boat is in the zone is inconsistent, and to that extent it's wrong.

But the other consistency issue is between how the zone is defined and how we decide whether a boat is in the zone. Right now, both use hulls only – the zone is 3 hull lengths (2 for match and team racing, and when the SIs change the definition), and whether a boat is in the zone is determined by her hull only. So Butch's idea of using hull and equipment for entering and leaving the zone would induce an inconsistency there. (Note that Butch does not commit on whether the equipment would need to be in proper position.)

Butch would solve this new inconsistency by changing the definition of zone size to include the length of a boat including hull and equipment. That would make all the definitions consistent – starting, finishing, overlapping, zone size and being in the zone. Again, this proposal avoids the issue of whether the equipment must be in normal position, but in my opinion that's not the most important issue, which is practicality.

What would it mean for the size of the zone to be defined by the overall length of the boat nearer to the mark (let's say, with crew and equipment in normal position)? Consider a class with a 24-foot hull and a 5-foot sprit, including a little piece of batten to keep the sheets from wrapping around the sprit. This boat enters the zone when she's about 90 feet from the mark. Let's say she's just dropping her chute as she enters. As soon as her sprit is retracted, the zone instantly shrinks by 15 feet, or about 5/8 her former length. Can she actually leave the zone because of this? I think maybe she could, in light air anyway. Then when did she enter the zone? Does rule 18.2(b) apply to the overlaps that existed when she first entered the zone, or when she enters the zone the second time?

I understand Butch's position, and I've got a different solution: Base all the criteria on a boat's hull length. There's rarely a difference between hull and (hull + equipment) at a windward start, and we could live with hulls instead of hulls plus equipment for downwind starts. The change from hull and equipment to simply hull to determine finishes was already proposed this year, and actually was adopted by ISAF for match racing, to get around the problem of defining "in normal position", which judges and umpires don't seem to be able to resolve. (In particular, if a boat drops her chute at a downwind finish, is the chute "in normal position" while it floats out in front of her during the drop?)

As for overlaps, as an umpire I can tell you that it would be a lot easier to determine overlaps if the criterion for overlaps used only hulls, rather than hulls and equipment. It's almost impossible to determine whether the spinnaker on one boat overlaps a transom of another, especially as the crew trims it in and out and the overlap can be broken and re-established every few seconds, as a result.

Also, it's not clear how the rules work when the spinnaker of one boat is floating out over the stern of another. The boats are overlapped, certainly; but which one is leeward and which is windward? If the boat behind moves slowly forward until her spinnaker touches the backstay of the boat ahead, who just fouled whom? Umpires would say that since the last point of certainty was when the boat behind was clear astern, that boat should be treated as if she were still clear astern, but this says, in effect, that they weren't overlapped when they were.

All in all, I'm with Butch. Let's clear this up. Let's make boats' hulls the only criteria for starting, finishing, zone size, and overlaps. That would make the rules more consistent and also easier to use on the water.

If you answered the quiz question "yes", you answered incorrectly because the boat in the diagram is not yet in the "zone".  The definition of ZONE states that it is the area around a mark within a distance of three hull lengths (shown by the arc) but then it goes on to say "A boat is in the ZONE when any part of her hull is in the ZONE".
If you look again at the diagram, you'll see that part of the sprit and spinnaker are inside the arc defining the zone but no part of the hull has made it.

In every other situation where there is a question about a boat reaching a certain point (such as starting, finishing or establishing an overlap), the rules use that part of the boat that is furthest in front e.g. hull, crew or equipment. For the purposes of an overlap or finishing, the equipment must be in its normal position.

In my opinion, using hull length to determine when a boat is in the zone is inconsistent and confusing. If a boat's sprit or equipment is used to determine when she has an overlap or when she is finished, why not use it to determine when she is in the zone?

In fact, I think one could make a good argument that hull length plus the sprit should be used to determine the size of the zone. The rules increased the size of the zone from two lengths to three lengths in order to give boats more distance and time to sort out mark roundings and in particular, leeward mark roundings. Boats with their sprits extended are considerably longer than just their hull lengths and it seems logical that their zone size take this length increase into consideration.

I would be interested to hear what other sailors have to say about this.

Butch Ulmer

rulesmeister@ukhalsey.com

The 2009 ISAF Annual Conferences are over, and there have been some changes made to future versions of the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS).  A few of those changes go into effect on January 1, 2010; the others won't go into effect until we have the next rulebook, in 2013.  In this blog, I'll run though the changes that go into effect this coming January 1. 

When I show a rule below, any text that is struck through is in the current rule and will be deleted starting in 2010, and any bold text is new for 2010.

There are six changes that go into effect this January 1: One change to rule 18, Mark-Room; one change to the definition of Obstruction; one change to the definition of Party to a hearing; one change to Appendix B for windsurfers to agree with the change in rule 18; a new mark-room rule in Appendix C for match racing; and a bunch of amendments to appendices having to do with advertising.    The good news is, for most fleet sailors there will be no impact from any of these changes. 

IMMEDIATE Change 1, Rule 18.2(c)

This change simply corrects a mistake I and the rest of the Section C Working Party made when we drafted the new rule 18, and is discussed at length in an earlier blog I published on this site.  The change was proposed by the same working party who made the error in the first place, and had universal support amongst sailors and rulies alike:

18.2 Giving Mark-Room

(c)  When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b), she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins. However, if either boat passes head to wind or if the boat entitled to mark-room passes head to wind or leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

Without this change, a boat approaching a leeward mark could spin just before she got to a pack of boats that she owed mark-room to, and then simply sail inside them without breaking any rules.  This maneuver has been used successfully a few times in both team racing and fleet racing, so the ISAF RRC felt this was important enough to warrant an urgent change.  To work, the move had to be done in light air, in slow, highly maneuverable boats such as Tech Dinghies or Interclubs, so unless you sail one of those classes you were never going to see it – and even then, you might not have done so.  In any case, the "spin and win" play won't work after this coming January 1.

IMMEDIATE CHANGE 2, Definition Obstruction:

This change removes boats entitled to room or mark-room from the list of things that can be obstructions: 

Obstruction An object that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially, if she were sailing directly towards it and one of her hull lengths from it. An object that can be safely passed on only one side and an area so designated by the sailing instructions are also obstructions. However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her, give her room or mark-room or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her. A vessel under way, including a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction.

I discussed this issue at length in a previous blog; in my opinion, it will clear up some potential "conflicts" between rule 18 (Mark-Room) and 19 (Room to Pass an Obstruction), but it might also make it more difficult to see quickly which boats around you are obstructions. 

