April 3, 20251 yr Close-hauled is not a defined term, as it is not in italics when used in the RRS, so we may use a common understanding of the term. If you search the case book for the term, make sure to include the hyphen. There as a number of cases that include the term - eg case 17 Case 17 A boat is no longer subject to rule 13 when she is on a close-hauled course, regardless of her movement through the water or the sheeting of her sails. My understanding is that close hauled is as high as you can point without your sail beginning to luff. When beating to windward, you may find that your best VMG is just below close hauled - on big boats we would have a wind rose diagram plotting the best VMG for various wind strengths, and that may be three or four degrees lower that tightly close hauled. A dictionary definition may say Close-Hauled: Sailing Almost Directly Into the Wind. Close-hauled is a point of sail where a boat is oriented as close to the wind as possible, typically at an angle of 30 to 45 degrees off the wind direction. John
April 3, 20251 yr Ok so I used the term lay line slightly loosely, what I meant was able to lay the mark without tacking. We can sort out the semantics later but the principle I'm advocating is: 1) If you can lay the mark, then no one can tack inside you once you enter the zone. 2) If you round the mark reasonably close to it, then no one clear astern can cut inside you. The idea is to encourage an orderly rounding of the mark and stop all the cutting inside and barging that seems to be the norm at present.
April 4, 20251 yr 16 hours ago, John949 said: Ok so I used the term lay line slightly loosely, what I meant was able to lay the mark without tacking. We can sort out the semantics later but the principle I'm advocating is: 1) If you can lay the mark, then no one can tack inside you once you enter the zone. 2) If you round the mark reasonably close to it, then no one clear astern can cut inside you. The idea is to encourage an orderly rounding of the mark and stop all the cutting inside and barging that seems to be the norm at present. Isn't the whole issue that in most instances of pile ups and frustrations at the windward mark it is because some/all/single skippers cannot judge the starboard lay line. The ensuing chaos is what causes frustration. This is not a rules issue but a course/skipper issue. Race management become wedded to port rounding as they feel that starboard rounding cause problems, but in many instances a starboard rounding closer to the control area is preferable.
April 4, 20251 yr 23 minutes ago, Darin Ballington said: Isn't the whole issue that in most instances of pile ups and frustrations at the windward mark it is because some/all/single skippers cannot judge the starboard lay line. The ensuing chaos is what causes frustration. This is not a rules issue but a course/skipper issue. Race management become wedded to port rounding as they feel that starboard rounding cause problems, but in many instances a starboard rounding closer to the control area is preferable. Darin, agree that that is the main cause of the issues with Port rounding as an offshore mark. Sadly though a starboard rounding mark comes with its own issues. Why a boat coming into a mark that has to be left to starboard gives up its rights as soon as it takes the proper course to round the mark leaves me perplexed. Correct according to RRS but a bit hairbrain I feel.
April 4, 20251 yr Hi Wayne, Not sure what you are getting at with your reference to proper course. For a windward stbd rounding, 18.3 does not apply at all. As stbd approaches the mark and there is a port tack boat, then R 18 does not apply as they are on opposite tacks, and port keeps clear R18.1(a). When stbd alters course to HTW in order to tack, as ROW altering course, 16.1 applies and she must give room for Port to keep clear. As soon as stbd passes HTW she is now on port, subject to R 13 and must keep clear, and once the tack is competed if inside leeward boat, R 15 applies briefly as ROW changes and R 11 applies. However as soon as she passes HTW and becomes overlapped and inside, then she gains mark room under 18.2(c) even is she is breaking R 13 or R 15, she gains exoneration under R43 as she is now sailing within the mark room to which she is entitled. I discuss this in my Chapter 3 Bonus item - The weather mark - The 'dreaded' marks to starboard https://sites.google.com/site/johnsrcsailingrulesandtactics/ What this boils down to is that the only time that stbd is at risk of breaking a rule is when they start to luff up to tack. John Edited April 4, 20251 yr by John Ball spelling
April 4, 20251 yr 2 hours ago, Darin Ballington said: Isn't the whole issue that in most instances of pile ups and frustrations at the windward mark it is because some/all/single skippers cannot judge the starboard lay line. The ensuing chaos is what causes frustration. This is not a rules issue but a course/skipper issue. Race management become wedded to port rounding as they feel that starboard rounding cause problems, but in many instances a starboard rounding closer to the control area is preferable. The idea is that by 'protecting' a boat from others tacking inside them or cutting in when clear astern, you encourage people to get on or even slightly above the lay line and give the mark a reasonably wide berth. Hopefully this lead to an orderly rounding with those that reach the zone on the lay line first rounding first, chancers and bargers have to go behind because the rule says they do. They can no longer push their luck and argue there was room.
