Ali Meller posed the following question to the 505world list, and was immediately inundated by responses. In very early returns, the responses are 23:3 in favor of eliminating or limiting hunting (with about 240 abstentions so far - somewhere around 260 people on 505world-list). Vote early and vote often!
At the recent International Sailing Federation (ISAF) Conference, several proposals to limit "hunting" were presented, but were turned down by the ISAF Rules Committee (one of these proposals was from US Sailing, another from the Canadian Yacht Association). However when this was presented to the ISAF Council, the Council balked on hunting, and sent that issue back to the Rules Committee.
As currently written, a right of way (row) yacht CAN alter course to force a burdened yacht to make a further alternation of course to avoid the row yacht.
This is a a change from the Racing Rules of Sailing prior to 1997, when a row yacht could not alter course to make a burdened yacht's life more difficult (recall the "hold your course" hail).
For example, under today's rules.... as a starboard tack 505 and a port tack 505 converge, and the port tack 505 bears off to pass astern of the starboard 505, the starboard 505 is allowed to bear off at the port tack boat, forcing it to make a further alteration of course.
The row yacht is limited by Rule 16, which reads:
" 16 CHANGING COURSE
When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear."
Two definitions are needed:
" Room -- The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way.""Keep Clear -- One boat keeps clear of another if the other can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and, when the boats are overlapped on the same tack, if the leeward boat could change course without immediately making contact with the windward boat."
The rule as it currently stands and has been interpreted, allows situations as follows:
in a close hauled crossing situation like the 505s described above, the starboard tack yacht can bear off and aim at the port tack yacht, forcing the port tack yacht to bear off further... to the point that a situation where port tack has to GYBE away to avoid a collision (all legal, provided the row yacht leaves enough time/room for the burdened yacht to pull of the maneuver "promptly in a seamanlike way").
I believe the rule allows a situation where on any port/starboard, starboard can make an alteration of course that immediately forces port to make a larger alternation of course to avoid starboard. In effect, I believe this is "open season" on port tackers, limited only by port having to be given time/space to escape "in a seamanlike manner". I believe port has to be prepared for this to occur on every crossing.
In a fleet race, starboard may not wish to give up distance to windard (relative to the rest of the fleet) in order to force a single port tacker to lose more distance, but a small move on the part of S - one that results in almost no distance to windward being lost - could be used, and would still result in port having to make a more sudden - but still seamanlike - larger alteration to avoid the collision. Essentially I believe that with a slight "fake" I can push most close port tackers into a rushed alteration of course.
I don't really want to do this, and think this is not what 505 sailors - and most probably other higher performance dinghy sailors - really want.
Since this issue has been referred back to the ISAF Racing Rules Committee after the tied vote by the ISAF Council, now would be a good time for the 505 class to state an opinion - if we in fact have a consensus position on this.
Do you think the current rule allowing hunting should be retained, or do you think that the right-of-way yacht's ability to force a burdened yacht into further alterations of course should be limited, as they were in the rules prior to 1997?
What do you think?
Ali Meller
Personally, I think it sucks.
"Room -- The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way."
I believe this term is the first problem with the rule. It is a vague term that really means nothing, kind of like "family values". A semanlike way means you don't crash into anyone when you tack. A crash tack with an inexperienced crew always ends in disaster, either collision or death-roll. I don't think this is as big of an issue on a boat like a Laser. A Laser can tack faster than a 505 in a situation like this simply because there are less people involved (one vs two) and it is a simpler process (less sails, trap, etc.). Furthermore a boat like a 505 is presumably traveling at a far greater speed.
"Keep Clear -- One boat keeps clear of another if the other can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and, when the boats are overlapped on the same tack, if the leeward boat could change course without immediately making contact with the windward boat."
I don't think "avoiding action", presumably meaning a crash tack, is a strong enough rule. There needs to be something more concrete that is not open to interpretation. In our fleet we generally consider 3 sec enough time to change course, this means that the row boat has to give the burdened boat 3 sec to keep clear.
in a close hauled crossing situation like the 505s described above, the starboard tack yacht can bear off and aim at the port tack yacht, forcing the port tack yacht to bear off further... to the point that a situation where port tack has to GYBE away to avoid a collision (all legal, provided the row yacht leaves enough time/room for the burdened yacht to pull of the maneuver "promptly in a seamanlike way").