In order for this change to work properly, sailors must realize that if Boat O is required to give Boat M room at an obstruction, or mark-room at a mark, and Boat M is required to give room or mark-room to Boat I, then Boat O must give Boat M space to provide room to Boat I.  In the diagram below, O is required by rule 18.2 to give M room to sail "to the mark".  That means that in the absence of I, M is only entitled to room to sail directly to a point near the mark where she will begin to turn to round it.  But because M owes mark-room to I, the space M needs to sail "to the mark" includes the space she needs to give I to do likewise. 

 

 

The Section C Working party had submitted a proposed new ISAF Case that said, "Room is defined as the space needed for a seamanlike maneuver, and it is not seamanlike to break the rules."  This proposed Case was not approved by ISAF, though the ISAF Racing Rules Committee agreed that the principle was valid in general.  The reason they didn't approve the new Case was the following argument:  Suppose that two boats are on starboard tack, approaching the starting line to start, and the Z Flag or Black Flag is flying from the RC boat (see rules 30.2 and 30.3).  If the leeward boat luffs the windward boat, she must give that boat room to keep clear (see rule 16.1).  But if the windward boat breaks the plane of the starting line, she will break rule 30.2 or 30.3, so according to the general principle above, it would not be seamanlike for her to do so.  Thus, if in keeping clear she is forced to enter the "forbidden triangle", she could get the leeward boat disqualified and claim exoneration for breaking rule 30.2 or 30.3.  This is clearly not the result we intended when we drafted the Case!  I predict that a new Case will be submitted next year, saying something like, it's not seamanlike to break to rules of Part 2 and rule 31.  If you have some good words to achieve this succinctly and clearly, please let me know!

IMMEDIATE CHANGE 3, Definition Party

This change came from the ISAF Race Officials Committee, and is simply common sense.  The problem came up as a result of a redress hearing at last year's US Olympic Trials (the Hall v. Rios controversy).  The change is as follows:

Party A party to a hearing: a protestor; a protestee; a boat requesting redress or for which redress is requested by the race committee or considered by the protest committee under rule 60.3(b); a race committee acting under rule 60.2(b); a boat or competitor that may be penalized under rule 69.1; a race committee or an organizing authority in a hearing under rule 62.1(a).

Under the current rules, if a boat requests redress then she is a "party" to the redress hearing (so she gets the right to question witnesses, to remain in the room while other witnesses are questioned, to ask for a reopening of the hearing under certain conditions, to appeal the decision, etc.); but if the redress hearing was originally requested by the race committee or brought by the protest committee on the boat's behalf, then she is not entitled to those privileges.  This is clearly unfair and unintended.  In drafting the change, Charley Cook, the ISAF Race Officials Committee chairman, realized that the same privileges should be granted to race committees and protest committees when they were involved in the situation that led to the hearing.  For some reason, the ISAF Racing Rules Committee didn’t want to make protest committees parties to hearings involving their own actions, so they only extended the definition to race committees.  Theoretically, this means that if a competitor files for redress based on an improper action of the protest committee and a new panel is formed to hear the redress request, then the old protest committee cannot both testify about their actions and defend them – they have to be excused from the room during the argument phase of the protest (see rule 63.3(a) – I read "protest committee" there as meaning the current panel, not the old one).  In practice this doesn't happen, and in any case the change is good, and shouldn't be very controversial.

IMMEDIATE CHANGE 4, Appendix B

Appendix B, for windsurfing, restates rule 18.2(c); so when ISAF changed that rule (see CHANGE 1 above) they had to change Appendix B as well.  For the record, here's the change:

Rule B3.1(c)

Rule 18.2(c) is changed to:

When a board is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b), she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins. However, if either board the board entitled to mark-room passes head to wind rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.

IMMEDIATE CHANGE 5, Appendix C

This is a new rule for match racing, unrelated to any of the other changes.  It says:

C2.12 Rule 18.2(e) is changed to ‘If a boat obtained an inside overlap and from the time the overlap began, the outside boat has been unable to give mark-room, she is not required to give it.’

Obviously, if you're not a match racer this new rule won't affect you directly.  But it's an interesting change, and needs some explanation.  Rule 18.2(e) says "If a boat obtained an inside overlap from clear astern and, from the time the overlap began, the outside boat has been unable to give mark-room, she is not required to give it."  The phrase "obtained [the] inside overlap from clear astern" was not in the 2005-2008 rules, and the match-race folks wanted to revert to the old rule.

Why would they want that?  Consider the situation shown in the diagram below, taken from Match Race Call UMP 34.  The mark is to be left to starboard.

 

 

 

In this situation, when A and X enter the zone they are on opposite tacks, so rule 18 does not apply to them; and so when X tacks rule 18 applies but rule 18.2(b) doesn't  -- meaning that the only mark-room rule that could apply is rule 18.2(a), which simply gives the inside boat mark-room.  At about position 4, X becomes the inside boat, and as soon as X passes head to wind, A is required to give X mark-room.  But A physically cannot provide that room, so X has to go the wrong side of the mark and when she protests, she wins the protest.  The reason rule 18.2(e) doesn't apply here is that X established the overlap by tacking, not from clear astern.  Note that rule 18.3 doesn't apply because A is not fetching the mark – she has to tack to pass to windward of it (see definition Fetch).

Under the new rule C2.12, A does not have to provide room if she cannot do so from the time the overlap begins, i.e., from the time X passes head to wind.  On the face of it, this seems like a good change, but I don't think it is well thought-out.  Consider the simple and very common situation diagrammed below:

 

 

In this case, X tacks ahead and to leeward of A, and so close to the mark that she cannot physically give A mark-room.  Using the same arguments as before, we see that rule 18.2(a) applies from the time X passes head to wind, so she must give A mark-room.  If she cannot do so and the boats are fleet racing, X breaks rule 18 when she fails to give mark-room – rule 18.2(e) does not apply because the overlap was established by X's tack, not from clear astern. 

But if the boats are match racing under new rule C2.12, X does not have to give A mark-room because there is no physical way she can provide space for A between her and the mark.  Rule C2.12 says that since she was not able to provide room from the time the overlap began, she does not have to do so. A must go the wrong side of the mark, and if she protests she receives a green flag.  Furthermore, if she interferes with X's mark rounding she may well break rule 23.2 (see my earlier blog on this topic). 

Note that rule 13 applies between positions 1 and 2, and X must keep clear of A while she's tacking; but if X is a length or so ahead of A, that isn't hard for her to do.  Additionally, after X completes her tack she must initially give A room to keep clear, but in the situation above A can easily keep clear by going the wrong side of the mark.

