March 2011 - Crossing Too Close

placeholder image

March 2011 - Crossing Too Close

I finished last month with a situation where a boat pushes the limits. This month I am going to cover a much simpler rules situation that leads to many very difficult protests.



(click on the diagram to see a larger cleaner version)

In the diagram the green boat is on starboard tack. The red boat is slightly ahead and tries to cross on port. The only two rules that really apply here are rules 10 and 14.
 
10        ON OPPOSITE TACKS
When boats are on opposite tacks, a port-tack boat shall keep clear of a starboard-tack boat.

14        AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room
(a)        need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and…

Red, as the port tack boat, is required to keep clear of green on starboard tack. Green is required to avoid contact if reasonably possible. Green is not required to act until it is clear that red is not keeping clear.
 
In this case, green decides that red is not keeping clear, so she bears off as she feels the rules require –and because she doesn’t want to have a collision.. She then protests. Red maintains that she was keeping clear and would have crossed even if green had not borne off. Careful measurement on the diagram would allow us to determine whether they would have made contact, but we don’t have that luxury in real life. This will become a controversial and difficult-to-decide protest. Did green have to bear off? Was red too close? – Even a simple port/starboard isn’t as clear-cut as many assume.
 
There is guidance in the ISAF Casebook for cases like this – in this instance in Case 50. The full case can be read at http://www.sailing.org/casebook.
 
Case 50
When a protest committee finds that in a port-starboard incident S did not change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the committee finds that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P should be disqualified.

Decision
Rule 10 protests involving no contact are very common, and protest committees tend to handle them in very different ways. Some place an onus on the port-tack boat to prove conclusively that she would have cleared the starboard-tack boat, even when the latter’s evidence is barely worthy of credence. No such onus appears in rule 10. Other protest committees are reluctant to allow any rule 10 protest in the absence of contact, unless the starboard-tack boat proves conclusively that contact would have occurred had she not changed course. Both approaches are incorrect.

A starboard-tack boat in such circumstances need not hold her course so as to prove, by hitting the port-tack boat, that a collision was inevitable. Moreover, if she does so she will break rule 14. At a protest hearing, S must establish either that contact would have occurred if she had held her course, or that there was enough doubt that P could safely cross ahead to create a reasonable apprehension of contact on S’s part and that it was unlikely that S would have ‘no need to take avoiding action’ (see the definition Keep Clear).

In her own defence, P must present adequate evidence to establish either that S did not change course or that P would have safely crossed ahead of S and that S had no need to take avoiding action. When, after considering all the evidence, a protest committee finds that S did not change course or that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on her part, it should dismiss her protest. When, however, it is satisfied that S did change course, that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead, and that S was justified in taking avoiding action by bearing away, then P should be disqualified. (Italics added.)

For green to win her protest, she has to establish that “she had a reasonable apprehension of contact”. For red to have the protest dismissed, she has to establish that “there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision”.

The skipper of green is probably near the stern and a full boat length away, while the skipper of red is very close to the gap and has a really good view . The comfort level and experience of the two skippers will probably affect whether green does bear off. Experienced skippers may be used to really close crossings. If the skipper of green is comfortable that the skipper of red does not want his boat to be hit, this will help reduce his apprehension. An inexperienced skipper of green may be less comfortable with the close crossing and have more of an apprehension of collision (the protest committee will have to decide if it was a reasonable one). On the water as they approach, a hail of “Hold your course” from the skipper of red might help to increase green’s comfort level. It is not a required hail (there are only three required hails in the rule book) and it has no official standing but it can be useful to reduce green’s apprehension of collision.
 
This is a risky situation for red. There is no risk of green being disqualified in a protest, but there is a reasonable risk of red being thrown out. I think the case and the rules support red being thrown out in the diagram as shown (I measured they miss by inches), but it has been pointed out to me that in real life protest committees are reluctant to disqualify so red may survive a move that I suggest you avoid.

© Copyright 2011 Andrew Alberti
 
Posted: 3/1/2011 2:09:08 PM by Andrew Alberti


Trackback URL: https://rcyc.ca/trackback/813d20a9-dcad-4781-ac09-b8b576bbeee1/March_2011_-_Crossing_Too_Close.aspx?culture=en-US

This page provides links to a set of articles original published in Kwasind magazine. The versions here include animated diagrams. The original articles can be found within the original magazines which are available online back to January 2007. 

Articles before December 2016 are based on the Racing Rules of Sailing 2009-12 or 2013-2016 and have not been updated to reflect the changes that apply as of January 2017 with the publication of the Racing Rules of Sailing 2017-20. A copy of the new rules can be found on sailing.org.
ABOUT ANDREW ALBERTI
Andrew Alberti has been writing these monthly articles in the Kwasind since early 1997.  They explain the Racing Rules of Sailing. Andrew is a National Judge and National Umpire. He is a member of the Sail Canada Rules and Appeals Committees. The interpretation of the rules contained in the articles is Andrew's and not that of the RCYC or any of the committees he sits on. 

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Send your questions to Andrew at kyrules@alberti.ca.

 

ABOUT RCYC: 
166 Years of Tradition | World-Class Sailing | Toronto Island & City Clubhouse
 
June 2020 - An Unusual Start
May 2020 - A Big Collision
March/April 2020 - A Three-Boat Finish
January/February 2020 - An Overview of the Right-of-Way Rules V
November/December 2019 - An Overview of the Right-of-Way Rules IV
Post Archive
June 2020(1)
May 2020(1)
March/April 2020(1)
January/February 2020(1)
November/December 2019(1)
September/October 2019(1)
July/August 2019(1)
May/June 2019(1)
March/April 2019(1)
January/February 2019(1)
November/December 2018(1)
September/October 2018(1)
July/August 2018(1)
May/June 2018(1)
March/April 2018(1)
January/February 2018(1)
November/December 2017(1)
October 2017(1)
September 2017(1)
August 2017(1)
July 2017(1)
June 2017(1)
May 2017(1)
April 2017(1)
March 2017(1)
January/February 2017(1)
December 2016(1)
November 2016(1)
October 2016(1)
September 2016(1)
August 2016(1)
July 2016(1)
June 2016(1)
May 2016(1)
April 2016(1)
March 2016(1)
January/February 2016(1)
December 2015(1)
November 2015(1)
October 2015(1)
September 2015(1)
August 2015(1)
July 2015(1)
June 2015(1)
May 2015(1)
April 2015(1)
March 2015(1)
January 2015(1)
December 2014(1)
November 2014(1)
October 2014(1)
September 2014(1)
August 2014(1)
July 2014(1)
June 2014(1)
May 2014(1)
April 2014(1)
March 2014(1)
January 2014(1)
December 2013(1)
November 2013(1)
October 2013(1)
September 2013(1)
August 2013(1)
July 2013(1)
June 2013(1)
May 2013(1)
April 2013(1)
March 2013(1)
January 2013(1)
December 2012(1)
November 2012(1)
October 2012(1)
September 2012(1)
August 2012(1)
July 2012(1)
June 2012(1)
May 2012(1)
April 2012(1)
March 2012(1)
February 2012(1)
January 2012(1)
December 2011(1)
November 2011(1)
October 2011(1)
September 2011(1)
August 2011(1)
July 2011(1)
June 2011(1)
May 2011(1)
April 2011(1)
March 2011(1)
February 2011(1)
January 2011(1)
November 2010(1)
October 2010(1)
September 2010(1)
August 2010(1)
July 2010(1)
June 2010(1)
May 2010(1)
April 2010(1)
March 2010(1)
February 2010(1)
January 2010(1)
RSS