I begin to tack at t=23, having created a small gap to leeward. The tack is a superfast tack, hold enter.

SR bears away soon after I commence my tack, and we collide when I am subject to 13.

Please see pic on the link below - taken at 1 second intervals from 21.3-24.3. I extrapolated where I believe SR's boat would have been positioned at 24.3 had he not dialed down - blue boat most to windward with a chunk missing.

Thus I am 90% confident that I would have successfully avoided his transom had he not altered course - my speed is 2.3 during the tack compared to SR's speed of ~5.9.

Ruleswise, I call this as effective 16.1. There was about 0.4 seconds from his bear away and my passing head to wind, and with lag, that is not enough time to abort.

farm5.static.flickr.com/4075/4905166618_06dc9ed74d_o.jpg

wow, very very close call this one, indeed.
The image bigneil did is quite helpful. BN seemed to cross without collision if rugger would not altered course.

It looks to me like that SR has already stopped altering course and is holding by the time you are subject to 13(when you reach and pass head to wind). It's a close one and tough break but i think a 13 on bigNeil is the correct call. One of those sailx things.

If your argumment is saying that with lag, .5 s between me altering you and you not being able to abort is reasonable....

How does the same not apply for that same time period between you altering down and consequently beginning your tack, and me altering down also?

I also contend that per replay, it is unreasonable to assume that my altering of 5-10 deg closed enough of a gap that was initially there for bN to pass clear astern -- I contend that space/gap was never even there.

Further -- S_R is keep clear boat to windward when altering course so cannot be subject to R16.1

Sailing_Rugger wrote:
I also contend that per replay, it is unreasonable to assume that my altering of 5-10 deg closed enough of a gap that was initially there for bN to pass clear astern -- I contend that space/gap was never even there.Do you have any evidence for this statement?

I took 10 minutes to overlay 4 images from the replay, hypothesize, extrapolate and summise. My evidence is in the picture (mentally extrapolate you going forward at ~5.9 and me turning at ~2.3, decide if a collision is likely).

'Unreasonable' suggests that I have no case. I await your graphical or other evidential offering that counters it. After all, you were 100% sure during the race that your bear away had 100% no bearing on the collision...

The title of this caught my eye! I thought all boats alter course while tacking...

Anyway, (although I'm meant to be staying out of protest for the time being) since I'm here, I'll offer a comment.

In short, I'm afraid for BN I would go with SR on this one.

SR was keeping clear before the tack. Any move he did make would have also kept clear while SR was 'keep clear' boat.

Then BN was keep clear boat (by rule 13). The timing is tight here, and regardless of the pixels, I think there is still a burden on BN.

Definition of 'keep clear' includes something along the lines of 'SR can sail his course without having to take avoiding action'.

SRs bear away was simply to further gas BN who had borne away. I say this with confidence based on the tight timings of the events.

SR was unable to sail a footed course due to BNs tack. Therefore BN did not keep clear.

Additionally, I'd say that if any rule should be alleged, 16.2 should get a look in. However, I think this incident is on the tacking boat simply not putting enough space between the boats before the tack.

DW

My evidence is in the replay -- which is what actually happened... as opposed to 'hypothesizing or extrapolating' from a manufactured picture.

Thanks DW -- however I am unsure if 16.2 applies because:

1) S_R (stbd tack boat) never alters when bN is port tack
2) As in my initial defense, bN was never (or was never going to be) keep clear prior to S_R's course change

Thanks DW, I suppose 0.5 secs or thereabouts is too far away from being close enough. I accept the decision, withdraw the protest.

SR, I am clear. 90% certain your dip ensured the collision. Will have to be more wary of you laggily doing this in the future, but I am content that my in-race judgement and 'manufactured' hypotheses beat your weak arguments. But, as long as you are right, eh

'' I think this incident is on the tacking boat simply not putting enough space between the boats before the tack.''

1.Was BN tacking with room or not we can't basically judge since SR altered his course. The crash tack looks to me like if he was ducking.

Please also look at t= 23,3. Big neil is luffing towards SR, but SR is bearing away.

Rugger indeed does not alter course whilst big neil is tacking. However, he did not KC once Bigneil was luffing.

When bigneil luffs, SR bears off. Weird.

bigNeil wrote:
.Thanks DW, I suppose 0.5 secs or thereabouts is too far away from being close enough. I accept the decision, withdraw the protest.

SR, I am clear. 90% certain your dip ensured the collision. Will have to be more wary of you laggily doing this in the future, but I am content that my in-race judgement and 'manufactured' hypotheses beat your weak arguments. But, as long as you are right, eh

I am just responding to your arguement(s)... you filed, not me, correct? If you'd like to further address "as long as you are right" and consider your continued arrogance and rude comments throughout this race and the successive 4 races, then be my guest, but that is another discussion.... right?