April 8, 20251 yr Given the preceeding discussions, people may find this of interest. https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2025/04/07/an-experiment-to-reimagine-racing/
April 8, 20251 yr On my web site, I have a set of guidelines for beginners. Basically they ignore the concept of the zone. Perhaps something like this could form the basis for club racing - needs a couple of additions for starting and sailing the course, and possibly for an obstruction. However I think that sailing is a complex sport, made more so for radio sailing where distance and depth perception and speed of the action are added to the equation. The issue is not the rules, it is the attitude of the sailors that makes the sport good or bad! John Simple guidelines for beginners Sailboat racing should be fun and safe, and so when you decide to take part, you are agreeing to be bound by a spirit of sportsmanship, and to treat the other competitors in the way you would like them to treat you. 1. Avoid collisions. (R14) – If you are not sure if you have ROW, then stay clear BUT ask afterwards, to learn. 2. On opposite tacks, Port tack keeps clear of Starboard. (R10). 3. On the same tack, Windward keeps clear of Leeward. (R11). 4. On the same tack, Astern keeps clear of Ahead. (R12). 5. Stay clear while tacking. (R13). 6. If you change course, make sure the other boat has room to stay clear. (R16). 7. At a mark give room to any inside boats. (R18). 8. If you think you broke a rule, take a penalty turn (R44), and sail on to finish the race – BUT ask afterwards to confirm and understand what happened, and which rules apply.
May 13, 2025May 13 On 01/04/2025 at 14:40, Gordon W Davies said: While reflecting on the rules that apply if the RRS 20 'magic disappearing hail' interpretation is confirmed, a thought came to me. It concerns RRS 14 Avoiding Contact. At present a right of way boat that breaks RRS 14 is exonerated unless the contact result in damage or injury. Injury is very rare in radio sailing, and our boats are quite resilient. Would boats be more likely to avoid contact if exoneration for a right of way boat is not granted if the boats become disabled? This would mean that even if the entanglement was short the RoW would have broken a rule and need to take a penalty. In a particularly egregious case a judge or umpire can do something under the current rules... by establishing that the boat had broken rule 2, Fair Sailing. From experience at the last M / 10R Worlds there is another reason to not go down this path. That is the very bad definition in the RRS of being "Disabled ". The definition of Disabled is: "A boat is disabled while she is unable to continue in the heat." What does it mean to be "unable to continue", as a reuslt of what annd for how long? This gave room for a number of redress hearings for seamingly similar incidents with very different rulings in the jury room. Frustrating to say the least!
May 13, 2025May 13 Author The 'unable to continue on the race' has been consistently interpreted, as being in a situation in which the person controlling a boat cannot perform a seamanlike action to enable the boat to progress in the race. This includes being entangled with another boat, with vegetation in the water or on the bank, running aground, or damaged. Only by luck, or by the intervention of the a safety vessel, can the boats may become 'un-disabled', and then return to the race. On the other hand, the persons controlling boats that are rafted together, but not entangled, or a boat that is in irons, can perform seamanlike actions with the rudder and sheet that can enable the boat to return to the race. When discussing redress following an incident in which a boat is disabled the jury will ask: - was the boat disabled -did she become disabled because to the action of another boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2. Did the other boat take a penalty and or was penalised. - was the boat's place in the heat or race made significantly worse while she was disabled. How many place's did the boat lose while she was disabled. - was the boat at fault in any way. For instance, if the boat could have avoided the contact and thus becoming disabled then she will not get redress. A relatively common occurence is when two boats become entangled, then break free but one boat (who may have grounds for redress) then gets stcuk in irons. Any redress given will be for places lost from the time the boat became entangled until she broke free.
May 13, 2025May 13 None of the initial paragraph is defined but only an interpretation. There is no clear cut, written definition of this. Thus it depends on how the members of the jury read the rule and act on it. But even on the details you describe above, the outcome of redress hearing in France was not consistant. The key question is, how long does an entanglement have to last. This is in the hands of the jury. With the pace of M & 10Rs a couple of seconds can make the difference between being promoted to the next fleet or not. A modern M and 10R stuck in irons by the action of another competitor is in essence disabled. Even with the best intent, any "seaman Like" action will loose you 10, 15 or more seconds. With the close racing we had in France, that was often the difference between being promoted and being relegated.
May 13, 2025May 13 Author The key question is, how long does an entanglement have to last. - long enough to make a boat's score significantly worse.
May 14, 2025May 14 and when is score significantly worse? One place lost, two, five or ten. All that is in the hands of the Jury! There is no objective measures for this. I lost enough places due to an incident on the last leg to not be promoted to A but relegated to C fleet - no redress given!
May 14, 2025May 14 Author One reason why judges have a long training process is to ensure consistency in applying the rules. From memory (I was not on the panel that decided this case): in this case two boats were entangled for a very short period. They were therefore disabled. The jury found that neither boat's place was made significantly worse while the boats were entangled. Once the boats were separated and able to continue in the race one boat, I presume yours, was in irons. As the boat was able to continue in the race no redress could be given. There is no redress for a boat (of whatever size) that is in irons following an incident, or, in the case of a dinghy, capsizes. Edited May 14, 2025May 14 by Gordon W Davies
Create an account or sign in to comment