Conference unifix::sailing

    Ok, since you've given me the blame, I'll start things off:
    
    We're on a Sabre 38, reaching on port tack, and overtaking a
    smaller boat.  They luff us up, as is their right.
    I call mast abeam, but, as I later learned, I screwed up:
    We did not have mast abeam according to the new rules,
    ie the perpendicular from the the helmsman's station was not
    at or in front of their mast.  The smaller boat kept climbing.
    He knew the rule.  Explitives were hurled in both directions,
    however, I maintained a parallel course until the smaller
    boat bore away, at which time we both raised protest flags.
    
    In the protest meeting, the critical question was whether
    or not there was any collision.  There was none, although
    the other helmsman claimed our chute was draped in his shrouds.
    The committee was satisfied that no collision occured, and they
    through out the protest.  
    
    Question:  Would not the committee have been within rights 
    to throw us out?  In a port/starboard situation, a collision 
    in not generally required to find fault.  

>< Note 869.1 by BUMBLE::FACHON >
>                               -< Mast abeam... >-
>
>    Ok, since you've given me the blame, I'll start things off:
>    
>    We're on a Sabre 38, reaching on port tack, and overtaking a
>    smaller boat.  They luff us up, as is their right.
>    I call mast abeam, but, as I later learned, I screwed up:
>    We did not have mast abeam according to the new rules,
>    ie the perpendicular from the the helmsman's station was not
>    at or in front of their mast.  The smaller boat kept climbing.
>    He knew the rule.  Explitives were hurled in both directions,
>    however, I maintained a parallel course until the smaller
>    boat bore away, at which time we both raised protest flags.
>    
>    In the protest meeting, the critical question was whether
>    or not there was any collision.  There was none, although
>    the other helmsman claimed our chute was draped in his shrouds.
>    The committee was satisfied that no collision occured, and they
>    through out the protest.  
>    
>    Question:  Would not the committee have been within rights 
>    to throw us out?  In a port/starboard situation, a collision 
>    in not generally required to find fault.  
>

    Since she didn't return to her proper course after you called mast
    abeam  (and  allowing  enough  time  for  them to keep clear) then
    they're  disqualified.  I don't have the rule book with me, but it
    says  something like "The leeward boat shall be governed by such a
    hail [mast abeam] and if she deems it improper, her only remedy is
    to  protest."  So  the  leeward boat is DSQ.  (If there had been a
    collision  before she had time to react to your hail, you would be
    DSQ  for  not keeping clear of her luff. She's entitled to time to
    react to your hail.)

    You're disqualified.  You hailed improperly, and she protested the
    hail.

    In a luffing situation, the contact will normally be beam to beam,
    and  in  small  boats is often required to prove that the windward
    boat  didn't  keep  clear.  In  larger  boats race committees will
    accept  evidence that the leeward boat could have hit the windward
    boat,  but it's much easier to convince the committee about a port
    tacker  not  keeping  clear  than  it  is to convince them about a
    windward  boat  not  keeping clear. (Hence the collisions in small
    boats.  In  fact,  I  was  advised in college that if I was in the
    middle of a crowd being luffed (or going around a mark) to hit the
    boats  on both sides of me to prove that I didn't have enough room
    and was an "innocent victim").

--David Wittenberg

    When does the race start, when the gun goes off, or
    when you cross the line?  Before the "start," a leeward
    yacht may not luff an oponent up beyond close
    hauled.  If the gun goes off, but the two yachts are
    still behind the line, can the leeward yacht luff up 
    head-to-wind?  

    re .3
    
    The race starts at the gun.  But a yacht is deemed to have started
    only after the gun is fired and any part of the yacht has crossed
    the starting line.  However, a leeward yacht can luff up beyond
    head-to-wind only after it has cleared the starting line.  Prior
    to that time, the leeward yacht has to give the windward yacht room
    and opportunity to keep clear.

    The question of whether the leeward boat can luff up beyond close
    hauled before the start depends on whether it has luffing rights.
    If it does, it can come up past close hauled.  Otherwise, only up
    to close hauled.  
    
    

>< Note 869.3 by MANTIS::FACHON >
>                         -< When does the race start? >-
>
>    When does the race start, when the gun goes off, or
>    when you cross the line?  Before the "start," a leeward
>    yacht may not luff an oponent up beyond close
>    hauled.  If the gun goes off, but the two yachts are
>    still behind the line, can the leeward yacht luff up 
>    head-to-wind?  

    There are  three  different  "starts".  A yacht is RACING from the
    time  of her 5 minute gun until she FINISHES and clears the finish
    line,  or  retires.  A  yacht STARTS when she crosses the starting
    line  after  the  starting  gun,  from  the  correct  side,  after
    returning  to  behind the line if she was over early. The Starting
    signal also affects rights under the rules.

    To answer  the  question.  The leeward yacht can luff head to wind
    (if  she  has luffing rights) except that (paraphrased, the book's
    at  home)  After  the starting signal a leeward yacht may not luff
    above  closed  hauled  to  deprive  a  weather  yacht of room at a
    starting  mark."  This  is  a  limitation  on what you can do to a
    barger. At any other mark, the inside boat would have room. At the
    start  everyone  would  barge  if that were the rule, so you don't
    have  to give room to a weather boat. You can luff to head to wind
    before  the  starting  signal  (You  can't luff past head to wind,
    that's the definition of the start of a tack.)

    So, before  starting, a leeward boat can luff (slowly) up to close
    hauled  at  any time. If at the time the weather boat doesn't have
    mast-abeam  the  leeward boat can luff to head to wind, unless the
    starting signal has gone off, and to do so would deprive a weather
    boat of room at the starting mark. Note that here mast-abeam means
    at this moment, is the helmsman ahead of the other boats mast.

    After starting, a leeward boat can luff to head to wind as fast as
    she  likes,  provided that the weather boat didn't have mast-abeam
    at  any  point during the overlap. Note here the requirement about
    mast  abeam is at any point in the overlap, while before starting,
    the  rule  is at the moment in question does the weather boat have
    mast-abeam.

--David Wittenberg

    I entered a protest room note in the America's Cup
    update note -- Cup specific querie.  See 636.146
    if you're interested...

    Two boats are approaching on opposite tacks.
    The starboard tacker calls "starboard," and the port
    tacker replies "hold your course."  As the boats
    converge, it's apparent the port tacker will
    clear by several feet.  Just then, the wind shifts right.
    If both boats change course to accomodate the shift, there
    will be a collision.  Who is obligated to do what?

    Once the starboard boat yells "starboard" he opens up the opportunity
    for the port tacker to yell "hold".  Once that is done it doesn't
    matter what the wind does, the starboard tacker is obligated to
    do just that, hold his old course.  That is why it is important
    not to claim starboard rights too early.  Dinghy sailors are notorious
    for not saying it until the very last second for this reason.

                                     
    Dave

    As far as rule numbers go, I don't have the rule book here, but
    I remember teaching this one.  The Port tacker is always obliged
    to stay clear of starboard tackers.  However, "hold your course"
    is a legal hail and requires that the Starboard tacker maintain
    his heading without significant deviation.  The burden of proof
    of alteration of course, however, falls on the Port tacker and unless
    there is a witness it is almost impossible to prove.  A common tactic
    is for the starboard tacker to alter course, as if to avoid contact,
    long before an alteration becomes necessary.  Once again the port
    tacker becomes burdened to prove wrong doing on the starboard tacker's
    part.
    
    Charlie

    I have a good one that I dug out of the Apeals book the other day.
    Typical one class design start, o.k. lets say Lasers.
    
    							/
    						      Wind
    						      /         
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------O
                                C  D

    				\ \
                                 \  ---------- A
                                  B
    
    Here is what happened.  Before the gun.
    C and D were sitting on the line in close hauled position with their
    sails luffing.  B was sailing close hauled for the line with just
    enough room to pass C.  A was reaching down the line with about
    3 times the speed of B and was luffed to close hauled by B.  Neither
    A nor B had luffing rights on C or D.  A was forced into C by B,
    but made contact with C's boom and A's hull at the same time.
    Protests were lodged C vs. A, B vs. A, and A vs (B and C).
    
    Who was thrown out and why?
    
    Charlie (Deja Vu)

    That should be, A made contact with C's boom and B's hull.
    Oops.

    I'll give the answer, so that maybe Dave can tell us what happened
    to FAT TUESDAY at the PHRF's.
    
    In the initial protest solutions, C  was thrown out for not staying
    clear, as the windward boat.  It was decided that she wasn't in
    fact in a close hauled position, and made no attempt to stay clear.
    A local appeal affirmed this, but an apeal to the National USYRU
    Apeals Board resulted in  B's  disqualification on the basis that
    C  was an obstruction to  A  and no attempt was made to allow  A
    to sail clear of it.
    

    Here's one that happened to us last night:
    
    Reaching start, pin windward and heavily favored.  We are the windward
    boat.  As we're approaching the line a leeward boat luffs us up.  We
    head up.  Then the gun goes off.  We holler, "sail your proper course"
    and hold our current heading.  He yells "take her up" and continues
    coming up.  By this time we're between the pin and his boat.  We yell
    "we have an obstruction" (the pin) and "no room".  He yells "take her
    up" and keeps coming.  Just before his bow was about to hit us abeam he
    changes course, swinging his boat around such that his beam was about
    to hit our side at about the helmsmans position.  Our main trimmer
    sticks out her foot to fend off (BTW - winds were VERY light).  As soon
    as her foot touches his rail the skipper smiles and says "you initiated
    contact" and puts up his protest flag.
    
    This protest never made it to the protest room, as the other boat did
    not finish the race.  However, it produced some lively debate amongst
    the crew.  I felt we could successfully defend on the premise that
    once the gun goes off he's supposed to maintain proper course to the
    mark, and the fact that by the time contact was made we had an
    obstruction and could not alter course even if we wanted to.  Other
    crew members felt we didn't have a leg to stand on because he was the
    leeward boat and had mast abeam.  Also, should we have protested him
    back or simply tried to defend against his protest?  What are
    the advantages and disadvantages a counter-protest?
    
    I'd like to know, since I'm probably going to be getting involved in
    protest situations in the future.  Our skipper avoids them like the
    plague, and would rather drop out of a race than spend two or three
    hours waiting for a protest hearing after a race.  So I'm volunteering
    to take his place in the event a protest occurs.
    
    The rules seemed a little vague on this point.  Perhaps I wasn't
    reading the correct set (38-40 in the USYRU book).
    
