Two boats, A and B, enter the zone at the windward mark on the same tack. A enters the zone clear ahead of B. After they’re both in the zone, B tacks twice while A just sails on inside the zone. The question is, does B, who was clear astern at the zone, still have to give A mark-room under rule 18.2(b)?
When I first heard this question, my immediate answer was “No.” After B tacks, the boats become on opposite tacks on a beat to windward and therefore rule 18 no longer applies (see rule 18.1(a)). It seemed to me that if the whole rule turns off, so does every part of it, including rule 18.2(b). When B tacks back, rule 18 applies afresh and because both boats are inside the zone, rule 18.2(b) can’t come into play because neither boat enters the zone during this new application of rule 18. In effect, my argument was that rules have no memory of the previous times they applied. When a rule begins to apply, it’s a new situation entirely, and what happened the last time the rule applied is irrelevant.
My second thought was that the answer doesn’t much matter, at least in fleet racing. If B is already clear astern of A and tacks twice while A just sails on, B is going to be so far behind A that mark-room just isn’t going to come into play.
Then last month, the ISAF Team Racing Rapid Response Working Party took up this issue in a proposed Rapid Response Call. (The answer is important in team racing because boats frequently stop at marks, and if the non-tacking boat is dead in the water or nearly so, the boat that tacks twice can easily become overlapped inside her.) The working party was asked to select one of two alternative answers, essentially “Yes, the boat that was clear astern at the zone still has to give the other boat mark-room under rule 18.2(b)” and “No, the boat that was clear astern at the zone no longer is required by rule 18.2(b) to give mark-room” (my answer). To my surprise, the committee voted five-to-one in favor of “Yes” – exactly the opposite of my interpretation!
Here’s the argument supporting the group’s answer: The new version of rule 18.2(c), in force since January 1, 2010, says:
(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 the boat entitled to mark-room passes head to wind or leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply.
Note that only the boat entitled to mark-room is mentioned. By inference, the only way she can lose those rights under rule 18.2(c) is by tacking or leaving the zone – the rule is clearly written so that the other boat cannot affect those rights by her own actions, and in fact that was the reason for the urgent change in the rule (see my earlier blog on this topic). The implication in our windward-mark scenario is that even though rule 18 is clearly not in effect during the time the boats are on opposite tacks, the overall wording of rules 18.2(b) (which says “thereafter”) combined with the new 18.2(c) preserve the memory of how the boats entered the zone, when rule 18 applied earlier.
Regardless of the actual meaning of the words in rule 18 (which is all we’re supposed to go on), the “yes” answer seems fairer – why should a boat that is required to give room “thereafter” (rule 18.2(b)), even if overlaps change (rule 18.2(c)), be able to get out of that obligation by tacking twice? Shouldn’t this be just like coming from clear astern and establishing a new overlap?
OK, now let’s continue this question a little further: What if both boats tack? In particular, what if B tacks first (turning rule 18 off), then A also tacks? Now they’re on the same tack again, so rule 18 applies again. Does B still owe A mark-room under rule 18.2(b)?
Here, we’d like to say no, because rule 18.2(c) says “if the boat entitled to mark-room passes head to wind or leaves the zone, rule 18.2(b) ceases to apply,” and clearly A, the boat entitled to mark-room, passes head to wind when she tacks. But that interpretation has two big problems, at least in my mind. First, when A passes head to wind, rule 18 doesn’t apply (remember, B had already tacked so at that point A and B were on opposite tacks on a beat to windward). So now we’re not just saying rule 18 has memory; parts of it apply even when the overall rule doesn’t! And second (although this might seem a little technical), while rule 18 isn’t in effect there is no boat “entitled to mark-room”. So how do we apply the words of rule 18.2(c) to boat A?
I’d like to ask the readers of this blog three simple questions:
- Do you think if B tacks twice and A doesn’t, that B still must give A mark-room under rule 18.2(b)? In other words, does rule 18 have “memory” of the last time it applied, as long as the boat entitled to mark-room doesn’t tack and doesn’t leave the zone?
- Do you think that if both boats tack, the boat that was clear astern at the zone is still required to give the other boat mark-room when they’re on the same tack again?
- How clear is rule 18 on this issue? In other words, do the answers to questions 1 and 2 seem obvious to you?
In closing, I should add that I’m perfectly prepared to discover that I’m the only one who thinks there’s a problem here, and that everybody else agrees that the current rule is perfectly clear, one way or the other. So, let me know!
5c5bea88-de9c-4910-8f10-4dfd06048c2d|0|.0