I think this situation has two potential effects. First I think it rewards conservative strategy (sail to the layline and tack), and second it adds an element of danger to crowded situations -- I remember one very crowded mark rounding in a keel boat fleet that kept the protest committee working until 2:00am. Trapeze boats (at lower levels of the sport) cannot react as quickly as non-trap boats. We have to keep in mind that the bulk of the 505 fleet is not world class. A hunting situation forcing a boat to gybe, or otherwise squeezing them out, coming into a mark is bound to result in a collision. This is fine in match racing, but in fleet racing I think it could get ugly.
alternation of course to avoid starboard. In effect, I believe this is "open season" on port tackers, limited only by port having to be given time/space to escape "in a seamanlike manner". I believe port has to be prepared for this to occur on every crossing.
I agree. People will sail more conservatively. For new sailors like myself it makes scary mark roundings even scarier because you get boxed in.
Do you think the current rule allowing hunting should be retained, or do you think that the right-of-way yacht's ability to force a burdened yacht into further alterations of course should be limited, as they were in the rules prior to 1997?
This rule was my biggest concern with the new rules, and to me it seemed like a big step backward. The rule does open up a number of tactical options, but I personally don't like it.
Bill
If you are keeping track of votes, here's mine:
(and I think you know it already) no hunting. My reason is that in a
self-policed sport, there is too much grey area. It is too difficult
to judge what "promptly" and "seamanlike" are.
Stergios
If you intend to have a straw pole to present a consolidated view, I'm for a return to the old rules (for fleet racing - new rule sounds fun for team racing / match racing :-)
Dave Reekie
GBR 8006.
Limit it, per the old rules.
Hugh (My opinion only.)
I'm far from being a race specialist, but I'd vote for "I think that the right-of-way yacht's ability to force a burdened yacht into further alterations of course should be limited".
Cheers,
Pascal
Since this issue has been referred back to the ISAF Racing Rules Committee after the tied vote by the ISAF Council, now would be a good time for the 505 class to state an opinion - if we in fact have a consensus position on this.
From the 505'ers I've met, raced with, talked to, had any sort of dealings with, I get the idea that hunting is something that 505'ers wouldn't do, it's not sportsmanlike, keeping with the corinthian traditions of yachting, your best beer drinking buds in the whole world (the 505 class) wouldn't pull this type of bullshit sneakybastard yachting maneuver to win a race, etc., etc.
On the other hand, the star sailors I sailed with were fond of this type of behavior.
Just an opinion.
Marcus
US7569
Personally, I think the new rules are incomprehensible and should be discarded in toto.
Douglas Hagerman
Revert to pre-1997: no hunting. It's hard enough to keep all the rules in mind, never mind be alert for some turkey who decides he's more interested in forcing you to a bad result than sailing the race. If the match racing folks want to implement this kind of thing, that's fine by me, but I think it has no place in fleet racing.
Chad Price
Ed. - for those of you who have not figured this out.. Spot, is a spokesman (spokesvan?) for Barney Harris, USA 8643. While apparently quite capable with a keyboard (for a van), Spot did not know how to capitalize, I have edited Spot's submission accordingly.
I believe this facet of the "new" rules actually serves to complicate the interpretation for beginners, and adds a set of tactical moves and situations which do not, in my opinion, enhance the sport for experts.
The old rules closely followed the international rules to prevent collisions at sea [the key is prevent collisions] - where one vessel was to hold course and other keeps clear. this in my mind is very straight forward - easy to learn the first time and practice the 10,000th time. the tactics which derive from the old rules were better - it gave the port tack boat some power - that they could force a starboard tack boat to hold course and not tack or bear away, making it an even match. It also results in fewer collisions, since the give way boat does not have to consider the actions - and potential reactions actions of the row boat.
In contrast, the new rules stack the deck against the port tack boat - making it nearly impossible to avoid fouling an aggressive stbd tacker functioning at the edge of the letter of the rule. It all hinges on the term "seamanlike" - which is at best difficult to define, whereas "holding course" is about as straight forward as you can get.
In the case of 505s, you can not simply tack in response to a starboard tacker bearing away and preventing you from ducking - with a guy on the wire in high wind... its too much boat on boat manuvering with only a few seconds to avoid a collision in which people may be hurt and boats smashed up.