    ... Bob

    Sounds like the "anti barging" rule (42.?) is the relevant one here.
    But the situation seems to be the mirror image of the normal one.
    With a pin end favored reaching start I assume things looked like
    this:
    
    
                                        ^
    WIND                                |
    ------------->                      | HEADING TO MARK
                                        |
                         P _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<COMM BOAT>
                         /  ^
                        /   |
                  WAGS /   / LEEWARD
                      /   /  BOAT
                     /   /

    
    The leeward boat has no obligation to give room to he windward boat
    while starting.  But after the gun, the leeward boat can't deprive
    the windward one of room by sailing above the compass course to
    the mark or close hauled.  If the diagram is a fair representation
    of the conditions at the start, it appears that the leeward boat
    can squeeze WAGS off without violating sailing above the compass
    course or above close hauled.  I think leeward caught WAGS barging.
    The only thing WAGS could have done was to tack shy of the line
    and start behind leeward.

    Well, sort of.  It was more like this:
    
    
                               x (first mark)
    
                                             <---- wind direction
    
    
    
              comedy boat X -----^ x pin
                               ^ ^ - wags
                               ^ - them
    
    Proper course to mark was about 90 degrees (east).  Wind was at about
    170 degrees.  Our heading when contact occurred was about 115 degrees.
    You said the same thing the rules said.  He has to sail proper course
    to the mark once the starting gun goes off, right?  Or am I missing
    something important here?
    
    ... Bob                     

    First, your reference to mast abeam confuses me.  That's a call
    the windward boat makes to indicate that even if he does head up
    he can't get out of the way.  Nothing to do with leeward boat.
    
    Secondly, you were barging and he could have forced you into the
    mark, or even the committee boat had that end been favored.  It
    makes no difference who initiates contact.  The burdened boat is
    out, period.
    
    Dave

    Clear enough.  Thanx ...
    
    ... Bob
    

    I assume by "proper course" you mean the compass heading to the
    mark.  With the wind at 170, that puts close hauled on Starboard
    at about 130.  After the gun, leeward cannot sail above the compass
    course OR close hauled.  If both boats are at 115, the first
    prohibition has been violated.  I thinks WAGS has a case here. 
    If the leeward boat could sail higher than the compass heading in
    this situation with impunity, reaching starts would be impossible.
    The most leeward boat would then be able to squeeze everyone who
    was to weather of it into the starting mark.
    
    I mis-represented the situation in my diagram in .15.  Sounds to
    me like WAGS made the right call. 

    Gonna have to send Wittenberg a wake up call.
    
    I don't think WAGS had a leg to stand on.  If the boats
    hadn't actually crossed the line, "proper course" doesn't
    even enter into it.  And the leward yacht can take everyone up
    if there's a continuous overlap.  That's why jokeying on the
    line is so critical.  You've got to pick a hole and
    defend it.  But don't barge.
    
    ;)

    RE .20
    
    Uh, but...but ...
    
    By the time contact occurred, our boat HAD crossed the line, as
    evidenced by the fact that the mark was about even with the mast on
    the windward side of the boat.   I can't say for certain whether or not
    his boat had crossed.
    
    This discussion is evolving into the same one we had on the boat...
    namely, what is "proper course" and when does it go into effect.  My
    understanding was that it went into effect when the starting gun was
    sounded.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd rather know the answer
    BEFORE I get hauled into a protest room.
    
    I'll have to look at the rulebook again, I missed reading the barging
    rules last night, and it sounds like they apply here.  I was basing my 
    defense on my interpretation of rule 38.2, which I can't quote off the 
    top of my head but had to do with luffing rights after the start.  But
    it also reads like it was written assuming a windward start.
    
    ... Bob

I've participated in casual races (JYC) off and on over the past few years and
though I have an idea of what the rules are I never sat down and read them. As
boring as it sounds, I'm really interested.

I'm glad to see the activity in this note as it's pushing me to get serious
about the rules even though I haven't even crewed one race this year. 
(Sept 17th, weather permitting).

There is only one rule book, right?  (at least for races referred to in this
note, right?)  USYRU, right?

I'd like to make sure that I have same book (and edition) that everyone else 
uses.  So, for the benefit of those of us who are interested in getting up to
speed on rules, could someone list the actual Title and edition of the rulebook?

Just a thought, has anyone heard of an instructional video on racing rules? This
stuff is a bit dry to read for sure.


Thanks,

bc

    RE: .-1
    
    
    Assuming they are using the USYRU rules the book is:
    
    
    	International Yacht Racing Rules, 
    	as adopted by USYRU 1985-88
    
    
    Price from the USYRU is $5.00, they take phone orders call
    800-327-0303.   If you are really serious about the whole racing and
    race management business they offer two other books.  "The Race
    Management Handbook", this is a ring binder that covers organizing and
    judging a regatta.  Finally for the examples of interesting cases you
    can get "USYRU Appeals Decisions and IYRU Cases".  These second two are
    not cheap $30 unless you a USYRU memeber. 
    
    Finally for the video generation they offer a set of video tapes "Racing
    Rules" (by Dave Dellenbaugh), they are $50 each for nonmembers.  I have
    seen these as BOAT US but I do not remember the price.  Reading the
    blue book is dry, dull, boring, and tedious.  I have yet to grind
    through the whole book much less remember all the rules and
    subsections.  Actually about a dozen or so cover most cases.
    
    Forrest

    This is much simpler with the traditional windward start when everyone
    just sails close hauled and either the windward boats have room
    or they don't.  They just look straight ahead to tell.
    
    With the reaching start in this case, the leeward boat, in the absence
    of any restriction, could sail as high as she wants pushing windward
    boats into or past the starting mark.  Before the starting signal
    has sounded this is the case.  Windward boats have to be on the
    lookout.  It's not a good idea to set the chute too soon.  It may
    be necessary to crash tack.
    
    However, after the gun has sounded two restrictions on the leeward
    boat take effect.  The leeward boat cannot deprive the windward
    boat(s) of room at the mark by either (1) sailing above the compass
    heading to the first mark or (2) sailing above close hauled.  
    These restrictions stay in effect until the leeward yacht has cleared
    the starting line.  At that time rule 38 comes into play and the
    leeward boat may luff as she pleases subject to the mastline limitations.
    
    If the heading to the mark is 90, then leeward can't sail above
    90 between the time the gun sounds and the time at which it clears
    the starting line.  If the contact occured when WAGS' mast was abeam
    the starting mark and if the leeward boat was slightly behind
    WAGS as shown in .17, then the leeward boat had not yet cleared
    the starting line.  Leeward was therefore still obligated under
    (1) to sail no higher than 90.  Since the contact occured when WAGS
    was sailing at 115, leeward had to be sailing above 90.  Wags should
    have protested at this point.  
    
    Proper course only has meaning after the starting gun has sounded.
    But the anti-barging rule is more explicit in that it refers to
    the compass heading to the first mark. 
    
    Hang in there WAGS.

    Sorry I  haven't  been here for a while, the network link has been
    awfully slow.  Thanks for the wake up call Bob.

    Remember that  there  are  three  different luffing rules. One for
    before the starting gun, one after the starting gun but before the
    yachts  have  started and cleared the starting line, and one after
    the  yachts  have started and cleared the starting line. This case
    clearly involves the middle one.

    It says  (paraphrased) that a leeward yacht may not sail above the
    course to the first mark (or close-hauled) if that would deprive a
    windward yacht of room to clear the starting mark.

    So the  relevant  questions are: Were they above the course to the
    first  mark  after  the  starting gun, and did that deprive you of
    room  to  clear  the starting mark. Your descriptions says both of
    those  were  true.  If  so,  the leeward boat fouled you. (In some
    races,  including  the  Vineyard  which we just got back from, the
    sailing  instructions specify what the course to the first mark is
    for the purpose of this rule.)

    Your crew  member's foot is irrelevant. If she was avoiding likely
    contact  it was good seamanship, and the nonsense about initiating
    contact  is  silly.  If the two boats were on parallel courses and
    not  likely  to  make contact, then she "balked" the other boat by
    making  a maneuver which they could not reasonably expect. (If she
    were  a  bit more subtle, such balking can be almost legal. An old
    dinghy  racing trick is to drop the mainsheet when a boat is close
    to  weather such that you heel sharply to weather and touch masts.
    You  then protest that the windward boat didn't keep clear. If you
    capsize  then they don't have to keep clear, so it's rather tricky
    to do. It also gets you a reputation that makes it hard to win any
    other  protests,  as  people  don't  like it and often don't trust
    you.)

    The fact  that  the other boat later retired is also irrelevant to
    the protest (unless they retired because of that incident.) If you
    fouled   them  they  can  protest  even  if  they  retire  or  are
    disqualified for an earlier incident.

    If there  was  contact  that  was  not "minor and unavoidable" you
    should protest. Otherwise both boats can be thrown out for failing
    to protest by a third party. (only one boat need file a protest to
    protect  both  boats from this rule, but if they put up a flag and
    don't file, as was apparently the case, you are vulnerable to this
    rule.)  It  has  been  hard  to  convince a protest committee that
    contact  was  minor  and  unavoidable unless the boats didn't have
    steerageway.  I believe that this rule will be weakened in the new
    version  of  the  rules,  due  out  early  next  year.  (Shameless
    comercial  plug:  The  new version of the rule book is distributed
    free to all USYRU members.)

--David Wittenberg

    Thanx for the info.  There seem to be a lot of relevent and irrelevent
    points here.  I'd like to summarize, just to make sure I have it all
    straight.
    
    Relevent:
    
    - We could have defended against their protest on the basis that they
      did not sail proper compass course to the mark once the starting gun
      went off.  Before the gun sounded they were proper in luffing us, and
      we were proper in coming up.  Once the gun went off we were proper in
      refusing to take it up any higher (we were already about 25 degrees
      high to the mark) and they were improper in trying to deprive us of
      room at the mark by luffing us further.
    
    - We should have protested them back, particularly after they dropped
      out of the race and did not lodge their protest.  (Incidentally,
      they dropped out because the wind died and they were a long way
      from home.  It had nothing to do with the protest.)  To fail to
      protest in this case jeopardized us by leaving open the possibility
      of being protested by a third party for failing to protest (yikes,
      that almost sounds like military intelligence).
    
    Irrelevent:
    
    - The other skipper's reference to who initiated contact.
    
    - Our crewmember's reference to "mast abeam".
    
    - The fact that the other boat did not finish the race (wish I'd known
      two weeks ago that you didn't have to finish a race to lodge a
      protest).
    
    - The fact that at the time of contact we could not alter course
      without hitting the starting mark.
    
