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 thedefinition of mark-room, a boat is "sailing to the mark" andwhen she's "at the mark". Unlike the earlier discussion of this topic when the new rules firstcame out, most of this recent discussion comes out of match racing.  In that discipline, in many races there aremore umpires than skippers and tacticians combined, to decide when precisetransition points have been reached; and for consistency of calls, everybodywants the umps to have as little latitude of interpretation as possible.  Of course, in fleet and team racing, whichdo not have such resources, such precision is impossible to achieve; but itstill might be helpful to try to define what is meant.

I'veargued before in the UK-Halsey blogsite that the distinction between the rightsof a boat "sailing to the mark" and "at the mark" is notimportant for the purpose of rule 18.2, Giving Mark Room, because when a boatis nearly at a mark, her course "to the mark" and her proper coursearound it are essentially the same, so the exact moment when she ceases to besailing to the mark and is now at the mark is irrelevant.  But there's a related issue, where thedistinction might be important:  Rule18.5 says,

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

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

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

The rules of SectionA deal with keeping clear, so both parts of the rule exonerate a boat forfailing 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'tsupposed to do that.

Rules 15 and 16 area different matter.  Rule 15 requires aboat that gains right of way by her own actions to initially give the otherboat room to keep clear, and rule 16 requires a right-of-way boat that changes courseto give the other boat room to keep clear. Exonerating a right-of-way boat from breaking these rules puts a mightyweapon in her hand.  She can now carryout actions against the boat that owes her mark-room, which she could not doanywhere else on the racecourse.

The opportunity to take such aggressive actions withoutpenalty is, of course, the grist of the match racing mill, so naturally matchracers and umpires want to know exactly when a boat is "rounding themark"; seeing that this is in some way related to "at the mark",they want to know if"rounding themark" in rule 18.5 is the same as the transition in the definition of mark-roomfrom "sailing to the mark" to "at the mark".

My answer is "Being at the mark is related, but notidentical, to rounding it." To see why I say they're related, consider thesituation at a port-rounding leeward mark, where the inside boat (S) is onstarboard tack, with right of way over the port-tack boat (P) outside her.  Suppose S is just entering the zone andshe's not at that moment sailing toward the mark.  If she turns to her course to the mark in such a way that Pcannot keep clear, she breaks rule 16. Does she get exonerated for thatbreach?  I think we'd all say, no, shedidn't change course "by rounding the mark", she did it while sailingto the mark.  So she would getexonerated if she broke a rule of Section A (which she can't do, she's theright-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, forwhatever reason (maybe there's a current she misestimated) she ends up aimingat the wrong side of the mark and needs to turn to starboard at the lastsecond, to get to the correct side of the mark.  She has right of way, so she doesn't need her mark-room to turnto pass on the right side of the mark; but if she turns so fast that she failsto give the other boat room to keep clear, ordinarily she'd run afoul of rule16.  In this case, however, I think sucha turn is exonerated by rule 18.5.  Shebroke rule 16 "by rounding the mark".  In effect, her right to exoneration is the same as under the2005-2008 RRS.

Note that the turn of the boat at the edge of the zone mighthave pretty much the same radius at that of the boat at the mark – thedifference is that at the mark she turns sharply by rounding the mark, whereasat the edge of the zone she's turning sharply to sail to the mark, and that'snot an exonerated action.

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

This gets us back to the question of when a boat is at amark.  Unfortunately, it turns out to bedifficult to define the moment of arrival "at the mark" precisely(which is why the rule-writers didn't put a more precise definition into therules).  For example, we might betempted to say that a boat is "at the mark" when the mark isalongside her, i.e., the mark is abeam of some part of her hull and equipmentin normal position.  But that clearlydoesn't work – consider a boat like the one in the scenario above, whicharrives at the mark with the mark directly in front of her.  Surely if she's only inches from the markshe's "at" it in any reasonable sense of the word; yet she's notalongside the mark.  Conversely, a boatapproaching the mark might turn away from the mark so that the mark is abeam ofher bow, but if she's two of her lengths from the mark with nothing but waterbetween her and it, she's surely not "at" the mark in any reasonablesense. 