333 wrote:
.'' I think this incident is on the tacking boat simply not putting enough space between the boats before the tack.''

1.Was BN tacking with room or not we can't basically judge since SR altered his course. The crash tack looks to me like if he was ducking.

Please also look at t= 23,3. Big neil is luffing towards SR, but SR is bearing away.

Rugger indeed does not alter course whilst big neil is tacking. However, he did not KC once Bigneil was luffing.

When bigneil luffs, SR bears off. Weird.

333, the point is that SRs bear away would have kept clear of BN too.

All things being equal, the bear away was minimal relative to the tacking move.

With that space between the boats, there would have been room for SR to avoid contact if BN had not continued to the tack. BN probably could not touch SR without going past HTW. SR was keeping clear while BN was luffing. Just because SR bore away while a windward boat does not mean he did not keep clear. I do that all the time in real life. In fact it suggests even more that BN broke Rule 16.

SR's bear away was meant to further gas BN. The continuation into a tack caused the collision.


Look - The arguement is not whether BNs tack would have cleared SR in the absence of SRs bear away. I'm sure it would have.

However, SR is entitled to sail a course which 'keeps clear' of BN while SR is the keep clear boat. SR bore away while BN was still on starboard tack and before HTW. At all times, SR was sailing a course which kept clear. At every course before BN was CHC, SR could have kept clear. THAT'S the point.

So after HTW BN is keep clear boat.

Yes - BN may have been able to duck without SRs move, but SR made his move well before BN was tacking, and was entitled to do that. He was not ROW boat at the time he made his move, so you can't get SR on rule 16. He was sufficiently far enough from BN when he made his move, so you can't get him on Rule 11.

The onus is on the tacking boat to keep clear. The onus is on the leeward boat to give SR room to keep clear. Had BN stopped at HTW and there been a collision, we may all agree that SR broke a rule. But pause your replays at the point where SR makes his move, and also when BN reaches HTW. There was no chance of a collision in either instances.

The collision occured past HTW WHILE TACKING.
DW

Ok, thanks much for the explanation DW!!!!

333

No problem.

I mentioned real life sailing.

I will quite often aggressively bear down on a leeward boat and put myself in a position where they cannot hit me without going past HTW, but also cannot tack. It's a controlling position by the 'keep clear boat' rather like the one in Case 15.

DW

Since when is 0.4 seconds the allowed lag time?

Like SR said the lag could be argued both ways.

Until BN passes HTW this is a luff by BN and SR does not change course after BN passes HTW. Therefore BN breaks rule 13. I think SR's move was seamanlike as per teams and there is no need for BN to get personal.

BN a couple of notable people have said to me how good you are on teams, one of them said you are "easily the best" on teams. It would a shame to ruin that with arrogant statements like your last.

OP

OptimistPrime wrote:
.Since when is 0.4 seconds the allowed lag time?

Like SR said the lag could be argued both ways.

Until BN passes HTW this is a luff by BN and SR does not change course after BN passes HTW. Therefore BN breaks rule 13. I think SR's move was seamanlike as per teams and there is no need for BN to get personal.

BN a couple of notable people have said to me how good you are on teams, one of them said you are "easily the best" on teams. It would a shame to ruin that with arrogant statements like your last.

OP

Thank you.

Personally I see both boats break rules here.

BN tacks and breaks R13.

S_R bears away towards a ROW boat who is luffing so by definition S_R is not keeping clear and breaks R11.

Flame suit on and fire extinguisher standing by!

Aloha!

Okole wrote:
.Personally I see both boats break rules here.

BN tacks and breaks R13.

S_R bears away towards a ROW boat who is luffing so by definition S_R is not keeping clear and breaks R11.

Flame suit on and fire extinguisher standing by!

Aloha!

Good idea!

Anyway, I don't agree that SR broke rule 11 here. Had BN stopped her luff SR would have kept clear. Then once BN passes HTW, BN is the keep clear boat.

OP

While leeward boat, it was impossible for bN to make contact with S_R... therefore by definition, S_R was in fact keeping clear. Collision only occurred once bN passed HTW and broke R13.

bigNeil wrote:
I accept the decision, withdraw the protest.As noted earlier, this one can be closed, thanks for all the input.

I appreciate the lag argument can be played equally by both parties. In a lag free world, I would see anothers alterations in real time. I also would admit that my protest was partly to show my side where SR was adamant that his alteration down had no bearing on the occurrence or lack of any collision (my tracking image proves this to my satisfaction).

So, thanks again for the discussion.

Sailing_Rugger wrote:
.While leeward boat, it was impossible for bN to make contact with S_R... therefore by definition, S_R was in fact keeping clear. Collision only occurred once bN passed HTW and broke R13.
True S-R, hadn't noticed that. Then by the rules technically BN breaks R13.

We should close this one.

Decision:
BigNeil breaks R13, exonerates so protest dismissed.

Aloha!