    Still questionable:
    
    - What constitutes "minor and unavoidable" contact?  In our case, the
      contact was certainly minor, as the two boats did not actually make
      contact.  Our crewmember's foot fended off the other boat's stern
      after he turned the wheel to avoid a collision.  Was this also
      unavoidable (on our part at least, he could have turned his wheel
      a second or two earlier)?  Since he was improperly forcing us into
      the pin, does not this make the situation unavoidable?
    
    RE:  Wags vs. Scaramouche (in note 845)
    
    This probably also belongs here.  The man hearing the protest threw it
    out on the basis that by not promptly informing the protested boat we
    deprived him of the opportunity to raise a code I flag and accepting a
    20 minute penalty in lieu of being protested.  I maintain that this is
    all a crock, since:
    
    a) accepting a 20 minute penalty in a 6 mile race accomplishes about
       the same thing as a protest.  It puts you at the bottom of the
       fleet, where you're out of the running for any honors.
    
    b) ANY boat can then claim they did not hear you informing them of the
       protest.
    
    However, as I'm learning, funny things can happen once you enter the
    protest room.
    
    Thanx for the information David.
    
    ... Bob
    

    Dave,
    
    Please clarify the second of the three luffing rules --
    after the gun has gone off but before clearing the line:
    
    Specifically, if the gun has gone off but neither boat has cleared
    the line, can the leward boat maintain its course, driving
    the weather boat up the line until it nears the weather end?
    I believe so, but would like your interpretation.
    

Re: .26

>    Relevent:
>    
>    - We could have defended against their protest on the basis that they
>      did not sail proper compass course to the mark once the starting gun
>      went off.  Before the gun sounded they were proper in luffing us, and
>      we were proper in coming up.  Once the gun went off we were proper in
>      refusing to take it up any higher (we were already about 25 degrees
>      high to the mark) and they were improper in trying to deprive us of
>      room at the mark by luffing us further.

    I was  unclear  here. As Dean points out in .27, they can luff you
    above  the compass course to the next mark if that doesn't deprive
    you  of  room  at the starting mark. So if you were at the leeward
    end,  they  could  luff you to head to wind until you got near the
    windward  end, at which point they would have to bear off and give
    you  room  to  start  (assuming  the  starting  gun had gone off.)
    Because  the  gun  had  gone off and you were close to the weather
    end, your description is correct.

>    
>    - We should have protested them back, particularly after they dropped
>      out of the race and did not lodge their protest.  (Incidentally,
>      they dropped out because the wind died and they were a long way
>      from home.  It had nothing to do with the protest.)  To fail to
>      protest in this case jeopardized us by leaving open the possibility
>      of being protested by a third party for failing to protest (yikes,
>      that almost sounds like military intelligence).

    Yes. But  you must protest at the first reasonable opportunity, so
    you  have to say you're going to protest early, and then decide if
    you  should go through with it. Since there was contact you should
    go  through  with  it  if  neither of you acknowledges the foul by
    flying code flag "I".

>    
>    Irrelevent:
>    
>    - The fact that at the time of contact we could not alter course
>      without hitting the starting mark.

    This is  relevant,  as  discussed  above.  The rule says that they
    can't "deprive you of room to start", not that they can't luff.

>    
>    Still questionable:
>    
>    - What constitutes "minor and unavoidable" contact?  In our case, the
>      contact was certainly minor, as the two boats did not actually make
>      contact.  Our crewmember's foot fended off the other boat's stern
>      after he turned the wheel to avoid a collision.  Was this also
>      unavoidable (on our part at least, he could have turned his wheel
>      a second or two earlier)?  Since he was improperly forcing us into
>      the pin, does not this make the situation unavoidable?

    This was  not  unavoidable in the meaning of the rule. All contact
    is  unavoidable  at  the  last moment. The rule means that if with
    reasonable  foresight the contact could not be avoided, then there
    is  no  foul.  If  the other boat had borne off 10 seconds earlier
    there would have been no problem so the contact clearly could have
    been avoided.

>    RE:  Wags vs. Scaramouche (in note 845)
>    
>    This probably also belongs here.  The man hearing the protest threw it
>    out on the basis that by not promptly informing the protested boat we
>    deprived him of the opportunity to raise a code I flag and accepting a
>    20 minute penalty in lieu of being protested.  I maintain that this is
>    all a crock, since:
>    
>    a) accepting a 20 minute penalty in a 6 mile race accomplishes about
>       the same thing as a protest.  It puts you at the bottom of the
>       fleet, where you're out of the running for any honors.
>
    This  is  irrelevant.  She's  entitled to try to catch up. You are
    required  to  ATTEMPT  to  notify  the  other  boat  at  the first
    reasonable  opportunity,  which  is usually immediately (It can be
    after  you  finish.  I  once  protested a boat for rounding a mark
    improperly. Since she couldn't hear me at the time she only became
    aware of the protest when we got to the dock. Since we hoisted our
    protest  flag  promptly,  and  yelled immediately and told them in
    person  as  soon  as we got close to them, even though that was at
    the dock, the protest was valid.)

>    b) ANY boat can then claim they did not hear you informing them of the
>       protest.

    That's considered  unsportsmanlike,  and  this is supposed to be a
    gentlemen's  sport.  The  rule  only requires an attempt to inform
    them, so if anyone else heard you, that will suffice.

--David

    ps. I  talked  about  the  starting gun. Strictly speaking, that's
    irrelevant,  as the visual signals govern. Consider it a shorthand
    for "the blue shape is raised."

    The following situation is posted at the request of a non-noting
    racing friend.  He can fill us in on the results should they be
    desired...
    
    On a light wind day two boats are over early.  Both circle the committee
    boat and harden up to make for the line.  The gun has gone off.  The
    leeward boat luffs quickly above close hauled and forces the windward
    boat up towards the committe boat.  The two racing boats touch and the
    windward boat touches the committee boat.  Everybody protests. You be
    the judge. 

    Carl

    The leeward boat gets tossed.  The yachts had not started and the
    gun had already gone off.  Leeward yacht can only luff to closehauled
    or proper course to first mark, whichever is the LOWER course.
    
    Thsi rule is meant exactly for this kind of situation.  Protects
    the committee boat from all kinds of abuse!
    
    Dave

    The leeward  yacht  has  violated  two  rules.  The  first  is the
    "anti-barging  rule"  Number  42.4. This is the rule Dave referred
    to. It does protect the committee boat somewhat, but you can still
    luff to close hauled to force someone into the committee boat.

    The second  rule violates was rule 40 "Same tack -- luffing before
    starting"  which  requires  any luff before the yacht starts to be
    carried  out  slowly.  A  boat which was over early hasn't started
    until she crosses the starting line in the correct direction after
    the  starting  signal  (after rounding the end of the line if that
    rule  is  in  effect). Since neither boat had started, the leeward
    boat's  luff  must  have been "carried out slowly and initially in
    such  a  way  as to give the windwad yacht room and opportunity to
    keep clear."

    You might try protesting the committee boat for failing to respond
    to a luff, but I wouldn't try it.  :-)

--David

    For those those of us who are temperamentally disinclined to spend
    our spare time reading protest appeals there is a solution.
    
    Davis Instruments publishes a one page "Quick Reference Racing Rules".
    This is a plastic 8 1/2 X 11 card with all the relevent rules pictorally
    summarized.  When a situation occurs, just look for the picture
    that fits.
    
    Davis also publishes similar summaries of the right-of-way rules
    and a marine communications guide.  West Marine carries them and
    I've seen them at various local (EMASS) stores for about $8.
    
    Don't go to the protest room without it.
    
    - gene

  I had an unusual finish in a J-24 race last Thursday and I am protesting
the result. 

  Fellow noter Charlie Trainor was on board. We had managed to bring Shockwave 
back from the grave on the last windward leg to round third. The final leg was
a run to the finish line. We were trying to sail down on top of the boat ahead
while one the boats behind named Maximus began to reach up sharply. We kept an 
eye on our pursuer and figured we could always reach up to his end of the line 
if he started to threaten.

  The line was originally set between between a navigation buoy and a portable.
As we neared the line it was clear that the portable was gone. It had drifted
away or was stolen. We finished close to the remaining mark. Our pursuer 
continued to reach up and finished about 200 ft from the remaining mark.

  In our fleet, we don't have a full time comittee boat. The first boat over
sights the line and records the finish of everyone else. The first place boat
sighted at right angles to the last leg and declared that Maximus had nipped 
us at the line for third and we were forth. 

  This seemed crazy to all on board. Maximus should not be allowed to reach
up the finish line when the end is undefined.

  The next day Charlie came up with the rule that applies in this case. Rule
51.6 states:

   " If there is no longer an established finishing line, it shall 
     be a line extending from the required side of the finishing mark
     at right angles to the course from the last mark and of the 
     shortest practical length."

It seems that the success of my protest will hinge on the interpretation of
"shortest practical length".  Does anyone have an appeals book? Is there a
clarification on this?

Thanks,

-Paul

    Been a while since this note has been touched, but I have one.  I was
    racing Saturday and had a port starboard at the start our mast hit and I
    was in the wrong.  I looked around and and saw that I had room to do
    the the specified alternative penalty.  I I made a relatively deep
    slow 360 below the point of contact.

    Later in the race the person I banged masts with asked if I did a 360
    degree turn. I responded that I had and we continued sailing.  At the
    time of the hit he asked that the committee note the mast hit.  No
    protest flag was ever flown and nothing else was said.  Due to a
    complex set of circumstances I actually ended up doing two separate 360
    degree turns with some sailing in between.  Both below the starting
    line and the point of contact.

    A couple of notes here.

    1) We were single handing dinghies in relatively high winds force 5-6.  In fact
       before the race in question one boat capsized, and after the race
       another capsized, and one swamped.  Survival sailing at its best.

    2) The committee had no certified U.S.Y.R.U judges.  In fact it
       consisted of three teenagers two who had minimal prior racing
       experience.  Thus no appeal to the U.S.Y.R.U. is possible they will
       not hear appeals on decisions not rendered by a U.S.Y.R.U. judge. 
       I have a friend who got burned by this last year.

    3) The racing instructions were in error they stated that a 360
       consisted of two tacks and two gybes.  the original text was for a
       720 and a 360 was decided upon at the last moment.

    Back to the story after the series of races were over the committee
    walked over and said that a protest was lodged.  I asked what it was
    all about and could I see it.  They said nothing was in writing and we
    would have a hearing.  I found a witness to the fact that I did my
    penalty turn and went to the hearing.  The committee first stated that
    they did not believe that I had not done the turn.  But after the
    witness spoke they sated that none of them had watched the whole
    sequence.  They mulled around for about an hour and finally said that
    even though they did not see the turn because I admitted that it was a
    wide slow continuous turn it was invalid.  My point was that I made it
    as tight as I felt was safe and prudent under the conditions.  They
    believe that the boat must be spun in one boat length to be valid.