So, I think this is a new match-racing move for X, and guess what?  It gives the boat on the left side of the leg control over the boat on the right – exactly the opposite of the current match race status!

IMMEDIATE CHANGE 6, Advertising

The last change is purely technical; it simply conforms all the rules that refer to advertising to the wording in the Advertising Code in ISAF Regulation 20.  We used to have categories of advertising, with Category A being the most restrictive.  These Categories have been eliminated in the Code, so ISAF removed the references to Category A in the RRS, and at the same time cleaned up some other wording.  There was clearly no urgency about this change (most of which was in Appendix K, which is not even a rule), and the change would normally have waited until 2013 to take effect; but because there were going to be other Immediate Changes (see 1-5 above) anyway, ISAF went ahead and made the advertising edits "urgent", putting them into effect this coming January 1.  For the record, here they are:

J1.2 The notice of race shall include any of the following that will apply and that would help competitors decide whether to attend the event or that conveys other information they will need before the sailing instructions become available:

(1)  that competitor advertising will be restricted to Category A or that boats will be required to display advertising chosen and supplied by the organizing authority (see ISAF Regulation 20) and other information related to Regulation 20;

 

J2.2 The sailing instructions shall include those of the following that will apply:

(1)  that competitor advertising will be restricted to Category A (see ISAF Regulation 20) and other information related to Regulation 20;

Appendix K

2          ADVERTISING

See ISAF Regulation 20.     2.1   Competitor advertising will be restricted to
Include other applicable               Category A. as follows: ______.
information related to
Regulation 20.

See ISAF Regulation           2.2  Boats may [shall] [may] be required to display
20.(d) 20.                                      advertising chosen and supplied by the
                                                     organizing authority.

Appendix L

See ISAF Regulation            21  ADVERTISING
20.3(d)20. Insert necessary        Boats [shall] [may] display advertising
information on the                       suppliedby the organizing authority
advertising material.                    as follows: ______.

The following two-picture sequence provides visual evidence of why tacking in the zone at a windward mark is such a dangerous thing to do.

In the first picture, the boat on the left is on starboard tack and the boat on the right is either on port tack or has just passed head to wind and is tacking. (Her angle of heel would indicate she's still on port tack but her genoa seems to indicate that she has reached or passed head to wind.

In the second picture, the port tack boat has probably completed her tack or is just above a close hauled course and the starboard tack boat has luffed above close-hauled and the boats appear to be overlapped by a reasonable amount.

Let's look at the situation rule by rule.

THE RULES:

If the right hand boat is on port tack, Rule 10 ON OPPOSITE TACKS applies and states that …"a port tack boat shall keep clear of a starboard tack boat". If on the other hand, the boat on the right has passed head to wind, Rule 13 WHILE TACKING applies. It says, "After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear" of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course"

Right here it's worth looking at the first part of the definition of KEEP CLEAR. It says "One boat keeps clear of another if the other can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action…".

Clearly, given the proximity of the boats to each other and the apparent speed of the boat on starboard tack, "avoiding action" on her part is going to be a necessity. Whichever rule applies, the right hand boat is in tough shape!

So far, the presence of the mark and the fact that both boats are in the ZONE has had no impact on the situation. However, Rule 18.3 TACKING WHEN APPROACHING A MARK puts the nail in the coffin of the boat on the right.

Rule 18.3 applies when:
A. Two boats are approaching a mark on opposite tacks.
B. One of them changes tack and is subject to Rule 13 in the ZONE.
C. The other boat is fetching the mark.

Since all these conditions have been met, Rule 18.3 applies here. The rule goes on the say that the boat that tacked;
(a) shall not cause the other boat to sail above close-hauled to avoid her or prevent the other boat from passing the mark on the required side and
(b) shall give mark-room if the other boat becomes overlapped inside her.

The left hand boat appears to have overstood the mark but still had to luff above close-hauled to avoid the boat that tacked. Note that had she decided to duck under the boat that tacked (certainly a possibility), she would be entitled to mark-room.

Taken in sequence, there are a string of rules that the port tack boat could be protested for breaking. In each case, even if the issue was in doubt (obviously there is no doubt here), a Protest Committee is likely to come down in favor of the boat on starboard so this is truly a "no win" scenario.

What should the port tack boat do?
     1. Don't go to the port tack layline. It's just asking for trouble. 
     2. If you find yourself there anyway (the wind does go left from time to time), consider bearing off and sailing fast so that your tack to round the mark will be outside the zone.
     3. If you're on the layline and can do it, duck the starboard boat or boats. Giving up a couple of boatlengths is better than a DSQ.
     4. If you're on the port layline and clearly crossing the starboard boat (s), don't tack at the mark. Continue on port tack and let the starboard boat(s) round inside you. Once again, you'll be giving up a little distance but that's better than the alternative.

Another factor to consider here is Rule 14 AVOIDING CONTACT.
The starboard tack boat is required to take avoiding action if he thinks the port tack boat is not keeping clear. A Protest Committee is going to listen carefully if the starboard boat says, " I altered course to avoid contact".

Even if his judgment of the distance between the boats is questionable, the PC is likely to give him the benefit of the doubt because he avoided contact. 

The ISAF Section C Working Party has made two submissions to ISAF that deal with rules 18 and 19.  One is an "emergency" change in the definition of Obstruction, to go into effect January 1, 2010, and the other is a proposed ISAF Case dealing with the meaning of Room.

Before we get into the submissions themselves, let's look at the problem the working party is trying to solve.  There are a number of scenarios in which Rule 18, Mark-Room, and Rule 19, Room to Pass an Obstruction, appear to conflict.  Consider the following scenario, taken from a team-race call suggested by Matt Knowles.  The boats are at a reach mark to be followed by a run: 

Black is clear ahead of both Grey and White when she enters the zone, and Grey is inside White when they the zone.  Grey and White are sailing faster than Black.  Grey sails to pass to leeward of Black, and White elects to sail between Grey and Black.  In doing so, White forces Black to luff up.  Black protests White under rule 18.2(b) for not being given mark-room, and White protests Grey under rule 19 for not giving her room to pass to leeward of Black.

White's argument is that Black is an obstruction to both Grey and White because they both owe Black mark-room (see definition 'Obstruction').  So when Grey elects to go to leeward of Black, she must give White room to do so, too.  By sailing up toward White between positions 1 and 2, Grey fails to give White room, causing White to sail too close to Black and thus forcing Black above her course to the mark.  White admits she broke rule 18.2(b) with respect to Black but claims she was compelled to do so.  She points out that when it became clear that Grey was not going to give her room under rule 19 at position 2, she could not avoid both Black and Grey.  So that means Grey should be disqualified, and White exonerated under rule 64.1(c) for her breach of rule 18.2(b).