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

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

There's been a new spate of discussion about when, in thedefinition of mark-room, a boat is "sailing to the mark" andwhen she's "at the mark". Unlike the earlier discussion of this topic when the new rules firstcame out, most of this recent discussion comes out of match racing.  In that discipline, in many races there aremore umpires than skippers and tacticians combined, to decide when precisetransition points have been reached; and for consistency of calls, everybodywants the umps to have as little latitude of interpretation as possible.  Of course, in fleet and team racing, whichdo not have such resources, such precision is impossible to achieve; but itstill might be helpful to try to define what is meant.

I'veargued before in the UK-Halsey blogsite that the distinction between the rightsof a boat "sailing to the mark" and "at the mark" is notimportant for the purpose of rule 18.2, Giving Mark Room, because when a boatis nearly at a mark, her course "to the mark" and her proper coursearound it are essentially the same, so the exact moment when she ceases to besailing to the mark and is now at the mark is irrelevant.  But there's a related issue, where thedistinction might be important:  Rule18.5 says,

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

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

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

The rules of SectionA deal with keeping clear, so both parts of the rule exonerate a boat forfailing 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'tsupposed to do that.

Rules 15 and 16 area different matter.  Rule 15 requires aboat that gains right of way by her own actions to initially give the otherboat room to keep clear, and rule 16 requires a right-of-way boat that changes courseto give the other boat room to keep clear. Exonerating a right-of-way boat from breaking these rules puts a mightyweapon in her hand.  She can now carryout actions against the boat that owes her mark-room, which she could not doanywhere else on the racecourse.

The opportunity to take such aggressive actions withoutpenalty is, of course, the grist of the match racing mill, so naturally matchracers and umpires want to know exactly when a boat is "rounding themark"; seeing that this is in some way related to "at the mark",they want to know if"rounding themark" in rule 18.5 is the same as the transition in the definition of mark-roomfrom "sailing to the mark" to "at the mark".

My answer is "Being at the mark is related, but notidentical, to rounding it." To see why I say they're related, consider thesituation at a port-rounding leeward mark, where the inside boat (S) is onstarboard tack, with right of way over the port-tack boat (P) outside her.  Suppose S is just entering the zone andshe's not at that moment sailing toward the mark.  If she turns to her course to the mark in such a way that Pcannot keep clear, she breaks rule 16. Does she get exonerated for thatbreach?  I think we'd all say, no, shedidn't change course "by rounding the mark", she did it while sailingto the mark.  So she would getexonerated if she broke a rule of Section A (which she can't do, she's theright-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, forwhatever reason (maybe there's a current she misestimated) she ends up aimingat the wrong side of the mark and needs to turn to starboard at the lastsecond, to get to the correct side of the mark.  She has right of way, so she doesn't need her mark-room to turnto pass on the right side of the mark; but if she turns so fast that she failsto give the other boat room to keep clear, ordinarily she'd run afoul of rule16.  In this case, however, I think sucha turn is exonerated by rule 18.5.  Shebroke rule 16 "by rounding the mark".  In effect, her right to exoneration is the same as under the2005-2008 RRS.

Note that the turn of the boat at the edge of the zone mighthave pretty much the same radius at that of the boat at the mark – thedifference is that at the mark she turns sharply by rounding the mark, whereasat the edge of the zone she's turning sharply to sail to the mark, and that'snot an exonerated action.

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

This gets us back to the question of when a boat is at amark.  Unfortunately, it turns out to bedifficult to define the moment of arrival "at the mark" precisely(which is why the rule-writers didn't put a more precise definition into therules).  For example, we might betempted to say that a boat is "at the mark" when the mark isalongside her, i.e., the mark is abeam of some part of her hull and equipmentin normal position.  But that clearlydoesn't work – consider a boat like the one in the scenario above, whicharrives at the mark with the mark directly in front of her.  Surely if she's only inches from the markshe's "at" it in any reasonable sense of the word; yet she's notalongside the mark.  Conversely, a boatapproaching the mark might turn away from the mark so that the mark is abeam ofher bow, but if she's two of her lengths from the mark with nothing but waterbetween her and it, she's surely not "at" the mark in any reasonablesense. 