    The crux is that a fast read of the U.S.Y.R.U and I.Y.R.U appeals I
    cannot find any language that says you must spin the boat in its own
    length.  Does anybody know of any such language or appeal.  

    I have to accept the outcome because no appeals path exists.  But to be
    honest I am considering returning the second place trophy to the club
    sponsoring the race.  

    Forrest

    Another quick question.  We ran two series of races one in the early
    afternoon for youths, and one later in ths day for adult memebers. 
    After the seconed race in the youth series one of the boats had their
    crew withdraw.  The person first tried to get another crew and could
    only find and adult to go out.  The other racers complained and the
    race committee said you cannot do that. (Before the series one of the
    racers asked if they could take and adult and was told yes.  She
    eventually ended up not using the adult and took anothter youth.)
    Because of this the committee felt that they would allow the person the
    still sail if she went single handed.  After the series were over
    another boat lodged a protest about the boat sailing single handed.
    
    The protest committee said that due to the relatively high wind
    conditions single handing was a handicap not an advantage.  The protest
    was dismissed, but I have my doubts that the correct thing was done.  A
    fast read of the rules did not turn up any rule about dropping a crew
    off in the middle of a series.  We knew about the rule requiring that a
    boat finishing a race with the same crew that it started with.  Does
    anybody know of a rule or appeal that we missed.  The racing
    instructions will bbe changed next year to require the same crew for a
    whole series.

    I don't claim to have much experience of penalty turns etc, but I
    thought that if you were involved in a pre-start incident, then you 
    had to take the penalty ( 360 turn ) AFTER you had started.
    
    Doing a 360 before the start is hardly a penalty at all !
    
    Does anybody else know better.
    
    Chris.
    
    P.s. Incompetant Race Committees/Juries can really spoil good racing.
    If you take your racing seriously, it might be worth checking the
    arrangements before you enter. I race offshore at a fairly serious
    level and one day decided to do a fun family cruiser race with a
    friend. The race organiser wrongly applied the time limit rule, and our
    first overall became a DNF, with no recourse to appeal. I have not been
    back since.

    If you can appeal, you stand a very good chance of winning on these grounds:
                                                              
    Upon request, the protest comittee must provide a copy of the written
    protest to the protested yacht. There's no such thing as an unwritten
    protest. It's based on the legal idea of facing your accuser and having
    the opportunity to prepare a proper defense. 
    
    If you requested a copy and didn't receive it, that's grounds to have
    the decision thrown out. Make sure you have the name, date, and approx
    time of who/when you requested the protest copy.
    
    Paul

    No protest was ever written, in fact it changed a couple of time during
    the course of the time.  First it was that the privileged yacht was
    protesting me for the contact.  Then it was the protest committee
    saying that I did not do a turn.  After I found a witness stating that
    they saw me start my 360 and believed that I did it they changed it
    again.  They finally decided that even though none of them saw me do
    the 360 because I admitted that I made a wide slow 360 it was invalid. 
    The belived that the only valid 360 is if you spin the boat in one baot
    length.
    
    I have also done more checking since then.
    
    1) The person protesting is obliged to make sure that the person
       accepting the alternative penalty did so.  He admitted that he did
       not watch me do the turn.
    
    2) The privileged yacht failed to make any attempt to avoid contact. 
       Based on my understaing of rule 32 he should have made an attempt. 
       Becaue no real damage was done to either yacht he should not have
       been disqualified.  But he did fail to make an attempt to avoid
       contact thus prevent me from avoiding contact.  I had already
       altered course dramatically to avoid hitting him.  I actually had
       witnesses to this but did not want to file a protest.  This had
       alredy dragged on for almost 2 hours and I needed to get a guest
       home for her medication (my mistake).
    
    3) You are now allowed to do the turn before the start.  As far as I
       can tell the requirement on the 360 or a 720 is that it be a
       continious turn and should not advance your postion on the course. 
       It did not I ended 5 to 10 boat lengths below the line from being
       right on the line at the time of contact.
    
    4) The protest committee was never stipulated in the racing
       instructions.  We had agreed upon a group of people before the
       regatta who would run and hear the protests.  Only one of these
       actaully heard the protest the others were excluded from the
       proceedings by the group that decided they were running the hearing.
    
    
    	All in all chock it up to experience.  If involved next year, I 
    will make sure that things are run correctly next year.  The final
    irony is that they scored the results incorrectly and gave me second
    when with the DSQ I should have had third.  I called up the person who
    got third and offered to give him the second place trophy he just
    wanted to let it drop  and chock it up to experience.
    
    
    Forrest
    Ps.	It allowed me to spend a fascinating 6 plus hours thumbing through
    the rules.

    RE: .38
    
    	The two hours was from the time the protest committee walked over
    to me on the dock.  The committee spent about 1� talking to my witness
    I, and mulling things over.
    
    Forrest

    Here's one for the blood pressure.  Saturday we did the BYC Hodder
    race.  The committee set a first "windward" leg to the Boston light
    bouy from the start at Tinkers off Marblehead.  Course was 183 degrees.
    The line was set at a heading of 080-260 degrees.  In other words, the
    committee boat end was favored by 10 degrees.  On top of this, the wind
    was shifting between 210 and 230 degrees meaning that at its farthest
    right hand swings one could lay the mark on starboard on a tight reach.
    
    All this combined to create a situation where the committee boat end
    was the ONLY place to be at the start.  We decided to do a barging
    start where we would drop behind the front row of starters (assuming
    there was a hole which there usually is) and pinch up to burn off our 
    extra speed.
    
    Aproaching the start Claddagh was hard on the breeze protecting her
    hole at the starting line.  We were flogging our jib in order no to
    have overlap so we could swing by her stern and not get caught without
    a place to start.  We were both late and about three boat lengths from
    the line at the starting signal.  At that time we started to swing down
    when I looked at the compass.  It read 185 degrees.  I told our driver
    to hold that and go for the line inside Claddagh.
    
    According to rule 42.4 (a) & (b), after the starting signal and before
    crossing the starting line a leeward yacht shall not deny a windward
    yacht room by sailing EITHER (a)above the course to the next mark (in
    this case 183 degrees) or (b)above close hauled.
    
    This was after the start, we were already sailing to the mark, so I
    assumed that Claddagh had no more luffing rights.  Well they come up
    hard, so hard we are nearly head to wind to avoid them.  At the last
    minute they bear off, allowing us to not take the stern of the
    committee boat off, and protest us loudly.  Hell, we protest YOU!
    
    We figure we are well within our rights and go aff and race.  We finish
    first on corrected time, but are dead set on throwing claddagh out to
    prevent that kind of behaviour in the future.  
    
    At the protest Claddagh maintains the wind was blowing out of 195
    degrees and thay were heading well below the mark!  An outright lie,
    which I accused them of.  We never thought the wind direction would be
    an issue.  It was simply a fact.  Well the race committee hadn't taken
    a wind reading since the tem minute gun when they claim it read 210
    degrees, closer to Claddagh's contention than ours.
    
    Based solely on that they decided to toss us.  Claddagh hadn't
    presented a valid protest form.  Merely scribbled the facts down.  the
    committee used my drawings and explaination to conduct the hearing.
    When I called this to their attention they merely voted to rule
    Claddagh's protest valid.  
    
    Anyway, the coincidence is that claddagh is a BYC boat, this would
    determine the BYC series championship, and that the committee would not
    let us present witnesses to validate the wind direction.  They claimed
    that their instruments were the only "official" read outs.
    
    We were screwed.
    
    Dave

RE .39 

You were screwed.

    There may  not  have  been  a  requirement  to  fly a protest flag
    because that rule is often waived by single handed classes. (Where
    would you fly a protest flag on a laser?) In any event, there must
    be a written protest. You are not required to spin the boat in one
    length,  but  you're not allowed to make progress toward the mark.
    Normally  one  tries  to  turn  as quickly as possible, but that's
    because  that's  fastest,  not  because it's required. The protest
    committee  was  completely out to lunch, and the only recourse you
    have  is to find somewhere else to sail. You might stop payment on
    the  check for the entry fee if you want to have a fight. It might
    wake them up, but it could lead to quite a mess.

    As for  the second race issue (changing crew), some classes have a
    rule  requiring  you  to  sail  with  the  same crew for the whole
    series,  and many classes have rules requiring a certain number of
    crew.  The USYRU rules allow you to change crews and change number
    of crew between races. I wouldn't advise a rule requiring the same
    crew  for an entire series unless the series is sailed on one day.
    If  it's  one  weekend, then you might want such a rule, but there
    should  be a way to change crew (perhaps with prior notice and the
    race  committee's  aproval.)  In really serious racing you need to
    have  the  crew you practiced with, and in less serious racing you
    want to allow people some flexibility, as they really do need it.

--David

RE: .40

    I'm not sure why the wind direction was an issue, if the committee
    accepted  your version of which direction the boat was sailing. If
    they were sailing higher than 183 they were illegal, regardless of
    whether or not they were close hauled.

    The protest  committee  did  have  a right to throw you out, since
    once there is a legal protest they can throw out any boat involved
    in  the  incident, whether it was the boat originally protested or
    not,  and under any rule, whether any of the protests mentioned it
    or not.  (This assumes that you filed a legal protest.)

    They're not  letting  you  present  your  witnesses is against the
    rules,  but  they  can  then decide what the wind is ignoring your
    witnesses  and  you can't appeal the "fact" of the wind direction,
    but  you  can probably win the appeal anyway if the official facts
    show Claddagh above 183 degrees.

--David

    re: -.1
    
    Right, I left out that Claddagh claimed they were sailing well below
    183 degrees at the time.  They claimed that with the wind at 195-200
    the highest they could have been sailing was 160-165.  This is in such
    disagreement with the facts that we never considered this would enter
    into the discussion.
    
    Also right that the committee could have acted on our protest and
    tossed us, but they didn't do that, they used Claddagh's.  Also right
    that they didn't have to listen to consider the input of witnesses, but
    I feel I do have the right to present them.  the committee claimed that
    Claddagh had a witness (Arbella, who may not be able to read a compass
    without screwing that up) to offset whatever ours said, so they claimed
    they cancelled each other out.
    
