FreeDom #4 race 6

[antonio]

I protest Mac Yavel for rule 11 in the incident ocurred just after 12´ on the replay. Nadeo penalized me with 16.1
The protest is made after the finish just to clarify.

Thanks
Antonio.

[euphoria]

I think it's 11, not 16.1
After your first luff, Mac responds like he should.
But he stops luffing, sails straight for over 3 seconds while he is too close.

Harald

[jiel]

I was in the race and defend my mate Mac.
At t=12:08 indeed the distance is small but Mac is keeping clear because WM may change course in any direction without immediat contact. After WM luffed, Mac responded to keep clear in luffing also. When Mac was at close-hauled, the best he could do to keep clear, there was contact. Its a 16.1 in my opinion.
At this moment, Masino was last and the incident would not have consequences on the result (?).
Merci to WM to have said the P was hailed after the arrival.
JL

[Shura]

TRC 2020 04 29 race 03 WMR vs Mac

[samuel]

I think Oli MAC failed to make the correct move. From the moment Antonio start luffing, Mac must to luff properly. from replay its clear he doesnt.
Also her tack was incorrect to me, so close both hulls, so the only way to tack without contact is: slowly

RRS 11 was break.

sam

[jiel]

Nope.
Please read my preceeding post and the TR call A3 which is clearly the very similar situation.
JL

[samuel]

Facts:

- Both both sailing paralel with 2 hull of lenghts;
- Antonio is leeward boat, start luffing;
- Oli is windward boat, 2 sec later, Mac luff to keep clear;
- both boats paralel with half boat of lenght;
- Oli bear a little 1 or 2 degrees WITH RRS 11 FLAG (screaming)
- Antonio also luff 1,2 deg....

For me this is a bit diferrent of TR CALL A3.

[euphoria]

I don't think A3 is similar.
A3 has initially bigger gap between the boats. Half a boat width.
This is more like the gap at the first luff from wmr1.
Then wmr1 stops luffing similar to position 3 in call A3.
Mac also stops there for 3 seconds (even bears away slightly as Sam says).

Now Mac is in the immediate contact zone, and by staying there, not luffing further, he is breaking 11.
Wmr1 is only proving the point by making the final small luff.

If Mac had continued to luff (not stopping for 3 seconds) and it resulted in contact, then it would have been a 16.1.

Harald

[jiel]

Now Mac is in the immediate contact zone, and by staying there, not luffing further, he is breaking 11.
Wmr1 is only proving the point by making the final small luff.

After the first WM luff indeed Mac didnt respond in the best way but the boats are not in the immediate contact zone. The boats entered in immediate contact zone as the consequence of the WM second luff, for wich Mac immediatly luffed to keep clear.

The TR call A3 states :

If Y continues to luff and B continues to respond promptly and in a seamanlike way to each luff, Y will ultimately have to stop luffing when the boats are so close that any further luff from Y will result in B being unable to keep clear.

So IMO the second WM luff is a 16.1 breache.
On the other side, I can admit that the non seamanlike way Mac responded to the first WM luff is a rule 11 breache.

JL

[euphoria]

So the difference in opinion is the size of the immediate contact zone.
I would claim that if a boat that makes a very small luff, immediately has to bear away again to give room to the windward boat to get out, then he was in the immediate contact zone.
Otherwise rule 11 would work like you say even without the immediate contact part.

Harald

[jiel]

OK I change my view to improve it.
I understand what you say and agree with. Being in the immediate zone of contact according to the TR call A3, MW would not have to luff addtionnaly but had just to hail "P Mac" or "P 11 Mac".
In short :
Because Mac didnt

respond promptly and in a seamanlike way to each luff

, he broke rule 11 (at t=t0).
Because WM didnt

stop luffing when the boats are so close that any further luff from MW will result in Mac being unable to keep clear

, he broke 16.1 (at t=t0+few seconds).

JL

[euphoria]

I don't think we should go that way, and I don't really agree.
In order to penalize under 16.1, the other boat has to initially keep clear.
"When a right of way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear".
How to give to other boat room to keep clear if she didn't keep clear before the course change?
In theory, the boat could change course in the "good" direction, as still not give the other boat room to keep clear...

I think only rule 14 can be used on the ROW boat if contact is forced, not 16.1. And only real water, not vsk.

Harald

[jiel]

OK no problem, you have much experience in VSK as well as in real sailing and thanks God we may disagree without being angry or losing confidence.

Sorry Harald if you think I make you to spend your time ... Almost in the same veine : I wonder if the h alinea of the D1.1 changes to the RRS :
(h) Rule 14 does not apply for a boat with right of way, or a boat entitled to room or mark-room.
is usefull ? Why not simply avoid then hail "P name" ? I saw some skippers doing that. This change looks like to say "This guy does not know the rule, I must hit him to show up he broke a rule".
Thank you for your hints,
JL

[euphoria]

I wonder if the h alinea of the D1.1 changes to the RRS :
(h) Rule 14 does not apply for a boat with right of way, or a boat entitled to room or mark-room.
is usefull ? Why not simply avoid then hail "P name" ?

Most events have removed rule 14 because the decision from the VSK umpire gives information to the protest committee that is very much useful.

Example:
If there is a marginal overlap situation at zone entry, then it's impossible to call the correct fact from the replay.
The VSK umpire however knew perfectly well the status...
If contact was made, then the umpire would give either a pen under 18.2a or 18.2c.

If it gave a penalty under a, then we know there was an overlap at zone entry.
If it gave a penalty under c, then we know the boat was clear ahead at zone entry.

Harald