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 what appears to be a huge difference between old rule 18 and new rule 18 (Mark-Room):  the old rule granted right of way to boats that would ordinarily have to keep clear under the rules of Section A (port/starboard, windward/leeward, etc.).  The new rule 18 doesn’t do that.  And although that looks like a huge game change, I claimed it would make no difference at all, other than making it easier to remember which boat has right of way.

In this blog, we take up rule 19.  The first thing you’ll notice when you read this rule is that there are no longer zones around obstructions that aren’t marks!  

Non Game-Change 3.  I think this is the place where I’ll get the most argument, but in removing zones around obstructions I think we didn’t change the game much at all, at least for normal fleet racers.  

But first, why did the working group that drafted the new Section C take the zone away from around obstructions?  Doesn’t this make the rules more complicated, rather than simpler?  The answer is that in this case we were trying not so much to simplify the rules as to make them agree with how sailors actually behave.  I claim that, sailing under the old rules, sailors never (or almost never) put zones around obstructions, even though old rule 18 required them to do so!  

Let me give one example:  A group of boats are approaching the leeward mark, with one clump clear ahead and in the zone, and another coming up from behind, just outside the zone.  In theory, under old rule 18 each of the boats in the first clump was an obstruction to all of the boats in the second clump, because she was clear ahead of them when she entered the zone.  So the boats in the second clump had to, in theory, keep track not just of the zone around the mark, but also of the zones around each of the boats ahead.  This means that, in theory at least, one boat might say “No room!  Keep clear!” to a boat clear astern of her at the zone around the mark, and the other boat’s response might be “OK, but I was clear ahead when we first came within 2 lengths of that boat up ahead, and therefore you have to keep clear!”  In this kind of situation, old rule 18 imposed not just a single obligation on a pair of boats, but numerous obligations, which might well contradict each other.  Of course, in practice we didn’t do that – we ignored all the zones around  other boats and only kept track of which boats were clear ahead or overlapped when they reached the zone around the mark.

Because no sailors were putting zones around boats racing, even when the rules required them to do so, we first considered removing just the zones around obstructions that were boats racing (that is, when both the other boats were required to keep clear of them or give room to them – see the definition of Obstruction).  But then we considered how sailors in fleet races looked at obstructions in general, and realized that almost never were sailors thinking in terms of zones there, either!  In most cases, non-continuing obstructions such as moored boats, islands, pier ends, etc. aren’t things boats turn at but things they pass; and generally, outside boats simply give inside boats room as required.  (When passing continuing obstructions, the zone didn’t come into play under either the old rules or the new ones.)  So if we took the zones away from around obstructions that aren’t marks, we’d make the rules easier to remember (only put zones around marks) and not change the game much at all.  If there are obstructions that are effectively marks, where boats turn to a new course as they pass them, the regatta organizers should designate those obstructions as marks when they write the sailing instructions.

There is clearly a play at obstructions that is allowed now but would have been illegal under the old rules.  Consider two boats on the same tack, approaching the corner of a pier, with the windward boat (W) overlapped inside, but almost clear astern of, the leeward one (L), and suppose that L isn’t restricted by rule 17 (i.e., she has “luffing rights” on W).  Under the old rules L couldn’t luff inside the zone (well, the rule actually didn’t say that, but that’s how we sailed), but under the new rules, she definitely can, as long as she gives W room to keep clear (rule 16.1) and doesn’t run her into the pier (rule 19.2).  So when they’re about 2 lengths from the pier, L can luff, causing W to luff as well; then bear off and break the overlap.  Under the new rule, as long as there’s no overlap L doesn’t have to give W room.  Of course, if W reestablishes the overlap to windward and inside L, L immediately has to begin to give her room – but if she’s unable to do so starting from when the overlap begins, she is not required to give room (see rule 19.2(c)).  And generally W will not get the overlap, as she has to bear off to get around the obstruction.

Note that if W tries to establish a new overlap very close to windward of L, she’s likely to break rule 11, windward/leeward.  And she’s only exonerated for that breach if she can argue that L “compelled” her to do so (see rule 64.1(c)).  That will be hard to do if she could have borne off and gone below W.  So the moral on rule 19.2 is, if the other boat is not giving you room and there’s some way to bail out, do so and protest, rather than forcing your way in and breaking other rules.

So there is a difference in the game!  True, but how often does this happen?  Most races are reasonably free of obstructions, and this play only works if the leeward boat has luffing rights, is almost clear ahead, and is able to stay ahead while she passes the obstruction (or is so close to it that she can’t give room when the overlap begins).  Recall that under the old rules, this play was legal as long as the luff was outside the zone – and despite that, I’ve only seen it used at obstructions a couple of times in all the years I’ve been racing, judging, and umpiring.  So I stand on my claim – removing zones around obstructions will not substantially affect the fleet-racing game.

By the way, I said “fleet racing” in that last paragraph for a reason.  In match racing, obstructions can be a big issue (consider, for example, a spectator boat, or the RC boat before the competitors are approaching to start), and there, the removal of zones, together with no change in right of way, will have a huge impact.  A boat clear ahead of her competitor at the zone around an obstruction used to have right of way while the boats were passing it, until they were both past it.  This meant, for example, that if the boats were passing to windward of the obstruction, the boat ahead could bear off and jibe around the obstruction, right in front of the other boat, and not break rule 11 (when a windward/leeward overlap was established) or rule C2.4 (when she jibed), even if the trailing boat had to take avoiding action.  But under the new rule 19.2 she’s not relieved of her responsibility to obey rules 11 and C2.4, so the leading boat has to keep clear of the other boat when she becomes windward boat, and jibing around an obstruction is just like jibing in open water, under the rules.   If the trailing boat is close astern of the other boat, this gives her substantially more control, in my opinion, than she had under the old rules.  But I admit I haven’t competed or umpired yet under the new rules, so maybe this won’t be as big a deal as I anticipate.