Grey sees it a different way.  White is required to give mark-room to both Grey and Black, and from positions 1 through 3 that means giving them room to sail to the mark.  White could easily have seen that at position 1 that she would not be able to go between Black and Grey and still give mark-room to both of them, so she wasn't "compelled" to break rule 18.2(b).  Therefore White should not be exonerated.  Grey says she herself broke no rule; she was entitled to room under rule 18.2(b) and was simply taking the room to which she was entitled.

(Note that Grey can insure she is blameless by bearing off toward the wrong side of the mark to give White room to pass between her and Black, and protesting White.  Now White has clearly broken rule 18.2(b) by not giving Grey room to sail to the mark, and Grey has given room as required by rule 19.)

This apparent conflict between rules 18 and 19 is caused at least in part by the fact that Black is an obstruction to both White and Grey.  That's because the definition of Obstruction says a boat racing is an obstruction only if they both "required to keep clear of her, give her room or mark-room or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her."  If those words " give her room or mark-room" were removed, then White's case disappears.  Black would only be an obstruction as long as both Grey and White are clear astern of her, and after that, Grey would be under no obligation to give White room to pass to leeward of Black.  

This is the substance of the submission the Section C Working Party has put forward to ISAF.  The definition Mark-Room would say "… However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her. …"

But wait; think about the following scenario:

Under the current definition, PW is an obstruction to both PL and SW because, even though PW has right of way over neither of them, they both owe her room to pass SL.  This means that SW must give PL room to pass between her and PW.  Under the proposed definition, neither PL nor PW would be obstructions to SW.  SW would still be required to give PL and PW room to pass SL because SL has right of way over all those boats; but why should SW give PL room to avoid PW?  

The answer is a basic principle, not explicitly stated in the Racing Rules of Sailing, but nonetheless clearly implied:  Room is defined as the space needed for a seamanlike maneuver, and it is not seamanlike to break the rules.  Because SW owes PL room to pass between her and SL, and because PL cannot do that without giving room to PW, thus SW must give PL room to give PW room.  

Because this is not explicit in the rules, nor in the ISAF Cases, the Section C Working Group has proposed a new ISAF Case that makes this principle explicit.  The summary of the proposed Case says "When a boat is entitled to room, the space she is entitled to includes space to comply with the rules."

Before making these submissions, the working group spent a lot of time thinking of scenarios where the change to the definition of Obstruction might cause problems.  Despite our efforts, we could think of none.  Can you think of any place on the racecourse where the words "give her room or mark-room" are necessary in the definition of Obstruction?  If you can, please let me know by commenting on this blogsite, or contact any of the members of the Section C Working Party: Ben Altman, Chris Atkins, Dick Rose, Richard Thompson, or myself, by e-mail.  E-mail addresses for Ben Altman, Dick Rose and me are on the US SAILING website, at http://raceadmin.ussailing.org/Rules/Committee.htm. 

During a recent day race, the Race Committee signaled a course change to the right at the leeward mark. The change mark was not in the water at that time but the original mark was still in position because it was being used by other classes. The windward leg was short for the boats involved and the visibility was unlimited.

Although the course change was reasonably significant, the short length of the leg meant that the new mark would not be very far from the old mark.

As the leading boats neared the vicinity of the old mark, it was obvious that no new mark had been set. A mark boat with a mark in it was in sight but since the mark was in the boat, no one paid much attention to it.

Just before the lead boats reached the old mark (having decided to race to it), the mark boat dropped the new mark about 200 yards in front of one of the trailing boats. The trailing boat continued on to the new mark, rounded it and was first to finish. The lead boats tacked back to port, reached off to round the new mark and finished well behind the boat that had been trailing.

A request for redress was filed and after a short hearing, the Protest Committee granted redress and abandoned the race.

In the protest hearing, the Race Committee representative, in defense of what happened, asked two questions of the protestor:

1."Why didn't you just sail to the new spot indicated by the new bearing and range"?

2. "Suppose fog had set in-what would you have done then?"

A couple of points came out in response to question #1.

The first was that the mark boat was in approximately the right spot indicated for the change mark. However it had been in evidence throughout the race (given the good visibility and the short length of the legs). The assumption by the leaders was that if he were going to drop a new mark, he'd have done it already.

The second point was that all the boats were navigating by eyeball. No one had bothered with electronic navigation because the marks had been clearly visible from the starting line before the race started. Therefore, the position of the new mark became somewhat of a question as boats sailed away from the leeward mark.

The issue of decreased visibility is an interesting one. For cruising boats with electronic aids for navigation (which these were), one would expect no trouble finding a new mark assuming it is in the right position. However, what about smaller one design boats that have no electronic capabilities? Is it fair to continue a race when the mark can't be easily seen?

Obviously, the density of the fog or anything else adversely impacting the visibility has to be considered. Bad visibility is a relative term. One quarter of a mile is one thing, one quarter of a boat length is quite another.

Rule 33 deals with changing the next leg of a race and the first paragraph of the rule ends by saying that the new mark need not be in position when the course change is signaled. So when does it have to be in position?

There is no guidance in the rules or appeals on when a change mark should be in place so I checked with a number of experts including Mary Savage, Rob Overton, Dave Perry and Peter Reggio to get their opinions.

Here is an amalgamation of what they had to say:

As a competitor, you know that the race committee must tell you that the next leg is being changed before you reach the mark that starts that leg.

Also, the race committee has to tell you where the new mark will be using one of the methods found in Rule 33 (a) or (b).

You should have every expectation that the race committee will have the new mark in place in time for you to approach and round it using the tactics that you see fit to use in that race. There will probably be a difference in your tactics if the visibility is bad and you cannot see either the mark or your competition but you can assume that the mark is where the race committee said it would be.

Do not expect the race committee to abandon a race if the visibility deteriorates or even if they make a minor mistake. In general, this is not a road PRO's like to travel. If you feel that you have been disadvantaged by the race committee's actions (or lack of action), be prepared to request redress.

Common sense is the rule of the day for both competitors and race committees in this situation.

If you're the PRO or you're running the mark boat, put yourself in the competitors' shoes.

1. The new mark needs to be in the right spot.

2. The new mark needs to be in the water early enough for the boats to make a good approach.

3. If the mark boat has a problem, it should get to the right spot and fly Flag M.

If you're a competitor, remember race committees make mistakes so punch the position of the new mark into your GPS regardless of the conditions. If you're sailing a small boat without electronics and the visibility goes bad, time your tacks with your stopwatch and use your compass to keep track of the wind direction.

