Red Race 1, euphoria cancelled a penalty vs BatBoat

Post Reply
User avatar
euphoria
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Red Race 1, euphoria cancelled a penalty vs BatBoat

Post by euphoria »

Submission Type: C

1. Your registered Boat Name: euphoria

2. Race Day: 3

3. Group: Red

4. Race: 1 (7)

5. Time: 23:52

6. Rule(s) applicable: 11 / 18.2(a)

7. Boat(s) involved: BatBoat and euphoria

8. Description: After BatBoat enters the zone, he bear away and is heading 1 boat length below the mark. I sail straight. At 23:50, BatBoat is so close that any luff by me would cause immediate contact, which means BatBoat is not keeping clear. 2 seconds later there is contact. Batboat sailed outside mark-room which means he can't be exonerated for breaking rule 11. I gave BatBoat mark-room, which at this stage is room to sail to the mark (not 1 length below the mark).

9. Print Screen attached (required for a manual protest):

10. Replay attached:
MLS 14-07.Replay.Gbx
(3.76 MiB) Downloaded 181 times
Batboat
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:02 pm
Location: Danmark

Re: Red Race 1, euphoria cancelled a penalty vs BatBoat

Post by Batboat »

I do think the facts are stated unclearly.

Facts:
Before the zone Euphoria is leeward and BatBoat is windward - both sailing at wind abeam. There is no contact before the zone.
After entering the zone, BatBoat changes course going to closed hauled.
There is contact between the boats inside the zone as a consequense of BatBoat changing course, going to closed hauled and the contact makes umpire release a penalty (18.2.A) to Euphoria.

Argument:
BatBoat is not changing course several seconds before the zone and there is no contact between the boats. Euphoria can still sail his course with no need to take avoiding action and Euphoria can still change course in both directions. Therefore Batboat is not in violation of rule 11. If the argument on rule 11 is being followed that would change VSK dramatically, since all boats are often sailing close - and the general rule has always been "contact" concerning being in violation with rule 11. There is a risk going close to other boats - but as long as there is no contact - you are not in violation with rule 11.

Inside zone Euphoria must give BatBoat mark-room. Mark-room is considered as the right to leave a mark on the required side and also room to sail to the mark when the proper course is to sail close to it.
Proper Course is the course a boat would choose in order to sail the course and finish as soon as possible.
I must also underline that if BatBoat had changed course slower, that could have been in violation with rule 18.2.A, since mark-room only allows a boat room to pass the mark at proper course. There is a small distance between BatBoat and the mark, therefore this hasn't been broken either.

Therefore BatBoat is exercising his rights concerning mark-room under rule 18.2.A, when changing course and going to closed hauled since this is his proper course.

Conclusion:
Since there is no contact outside zone. BatBoat is not in violation of rule 11.
Since there is contact inside zone and BatBoat is only exercising his rights (mark-room), Euphoria is in violation of rule 18.2.A.
Euphoria should be DSQ for being in violation with rule 18.2.A.
User avatar
euphoria
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Re: Red Race 1, euphoria cancelled a penalty vs BatBoat

Post by euphoria »

It looks like you have misunderstood the part about proper course. Yes, your proper course was to sail close to it, which means you are entitled to room to sail to the mark. But not to sail your proper course to the mark... The term is only there to exclude the right to sail to the mark in some cases, for example if you are below the mark and there is another offset mark further away.

In fleet racing, you are only entitled to enough room to make a seamanlike rounding. If you sail further from the mark than necessary, then you are sailing outside the corridor where you are protected.

In match racing however, there the definition of mark-room is changed to allow a boat to sail her proper course (see rule C2.2), but that does only apply i MR.

Harald
Batboat
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:02 pm
Location: Danmark

Re: Red Race 1, euphoria cancelled a penalty vs BatBoat

Post by Batboat »

Definition of proper course in RRS 2021-2024 is defined as: "A course a boat would choose in order to sail the course and finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term.". What I wrote was: "Proper Course is the course a boat would choose in order to sail the course and finish as soon as possible.". I don't see any big misconception.

BatBoat enters the zone from a relative "deep" position. Before the zone there is no obligation to sail any proper course. BTW also the view of MLS PC, see case: http://vsksailing.rocks/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=689, quote: "[...]There is no rule that says a boat shall sail the shortest/quickest route to the next mark (proper course)[...]".

This is also in accordance with definition of mark-room, "litra B": "room to round or pass the mark as necessary". Please note the phrase: "as necessary". Meaning when coming from a "deep" position BatBoat is still privileged under rule 18.2.A.