    Another question.  Last week while I was off getting married, Wildside
    raced and got tagged out at the start by (who else) Claddagh when they
    came up hard and brushed our antenna against their pulpit.  In the 50
    foot class they don't count the antenna as part of the boat.  I've been
    told that there is an appeal in USYRU that holds that to be generally
    true.  Any ideas?
    
    Dave

    Re .40:
    
    Sounds like Claddagh was within her rights. Before crossing the
    line and after the gun, a leeward boat can not sail above the compass
    or close hauled to DENY a windward boat(s) ROOM at the line. Since they
    did give you room, they followed the rule. The leeward boat isn't
    responsible if the windward boat sails down on her and then goes head
    to wind to avoid contact.
    
    As for starting position in this situation, try starting down to
    leeward. There's no boats to luff you up, you have clear air, and you
    can pinch up on the fleet and gas them during the leg. If there's a
    header, the fleet will fall behind you. If there's a lift, you'll be
    inside at the mark. 
      
    

    What about them luffing you above close hauled after the starting gun
    and before you crossed the line?  Seems to me you could win on that
    more easily than arguing about which way the wind was blowing.  If you
    had to come head to wind to avoid them after the gun they're tossed.
    
    Don

    I believe the rules state that you must do your 360 as soon as possible 
    after the incident.  This rules out a long slow 360 unless that is 
    absolutely required for a safe 360.  One boat length in high winds is
    NOT seamanlike nor safe.  I don't know how slow yours was but if you
    really drag it out you're probably not legal.
    

    Your appeal based on bearing to the next mark must also allow fro
    leaway and then you must allow for a little more since the purden of
    proof is on you.  If the race committee is in doubt because its within
    say 5 degrees, you lose.

    I have never heard of anything being excluded for a colision.  If a
    crewman leans over board waving and inadvertently touches the other
    boat then you have a collision.  I would really be interested in
    anything stating otherwise.
    

    I had to avoid another leeward boat that was late for the line which is
    part of what so long.  I bore off to a run took the stern of the leeward
    boat gybed and got the boat back in control and finished the tack.  I
    made what I felt was the safest 360 possible in the wind conditions.  I
    I had a crew I would have done it faster but single handed made it
    slower  my concern was clearing all other boats and not capsizing.
    
    
    I just checked the class rules, and the ruling was illegal.  It
    requires that unless otherwise stated in the racing instructions a crew
    shall consist of two people for every race in a series.  It says
    nothing about it being the same two just that it be two people.  I
    should have remeber that Saturday.  I reworked the class rules for the
    class secretary last fall.
    
    
    Forrest

    RE .48
    
    You make a good point.  Last season on Wags we were involved in a
    protest where another boat luffed us hard and one of our crew put out
    her foot to fend off (dumb move, for purely safety reasons).  We were
    promptly protested.  The protest was disallowed because the other guy
    failed to make his intention known (didn't tell us to take it up or
    anything, just yanked on the tiller) and did not give us adequate 
    opportunity to avoid contact (we had a boat on the other side of us and
    no opportunity to exercise our luffing rights on them.
    
    However it was made clear in the protest hearing that anything attached
    to the boat (including crew members) are considered part of the boat.
    
    ... Bob
    

RE: .43

    The protest committee must (usually) hear all your witnesses. They
    can  limit  the  number of witnesses, but rarely do, and certainly
    shouldn't on the belief that the two witnesses will disagree. Then
    they  should  hear  them  to decide which is more credible. If you
    listed  everyone  in  the  fleet  as a witness, they might want to
    limit  you  (and  they  would  be  allowed to), but this certainly
    doesn't sound like that.

    Since it  sounds  like  the protest committee's facts are that the
    other  boat  was  not  above  her proper course, the only possible
    appeals  are  if  the  committee  said  that they were above close
    hauled,  or  more likely, that the hearing was improperly held. In
    particular,  refusing to hear your witness is grounds for reversal
    or rehearing.

    As for  the  antenna, there are parts of the boat that can contact
    without  requiring a protest (like the sails), but you can protest
    for any contact, including the antenna.

--David

    re .40
    
    On what basis did Claddagh protest Wildside?  They luff, you respond,
    there's no contact between boats.  What's the issue for Claddagh?
    
    Wildside however, may have an issue depending on how hard the luff was. 
    Until Claddagh has crossed the line it hasn't started and it's luffing
    rights are still constrained by rule 40.  They can only luff slowly
    giving the leeward boat room and opportunity to keep clear.  If the
    luff was as hard and you were as close to the RC boat as you say,
    Claddagh does not appear to have complied.
    
    In retrospect, the best on the water response might have been to have
    taken the RC boat's stern off.  Claddagh would have unambiguously
    violated rule 40 and the RC would have gotten what it deserved for
    setting such an abominable line.
    
    When the RC sets an egregiously poor line some members of my fleet
    (myself among them) have not hesitated to offer copious amounts of
    gratruitous advice on how to correct it.  I recall doing this to the
    BYC often enough so that I am not longer optimistic about my membership
    propects.
    
    - gene

    Claddagh maintained that if they had not bore off to avoid collision
    that we (Wildside) would have hit either them or the committee.  They
    came up slowly with plenty of warning, so they were not in violation of
    rule 40.  They maintained that they were lower than the course to the
    mark and no higher than close hauled.  both were outright lies which we
    could not prove.  BTW Arbella was very enthusiastic about being a
    witness to claddagh.  We suspect this is because we had them tossed
    during the Jubilee fall race last year for the same thing.  He had nevr
    heard of the rule and damn near drove us up into the committee boat's
    cockpit.  The difference was that the JYC race committee saw clearly
    who was at fault and gladly penalized Arbella with a scolding to read
    the rule book as well has his check book.
    
    Dave

    From this past weekends frosbite racing:
    
    Two boats on port tack beating to weather.
    
    LA is leeward and ahead, WB is to windward and behing.
    
    WB attempts to pass LA.  LA luffs WB, hitting her.  LA's boom passes 
    amidships before LA bears off on port tack and continues.
    
    WB never acheived the mast abeam position and did not hail.
    
    WB protests LA for tacking too close.  LA replies they did not tack and
    were only exercising their rights under rule 38.  LA protests WB for
    not responding to her luff.
    
    Who's right?
    
    - gene
    
    

    IMHO, WB is right.  LA can luff only as she wishes to head to wind. 
    Beyond that she is tacking.  By the main passing beyond centerline,
    that is evidence of passing beyond head to wind.
    
    You'd need a good witness to prove WB's point however, as LA wil NEVER
    admit to it.
    
    Dave

    If  the jib or boom cross the centerline, this is not proof of
    luffing beyond head to wind. If a boat luffs perfectly head to
    wind, the sails WILL cross the centerline for a short period of
    time and then move back to centerline. This is mentioned in Perry's
    racing rules book and good protest committee's are aware of it.
    
    Unless LA continued to alter course beyond head to wind (the definition
    of tacking), I think WB will have a hard time at the protest mtg.
    Passing head to wind by a few degrees will be tough to prove.  

    What is the definition of tacking?  It used to be that sails were full
    and drawing.  Now, I believe that sails past centerline are acceptable.
    If LA hits BW and turns back, it could very well be argued that the
    motion would have continued to complete the tack.  Of course it
    depends.  If I was LA I'd get tossed.  If I was BW I'd get tossed.  My
    history last year with protest committees was 0-3.
    
    Dave

re .54

When did the contact occur - before or after LA when beyond head to wind? The
problem description is ambiguous on this. In any case, I infer from the
argument presented by WB, that the contact occured after LA had gone beyond
head to wind. In this case I agree that WB was fouled under the tacking too
close rule. I also agree that it's going to be hard to prove that LA went
beyond head to wind. 

Note that the definition of tacking only specifies that tacking begins when a
yacht goes beyond head to wind and ends when a close-hauled course is
achieved. It does not require that the ending course be a new course. An 
implication in this case is that the contact that was protested only needed 
to occur AFTER LA had gone beyond head to wind, not WHILE LA was beyond head 
to wind. 

- Bob

    By definition, tacking is independent of what the sails are doing.
    A boat begins a tack when it's centerline crosses head to wind. A
    boat completes a tack when the centerline is on a close hauled heading.
    
    Now let's put a qualifier on the "independent of what the sails are
    doing" statement. The sails CAN be used as evidence of the course.
    So it's a good idea to get the sail to fill quickly on a new tack. But 
    at the same time, completing a tack does not by definition depend on how 
    fast the crew sheets in the jib and main.

    I went through my USYRU appeals book last night.  Cases C58 and C77
    apply.  C58 establishes that no matter what the intent, tacking begins
    when the bow goes beyond head to wind.  This specific case dealt with
    the opposite problem, i.e. a boat that meant to tack but never got
    beyond HTW before colliding with a windward boat.  However, if the boat
    meant only to luff and went beyond HTW, the intent to luff is
    meaningless and tacking has begun.
    
    C77 deals with the problem that even with conflicting evidence in cases
    where HTW neads to be established and collision occurs, the committee
    MUST find fact.  If a collision occurs, somebody broke the rules.  Just
    what the committee is obligated to take as fact is not specified, so it
    becomes a "Did too!" "Did not!" kind of case.  In these cases it helps
    tremendously if the committee members are from your yacht club ;^).
    
    
    Dave

    Dave, you bring up a very good point. How is the protest decided
    in light of incomplete or conflicting evidence? In situations like
    this the race comittee will decide based on the intent of the
    rules.
    
    In the situation here, the rule's intent is to protect 
    the leeward boat's wind. Any windward boat riding up on the hip of the
    leeward guy is considered to be the aggressor - even though dingy sailors
    use the rule deliberately to foul out the windward boat. 
    
    I laughed when I read some tactics by Gary Jobson for the gybe mark.
    It went something like this: "If a boat trails you around the gybe mark
    and tries to move up on your windward hip, just throw the helm over
    and take him out".

    Re: -.1
    
    Jobson has yet to buy his own racing boat!  If I pulled that stunt with
    Claddagh, all I would hear is my fiberglass crunching against their
    aluminum and their beer cans rolling around on my deck ;^).
    
    Seriously, it would have to be very blatant that the leeward boat had
    gone beyond head to wind to win this protest for exactly the reasons  in
    the prior response.
    
    Okay, we've flayed this one to death, how 'bout another?
    
    Dave

    There was no official final word on the protest because it never got
    officially filed.  The two boats in question were duking it out for
    last place (not us for a change) and were so engrossed in their
    on-the-water accusations they neglected to tell the race committee that
    they were protesting each other.
    