There's been a new spate of discussion about when, in the definition of mark-room, a boat is "sailing to the mark" and when she's "at the mark".  Unlike the earlier discussion of this topic when the new rules first came out, most of this recent discussion comes out of match racing.  In that discipline, in many races there are more umpires than skippers and tacticians combined, to decide when precise transition points have been reached; and for consistency of calls, everybody wants the umps to have as little latitude of interpretation as possible.  Of course, in fleet and team racing, which do not have such resources, such precision is impossible to achieve; but it still might be helpful to try to define what is meant.

I've argued before in the UK-Halsey blogsite that the distinction between the rights of a boat "sailing to the mark" and "at the mark" is not important for the purpose of rule 18.2, Giving Mark Room, because when a boat is nearly at a mark, her course "to the mark" and her proper course around it are essentially the same, so the exact moment when she ceases to be sailing to the mark and is now at the mark is irrelevant.  But there's a related issue, where the distinction might be important:  Rule 18.5 says,

"When a boat is taking mark-room to which she is entitled, she shall be exonerated

(a) if, as a result of the other boat failing to give her mark-room, she breaks a rule of Section A, or

(b) if, by rounding the mark on her proper course, she breaks a rule of Section A or rule 15 or 16."

The rules of Section A deal with keeping clear, so both parts of the rule exonerate a boat for failing to keep clear if she's simply taking mark-room to which she's entitled, and the other boat gets in her way; this makes sense, as the other boat wasn't supposed to do that.

Rules 15 and 16 are a different matter.  Rule 15 requires a boat that gains right of way by her own actions to initially give the other boat room to keep clear, and rule 16 requires a right-of-way boat that changes course to give the other boat room to keep clear.  Exonerating a right-of-way boat from breaking these rules puts a mighty weapon in her hand.  She can now carry out actions against the boat that owes her mark-room, which she could not do anywhere else on the racecourse.

The opportunity to take such aggressive actions without penalty is, of course, the grist of the match racing mill, so naturally match racers and umpires want to know exactly when a boat is "rounding the mark"; seeing that this is in some way related to "at the mark", they want to know if"rounding the mark" in rule 18.5 is the same as the transition in the definition of mark-room from "sailing to the mark" to "at the mark".

My answer is "Being at the mark is related, but not identical, to rounding it." To see why I say they're related, consider the situation at a port-rounding leeward mark, where the inside boat (S) is on starboard tack, with right of way over the port-tack boat (P) outside her.  Suppose S is just entering the zone and she's not at that moment sailing toward the mark.  If she turns to her course to the mark in such a way that P cannot keep clear, she breaks rule 16. Does she get exonerated for that breach?  I think we'd all say, no, she didn't change course "by rounding the mark", she did it while sailing to the mark.  So she would get exonerated if she broke a rule of Section A (which she can't do, she's the right-of-way boat) but not for breaking rules 15 or, as in this case, 16.

On the other hand, suppose S has sailed to the mark and, for whatever reason (maybe there's a current she misestimated) she ends up aiming at the wrong side of the mark and needs to turn to starboard at the last second, to get to the correct side of the mark.  She has right of way, so she doesn't need her mark-room to turn to pass on the right side of the mark; but if she turns so fast that she fails to give the other boat room to keep clear, ordinarily she'd run afoul of rule 16.  In this case, however, I think such a turn is exonerated by rule 18.5.  She broke rule 16 "by rounding the mark".  In effect, her right to exoneration is the same as under the 2005-2008 RRS.

Note that the turn of the boat at the edge of the zone might have pretty much the same radius at that of the boat at the mark – the difference is that at the mark she turns sharply by rounding the mark, whereas at the edge of the zone she's turning sharply to sail to the mark, and that's not an exonerated action.

So "at the mark" and "by rounding the mark" are not synonymous, but they're related by the fact that a boat boat cannot be rounding the mark when she's still sailing to it, only when she's at it. (On the other hand, even if she's at the mark, a sharp turn that's not to round the mark would still get her into trouble if she breaks rule 16 when she does it.)

This gets us back to the question of when a boat is at a mark.  Unfortunately, it turns out to be difficult to define the moment of arrival "at the mark" precisely (which is why the rule-writers didn't put a more precise definition into the rules).  For example, we might be tempted to say that a boat is "at the mark" when the mark is alongside her, i.e., the mark is abeam of some part of her hull and equipment in normal position.  But that clearly doesn't work – consider a boat like the one in the scenario above, which arrives at the mark with the mark directly in front of her.  Surely if she's only inches from the mark she's "at" it in any reasonable sense of the word; yet she's not alongside the mark.  Conversely, a boat approaching the mark might turn away from the mark so that the mark is abeam of her bow, but if she's two of her lengths from the mark with nothing but water between her and it, she's surely not "at" the mark in any reasonable sense. 

Another approach to defining "at the mark", which I think I like, is to look at the boat's proper course.  If a boat's proper course is to sail toward the mark in preparation for rounding it (taking into consideration other boats she needs to give mark-room to or keep clear of), then she's sailing "to the mark"; if her proper course is to turn to round the mark (even if that turn is counter to the direction to the next mark, and even if she's some distance from the mark), she's "at" it.  And, if she does turn to round it while taking mark-room to which she's entitled and she thus breaks rule 15 or 16, she's exonerated for doing so.

And that, I'm afraid, is the best we can do for the match racers.

There's been a new spate of discussion about when, in the definition of mark-room, a boat is "sailing to the mark" and when she's "at the mark".  Unlike the earlier discussion of this topic when the new rules first came out, most of this recent discussion comes out of match racing.  In that discipline, in many races there are more umpires than skippers and tacticians combined, to decide when precise transition points have been reached; and for consistency of calls, everybody wants the umps to have as little latitude of interpretation as possible.  Of course, in fleet and team racing, which do not have such resources, such precision is impossible to achieve; but it still might be helpful to try to define what is meant.

I've argued before in the UK-Halsey blogsite that the distinction between the rights of a boat "sailing to the mark" and "at the mark" is not important for the purpose of rule 18.2, Giving Mark Room, because when a boat is nearly at a mark, her course "to the mark" and her proper course around it are essentially the same, so the exact moment when she ceases to be sailing to the mark and is now at the mark is irrelevant.  But there's a related issue, where the distinction might be important:  Rule 18.5 says,

"When a boat is taking mark-room to which she is entitled, she shall be exonerated

(a) if, as a result of the other boat failing to give her mark-room, she breaks a rule of Section A, or

(b) if, by rounding the mark on her proper course, she breaks a rule of Section A or rule 15 or 16."