The question is does BatBoat (AFTER getting into the zone) "push" Euphoria too far out (too far from the mark)? Because that is not allowed. I think we agree on this rule. Since BatBoat does the exact opposite (BatBoat goes up rather fast - on closed hauled), after realizing he is inside zone, BatBoat is actually doing everything he can to be in compliance concerning this.

I have difficulties seeing how BatBoat could have exercised his rights under rule 18.2.A differently in the situation?
I mean if batBoat had moved the rudder slower, that would have in violation according to rule 18.2.A (sailing Euphoria too far from the mark).

My practical point of view is that it is a risk being close to inner overlapped boat inside the zone - just as well as it is a risk sailing close on the open water (rule 11). We all take risks. Often there is no contact between boats - and then it might have been worth the risk. And sometimes there is contact meaning you have broken the rules. This situation is just this complicated - and Euphoria was unlucky in situation - but nevertheless should be DSQ for breaking rule 18.2.A.
User avatar
euphoria
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Re: Red Race 1, euphoria cancelled a penalty vs BatBoat

Post by euphoria »

My comment about proper course was not that you didn't understand what proper course is. But that you mistakenly thought that you had the right to sail your proper course to the mark. The first part of the definition of mark-room allows you "room to sail to the mark". If you look up the definition of room, you will not find any reference to proper course. Room only allows you enough space to make a seamanlike rounding, which is less space than by sailing a proper course.

You refer to a MLS case where you were leeward boat. "There was no obligation to sail a proper course". Let me add that there was neither a right to sail a proper course. The difference between the two cases was that in the previous case the boat entitled to room had right of way. In this case, the boat entitled to room shall keep clear.

You ask what you should have done different. The simple answer is that you should have sailed directly to the mark after entering the zone, instead of bearing away. And you ask if you push me too far. The simple answer to that is pushing at all is too far, if you initially had room to sail to the mark. If you push a leeward boat, then you are not keeping clear.

In my previous message, I mentioned the corridor which mark-room can be seen as. Please have a look at this video to understand what mark-room is. I've jumped 18 minutes into the video to an exact similar situation as we had, but I recommend watching the entire video from the beginning:



PS! The video is 1 year old but that particular part of the rules has not changed. Only the rule number for exoneration have changed from 21 to 43.

Harald
Batboat
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:02 pm
Location: Danmark

Re: Red Race 1, euphoria cancelled a penalty vs BatBoat

Post by Batboat »

You state: "My comment about proper course was not that you didn't understand what proper course is."

I state: "thanks :)"

-------------

You state: "But that you mistakenly thought that you had the right to sail your proper course to the mark."

I state: "[the statement has no real legal content]"

-------------

You state: "The first part of the definition of mark-room allows you "room to sail to the mark".

I state: "You should look at the whole definition - not only what fits your argument. If you only look at a part of the definition you will reach a wrong decision".

-------------

You state: "If you look up the definition of room, you will not find any reference to proper course."

I state: "Since the definition of mark-room explicitly mentions "proper course". I now quote RRS 2021-2024: 'Mark-Room Room for a boat to leave a mark on the required side. Also,
(a) room to sail to the mark when her proper course is to sail close to it,
and
(b) room to round or pass the mark as necessary to sail the course without touching the mark.
However, mark-room for a boat does not include room to tack unless she is overlapped inside and to windward of the boat required to give mark-room and she would be fetching the mark after her tack.'

So if you read the whole definition you may see the phrase "proper course"........if you don't - then I better rest my case - since then I have no chance of ever have a chance of proving my point :)

-------------

You state: "Room only allows you enough space to make a seamanlike rounding, which is less space than by sailing a proper course."

I state: "Please when making a sumption or when stating a legal fact, please refer to the rule book (RRS) - or argue so people may have a chance of understanding how you argue. You make a statement which have no reference to anything - which simply makes it nothing (it is not facts, it is not rules - it is not a sumption). Therefore your statement has no content value. You may be right, you may be wrong. But when we discuss. We discuss using the facts and the rules. I don't want to be insulting - but it makes no sense"

-------------

You state: "You refer to a MLS case where you were leeward boat. "There was no obligation to sail a proper course". Let me add that there was neither a right to sail a proper course. The difference between the two cases was that in the previous case the boat entitled to room had right of way. In this case, the boat entitled to room shall keep clear."

I state: "The whole statement from the case is: 'There is no rule that says a boat shall sail the shortest/quickest route to the next mark (proper course), except when subject to rule 17 or 18.4.'. That is not a factual statement or a sumption. The statement is a legal fact meaning that a boat has no obligation (see the word: obigation!) to sail a proper course, except when subject to rule 17 or 18.4. Can you agree on this when interpreting the wording!? And since that is a leagl fact - the situation is subordinate.

