Rules Question – Room to tack at an obstruction
July 23, 2009
Facts presented
Winds: 5-7 knots
Seas: calm
Boat speed at time of incident: approximately 4.5 knots
After rounding a leeward mark, two boats are close hauled, on an upwind leg to the finish. They are both on starboard tack. Boat A (BLUE) is a little less than one boat length to leeward and slightly ahead (about 1/2 to 1 boat length) of Boat B (YELLOW).
Boat A (Blue), reading 3.5 ft on the depth sounder, calls out “It is getting shallow, we are going to need to tack soon.” Boat B (Yellow) responds, “TACK, YOU HAVE ROOM TO TACK!”
Approximately 10 seconds later, Boat A calls out “Water. Room to tack.” Boat B again responds, “Tack, you have room to tack.”
Boat A begins to tack but it becomes clear that she will not be able to avoid B. She then bears off to create more room between the two boats and then tacks, sharply maneuvering to clear B’s stern (approximately 170 degrees from her starboard tack course—parallel but in the opposite direction of A, about five feet to leeward).
Boat A hailed protest and hoisted a protest flag.
In the protest hearing, Boat A cited rule 20.1, arguing that Boat B was required to provide A sufficient room to tack onto port to avoid the obstruction. As it turned out, A said she was faced with either running aground (which B did, just after A tacked) or a very risky tack/duck in which she was forced to fall off about 90 degrees from her proper port tack, and virtually stall the boat to allow B to clear).
Boat B argued that since A was able to tack and avoid B, there was no foul.
There were no witnesses to provide further information to the protest committee.
Room To Tack Scenario
Analysis
Boat A (Blue), reading 3.5 ft on the depth sounder, calls out “It is getting shallow, we are going to need to tack soon.” Boat B (Yellow) responds, “TACK, YOU HAVE ROOM TO TACK!”
I would argue that this was not yet a hail for room to tack, but rather the beginning of a good conversation. At this point the leeward boat would have done her self a favor to explain Rule 20.1, head up sharply to make sure that the windward boat would have to tack with her, or head down to give herself a better lane to tack to.
Approximately 10 seconds later, Boat A calls out “Water. Room to tack.” Boat B again responds, “Tack, you have room to tack.”
Note, the term “water” has been taken out of the rules. “Room to tack” is the proper hail.
At this point, the rules make it clear that the boat that hailed must take her tack (assuming she can safely do so). She can’t wait until the puff comes or what have you. The boat that responded “TACK” must keep clear of leeward, while the leeward boat tacks.
Boat A begins to tack but it becomes clear that she will not be able to avoid B. She then bears off to create more room between the two boats and then tacks, sharply maneuvering to clear B’s stern (approximately 170 degrees from her starboard tack course—parallel but in the opposite direction of A, about five feet to leeward).
In my opinion that at this point boat B breaks 20.1. A did not think that B was keeping clear, and she avoided contact (Rule 14 NEVER turns off).
Then at at the second tack, it gets a little more difficult (and here a witness would be VERY helpful). Boat A tacks, and then makes a big maneuver and avoids the other boat. The fact that she made it, leaves me to believe that she was able to tack, and then able to keep clear. So B did not break rule 20.1 – which only says that the Windward boat give the other boat the ROOM to tack and avoid. ISAF Case 35 is fairly specific about this exact situation.
Boat A hailed protest and hoisted a protest flag.
Good! The first questions a race committee will ask is whether or not “Protest” was hailed, and whether or not a protest flag was flown (assuming you are on a boat longer than 20 feet). More of us need to do this.
In the protest hearing, Boat A cited rule 20.1, arguing that Boat B was required to provide A sufficient room to tack onto port to avoid the obstruction. As it turned out, A said she was faced with either running aground (which B did, just after A tacked) or a very risky tack/duck in which she was forced to fall off about 90 degrees from her proper port tack, and virtually stall the boat to allow B to clear).
Boat B argued that since A was able to tack and avoid B, there was no foul.
There were no witnesses to provide further information to the protest committee.
Well, I think the protest committee would be inclined to allow A’s protest.