The rules of Section A deal with keeping clear, so both parts of the rule exonerate a boat for failing to keep clear if she's simply taking mark-room to which she's entitled, and the other boat gets in her way; this makes sense, as the other boat wasn't supposed to do that.

Rules 15 and 16 are a different matter.  Rule 15 requires a boat that gains right of way by her own actions to initially give the other boat room to keep clear, and rule 16 requires a right-of-way boat that changes course to give the other boat room to keep clear.  Exonerating a right-of-way boat from breaking these rules puts a mighty weapon in her hand.  She can now carry out actions against the boat that owes her mark-room, which she could not do anywhere else on the racecourse.

The opportunity to take such aggressive actions without penalty is, of course, the grist of the match racing mill, so naturally match racers and umpires want to know exactly when a boat is "rounding the mark"; seeing that this is in some way related to "at the mark", they want to know if"rounding the mark" in rule 18.5 is the same as the transition in the definition of mark-room from "sailing to the mark" to "at the mark".

My answer is "Being at the mark is related, but not identical, to rounding it." To see why I say they're related, consider the situation at a port-rounding leeward mark, where the inside boat (S) is on starboard tack, with right of way over the port-tack boat (P) outside her.  Suppose S is just entering the zone and she's not at that moment sailing toward the mark.  If she turns to her course to the mark in such a way that P cannot keep clear, she breaks rule 16. Does she get exonerated for that breach?  I think we'd all say, no, she didn't change course "by rounding the mark", she did it while sailing to the mark.  So she would get exonerated if she broke a rule of Section A (which she can't do, she's the right-of-way boat) but not for breaking rules 15 or, as in this case, 16.

On the other hand, suppose S has sailed to the mark and, for whatever reason (maybe there's a current she misestimated) she ends up aiming at the wrong side of the mark and needs to turn to starboard at the last second, to get to the correct side of the mark.  She has right of way, so she doesn't need her mark-room to turn to pass on the right side of the mark; but if she turns so fast that she fails to give the other boat room to keep clear, ordinarily she'd run afoul of rule 16.  In this case, however, I think such a turn is exonerated by rule 18.5.  She broke rule 16 "by rounding the mark".  In effect, her right to exoneration is the same as under the 2005-2008 RRS.

Note that the turn of the boat at the edge of the zone might have pretty much the same radius at that of the boat at the mark – the difference is that at the mark she turns sharply by rounding the mark, whereas at the edge of the zone she's turning sharply to sail to the mark, and that's not an exonerated action.

So "at the mark" and "by rounding the mark" are not synonymous, but they're related by the fact that a boat boat cannot be rounding the mark when she's still sailing to it, only when she's at it. (On the other hand, even if she's at the mark, a sharp turn that's not to round the mark would still get her into trouble if she breaks rule 16 when she does it.)

This gets us back to the question of when a boat is at a mark.  Unfortunately, it turns out to be difficult to define the moment of arrival "at the mark" precisely (which is why the rule-writers didn't put a more precise definition into the rules).  For example, we might be tempted to say that a boat is "at the mark" when the mark is alongside her, i.e., the mark is abeam of some part of her hull and equipment in normal position.  But that clearly doesn't work – consider a boat like the one in the scenario above, which arrives at the mark with the mark directly in front of her.  Surely if she's only inches from the mark she's "at" it in any reasonable sense of the word; yet she's not alongside the mark.  Conversely, a boat approaching the mark might turn away from the mark so that the mark is abeam of her bow, but if she's two of her lengths from the mark with nothing but water between her and it, she's surely not "at" the mark in any reasonable sense. 

Another approach to defining "at the mark", which I think I like, is to look at the boat's proper course.  If a boat's proper course is to sail toward the mark in preparation for rounding it (taking into consideration other boats she needs to give mark-room to or keep clear of), then she's sailing "to the mark"; if her proper course is to turn to round the mark (even if that turn is counter to the direction to the next mark, and even if she's some distance from the mark), she's "at" it.  And, if she does turn to round it while taking mark-room to which she's entitled and she thus breaks rule 15 or 16, she's exonerated for doing so.

And that, I'm afraid, is the best we can do for the match racers.

In my blogs on the new Section C, I've gone through a number of changes in the rules that, in my opinion, will change the fleet-racing game in a major way, in a minor way, or not at all.  I think it might be useful for me to summarize what I think the changes are, with a brief description of each major rules change and an assessment of how I think it will affect the game we play.

Rule 18 and associated definitions

Definition Zone and when rule 18 begins to apply.  The zone around a mark is now 3 lengths rather than 2, and rule 18 now applies when the first of two boats is at the zone rather than when they are "about to pass" it.  Game changes: (1) A larger zone requires an earlier "inside move" and overlaps have to be established or broken earlier.  This is a major game change.  (2) In very heavy air, the old rule may have applied more than 3 lengths from the mark, because boats were "about to round" earlier; under such conditions rule 18 may actually apply less far from the mark than before.  On the other hand, boats are unlikely to luff each other or otherwise carry out aggressive maneuvers in such weather, so I rate the impact of this game change as minor.

Definition Mark-Room.  The new definition defines much more clearly what is meant by room at a mark:  room to sail to the mark; and then room to take a proper course around the mark.  No game change during the approach, but at the end of the rounding an inside boat with room now gets more room, because her optimal radius turn is much larger than her "seamanlike" radius turn.  This game change is not, in my opinion, major.  Note that Butch disagrees.

Room to tack.  The definition of mark-room says, "However, mark-room does not include room to tack unless the boat is overlapped to windward and on the inside of the boat required to give mark-room."  I interpret this to mean that if a boat is overlapped on the inside and to windward, she does get room to tack, and I think this is what we already thought the rule said (even if it didn't), so no game change.  

No change in right of way.  The old rule gave right of way as well as room to a boat that was clear ahead (or inside and became clear ahead) at the zone.  We used to say she "owned the zone".  The new rule 18 does not change right of way, so, for example, a boat on starboard tack still has right of way over a boat on port tack (though if she owes the port-tack boat mark-room, her right of way is severely limited).  In practice, this makes little or no difference to the game – it just makes the rules easier to understand and remember. No game change.