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

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

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 ofchanges that haven't received much attention, what with all the hullabalooabout the changes to Section C.  One ofthese is the change to rule 23.2 (formerly, 22.2) regarding interfering with aboat on a different leg (or doing her turns). This probably won't come up a lot in fleet racing except near the end ofa regatta when one boat wants to push another boat back in the fleet, but itcertainly comes up in team and match racing. 

 

Thenew rule is a direct copy of the 2005-2008 match-race rule:  "Exceptwhen sailing her proper course, a boat shall not interfere with a boattaking a penalty or sailing on another leg."  The old rule (numbered 22.2) said "A boat shall not change course if her onlypurpose is to interfere with a boat … on another leg or lap of thecourse."  So the old rule requiredintent and a change in course, but the new rule only requires that a boat notbe sailing her proper course at the time of interference.

 

The new rule is plainly simpler, but has somesubtle ramifications.  First, becauseintent 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 theother boat is not sailing her proper course when the interference occurs, thenboth 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 besailing anything other than her proper course? The answer might be, to avoid the attacking boat! Consider the followingscenario:

 

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

 

The course is windward-leeward, twicearound.  Rule Beater covers JustThere 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 comesto the port-rounding mark in 12^th place, just ahead of RuleBeater.  So Rule Beater,instead of following Just There around the mark, reaches across belowthe mark on starboard tack and then hardens up again, meeting Just Thereas she's bearing off for the downwind leg. Rule 18 doesn't apply between them because Just There is leavingthe mark and Rule Beater is approaching it.  They're both on starboard tack and Just There is towindward, so she must keep clear.  Soshe luffs up to a close-hauled course, putting herself just to windward of RuleBeater, who now cannot tack for the mark without breaking rule 16. 

 

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

 

This all has to do with the definition ofProper Course, which is defined as "[a] course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible inthe absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using theterm."  So when Rule Beaterforces 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 simplysailed downwind toward the leeward mark!

 

It's possible that Rule Beater isbreaking 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 whileexecuting a tactic to slow another boat, " a boat … breaks rule 2 if she intentionally breaks another rule toincrease 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 forthe rule-2 breach is non-discardable, meaning she has to count it in her seriesscore, even if she retires immediately in acknowledgment of breaking rule 23.2(see rules 64.1(a) and (b)).  This wouldclearly defeat her purpose in getting Just There disqualified ormaking her do her turns.

 

Note that rule 23.2, like almost all otherPart 2 rules, only looks at the moment in question.  In general, if a rule references a boat's course, as rule 23.2does, it's irrelevant how she got there, only what her course is at thetime.  (There are exceptions to thisprinciple, as for example rule 18.3, which uses the past tense to describeevents that had to occur before the rule could come into effect, and rule18.2(b), which uses the relationship of boats at the edge of the zone todetermine mark-room later; but such rules refer clearly to the earliercriterion.)  The fact that RuleBeater reached over (i.e., sailed below her proper course) to intercept JustThere is irrelevant, as long as she turned to her proper course (in thiscase, close-hauled) before interfering. This seems like a huge loophole to me.

 

Another issue is the meaning of the word"shall not interfere".  Thisis 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'ssails to windward of a boat interferes with her; and certainly exercising rightof way over a keep-clear boat, as Rule Beater did, or using a right toroom to keep a right-of-way boat from sailing her course, as Just Theredid, is interfering.  And as long as RuleBeater's proper course is to tack back to the mark, I think Just Thereis interfering with her by simply being, well, just there.  But what if they're close to the mark and RuleBeater's proper course is to gybe around and go back to the mark?  Does that mean Just There is not"interfering" with her?  Thisseems like a reasonable statement, to me, but it bothers me that somehow ProperCourse, a defined term, can be involved in interpreting "Interfere",which is undefined.

 

Finally, we come to the issue is what ismeant by "on different legs", but I'll leave that thorny question fornow.  Suffice it to say that you can'tuse the rule C7.2(c) definition from match racing, except to decide how to doMR  penalty turns. There's a Team RaceRapid Response Call about to come out that gives some insight into this issue;stay tuned.