    The lack of an official protest didn't prevent a lengthy hearing at the
    bar afterwards.  My "verdict" was to DSQ WB.  This was primarilly based
    on the wording in rule 38 that runs along the lines that the leeward
    boat may "luff as she pleases" when being passed to windward.  That's
    about as carte blanche as the rules go and, presumably, is intended to
    be a warning to a windward boat that it should expect an aggressive
    luff if it tries to pass.  Therefore, in the absence of a compelling
    reason to tack, such as an obstruction or stbd tacker, WB should have
    been ready to respond.  The fact that LA's boom passed the centerline I
    dismissed as inconseqential.  The wind is shifty in the inner harbor
    because of the proximity of many buildings.  A shift during the luff
    could easily have pushed the boom over to a new tack.  And LA did
    subsequently bear off on his original tack.
    
    However, that was just my opinion.  After several beers on an empty
    stomach, my articulation of my reasoning was less persuasive than it
    should have been.  With no rulebook to refer to we argued at length on
    the definition of tacking - the usual rathole exercise - just like
    work.  The other customers, I'm sure, were relieved to see us go.
    
    - gene 

In my opinion, the situation hinges on two facts (if they can be determined):

1) When did the contact occur?

   If windward overtaking was hit by leward before leward went past head to 
   wind (rather, if there was contact while leward was luffing, no matter
   whether leward later went past head to wind or not), then windward is out.  
   (Same tack, windward-leward, no mast abeam, leward has luffing rights.) No 
   discussion. 

2) If, after contact occured (or, even if there was no contact), leward 
   continued to luff and went past head to wind, or if contact occurred 
   after leward went past head to wind, then leward is out. (Tacking too 
   close.)

The impression I got from the description is that contact occured when leward
luffed windward and subsequent to that leward went past head to wind.  In that
case they're both out.

I have a philosophy of doing everything I can to stay out of the protest
room.  This means to me that I avoid getting into situations that could lead
to protest by looking ahead as much as possible.  A large part of this is 
talking to other boats in advance.  Even though I have a "bullet proof"
yacht, I believe contact in "big" boats isn't worth the pain and potential
cost.  (If I had a 50 footer, I certainly would think 1000 times before
attempting to squeeze in at the windward mark on port.)  Besides that, 
protesting someone can just as likely result in a penalty against either or 
both yachts.

    .64 is  correct.  It  doesn't  matter  whether  the  leeward  boat
    intended  to tack or not. The only question is was she tacking? As
    soon as the wind crosses her centerline she's tacking until she is
    on  a  close-hauled  course. It is entirely possible to be tacking
    from  starboard  to  starboard,  and  it sounds like that may have
    happened.

    You tack from starboard to starboard if you luff past head to wind
    (now you're tacking) and then fall back to the original tack. When
    the  wind  crosses  your  centerline  the  second time you begin a
    second  tack  without  ever  finishing  the  first.  So  you're on
    starboard,  you're luffing, you start to tack (to port), you start
    to  tack  (to  starboard) and when you're on a close hauled course
    you finish your tack. While you have officially started two tacks,
    you've only completed one. You were "tacking" under the rules from
    when you started the first tack (your centerline crossed the wind)
    to  when  you  are  close  hauled  again (in this case on the same
    tack.)

    This may  have  been  unintentional  if a shift came through. That
    does  not  change  the  responsibility  of  the  boat  that tacked
    unintenionally.  The contact was avoidable, so you can't ignore it
    as minor and unavoidable, so the "leeward" boat is DSQ for tacking
    too close.

    How do  you  convince  the protest committee that you didn't tack?
    (or  that  the  other  boat  did)?  Good Luck. They will listen to
    witnesses,  and  try  to  figure out which story makes more sense.
    There  is  no  official  onus  here, so they have to make up their
    minds  somehow. If they're good, they'll realize that the facts as
    stated  compel  one conclusion. A really good protest committee is
    amazingly  good at figuring out what really went on. Bad ones just
    guess.

--David

    Another one from frostbiting.
    
    S is the first of a line of boats on starboard tack in the parade at
    the windward mark.  Because of the current sweeping down the course, all
    of the boats on the final approach have overstood and fall off to a
    close reach shortly before rounding the mark.
    
    P comes into the mark on port tack just shy of the port layline and
    calls for room at the mark.  S replies "NO ROOM!" and holds its course. 
    P tacks just in front of and shy of S, nicking S's bow with her stern
    as she rounds the mark.
    
    S protests P for tacking too close.  P protests S for leeward over
    windward.
    
    The verdict please.
    
    - gene

    re .66   Gee sounds like the 83 year old man who pulled this stunt on
    me at the Hobie Nationals (he started sailing at 60 so he should have
    known better).  I threatened to run him over. If a port
    tacker  wants me
    to stay a course and then try and overstand to windward, good luck. 
    For me to have to alter course without them being able to tack and then 
    start moving is a no-no. If it looks like they can tack over and fill
    their sails, I ussally give it to them. 
    
    The thing that ussally happens it that you are leading the stbd parade
    but some hotshot is to windward of you moving faster and is more than
    willing to scuff you off on that port tack boat. In fact this always seems
    the case on my cat (I really have to work on boat speed). Depending
    upon the number of boats converging, It is sometimes best to go really
    wide in case of carnage at the mark, but sometimes you don't have a
    choice, esspecially if you want to gybe the mark for a spinnaker run on
    the inside of the course.
           

    We did exactly this at the 1988 PHRF Championships.  First race, first
    windward mark.  We were coming in on port and Taylor Anne (driven by
    Judd Smith) was the first in line coming in on starboard.  Because of a
    pretty big shift, TA had overstood.  We thought we could complete a
    tack in front of TA, even though she had quite a bit of speed on.  
    
    We tacked right in front of them, had come to course and building speed
    when they nearly rode up our transom.  I was standing right there and
    could have shook hands with their bow man.  They then luffed to avoid
    collision, yelled a lot about tacking too close and protested.
    
    We were under the impression that because we had completed the tack and
    TA was clear astern, we were in the right.  However, it is the onus of
    the tacking boat to prove this.  Judd came into the protest room
    stating this was a "dinghy move" we had pulled and was very dangerous. 
    I pointed out that while it may very well be a dinghy move, it is still
    legal as well as reminded him that I pay the bills and would not put my
    boat in a dangerous spot intentionally.
    
    The committee (Eastern YC) saw things Judd's way.  They called as a
    witness some old geezer driving the stake boat who admitted he only
    looked up when he heard the shouting and saw Taylor Anne luffing.  He
    ASSUMED we had tacked too close and praised the seamanship of TA, blah
    blah blah.
    
    We could only call as witness another boat who admittedly did not have
    a perfect view.
    
    To make the story short,  We were tossed.  The moral is this.  You are
    much more likely to win a protest of this sort in small baots than big
    boats.  Shouldn't be, but that's the truth.  The onus is on the port
    tacker and it is VERY hard to prove if the starboard makes a show out
    of avoiding collision.  My stomach goes into knots every time we come
    in on port.  Rarely works out well.
    
    Dave

The facts as I understand them from the description:

1) Both yachts are on a beat (beat being defined as a leg of the course where
   at least one tack is required) - it doesn't matter that a yacht has 
   overstood or what course she may be on as a result.  It is the leg of the
   course that matters and this doesn't seem to be in question.

2) The yachts were on opposite tacks.  At the windward mark on a beat with 
   yachts on opposite tacks, take the mark away and behave just as you 
   would otherwise in open ocean.  Port's request for "ROOM" and starboard's 
   hail of "NO ROOM" are meaningless.  There is no buoy room rule at the
   windward mark for yachts on opposite tacks.

3) The incident occured right at the windward mark.  Starboard's course was
   toward the mark and port's course was also toward the mark.

4) The contact occured when port (now on starboard tack) started to round the
   mark, causing her stern to swing out and touch the bow of starboard.  

The ruling:

A tacking yacht must complete its tack without requiring a yacht on a tack to
take avoiding action.  Once a tack is complete, if a new right-of-way
situation exists, the new priviledged yacht must give the new burdened yacht 
opportunity to respond.  E.G., you cannot tack into a priviledged leward 
position and immediately luff.  

It is the responsibility (burden) of the yacht tacking to prove to the RC that 
their tack was completed in time.  If there is contact, this is usually very 
difficult (impossible?) to do.  Port would probably have to prove that 
starboard did not hold their course and fell off while port was tacking.  In
this case, it appears that port initiated the contact.  One thing I do if in
this situation (once I am on the new tack when tacking or if someone else
tacks under me), is start counting out loud.  If I can get to 4 or 5, then that
usually indicates that the previous manouver (tack) has completed and the
yachts are now goverened by any new right of way situation. This also helps a
bunch in the protest room. 

Also, since starboard was reaching onto the mark, there would presumably be 
even more room to tack under them.  This further supports starboard's claim 
that port was tacking too close.

The questions are, 

1) Did port complete her tack without requiring starboard to alter course?
	My answer: I don't know enough from the description to answer.

2) Was port's tack completed in enough time to allow starboard to respond 
   to a luff?
	My answer: No, both yachts were described as heading at or near
	to the weather mark on their respective laylines.

3) Was port's tack completed in enough time for starboard to respond to a
   windward/leward mark rounding incident rather than a tacking too close
   incident?  E.G., if port tacked under starboard, was there enough time
   for her to establish an inside overlap and for starboard (now windward)
   to respond to it?
	My answer: No, for the same reason given in "2".

Given all this, if I were the RC, port would be disqualified.  If I were 
starboard, port would be summarily executed.

Of course, the bottom line in all of this is it is very dangerous for a port
tacker to approach a line of starboard tackers anywhere on the course and try 
to squeeze in.  This is the more so on the layline.  And obviously 
even more so at the weather mark.  Don't come in on port right on the layline. 
The rules don't give you very much of a chance.

I like to come in at least 100 yards under the layline if on port.  This has 
multiple advantages:

1) It gives me enough time to scratch out a good position vis-a-vis
   other starboard tack yachts.

2) It allows me to get a very accurate reading on exactly when we are on the 
   starboard tack layline to tack and fetch the mark.

3) It gives my crew enough time to setup the pole and chute.

4) It allows me to do a bear away set, a less complicated manouver and more
   likely to be completed withoug incident.  The worst case would be to come
   in on port, right at the mark, tack, and have to do a gybe set.