No point where rule 18.1 "turns off" rule 18.  The old rule 18 applied "until both boats have passed [the mark]."  The new rule deletes these words, so, just as with other rules like port/starboard etc., rule 18 no longer applies when the situation no longer requires it.  In this case, since "mark-room" is only defined when the boat entitled to it is sailing to the mark and when she is at the mark, all parts of rule 18 dealing with mark-room effectively "turn off" when the boat entitled to mark-room is past the mark.  In practice, I don't think the difference between this and the old rule's "both boats" criterion causes a game change.  There may be a game change with respect to rule 18.3, Tacking When Approaching a Mark because mark-room is not an issue in that rule.  So rule 18.3 presumably continues to apply until both boats leave the zone.  For example, even if you are the leeward boat with luffing rights, if you tacked in the zone you can't luff the other boat above close-hauled, even after you have passed the mark, as long as you or she is in the zone.  This change was clearly unintended, and will no doubt be reversed in 2013.  Until then, I don't think it will have much impact on windward-leeward courses, where boats rarely luff each other even to a beam reach after they round the mark, let alone above close hauled.  If the next leg is, say, a beam reach, a boat that tacks in the zone and then luffs after passing the mark might get in trouble.  So let's say this is a moderate change.

Rule 18.1(c).  The provision that rule 18 does not apply between a boat approaching a mark and one leaving it is new, but it only clarifies the sentence of old rule 18.1 that said rule 18 began applying only to boats that were [both] about to round."  (A boat leaving the mark and a boat approaching the mark are almost never "about to round" it at the same time.)  So, little or no game change.  

Rule 18.2(c) turns off 18.2(b).  Rule 18.2(b) is the "lock-in" rule, which says that if a boat was clear ahead or overlapped at the zone, then she gets mark-room throughout the rounding, regardless of her overlap status later.  Rule 18.2(c) makes that clearer, and then says, "However, if either boat passes head to wind or if the boat entitled to mark-room leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply."  As far as leaving the zone is concerned, this is what we all thought the rule said anyway (even if it didn't).  But the words about tacking are new, and could, in certain circumstances, cause a huge game change.  Suppose a boat approaches a leeward mark clear astern of a pack of other boats, in light air.  Rather than granting them mark-room as required by rule 18.2(b), she quickly luffs up, passes head to wind, and bears off for the mark.  According to rule 18.2(c), 18.2(b) no longer applies, so that means rule 18.2(a) applies.  As soon as she gets an overlap on the other boats, she's entitled to mark-room.  Of course, some of them will have gone around the mark by then, but maybe not all.  To those boats, this would be a big change in the game.

This change was inadvertent, and will probably be reversed by 2010, if not sooner, on an "emergency" basis.  Everybody makes mistakes, and this time, we did.

Rule 18.3, Tacking When Approaching a Mark.  The old rule said that for it to apply, the tacking boat had to "complete her tack" in the zone.  The new rule only requires that she be subject to rule 13 (i.e., between head to wind and close-hauled) in the zone.  In almost all cases, this is equivalent; to see this, sketch a zone on a piece of paper and look at how boats enter it to round a windward mark.  You'll see that boats which complete their tacks in the zone were subject to rule 13 in the zone, and vice-versa.  So why the change?  Well, under the old rule a boat could start to tack, realize she was about to break rule 18.3, and simply fail to complete the tack.  This gave her room at the mark, and because the rules of Section C overruled those of Section A she wasn't breaking rule 13.  So, the new rule is a game change – but only if you knew about this problem in the old rule 18.3, which I'll bet you didn't.

Rule 18.4, Gybing.  This is the rule that requires a right-of-way boat to jibe at a jibe mark, or at a leeward mark where she has to jibe to round it.  The change is that now this rule does not apply at a gate mark.  This means that a boat can enter the zone of, say, the left-hand gate mark on starboard tack, continue more or less across toward the right-hand gate mark, force an oncoming port-tacker to jibe, and then turn and go back to the left-hand gate mark – without breaking any rule.  Under the old rules, if the starboard-tacker's course before she jibed took her farther from the left-hand gate than her proper course around it would allow, she would have had to continue on to the right-hand mark to avoid breaking rule 18.4.  Now, not so.  This is, I believe, a substantial game change.

Rule 18.5, Exoneration.  The effect of this rule is to replace the old Section C preamble, which said that when rules of Section C conflicted with those of Sections A or B, the Section C rules took precedence.  There are two effects of this change: (1) Rule 14, Avoiding Contact, is not mentioned; now, if you break rule 14 you are not exonerated unless you were forced to do so by another boat breaking a rule (see rule 64.1(c)); and (2) breaches of rules 15 and 16 are now only exonerated when the boat is at the mark and sailing her proper course.  I think most of us thought that the old preamble really didn't apply to rule 14 anyway, so I'm rating (1) as an insignificant game change.  On the other hand, old rule 18.2(d) used to exonerate boats from rule 16 if they were "changing course to round or pass [the] mark."  The only places I can think of where this is different from sailing her proper course around the mark is as boats approach the mark (under the old rules, a leeward boat presumably could have luffed an inside leeward boat as hard as she liked, as long as she was turning toward the mark) and in certain cases as they leave it, where a leeward boat entitled to mark-room can now only luff to her proper course.  For example, at a leeward mark, if a clear-astern boat goes inside a boat that was clear ahead at the zone, the outside boat can only luff up to approximately close-hauled to "shut the door" without worrying about rule 16.  Under the old rule, it was unclear whether she was similarly restricted by rule 16, or whether she could go head-to-wind without breaking rule 16; it all depended on how you interpreted "course … to round the mark".  So I'd rate this game change as moderate.

Rule 19

Rule 19.2(a).  This rule simply answers a rules FAQ – it's implied by the definitions of "keep clear" and "right of way".  No game change.

Rule 19.2(b).  In the new rules, there are no zones around obstructions unless they are also marks.  In general, this won't affect the game much – except in match racing, we never put zones around obstructions, anyway; we simply gave room to boats overlapped inside us.  But now there's a move that works at fixed obstructions such as sea walls and shoals:  Suppose two boats are on the same tack and barely overlapped, with the leeward boat almost clear ahead and about to be outside boat at the obstruction.  Two lengths before the mark, she luffs and then bears off sharply, breaking the overlap.  If she does this right, it's difficult for the other boat to reestablish the overlap, so there's a good chance there won't be an overlap before they reach the obstruction, and so the boat ahead doesn't have to give the other boat room.  Even if the clear-astern boat establishes an inside overlap at the last moment, it's possible that the other boat can't give room at that point, in which case she doesn't have to.  I'd say this is a substantial game change.