The ability to "hunt" does not improve the game and should be elimintated by a rewrite or a "de-write" of the rules. In a misguided attempt to make them "simpler," the crafters of the new rules focussed on the wrong things - for example, every seminar I attended on the new rules highlited the fact that there were "fewer pages in the book...." unfortunately, to reduce the # of words they had to hang the balance of legality on such ridiculous concepts as "seamanlike." this is stupid. This is a case where fewer words does not equal simplicity. Now we all smash into and protest each other over the fine shades of this definition - but the new rule book is much lighter and easy to carry to all those protest hearings. What a service. I guess we should be happy.
Barney Harris
TEAM SPOT
505s USA 8643 & 7570
I feel they should be limited.
Bob O'Brien
USA 7606
I feel that the Port tack boat must consider ALL possibilities when approaching a STBD tacker. Approaching a row boat in any circumstance is a risky proposition, every time.... the closer, the more risk. Hunting is only one specific example of this tactical danger/risk. (close tactical racing is a matter of risk management)
As a regulator, I am in favor of reducing the numbers of rules. I would not be in favor of introducing new rules nor something that limits or takes away from the advantage of the row boat.
Charles
SPOT SAYS.... I believe this facet of the "new" rules actually serves to complicate their interpretation for beginners,..
I definitely agree there. ... Basically, I think the new rules suck.
... the old rules closely followed the international rules to prevent collisions at sea [the key is prevent collisions] - where one vessel was to hold course and other keeps clear. ...
One problem the new rule creates is without the "hold your course" hail it is hard to tell when a boat is intentionally hunting you, and when they just don't see you.
... - easy to learn the first time and practice the 10,000th time. the tactics which derive from the old rules were better - it gave the port tack boat some power - that they could force a stbd tack boat to hold course and not tack or bear away, making it an even match. it also results in fewer collisions, since the give way boat does not have to consider the actions - and potential reactions actions of the row boat. ...
I agree with Barney, and also with what Ali said about open season on port tack boats. With the old rules I would take a chance with the left side of the course and come in on a port tack layline if I thought there was something to gain from it. No I generally play it safe because beginners like me don't have the boat handling skills to deal with someone who wants to get rude. The chance of a collision or getting pushed into the mark are too high. The old rules also made moving through an armada of starboard tack boats a viable option. Now I feel like a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
... term "seamanlike" - which is at best difficult to define, whereas "holding course" is about as straight forward as you can get. ...
That was another point I brought up with Ali. "Seamanlike" means almost as much as family values, it's a buzzword with nothing behind it. To me a crash tack ending in a capsize is not seamanlike. This means the definition of seamanlike is different with each boat and skill level. In our fleet we have amended "room to keep clear" to room and time to keep clear. You must give a burdened boat 3 sec to get out of your way.
... in the case of 505s, you can not simply tack in response to a stbd tacker bearing away and preventing you from ducking - with a guy on the wire in high wind... its too much boat on boat manuvering with only a few seconds to avoid a collision in which people may be hurt and boats smashed up...
Again, another point I brought up with Ali. This may work in a Laser where you are traveling at slower speeds and you don't have to coordinate with a crew, let alone a crew on the wire. I think that Parker from the worlds Ed - starboard tack Parker lost 2 feet of its bow when it was unable to duck a port tacker that had not seen it is a perfect example of this.
... - for example, ever seminar I attended on the new rules highlighted the fact that there were "fewer pages in the book...."
I will take a longer book with concrete rules (must give burdened boat x number of seconds per foot of hull length to keep clear).
I think we would better off just returning to the old rules for the remainder of the 1997-2000 rule season and letting them try again in 2000. When do the x-rules come out?
I think the point of rules, as in any sport are to keep the competitors from killing each other, and to enhance the game. I think the current rules are lacking in both areas.
At the last regatta, a Laser steered up into Gary and I pushing up head to wind on a spinnaker reach. A manouvre that he was able to make in a "seamanlike" way almost ended in a very ugly capsize. Also another boat just to port and weather of us had to also make a drastic course change to avoid a collision with us.
Bill
I'm relatively new to the 5o5 and brand new to this list server, but have been sailing since the early '70s.
In my opinion 'hunting' (or the act of hunting) and 'seamanlike' are, by definition, opposites. Therefore describing ones responsibility to be seamanlike in a rule authorizing hunting does not make sense.