First regarding the obstruction, the leeward boat basically needs to feel a legitimate threat from the shoal in order to call for room to tack. Running aground is NEVER seamanlike, and if her depth gauge read 3.5 feet – then that is evidence that would be submitted and heavily considered.
She also did the prudent thing to avoid contact when she didn’t think she could tack and clear B in her first attempt to tack.
She hailed protest, flew her flag. Assuming she properly filed a protest form and followed other rules stated in the Sailing Instructions, then she is likely to win.
BUT! I don’t think her case is as strong in her belief that she was fouled under rule 20.1 in the second instance. Because she was able to complete her tack, and then immediately (albeit abruptly) bare away to keep clear, neither boat broke a rule. ISAF Case 35 talks to this.
CASE 35
When a boat is hailed for room to tack at an obstruction and replies ‘You tack’, and the hailing boat is then able to tack and avoid the hailed boat, the hailed boat has complied with rule 20.1(b).
Remember the term ROOM is self expanding. It depends on existing conditions. As stated in the facts found the wind was 5-7 knots – in other words pretty benign.
Conversations on the dock following the race lead to additional questions:
What establishes an obstruction?
In the case of shallows, how can you in fact prove that you needed to tack?
What is considered “enough room to tack”?
These are rules situations that happen regularly on the Potomac river and anywhere there are lots of obstructions. With shallow river banks on either side of the navigable water, and plenty of other obstructions I can imagine that knowing what the rule book says about these things is important to success on the river.
Without reading the rule book, you can imagine that the rules don’t give you the right to pin someone into a wall, rock, dock or mud bank.
Specifically to the facts that were presented, the blue boat (A) hailed for room to tack. If you skim through our rule book you will find a rule in Part 2 (Rule 20) which is titled ROOM TO TACK AT AN OBSTRUCTION. As with all the rules the situation in which this rule comes into play is described (section 20.1). In the situation submitted it appears as though both boats are close hauled, and they are headed for an obstruction (shoal area). So the first two prerequisites have been met – They are close hauled (Or above) and are headed towards an obstruction (see definition).
I think Boat A (Blue) should have started this conversation well in advance of the situation. Not only with the other boat, but with her own crew. Why leave your fate to the rules understanding (or tactical consideration) of the other boat.
Rule 20.1 (a) states that the hailing boat shall give the hailed boat time to respond – so starting the conversation early, even before the actual hail is made is helpful.
But there is more to that early conversation than just what is required in the rules. Finding out what the other boat is hoping to do will help you make your decisions. For instance, if A had said, “Hey B…um, it is getting pretty shallow up there. You planning on tacking soon?” If B responded no, then A can make a quick course change, tack and sail on her merry way. B is not required to respond until both boats are on a close hauled course and the leeward boat calls for room to tack – but it wouldn’t hurt to talk it out.
In the case of the follow up questions an obstruction is clearly defined in the rule book. It is written as:
Obstruction An object that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially, if she were sailing directly towards it and one of her hull lengths from it. An object that can be safely passed on only one side and an area so designated by the sailing instructions are also obstructions. However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they are required to keep clear of her, give her room or mark-room or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her. A vessel under way, including a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction.
Now it should be pointed out that the obstruction is an obstruction regardless of whether or not you have to actually make the substantial course change or not. If you were pointed towards the middle of a long dock it would clearly be an obstruction Just because you are pointed towards the end of the dock doesn’t mean it stops being an obstruction. Shoals and shallows are obstructions (and in most cases continuing obstructions). Aids to Navigation (ATONS) are probably not.
Enough room to tack I think is also clearly defined in the rules if you look at the definition of ROOM. Room is defined as: The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike way.
Additional thoughts:
Use strategy over right of way. The right of way is a shield not a sword.
In retrospect, I think that if B had tacked when A called for ROOM TO TACK, she would have avoided grounding and would have maintained her safe leeward position.
Similarly, if A had headed down in order to create some space, or tacked slowly enough to clear B, she would have tacked into free air, while A headed to the obstruction and eventually went aground.
A should have been aware that her choices were not “run aground or run the risk of hitting B in a tack”. Slowing down—even stopping her forward progress was also an option.