No special exoneration/precedence over Sections A and B.  As I mentioned above, under the old rules if there was a conflict between rules of Section C and those of Sections A or B, the Section C rules took precedence.  In the new rule 18, this is replaced by rule 18.5, Exoneration (see above), but there is no such provision in rule 19.  So if a right-of-way boat fails to give room when she's required to, the other boat must try to solve the problem while still keeping clear – which might mean tacking or going the other side of the obstruction – and protesting.  Only if she has no other options may she simply push in where there's not enough room and foul the outside boat – under those circumstances she'll be exonerated under rule 64.1(c).  This is a major game change.

Rule 19.2(c).  There's only one change here from the old rules – under the new rules, the prohibition against "going in there" at a continuing obstruction only applies to boats that are required to keep clear before they go in.  That's because a boat with right of way can simply steer at the inside quarter of the boat ahead and force her to move away from the obstruction in order to keep clear.  Thus, the restriction is moot in such cases.  No game change.

Rule 20

Hailing when the other boat is fetching the mark.  Under the old rule, it was not clear what was supposed to happen at an obstruction that was also a mark, if a boat hailed another boat when the hailed boat was fetching.  Most experts taught that the hailed boat had to tack and protest, but they had to resort to rule 2 or rule 14 to get to that answer.  The new rule says exactly what those lecturers and writers were saying, so I'd say there's no game change – at least if you read those books or went to those talks.

The 2009-2012 Racing Rules of Sailing feature a couple of changes that haven't received much attention, what with all the hullabaloo about the changes to Section C.  One of these is the change to rule 23.2 (formerly, 22.2) regarding interfering with a boat on a different leg (or doing her turns).  This probably won't come up a lot in fleet racing except near the end of a regatta when one boat wants to push another boat back in the fleet, but it certainly comes up in team and match racing. 

 

The new rule is a direct copy of the 2005-2008 match-race rule:  "Except when sailing her proper course, a boat shall not interfere with a boat taking a penalty or sailing on another leg."  The old rule (numbered 22.2) said "A boat shall not change course if her only purpose is to interfere with a boat … on another leg or lap of the course."  So the old rule required intent and a change in course, but the new rule only requires that a boat not be sailing her proper course at the time of interference.

 

The new rule is plainly simpler, but has some subtle ramifications.  First, because intent is no longer part of the rule, it applies equally to both boats involved – if one boat cuts across to another leg to interfere with another boat and the other boat is not sailing her proper course when the interference occurs, then both boats break the rule (or maybe only the boat that didn't cut the course).

 

Well, that seems OK, doesn't it?  Why would the boat on the other leg be sailing anything other than her proper course?  The answer might be, to avoid the attacking boat! Consider the following scenario:

 

It's the last race of a series, and Rule Beater is five points behind Just There for the championship.  But Rule Beater hasn't used her throw-out, while Just There has already had a bad race so she can't afford to throw out this one.  That means Rule Beater can win the championship if she can force Just There back into the fleet, to, let's say, 15^th place.  Rule Beater doesn't care what place she gets in this race, as she's going to throw out the race anyway. 

 

The course is windward-leeward, twice around.  Rule Beater covers Just There before the start and manages for them both to get terrible starts; but Just There gets free, sails well on the first windward leg and comes to the port-rounding mark in 12^th place, just ahead of Rule Beater.  So Rule Beater, instead of following Just There around the mark, reaches across below the mark on starboard tack and then hardens up again, meeting Just There as she's bearing off for the downwind leg.  Rule 18 doesn't apply between them because Just There is leaving the mark and Rule Beater is approaching it.  They're both on starboard tack and Just There is to windward, so she must keep clear.  So she luffs up to a close-hauled course, putting herself just to windward of Rule Beater, who now cannot tack for the mark without breaking rule 16. 

 

Then … (drum roll here)  Rule Beater protests Just There for breaking rule 23.2!  She's right, because (a) the boats are clearly on different legs of the course; (b) Just There is not sailing her proper course; and (c) Just There is interfering with Rule Beater, who wants to tack and go back to the mark. 

 

This all has to do with the definition of Proper Course, which is defined as "[a] course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term."  So when Rule Beater forces Just There to luff up away from her course to the next mark, there is no question that Just There is not on her proper course – because in the absence of Rule Beater, she would surely have simply sailed downwind toward the leeward mark!

 

It's possible that Rule Beater is breaking rule 23.2 as well – she's clearly interfering with Just There, and if she's not on her proper course, she might be in trouble.  ISAF Case 78 says in part that while executing a tactic to slow another boat, " a boat … breaks rule 2 if she intentionally breaks another rule to increase the likelihood of the tactic succeeding."  So if Rule Beater breaks rule 23.2 "intentionally", she breaks rule 2 as well, in which case her DSQ for the rule-2 breach is non-discardable, meaning she has to count it in her series score, even if she retires immediately in acknowledgment of breaking rule 23.2 (see rules 64.1(a) and (b)).  This would clearly defeat her purpose in getting Just There disqualified or making her do her turns.

 

Note that rule 23.2, like almost all other Part 2 rules, only looks at the moment in question.  In general, if a rule references a boat's course, as rule 23.2 does, it's irrelevant how she got there, only what her course is at the time.  (There are exceptions to this principle, as for example rule 18.3, which uses the past tense to describe events that had to occur before the rule could come into effect, and rule 18.2(b), which uses the relationship of boats at the edge of the zone to determine mark-room later; but such rules refer clearly to the earlier criterion.)  The fact that Rule Beater reached over (i.e., sailed below her proper course) to intercept Just There is irrelevant, as long as she turned to her proper course (in this case, close-hauled) before interfering.  This seems like a huge loophole to me.

 

Another issue is the meaning of the word "shall not interfere".  This is not a defined expression, and seems to me to be much stronger than "shall keep clear" or "shall give room".  I think that arguably, even luffing one's sails to windward of a boat interferes with her; and certainly exercising right of way over a keep-clear boat, as Rule Beater did, or using a right to room to keep a right-of-way boat from sailing her course, as Just There did, is interfering.  And as long as Rule Beater's proper course is to tack back to the mark, I think Just There is interfering with her by simply being, well, just there.  But what if they're close to the mark and Rule Beater's proper course is to gybe around and go back to the mark?  Does that mean Just There is not "interfering" with her?  This seems like a reasonable statement, to me, but it bothers me that somehow Proper Course, a defined term, can be involved in interpreting "Interfere", which is undefined.

 

Finally, we come to the issue is what is meant by "on different legs", but I'll leave that thorny question for now.  Suffice it to say that you can't use the rule C7.2(c) definition from match racing, except to decide how to do MR  penalty turns. There's a Team Race Rapid Response Call about to come out that gives some insight into this issue; stay tuned.