 

One of the interesting things about rules changes is that many people, including rules experts, discover “problems” or “features” in the new rules, implying that these problems or features are new.  In some cases, these problems or features were actually in the old rules, and the experts apparently never noticed.  A good example of that is the issue, lately raised, of anticipation in rule 18.2.

To understand the issue, we need to take a look at the new rule 18, Mark-Room.  The part of this rule that has raised the question of anticipation is in section 18.2(b), which says:  

(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.

As I pointed out in an earlier blog, this rule has the same overall effect as rules 18.2(b) and (c) of the 2005-2008 RRS.  The only major differences in application are that the new zone is bigger (3 hull lengths from the mark instead of 2), and now rule 18 only applies at and inside the zone, whereas the old rule applied “when boats are about to round or pass” the mark.  This second change is not as big as it might seem; a now-defunct ISAF Case attempted to define “about to round” without actually doing so, but that Case implied that, in moderate conditions with most boats, a boat was first “about to round” when she was at the two-length zone.  

There’s one exception to rule 18.2(b), and it’s contained in rule 18.2(e), which says:

(e) 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.

My understanding of this rule is that if boats are already overlapped inside you, or if you are sailing into an outside overlap from clear astern, you will have to give the inside boat mark-room when you reach the zone.  On the other hand, if, at the last moment, a boat comes from behind and establishes an inside overlap and you simply cannot give her mark-room, then you don’t break rule 18.2(b) when you fail to do so.

So, where does anticipation come in?  Well, if you’re headed for a leeward mark with four boats overlapped inside you, you can’t simply head for the mark and then, at the zone, say “sorry, boys and girls, but I can’t give you room.”  Rule 18.2(b) requires you to give those boats mark-room when you (or they) reach the zone, and if you fail to do so, you have to do your turns or face disqualification.  The rules do not require you to give mark-room outside the zone, but if you have boats inside you, you have to anticipate before you get to the zone that rule 18.2(b) will eventually apply to you, and start moving over so you will be able to give room at the zone, in order to comply with rule 18.2(b).  This is a lot like having to give mark-room outside the zone, though technically it’s not the same.

The interesting thing, to me at least, is that this situation was equally true (actually, more often true because of the smaller zone) under the 2005-2008 RRS:  Boats were required to give room to boats inside them when they became “about to round”, which according to the ISAF Case generally meant when they reached the zone, and the only exemption was almost the same in the old rules as in the new ones – old rule 18.2(e) said, in part, “If the outside boat is unable to give room when an overlap begins, rules 18.2(a) and 18.2(b) do not apply.”  This exemption was broader than current rule 18.2(e) in that it applied no matter how the overlap was established; but it clearly did not exempt boats from anticipating the need to give room to boats inside them when they were well outside the zone, if that’s what it took to enable them to give room when they were “about to round”, i.e., later on.

So, just as a port-tack boat has to anticipate the need to tack or duck a starboard-tack boat well before they meet, an outside boat has to anticipate the need to give mark-room to boats inside her well before she gets to the zone.  And I think that was true under the old rules, too.

Note:  This is the fifth and last blog in my series on the new Section C rules that came into effect January 1.  In these blogs, I’ll refer to the 2005-2008 Racing Rules of Sailing as the “old rules” and to the 2009-1012 version as the “new rules”.  

The focus of these blogs is on changes in the game induced by the new rules of Section C, and on places where it looks as if there might be a game change, but I believe there will be none.

In my last blog, we looked at rule 19, in particular the lack of zones around obstructions that aren't marks.  In this, the last of the series, we look at rule 18.4, the rule that requires inside right-of-way boats to jibe at jibe marks and at leeward marks they have to jibe to round.  The change is simple: rule 18.4 no longer applies at gates, and it's the third big game change in the new Section C.  

Throughout this blog, I refer to the gate marks as if we were looking downwind at them: the one to be left to port is the "left-hand mark" and the other one is the "right-hand mark".