How close is too close?
From strictly a rules standpoint, if you don’t hit, then generally you weren’t too close – but there are other considerations I think.
Safety is the first rule – so too close is when it stops being safe. The rules are designed to be self expanding since the conditions we sail in change what most sailors would consider “too close”. Other factors include the distance between the boats, speed and size, angles at which they are converging, visibility between the boats, the amount of course change necessary, necessary boat handling, etc.
To give you an idea, in the America’s Cup a windward boat was generally considered to be keeping clear so long as she remained at least one meter away. Those were 25 meters long. So if we translated that to a 24 foot boat that would be 1 foot. Nervous yet?
In the actual rules the closest we get to a definition is in Rule 16 when the windward boat must keep clear, and that is defined by the leeward boat being able to change directions in BOTH directions without immediately making contact.
Again, the Rules are written in such a way that the prudent sailor should get some protection. The shrinking violet maybe not so much. Case 50 says:
CASE 50
When a protest committee finds that in a port-starboard incident S did not change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the committee finds that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P should be disqualified.
So “REASONABLE DOUBT” becomes a pretty good thing – if you don’t think they were going to make it, (Or in this case the leeward boat was going to be able to pull off the tack) then bail out and protest.
The term seamanlike is used, but not defined, in the rules. But the rule makers and protest officials usually look to see if the maneuver was safe in the given conditions. This becomes a very subjective matter – especially because the rules don’t take into account different levels of ability. Seamanlike is based on (According to Appeal 77) “what can be expected from a crew with average experience”
As I have written many times the tactical game, of which the rules are a part, is played in the future. Great sailors are playing out what will happen “when boats meet” well in advance and have a plan for keeping their boat moving at top speed towards the next make.
Because of this, I am often puzzled by protests. If two boats are headed in different directions (port v starboard for instance) then they must have a reason for going that way. Why wouldn’t they want to continue along unobstructed by another boat. You often see the best sailors wave port tack boats across their bow, not because they are magnanimous, but because they are headed the right way, and are happy to see their competition going the other direction. Too many sailors use their right of way as sword, when in fact it should be a shield.
So when should you hail, what should you say, and who should say it?
When…
YOU MUST SAIL SAFELY! So if you are unclear whether the other boat sees you. Hail.
I have to chuckle when, while making eye contact with a starboard tack skipper, they scream STARBOARD! I see you, you see me seeing you, there’s no need to shout. I also chuckle when I see starboard tack boats, that can’t see any of port tack boats crew not say a word. It is those times that hailing makes good sense, because it is likely that the port tack boat hasn’t seen the starboard tack boat.
At mark rounding it is also a good idea to talk through what is going to happen in a few boat lengths. The leeward mark is no place for surprises.
Regardless of whether you are on starboard or port, windward or leeward, clear ahead or behind – you must have 360 degree of awareness. You must have a lookout. Being on starboard does not allow you to blindly bowl across the course. In the case of racing on the Potomac River, there is so little useable water, having someone watching out all the time is absolutely necessary to preventing fouls, or worse.
Not having a lookout, or not seeing another boat is evidence that can be used against you in a protest hearing.
What…
From a rules perspective there are very few required hails. You are required to hail when you are protesting. You are required to hail when you need room to tack at an obstruction or continuing obstruction. And I think you should be required to hail when safety suggests you should.
The language that should be used is clear, concise and consistent with the rule book. Cursing has no part of on the water communication. Neither does sarcasm or inflammatory statements.
Who…
I would suggest that the language be courteous and used only to inform or respond or to prevent dangerous situations. As well, boat to boat conversations should be handled by one person onboard. The rest of the crew should be focused on keeping the boat going fast.
I hope this has been helpful and I look forward to the conversation.
Comments
Got something to say?
About me
I am the owner of Gale Force Sailing and write about all things related to coaching, instruction and team building. contact me>>
Be in the know with the latest adventure, finest dark and stormy and whereabouts of Kristen Berry, owner of Gale Force Sailing. 
Show your true sailing colors today by purchasing Gale Force Sailing's speciality tees, mugs hats and much more.