The most seamanlike thing for a starboard boat to do is hold course, and the rules should demonstrate this by requiring the starboard boat to hold it's course.
Dave Jacob
The benefit of allowing hunting is that you can defend against a lee bow (without it there is no defense). In every boat I've ever raced in (and there have been plenty) I've never once sailed with anyone who intentionally aimed their boat at another to cause damage. Probably for the same reason you wouldn't sail your boat into a sea wall. The move is typically to bear off a few degrees causing the port boat to tack sooner, as the port boat tacks you resume course to gain separation. If you're even remotely aware of what's going on around you, you can tell when someone is going to try to lee bow you so it's rarely a last second decision. If in the act of hunting you cause damage or a collision, you can bet you'll be thrown out, regardless if hunting is allowable or not. I believe there was an article discussing this in Sailing World concerning some 49'ers. One other thing to remember is that in any sizable fleet, any extreme (severe course change) hunting usually results in another two boats passing you to weather as you try to "hunt" someone else. Bottom line.. Hunting is good as long as you don't have some "hell bent on carnage" kinda sailor on the course
Dan (are steel bows legal) Merino
USA 5687
The act of hunting on the water should be reserved for the Coast Guard and the Navy.
Regarding a defense of the Lee-bow, if executed perfectly the Lee-bow maneuver can be very effective for a skipper that held no rights, it can create an even playing field in a port-starboard meeting. However, the Lee-bow maneuver has a limited window of opportunity. If performed too close the starboard tack boat has the wiggle room rule to use in protest against the Lee-bow. Hunting on the other hand, can not only defend against the maneuver, it can put both teams in a risk-of-injury situation. Further, the rules state that a collision should be avoided at all costs. If this rule carries more weight, then allowing hunting is in violation of this rule.
It is the teams responsibility to think about the various options/tactics which are open to all competitors. Trying to out-perform your opponents depends not only on your setup of your boat and the wind but also the chess-like tactics available. Hunting raises the aggression levels of an honourable sport and has the potential to lead to on-the-water-rage.
I concur with the suggestion that allowing hunting and seaman-like behaviour are mutually exclusive. Hunting should not be allowed.
Regards,
Peter Epstein
CAN 4134 & 7570
I strongly encourage that the 505 class 'vote' for the old crossing rule. No hunting, and the burdened boat able to call 'hold your course' and accept responsibility to stay clear; without fear that the row boat will turn into him.
John Dean
US5518
I don't like hunting. If I did, I'd match race. I want to win by going faster then everyone else, NOT by making everyone slower then me. Playing the rules to this extent is not sailing IMOHO, its lawyering. I 'll protect my air, but thats about as far as it goes. As you said, I don't think most 505'ers are all that into hunting.
I guess gate starts should minimize this at least at the start.
USA #4936 "Mud Shark"
USA #8645
While I agree that hunting is completely contradictory to the term 'seaman-like' , I'm curious how a new 505 rule to not allow hunting would apply in an open regatta. Does this mean that other 505's are not allowed to 'hunt' me but Snipes, Lightnings, Fireballs...etc can?
Thanks,
Kem King
USA7792
kemking@us.ibm.com
I'd like to add a few thoughts to this discussion
I agree that being able to hunt a boat to the point that they have to gybe away is a bad rule for fleet racing, and the current rule does need to be changed. However, the pre-1997 rules also had some flaws which the new rules attempted to address, but not successfully.
As far as the comments that hunting and seaman-like behavior are mutually exclusive, I think that much of what happens on a race course would be considered unseamen-like off the course. A close lee-bow, luffing and close covering are by no means seamen-like outside of racing. But they are a part of racing, and if they were not there could be no boat to boat tactics.
Reguarding it being open season on port tackers, has anyone actually seen this happen? I haven't seen much in the way of hunting in any of the races I've been in since the new rules came into effect.
I think the crossing rule needs to do the following things:
1) It should discourage collisions and dangerous manuvers.
2) It should allow the Starboard boat some defense against lee-bows.
3) It should leave the onus of keeping clear on the port tack boat.
I think the current rule fails items 1 and 3. The old rules failed partly on items 1 and 2. So while I agree the new rule needs to be changed, I think we can do better than reverting to the old rules.