-------------

You state: "You ask what you should have done different. The simple answer is that you should have sailed directly to the mark after entering the zone, instead of bearing away."

I state: "That is an opinion. Could please argue, meaning 1) stating the facts of the situation, then 2) what rules apply, and 3) make your sumption (using rules on the situation). I also have a lot of opinions - but I tend to argue, meaning using a method, meaning stating facts, apllying rules, and finally my sumption. (called an argument)
How I understand what you are trying to say is that I should have been faster "reacting" in front of my computer after entering the zone. Here I must refer to another case (me vs JohnPap, last season) where JohnPap had several seconds to react - and still that still wasn't time enough for JohnPap to react. I got DSQ even though JohnPap had many seconds to react ( My point is - isn't it kind of the same "reaction time" under rule 16.1 compared to rule 18.2.A? Or is that different considering 'reaction time'?
If not, please argue - and please refer to rules - and not just 'stating stuff as you seem fit'.

-------------

You state: "And you ask if you push me too far."

I state: "No that was not a question. I stated that BatBoat was not allowed to 'push' windward boat too far away from mark. That is exactly WHY BatBoat - as I have already argued - went rather fast on closed hauled"

-------------

You state: "The simple answer to that is pushing at all is too far, if you initially had room to sail to the mark. If you push a leeward boat, then you are not keeping clear."

I state: "You have no obligation to go to mark. What would mean that it would be illegal to enter the zone from a 'deep' position. Your argument makes no sense! You have a right to go mark. And you have NO right to 'push' other boats far from mark. Seriously - please say how you see the relevant facts! I think what you are trying to say is, that I am too slow to go to closed hauled after entering the zone. Couldn't you just say that? :) Well, I disagree - and I have made my argument - and I have also stated a case (BatBoat vs. JohnPap). I may find more if you like?

If I loose this case on that argument, I am wondering how long time sailors have to react inside zone - should I mention the (BatBoat vs. JohnPap case again)? My point is just that if sailors need several seconds concerning rule 16.1 why on earth shouldn't you also need several seconds when you are inside the zone - or many other situations!?..........Either you are wrong in this case or the case BatBoat vs. JohnPap is wrong........

Or maybe this situation

(time: 21 seconds) is how we should have reactions? (Batboat as inside boat lost this decions to Donmasino) I am just saying that if we have no firm line considering time delay and how fast one should react to situation then how should we play...........?

And another situation (Bluesweden vs BatBoiat), Batboat tacked too fast....well much more reaction time than this situation, much less than JohnPap vs Batboat.......just saying......!


What in the rules says when you are too fast or too slow......this practice is close to Kafka (The proces) if not the PC soon finds a consensus and a line on 'reaction' which should apply in general to most situations. I have already mentioned this to the RC.

I have no further comments - and I am happily looking forward to getting the verdict :)

Have fun :)

When not staying facts correctly and applying the rules - we end up in a situation where decisions are unpredictable! That is far worse than 'unfair' decisions. I am OK with unfair decisons - as long long as the 'case law' is predictable - I shall always sail according to the rules - but that is difficult when you do not know what the rules are.........! That is often boiled down to 'reaction time' which you may understand as 'room to keep clear' in the rules.
User avatar
euphoria
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Re: Red Race 1, euphoria cancelled a penalty vs BatBoat

Post by euphoria »