Game Change 3.  Rule 18.4 (in both the new rules and old rules) says that if a boat needs to jibe at a mark she can sail no farther from the mark than her proper course, before she jibes.  The main purpose of this rule is to ensure safe roundings at port-rounding leeward marks – an outside port-tack boat needs to know whether the inside starboard-tack boat is going to jibe and go around the mark or keep going straight, and rule 18.4 says she’s got to jibe.  But with the advent of leeward gates, this rule causes a problem: it wasn't at all clear whether a starboard-tack boat S sailing across to the right-hand mark and cutting through the left-hand mark’s zone had to jibe, or whether she could proceed across to the other mark.  This effectively removed the safety feature of the rule – a port-tack boat, P, headed for the left-hand mark didn't know whether S is required to jibe or not.  So the new rules simply remove rule 18.4 at gates.  

What does this mean, tactically?  Not much for a port-tacker headed for the left-hand gate mark, because she didn't know whether inside starboard-tackers had to jibe or not, anyway.  It does mean that a starboard-tack boat headed for the right-hand mark will be able to change her mind, jibe and head for the left-hand gate mark instead; her status under old rule 18.4 was unclear but it was certainly possible a protest committee could have disqualified her for not jibing when her proper course to the left-hand mark required it.  

Other than that, the removal of rule 18.4 at gates just makes the game simpler and clearer for everybody.  Without that rule, it's simply a question of ordinary right of way and mark-room as laid out in rule 18.2(b).  Let's look at three common situations:

1.At the left-hand mark, a boat coming in on starboard tack is in very good shape.  She was almost certainly inside all the port-tackers at the zone, and also has right of way.  Port-tack boats outside her don't know if she's going to jibe or not until she actually does so, and if and when she does jibe for the left-hand mark the port-tack boats outside her have to give her room to sail to the mark, and then to round it on her proper course.  In short, life is good for the starboard-tacker.  Tactical lesson: If you want the left-hand gate mark, be the starboard inside boat.

2.At the right-hand mark, a boat coming in on starboard tack has right of way but will generally enter the zone overlapped outside the port-tackers, so she has to give them all mark-room.  This includes room for them to approach the mark on port tack, as well as room to jibe to get there, because that's what sailing to the mark entails for them, and then room to sail on starboard tack to the mark (if necessary).  However, they can only take the room necessary to carry out those actions in a seamanlike way, and no more, because they are keep-clear boats both before the jibe (port/starboard) and after the jibe (windward/leeward).  This means that if one of the inside boats "takes too much room" and fouls the outside starboard/leeward boat, the inside boat has to take her turns or face disqualification.

 3.Inside both zones.  Theoretically, the zones around the two gate marks should never overlap, but in practice they sometimes will – after all, to avoid this the RC has to put the marks 6 boatlengths apart, so if there are, say, 40-foot boats in the race, the marks have to be almost a football field apart to avoid overlapping the zones.  Fortunately, if the zones only overlap slightly there won't be much of a problem because the area of intersection is directly between the marks, far enough downwind so it doesn't get used much.  But suppose two boats do find themselves in both zones at the same time?  Who decides which mark they have to go to?  

Generally, but not always, either boat can go to the mark where she'll be inside boat.  This has nothing to do with the rules, just the geometry.  But what if they each want to cross and go the mark at which they're outside?  If they were overlapped at the zone, then they're each the "outside boat" at the mark they each want to go to, so nobody gets mark-room.  The right-of-way boat thus gets to decide which mark they go to, because she's got right of way and rule 18.4 is turned off.  If the boats were not overlapped at the zone then the boat that was clear ahead at either of the two zones can sail to the mark for that zone.  Rule 18.2 gives her the right to "sail to the mark", so the boat that was clear astern can't prevent her from doing that, even if she has right of way.

I suppose that it's possible that one boat was clear ahead at one zone and the other was clear ahead at the other; maybe they've been sailing around aimlessly and going back and forth.  Then I say each should go to the mark she's nearest, and forget we ever brought the subject up.

A more tactical answer to the overlapping zones would be, "What are these boats doing there in the first place?"  If there was a reasonable chance of encountering other boats at the gate, why didn't the boat that wants to round the left-hand mark go to the left of the fleet, so she comes in on starboard tack and inside at the mark, and why didn't the boat that wants the right-hand mark go to the right, so at least she's inside at the right-hand mark?  To round leeward marks successfully, especially in big fleets, make your "inside move" earlier rather than later.  As usual, the rules tend to reward tacticians who think ahead

I am using the illustration below to call attention to one of this year's rule changes.