It is also difficult to tack under someone and then expect to luff
them up in anything other than a dingy.  Larger boats accelerate too slow. 
(This is pretty much a slam dunk manouver.)  In big yachts, you must almost be
able to pass clear ahead on port to be able to slam dunk another yacht on
starboard (assumming the starboard yacht is up-to-speed). The boats just don't
accelerate that fast.  You would probably have to be about 2 minutes ahead to
try this in a 12!  (The primary reason for all this is to protect the side of
the course that you are comming out of and to force your opponent into the
other side of the course - since the only real defense after the fact is for
the other yacht to tack off.)  Coalition tried this on us about 1 hour after
the start of the Chapman Bowl last year. They were doing pretty good, got
their tack in under us when all of a suddent they stoped dead in the water.
Turns out they snagged a lobster pot!  One of the best moments of the year for
us. 

    I don't know.  From the original description, the port tacker was "just
    shy" of the port layline, implying that she had to sail at least a
    couple of boatlengths to reach the mark once on starboard.  
    
    The starboard was pointing toward the mark, but ABOVE layline, having
    overstood.  
    
    Granted the starboard tacker had more spped on by reaching and that the
    port tacker would surely lose a lot of speed coming out of its tack.
    
    However, the fact that the starboard tacker nicked the old port
    tacker's transom while she was rounding implies that port had sailed a
    couple of boatlengths on starboard before contact.  This would provide
    plenty of time for starboard to react.  Only takes a split second to
    head up a bit, especially if travelling at speed.
    
    A lot of starboard tackers exagerate the time it takes to respond,
    knowing the rules favor their position.  In our case, the fact that
    there was no collision should have been the evidence to exonerate us.
    It proves that there was time for a reluctant starboard tacker to react
    to the new burden of being the overtaking vessel.
    
    Dave

    	OK, here is one for the rules wizards.  This happened recently and
    I let it slide.

    Boat A - was broad reaching on port a little above the layline.

    Boat B - had moved about 4 or 5 boat lengths below the layline and
             slightly behind Boat A.  Boat B was trying to work into a 
    	     position to pass Boat A.

    This was the port reach leg of a triangle course and Boat A had a while
    before overtaken Boat B from astern.  As stated above B had moved below
    the layline to get into a passing position of possible.

    Boat A gybes over onto starboard and heads up to something in the
    range of a beam reach.  Intending to drive the passing boat off.  Boat
    B gybes over onto starboard just as Boat A yells starboard.  Boat B
    ends up having to go almost to close hauled to miss Boat A.  Boat A now
    bears off, and gybes back onto port and works back to her old position
    slightly above the layline.

    Should boat B have protested A for sailing above her proper course. 
    The  obvious intent was to try and catch B napping and to force a foul,
    or to force B from being able to pass cleanly.

    Probably not.
    
    From the description, this is happening on leg 3 of a starboard
    triangle.  There is no layline on a offwind leg.  I assume you mean
    "rhumbline", the straight line connecting the gybe mark and the leeward
    mark.
    
    For clarity let's divide the action into three sequences.  Sequence 1 -
    both boats on port tack, A is windward and ahead, B is leeward and
    behind.  They may or may not be overlaped.  Sequence 2 - A is on
    starboard, B is on port.  Sequence 3 - both boats on port after A has
    gybed back to old course.
    
    In sequence 1, rule 39 says that if B is within three lengths of A, A
    can't A can't sail below her proper course to keep B from passing to
    leeward.  Proper course and rhumbline can be intepreted as being the
    same in this case.  From the description A and B are 5 lengths apart at
    the beginning of sequence 1.  If before gybing, A fell off to within
    three length of B, B could have protested.
    
    In sequence 2, as soon as A gybes to starboard, rule 36 becomes
    relevent and rule 39's implied requirement for boats to be on the same
    tack no longer applies.  Under rule 36, starboard has right of way -
    period.  A can do whatever it wants as long as B is still on port.
    
    In sequence 3, we have two boats on the same tack.  Rule 38 comes into
    play.  The relative positions of the boats when A gybes is critical. 
    If A is clear ahead or her mast is ahead of B's helmsman, A has luffing
    rights and may luff B as she pleases.  Otherwise A must sail no higher
    than her proper course - the rhumbline.  Rule 39 would apply if B were
    trying to come down on A as A tried to pass to leeward.  But since A
    was already ahead and it was B that was trying now to pass to windward,
    rule 39 is irrelevant.  Since B didn't protest under rule 38 and the
    description implies it was aware of and responded properly to its
    obligations thereunder, we don't seem to have any violation here.
    
    My verdict is that rule 39 was not violated based on the description
    and that A legitimately luffed B under rule 38.  Disallow the protest.
    
    - gene

    Of course if B had just taken A's stern instead of gybing, she would
    have had the inside overlap.  Since A would have slowed down in her
    gybe back to port, B would probably have rounded the next mark ahead.
    
    - gene

    	I meant Rhumbline, should not write these notes late at night.  I
    actually talked to him after the race and he was quite honest.  His
    intent was to force me to foul him.  By doing so he figured it would
    slow me enough to cause me to drop another place.  He thought I need to
    be forth to insure his second place finish.

    	I obviously sail with different goal in mind, I try to stay  away
    from rules debates if at all possible.  In this case he caught me
    napping and I went hard over two avoid hitting him.  Taking his stern
    would have been a good option if I had seen it developing sooner.  If I
    ever race against him again, I will make sure that I do not give him a
    chance to try something like this.  To be honest if had rounded the
    previous mark cleaner he would not have developed the inside overlap he
    used to pass me.
    
    
    Forrest

    Re .72
    
    There are laylines on leeward legs, it's when your VMG angle to the
    wind lines up with the mark. There are even special circumstances
    where you can call for room to gybe when you reach the leeward layline.
    
    In sequence 1, A can gybe only if B is given "room and opportunity"
    to keep clear. Since there was 4-5 boatlengths separation, probably
    no problem. I don't think bearing off to gybe can be considered a 
    violation of rule 39.
    
    In sequence 2, A must hold her course while B keeps clear. Now A bore
    off, gybed, and headed up to beam reach in 5 boat lengths? Unless you
    were racing dingies, it sounds like A was altering course constantly.
    
    In any case, this manuever by A sounds really dumb. He was ahead and 
    inside, the perfect position. By gybing and reaching, he risked losing
    the inside position and was sailing 120 degrees away from the mark.
    
    My advice is - try to get in the same situation with this guy again,
    when he gybes at you, head up over his stern like Gene suggested.
    You'll blow right by him.

    	We were racing dinghies and so being able to slam them around
    quickly was not a problem.  He caught us by surprise by making what
    seemed like a pointless and unexpected move.  Had we noticed him going
    onto starboard sooner taking the stern would have been fine, and hurt
    him.  

    	It was our not noticing until the last minute and having to a slam onto
    starboard and rounding up to near close hauled that really hurt.  By
    the time we recovered he had ended up dropping several boat length and
    the fourth place boat almost rolled us.  In a large boat it would have
    been a dangerous and stupid move to pull.

    	To be honest I should have expected something like this from him. 
    On the day before, I watched him try to force buoy room at the windward
    mark when he had no rights.  In this case he ran into the boat ahead of
    him and they both ended up in front of me.  Who had rounded tight while
    I had taken a wide rounding.  I went around ahead and came out behind
    looking for a way around the mess.


    Forrest
    Ps.		Thanks, more things to think about and file away for
    		future reference.  

    RE.76
    
       Forrest, I have a great way to help prevent this from happening
    again. Whenever I go to a location realllllllly far away, I look for
    windsurfer or surfboard stickers with cute sayings. My latest group
    say "slam squad" on them.
    
       Whenever someone pulls a really stupid move on a course, I talk to
    them nicely afterwards and give them a sticker. Useually these immature
    zeroes think the sticker is really nice and they put it on their boat.
    Then whenever I see one of MY stickers on a boat, I know to look out
    cause the captain is a loser. Sort of like giving room to late model
    cars with rental emblems in the rear window.
    
    
        john

    	I am back with another question, even though I really want to stay
    out of protest cases.  Two regattas in a row I come back with rule
    questions.  In this case I was along for the ride and other than
    talking it over with the skipper it was not my call.
    
    	
    	Saturday at the Lipton cup We saw two boat go into a prohibited
    zone  (per the racing instructions) we noted the numbers but thought 
    our angle was suspect.  At this point we did not fly a protest  flag. 
    When we finished the race we asked another boat who was  closer with a
    better angle if he saw them go out of bounds.  He  said yes and had
    noted the same sail numbers.  He had not filed  a protest because he
    saw a stake boat in the area and assumed  they had taken down the data. 
    At this point we sailed up to  the committee boat and asked if they had
    a report of the incident,  and if not we wished to protest.  They
    stated that no they had no report of the incident, and that we could
    protest if we desired  but would advise that it not be heard because we
    were not flying  a flag when we crossed the finish line.  Some notes:

    		1) We were not 100% sure based on our line of sight
 		   that the boats had gone into the prohibited
    		   area.  We wanted to check with another boat
    		   before filing a protest.
    
    		2) We never got close enough to either boat to
    		   inform them before they finished.  I would have
    		   spoken to them if I had the chance.
    
		3) After the race they both admitted having gone
    		   into the prohibited area, but had not read the
    		   race flier so were not aware they had done
    		   anything wrong.
    
		4) One of the boats ended up second for the series
    		   if a protest had been heard it could have
    		   altered the standing quite a bit.

    	We ended up not filing a protest largely based on the attitude from
    the folks on the committee boat, and others in the fleet.  We got
    several why are you picking on them they did not know it was a
    prohibited area, and they only went a little out of bounds.  Should we
    have gone ahead and filed anyhow, just curious........
    What rules if any did we violate by not flying the protest flag when we
    crossed the line, and for letting ourselves being talked out of
    following through after notifying the race committee.
    
    Forrest
    
    

    You violated no rules.  You may not have had a valid protest if you
    didn't have a flag up at first reasonable opportunity.
    
    You should have protested when you saw it.  If you were wrong you could
    always withdraw your protest.  Being a little inside a prohibited zone
    is like being a little bit pregnant.  There is a good article in
    Sailing World on how more and more sailors are letting others get away
    with minor rules infractions making it more difficult to decide when to
    protest and not to protest.  The advice was that rules are there for a
    purpose and to enforce them doesn't make you a jerk, it makes you
    right.
    
    Flag 'em!
    
    Dave

    Fly the flag as soon as possible, inform the other boat as soon as
    possible ( even if that means in the marina afterwards ). 
    
    Failure to do either of these should result in the protest being thrown
    out. The rules about protests are about as complex as the right-of-way
    rules, so if you want to use them, make sure you know them.
    