It seems like this dialog is not very useful, as points that already have been answered are ignored. I will just answer your direct questions, and make clarifications (using as few words as possible) that "needs" to be made.
Batboat wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:33 am You state: "The first part of the definition of mark-room allows you "room to sail to the mark".
I state: "You should look at the whole definition - not only what fits your argument. If you only look at a part of the definition you will reach a wrong decision".
The second part of the definition comes into play when the first part is fulfilled. I.e. when you have been given room to sail to the mark (when you are at the mark) then you have to be given room to round the mark. There is a reason why the definition is split in two...
You state: "If you look up the definition of room, you will not find any reference to proper course."
I state: "Since the definition of mark-room explicitly mentions "proper course".
[...]
So if you read the whole definition you may see the phrase "proper course"........if you don't - then I better rest my case - since then I have no chance of ever have a chance of proving my point :)
You referred to the definition of mark-room. Please read the definition of room instead, which is the relevant term used in the definition of mark-room. I have already explained what the reference to proper course in the definition of mark-room means, see the first paragraph in my first reply to you.
Please when making a sumption or when stating a legal fact, please refer to the rule book (RRS) - or argue so people may have a chance of understanding how you argue. You make a statement which have no reference to anything - which simply makes it nothing (it is not facts, it is not rules - it is not a sumption). Therefore your statement has no content value. You may be right, you may be wrong. But when we discuss. We discuss using the facts and the rules. I don't want to be insulting - but it makes no sense
I referred to the definition of room, while you looked up the definition of mark-room! No insult, but I hope it makes sense.
'There is no rule that says a boat shall sail the shortest/quickest route to the next mark (proper course), except when subject to rule 17 or 18.4.'. That is not a factual statement or a sumption. The statement is a legal fact meaning that a boat has no obligation (see the word: obigation!) to sail a proper course, except when subject to rule 17 or 18.4. Can you agree on this when interpreting the wording!?
This is not relevant, but yes - you are of course right that there is no obligation for a boat to sail a proper course when rule 17 and 18.4 does not apply. But there are other obligations in the rules, to keep clear and give room, which are the two obligations to be checked in our case.
How I understand what you are trying to say is that I should have been faster "reacting" in front of my computer after entering the zone.
I don't understand the reaction relevance as there was nothing to react to. When entering the zone you can just continue straight, as long as you are keeping clear from the leeward boat. However, the moment you entered the zone, you were bearing away - turning starboard towards me, away from the mark. I guess it's too much to ask for time to react from your own actions...
You have no obligation to go to mark. What would mean that it would be illegal to enter the zone from a 'deep' position. Your argument makes no sense! You have a right to go mark. And you have NO right to 'push' other boats far from mark. Seriously - please say how you see the relevant facts!
Hmm, this is very simple. From wherever you enter the zone, high or deep, you have as an inside boat of course the right (under mark-room) to sail to the mark. Ref the corridor where you are protected.
I think what you are trying to say is, that I am too slow to go to closed hauled after entering the zone. Couldn't you just say that? :)
Nonono, that's not what I'm saying :). First you should sail to the mark. When your bow is at the mark, then you can start talk about getting to close hauled, but we are not at that point in this case.
If I loose this case on that argument, I am wondering how long time sailors have to react inside zone
[...]
What in the rules says when you are too fast or too slow......this practice is close to Kafka (The proces) if not the PC soon finds a consensus and a line on 'reaction' which should apply in general to most situations. I have already mentioned this to the RC.
If you are referring to me as outside boat about how long time I need to react after entering the zone, then I don't need to react at all. If I was pointing high, then I had to react by bearing away promptly to give you room. But in this case, I was pointing well under the mark, which means my course gave you plenty of mark-room and I can just continue straight ahead.
When not staying facts correctly and applying the rules - we end up in a situation where decisions are unpredictable! That is far worse than 'unfair' decisions. I am OK with unfair decisons - as long long as the 'case law' is predictable - I shall always sail according to the rules - but that is difficult when you do not know what the rules are.........!
If it's difficult to know what the rules are, then I suggest you make efforts to increase your understanding. In my previous reply, I included a youtube video from RYA that explains what mark-room is. There was no comment from your side on the clarifying information given in that video. Please watch it from start to finish, most MLS participants would also benefit from doing that. In the particular video, it highlights the exact situation we had. It is 'Situation 1', 18 minutes into the video. And 'Situation 4' shows how tight to the corridor the leeward boat can sail, and still fulfill her obligation to give mark-room.

For the record, I was pointing much lower than both the boat in 'Situation 1' and 'Situation 4'. I was pointing as much as 1 boat length below the mark. That is "an ocean" for you to pass in between me and the mark... I hope it's clear now. Here is our mark-rounding:

batboat.png
batboat.png (434.35 KiB) Viewed 2995 times

And here is the instructive video from RYA again:



PS! I was surprised to see you were sailing so low between the marks and inside the zone. Clearly a course you would not sail if you were on your own. Obviously you were trying to set up something. This kind of sailing is something we usually only see from angry skippers in NPC races. It's defined as pen hunting there. In MLS it won't work as we follow the racing rules of sailing.

Harald
BogDan
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2020 6:26 pm

Re: Red Race 1, euphoria cancelled a penalty vs BatBoat

Post by BogDan »

I did not analize the situation but by me all the ideas presented by Eufhoria maybe are good if course on buoy changed 90 degres or less, but if more for sure NO.The corridor must be wider there..
steviekouris
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:58 am

Re: Red Race 1, euphoria cancelled a penalty vs BatBoat

Post by steviekouris »

Facts:


Conclusions:
Bat boat was given mark-room by Euphoria, as required by RRS 18.2(b).
Bat boat did not keep clear of Euphoria as windward boat and broke RRS 11.
Bat boat can not be exonerated for breaking RRS 11 because he is not sailing within the mark-room entitled to.

Decision:
Pen Cancel accepted.
BatBoat is DSQ in Race 1.
Post Reply

Return to “Race Day 3”