I suggest that the rule be revised to limit hunting, but not to the "Hold your Course" standard that leaves starboard helpless.
Sol
solomon.marini@dartmouth.edu
PO Box 95 Enfield Center, NH 03749
(603)-632-1062 (h) (603)-646-2326 (o)
...do you think that the right-of-way yacht's ability to force a burdened yacht into further alterations of course should be limited, as they were in the rules prior to 1997? What do you think?
Having done most of my 505 sailing prior to 1977 (and the issue seems not to arise in larger boats) I have never raced in a major regatta where "hunting" was permitted. However, I oppose it vigorously, and support limitations to prevent the right-of-way yacht from, in the former language, "so [altering] course as to mislead or balk her in an attempt to keep clear, or prevent her from keeping clear except as provided in Rule [reference given], Luffing After Starting." I see four main considerations:
1. Safety. The right-of-way rules are designed to prevent collision. Regardless of the size of the boats, any collision can result in damage to property or injury to persons, and it is impossible to predict in advance what all the effects of a collision will be. That is certainly true for a lightly-built craft that can accelerate to double or triple its speed in a matter of seconds. The only way we can race such craft safely in tight quarters is for each helmsman to be able to predict the motions of all nearby vessels that may affect him or her, and that is why we have right-of-way rules in the first place. Permitting "hunting" destroys this knowledge, even eliminates its possibility. Yachts altering course in unpredictable ways or directions can produce severe hazards to ALL nearby craft, burdened or not; the policy of legalizing hunting raises the spectre of a burdened but innocent yacht being placed in a situation where there is no possibility of legally avoiding a foul or collision. What, for example, if the only path to avoid a "hunting" yacht led through another yacht, or several yachts? I have sat on many protest committees, but would not like to sit on one where that can of worms or Pandora's box was open. How close is too close? How (other than actual collision) can you know? 505's would look very odd with huge fenders and padding on their bows and gunwales, like tugboats.
2. Justice. In law, for centuries, we have had justifiable prohibitions against entrapment and against ex post facto laws; the principle of both is that an innocent person should not be forced to become guilty of a crime through any cause other than a conscious decision to commit one. That ancient principle is flouted by permitting "hunting."
3. Sportsmanship. The entire foundation of our sport--as indeed is true of all amateur sports--is honest, fair competition on an equal playing field, governed by a consistent set of rules. Need I add to the extent to which others have pointed out that "hunting" makes a mockery of that principle? Remember the phrase "A yacht shall attempt to win a race only by fair sailing and superior speed and skill?"
4. Cost. A modern racing 505 at top level costs between ten and twenty thousand dollars, as we all know to our pain. Such an investment should not be jeopardized without need. Without hunting, racing was satisfying and exciting for many decades; why do we need hunting now? In what way would its absence harm the sport, comparable to the damage done by its presence? And do we need to raise the already-high cost of competition even further with a wave of unnecessary collisions? In what way will that help bring more people into the class? Are we trying to convert yacht racing into pro hockey, or the NBA?
--Dave Eberhardt, US 6570 (ex-861, 2514)
kemking@us.ibm.com wrote:
...I'm curious how a new 505 rule to not allow hunting would apply in an open regatta. Does this mean that other 505's are not allowed to 'hunt' me but Snipes, Lightnings, Fireballs...etc can?"
The question emphasizes the silliness of allowing "hunting" at all, and the inconsistencies it produces. Why, for example, since they aren't competing in your fleet, would other classes want to "hunt" you? How could they gain an advantage thereby, other than a temporary one? My concept of multiclass regattas is that whenever feasible, one should not interfere with other classes' races; after all, there's only one ocean and we have to share it. How much simpler if nobody hunts one another, but instead plays by a consistent, fair, predictable set of rules tempered by a dose of common courtesy.
--Dave Eberhardt, US 6570 (ex-861, 2514)
Ah, but the writers of the new rules had one goal: MAKE THE BOOK SHORTER! In order to make hunting illegal, we have to convince them that it is worth adding length to the rules. They seem averse to this, just look at the definition of proper course. Defining it that way lets them use many fewer words in the body of the rules, and they like that.
For example, the rules used to say something simple, like "If a boat wants to luff, she must have luffing rights over all of the affected boats." It doesn't say that anymore. But, the rule is still there; spend a few hours thinking about the definitions of proper course, obstruction, and overlap, and you will see it.