    Chris ( who got away with a nav-light infringement on just such a
    	    technicality )
    

    The committee was right to discourage you.  Given that you made no
    attempt at ther time of the incident or at the time of finish, it would
    not have been a valid protest and the correct action on their part
    would have been to throw out the protest.  The person being protested
    against has rights too, to include knowing about the violation at the
    time or as soon thereafter as possible so as to be able to both
    remember details and to prepare.  Fly the flag when it happens and if
    still in doubt at the time you cross the line fly the flag then too. 
    You still have no obligation to protest, but you still have the right. 
    You do have an additional obligation to inform the committee as soon as
    possible after you cross the line if you are going to protest.

    There will be a racing rules seminar at the Boston Yacht Club at 7:30
    PM on Thursday 4/23.
    
    An official USYRU judge will preside with assistance from prestigous
    sea lawyers.  Impress your friends and family as you become a nautical
    Perry Mason.
    
    Brought to you as a public service by your local Etchells
    fleet.
    
    - gene 
    
    
    

    This is more of a tactics question than a rules question.  Yesterday
    I was on port tack coming in towards the finish line, with a starboard
    tacker coming towards me.  He would have just barely been able to make
    the inside of the left hand mark of the finish line.  I was ahead of
    him, and he called "starboard".  I thought
    I could make it past him and tack on the other side of him and still
    beat him across the line, but probably I was wrong (inexperience).
    I tacked onto starboard, he passed me to leeward and protested me
    claiming that he had had to change direction to avoid me.  No contact.
    I crossed the line first but was disqualified.
    
    Other than the question of how you tell whether someone else is
    actually having to do anything to avoid you, my puzzlement is
    what to do in this case.  Should I have just kept going without
    tacking, thus most likely making it ahead of him and probably even
    still beating him across the line?  Or decided that the risk too great
    and just passed behind him, but then I certainly would have come in
    behind him.  There weren't any other boats around so that would
    have been a lot better than disqualification.
    
    I'm just trying to figure out what the lesson is in this kind of
    situation...
    
    Doug.

    	Can you draw this out it would help the rest of this assumes a
    windward finish and a bunch of other stuff.  How far from the line was
    it square was one tack favored etc......

    	You say he is on starboard and just making it and you are fetching
    just fine on PORT.  It sounds like you decided to cross him and then
    tack on top. The tack on top of him in this case if he is just making
    seems a little foolish. Why tack into a burdened position that may keep
    you from making it.  He can pinch you off and coming out of the tack
    you have no speed he is likely to roll you.  If I thought I could also
    make it I might have considered tacking under him and then pinching him
    off.  But it sounds like bearing off and ducking him is the fast play. 
    It still give you the option of tacking on top of him if you want....

    	Was he protesting the cross or that you tacked too close.  If the
    tack drove you into a position that he felt he had to alter course to
    keep from hitting you then you probably crossed fine.  If the
    alternative penalty was allowed why did you skip the 720 for insurance
    it beats getting tossed.  Then if you want to go to the protest room
    you can.

    	If it is real close on a port starboard case the jury will
    generally give it to the starboard tacker.  The burden of proof is on
    you to convince them that he did not have to alter course.  His hail of
    starboard is a courtesy the rules do not require it he can stay silent
    if he chooses.  His hail sort of says that he was concerned that it was
    close.  If I thought I could make it I would have hailed back hold you
    course and prayed.  This does not shift the proof of your shoulders but
    helps both parties. Port approaches can pay off big time but you are
    going to get hung out to dry more every now and then.


    Forrest

    It was a windward finish.  The left end of the (finish) line was
    favored.  The intersection of our courses was only maybe 20 feet
    or so from the line
    
                       wind
                         |
                         |
                         v
                             -----x
                       ------
                x------
    
    
                   P(me)
                          S
    
    Admittedly I should have arranged it to make my previous tack
    onto Port a little earlier which would have gotten me closer
    to the mark.  As it was, if I ducked behind him I was afraid that
    he'd clear the line before I even got close to it.  My "plan",
    if you can call it that, was to tack on the far side of him, making
    me burdened but only a few feet from the line.  I hoped to cross
    then luff out of his way.  I ended up on Starboard with his bow on
    my port quarter, maybe two feet away (this is in Daysailors), him with
    good way on and me much slower.  His protest was Port-Starboard.
    
    Afterwards somebody said I shouldn't have tacked at all, which
    given the closeness of it was probably right.
    
    Doug.
    

    Re .83:
    
    The lesson to be learned here is a good one. On the last beat and
    especially on the approach to the finish - indentify your closest
    competetitor and make your move BEFORE the finish. Put the hammer
    on the other guy no later than 100 yds from the finish.
    
    You do this by exerting tactical control, using the rules to force
    your opponent into a trailing position. You can do this three ways
    depending upon the distance between boats.
    
    Tack to windward and gas 'em : You cross your opponent and tack on his
    wind. I like to have 2-3 boat lengths lead for this one. With less of
    a lead, you run the risk of your oppenent breaking through to leeward
    and turning the tables on you. This one is not my favorite because 
    the other boat while invariably tack away. This is best used to get
    your opponent to tack away towards the unfavored side of the
    course.
    
    In your face: With 1-2 boatlengths lead, tack directly in front of
    your opponent. Watch them carefully, when they tack away, tack right
    on top of them. Most people get so mad by such an aggressive move that
    they slow right down.
    
    Lee bow attack: With 0-1 baotlengths lead, tack on their lee bow. This
    requires good crew work on you'll be rolled. Usually there's a 20
    second period where either boat can win the encounter. A lot of nerve
    and yelling from the leeward side helps to pull this off. As the
    windward boat falls back and tacks away, you tack right on top of
    them.
    
    Maintain the Starboard side advantage: Once you are in front, stay to
    the right of your opponent. This way you'll always be on starboard
    tack when you meet. When going left on starboard tack, position
    yourself abeam to windward and slighly behind your opponent. When 
    going right on port tack, position yourself ahead and slightly to 
    leeward. 
                  
    
    Of course, all this advice depends upon how well you, your crew, and
    you boat tacks. It also depends on the aggressiveness of the fleet.
    People who aren't used to being attacked will tend to protest, even
    though you make legal moves.

    Here's another rules/tactics question that I "ran into" :*) in last
    week's race on Lake Quinsigamond.  Going down wind towards the
    second mark which was to be on the starboard side when passed, I
    was going a lot faster than the three boats just ahead of me (there
    seems to be a pretty major difference in the speed of the boats).
    
    The first of them was just inside the two-length circle when I
    came up to the last one, and they had previously agreed (during the
    run, when I was still quite a ways behind) what their rounding
    sequence would be.  I came up behind and to the right of #3 and
    hailed that I had an overlap well before he entered the two-boatlength
    circle.  Then I hailed #2 likewise, but he may or may not have
    heard me, and may or may not have been inside the circle.  I came
    up just behind #1 and rounded ok just behind him while #2 got
    confused and basically continued on straight.  There was no contact
    or protest, and the race continued on without discussion, but
    afterwards I felt guilty and asked #2 what he thought and the
    opinion of both #2 and #1 was that they were inside the circle
    and I didn't have rights for room.
    
    In discussion it was clarified to me that it was really my
    responsibility to prove that #2 was outside the circle, and
    that if there had been a protest I would have been disqualified.
    I accept that and basically just plead noviceness, which I know
    is not an allowed excuse, but I was honestly trying to to
    hail #2 before I thought they were inside the circle.
    
    
            before:                            after:
    
                     x                         2
                   1                            me 1
                  2                           3   x
                   me
                3
    
                                 ^
                                 |
                                 | wind
    
    
    So, the question I have is, in such a case, what is the best thing
    to do?  I got past #3 ok, so I could have just rounded behind
    #2.  I suspect that this would have left me in a bad position on
    the start of the following reaching leg, but I guess that makes
    sense given that before the mark I was clearly way behind all of them.
    Or is there some other approach to this situation?
    
    Doug

    re .87
    
       doug
    
        Judging by your picture, you are lucky 3 or 2 didn't head up to wind,
    tag you, and then have you dsq. Remember when Il Moro did this to
    S&S in the first race they won? 
    
        john

    Ok, more rules questions based on last weekend at Regatta Point.
    
    The wind was moving around a lot but not so calm as to be drifting.
    The first beat ended up being a reach for most of the way, and
    everybody pretty much stayed together and we were unusually bunched
    at the first mark.  Still outside the circle, I was leeward with
    another guy very close (three or four feet, DaySailors) to windward:
    
    
       wind
         |              him                                 mark
         |
         V               me
    
    I had my centerboard up a ways.  Suddenly the wind veered around
    about 150 degrees putting us both on Starboard reaches.  I found
    myself drifting into him sideways, touched, and he protested and
    also commented that I should have had my centerboard down all
    the way since we were close hauled.  Question:  How much time do
    I get to work myself out of this position before I'm in trouble?
    
    ------------------
    
    Because this is informal racing and especially since there had
    been about 5 other protests just at about this same time, nobody
    did any 270s and we kept on going.  (This is in the "helmsman" class
    where things aren't quite as serious as the "skippers" class where
    you actually have to pass a rules test to race.)  We rounded
    the mark and then reached up (another wind shift) towards the
    next mark.  I was again leeward and five boats had overlaps,
    everybody claiming mast abeam.  Outside the circle at the mark it
    looked like this:
    
    
                    mark
                        ^
                        |
    wind                A
    ------>               B   (boats are all overlapped)
                            C
                             him   (from previous scenario)
                                me
    
    Even though we were outside the circle boat A continued straight for
    the mark.  I called out leeward, claiming that my proper course was
    towards the mark and since we were outside the circle everybody else
    had to give me room to sail towards the mark.  "Him" said that he couldn't
    luff because C was in his way; A didn't even know this was going
    on (or at least let on that way).  I was too shy to make a fuss
    especially after the confusion at the first mark, but I think I got
    gypped.  Right?  (Came in second to A in the end anyway though.)
    
    Doug.

    If A is outside the circle then it comes down to two things
    
    Were people sailing a proper course to the mark ?
    
    Had you come from clear astern to overlap ?
    
    If this is true then 37.3 applies
    "A yacht that establishes an overlap to leeward from clear astern shall
    initially allow the windward yacht ample room and opportunity to keep
    clear."
    
    38.2 gives some additional limitations. It would appear that in this
    case you can not luff HIM as you would not have luffing rights on all
    the affected yachts (38.2e).
    "A yacht shall not luff unless she has the right to luff all yachts
    that would be affected by her luff, in which case they shall all
    respond, even when an intervening yacht or yachts would not otherwise
    have the right to luff."
    
    I hpoe this is correct as the more I read the less I was sure.