Furthermore, under the old rules, stbd did have the option to defend her lane against the lee-bow, or to discourage the duck, by bearing off and pointing at the port-tack boat, stbd just had to do it before port started maneuvering.
Anyway, for the record, I am against allowing hunting. Hopefully, we will convince the rules people. And, as I predicted, the new rules will slowly evolve back to the old ones.
Stergios
... As currently written, a right of way yacht CAN alter course to force a burdened yacht to make a further alternation of course to avoid the row yacht. This is a a change from the Racing Rules of Sailing prior to 1997, when a row yacht could not alter course to make a burdened yacht's life more difficult
I disagree. The 1997 and 1993 rules are not significantly different. Certainly, match racing tactics have not changed. You could and did hunt under (1993) rule 35: "When one yacht is required to keep clear of another, the right-of-way yacht shall not alter course so as to prevent the other yacht from keeping clear, or so as to obstruct her while she is keeping clear ...."
It depends a bit on what you mean by "obstruct", but equally, under the new rules you have the obligation to avoid contact if reasonably possible (ISAF rule 14).
ROW boat should be allowed to alter course if the wind shifts, for example (provided she satisfies rule 16).
And Barney, I cannot find the word Seamanlike in the rules.
But I listen to members' views with interest. I can contact ISAF if required.
- Rob
Ali Meller wrote:
.......As currently written, a right of way yacht CAN alter course to force a burdened yacht to make a further alternation of course to avoid the row yacht. This is a a change from the Racing Rules of Sailing prior to 1997, when a row yacht could not alter course to make a burdened yacht's life more difficult.
In response, Rob Napier wrote:
I disagree. The 1997 and 1993 rules are not significantly different. Certainly, match racing tactics have not changed. You could and did hunt under (1993) rule 35: "When one yacht is required to keep clear of another, the right-of-way yacht shall not alter course so as to prevent the other yacht from keeping clear, or so as to obstruct her while she is keeping clear ...."
It depends a bit on what you mean by "obstruct", but equally, under the new rules you have the obligation to avoid contact if reasonably possible (ISAF rule 14).
ROW boat should be allowed to alter course if the wind shifts, for example (provided she satisfies rule 16).
In response to Rob, Sterg writes:
The second clause in your quote from the old rules requires a ROW boat to hold her course once the burdened boat has started her maneuver to keep clear.
If port starts to duck, and stbd heads down to point at port, stbd is clearly obstructing port while port is trying to keep clear.
In the Match Racing and Team Racing sections of the old rules, there was a special exception that allowed hunting.
Rob wrote:
And Barney, I cannot find the word Seamanlike in the rules.
Look in the definition of "Room": "The space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way."
That is what makes the new rules very confusing. The definitions must be studied VERY carefully, because in many places they do not follow common sense. For example, in order to avoid writing extra words like "room and time to keep clear" in the body of the rules, they moved it to the definitions at the back, thereby making the rules shorter and more confusing. And they eliminated the word "time", following the subtle logic that "space" is equivalent to "time".
It gets worse, look at the definition of "Proper Course".
Stergios
Team PIRATE who has been the target of much good natured ribbing is very much against hunting.
We do think that this could possibly level the playing field when racing amidst numerous power craft who tend to buzz us with impunity, however, the crew would mutiny if in addition to the harness and life jacket they had to wear a flack jacket as well.
HELM OVER! RELOAD!
[RICK]
US 5815 'the Wile Ride' ' "Remember The Sponge!"
On the on-going subject of hunting, I offer the following:
In theory, it sounds like a bad thing - certainly for 505's which have the impact resistance of an egg shell. Indeed, perhaps hunting is detrimental for 505's if collisions start occuring because of the rule. I'm not sure if this has actually happened. Any data here?
In practise, I do know that limited hunting works on the starting line for relatively bullet-proof boats like the Interclubs we frostbite here in the states. While on starboard tack before the start, I have been able to keep my space on the line by "discouraging" boats from tacking to leeward of me. Additionally, limited hunting (not the kind you find in a match race) may keep a port tacker from trying to lee-bow you so closely that there is a collision.
I found very limited use of hunting at the 98 worlds. Did anyone notice something different?
Jesse Falsone
During a race.....
I feel that the Port tack boat must consider ALL possibilities when approaching a STBD tacker.
Approaching a r.o.w. boat in any circumstance is a risky proposition, every time.... the closer, the more risk. Hunting is only one specific example of this tactical danger/risk. (close tactical racing is a matter of risk management)
As a regulator, I am in favor of reducing the numbers of rules. I would not be in favor of introducing new rules nor introducing something that limits or takes away from the advantage of the r.o.w. boat.
The Racing Rules are not the same as the Collision Avoidance Regulation.... in many respects.
Charles
#7610
NB - What is good seamanship, anyway..... in a recent court ruling, it was found that bending frames, tripping brackets and puncturing a fuel tank during a docking maneuver of a large ship was not outside the bounds of good seamanship.... go figure?
Hi All,
From what I have read from your responses thus far, my view on "hunting" seems to concur with the rest of you.
I think that "hunting" is obnoxious and against the very spirit of previous accepted practice in fleet yacht racing. The "match racing" enthusiasts might think it fun or worthwhile but I don't believe it has any point or practical purpose in fleet racing.
The new rules are supposed to make life on the water simpler & clearer this certainly doesn't achieve that.
I think we as a class should make a strong represenattion to ISAF when we have a clear voice from the majority of the class that they agree with Ali and me.
(...And who would dare disagree with the President & Vice President!!!!!)
Look forward to many more comments on the topic.
Cheers,
Pip Pearson
International President
In response to Rob Napier's comments
Rob,
While you have chosen to examine the phrase dealing with obstruction, your argument fails to address the act of hunting. The 1997 rules allow hunting which clearly is a willful and purposeful alteration in course by the ROW yacht to force the burdened yacht to make an even greater adjustment in her course.
"Shall not alter course so as to prevent the other yacht from keeping clear" is the primary reason in the 1993-1997 rules acting so as to create an obstruction becomes secondary.
Wind shifts, in all probable circumstances, would effect both the burdened and ROW yacht simply because of the close proximity of both yachts. Adjustments to courses could be made under the old rule as well as the new rule for this purpose. However, the intent of the old rule is to prevent the willful and calculated act of creating a potential collision situation or unduly forcing the burdened yacht to make a dramatic change in her course. The new rule abandons the sportsman-like intention of the old rule and creates an even greater adversarial approach to a civilized sporting event.
Sterg, I believe, raised the point about the clarity of the definitions, since simplification has become the thrust of the new rules, it has in fact made them more difficult due to the need for interpretation of the definitions. Simplification, while an admirable goal, will benefit all sailors only if we address the need to use unambiguous terminology.
Regards,
Peter Epstein
CAN 4134 & 7570
In response to Peter Epstein's comments...
I disagree. The old rules were just as subject to interpretation as the new ones. There's only so much clarity you can achieve with the written word. I think the definitions are about as clear as they can get because they lack any excess words. The complex and dynamic nature of sailing requires the judgement of people on the scene and their interpretation of what's fair.
By simplifying the rules it's easier to remember what they are (precisely) and there are fewer points to argue about.
Totally unambiguous terminology requires precise and measurable quantities. A boat hull is easy to measure. A crossing situation is not.
On the new rules in general and on hunting in particular, I find I have something to say. If you want to know how deceptively complicated the new rules are, just try to explain the hunting rule, along with many others, to teenage sailors who are notoriously unlikely to be wanting to follow rules in the first place. I guarantee you would find the new rules are not simpler to understand or explain.
My two teenage sons, both very experienced sailors of 420's and 505's, "hate" the new rules. Even though they are aggressive males by nature, they think the hunting rule is unfair and dangerous. I quite agree. I have raised them both to believe that, especially in the 505 class, we are not sea lawyers when we race. (Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules!!) Boat speed, tactics, wind shifts, planning, and preparedness all count. Rules are there to untangle messes when they cannot be avoided, not to create them.
The new rules are so sparse on words they need to be analzyed even by experienced racers in order to know what will get you into trouble. I have also noticed that the racing behavior has not changed much this year, new rules or not. Could it be that others are also confused as to their rights and are sticking to what they used to know, hoping that, at least, their old habits will keep them from being disqualified? I hate to say it since I know so much time and effort must have been expended on them, but these new rules are, well.... not good. I must restrain my true feelings. I agree with Stergios that it would be better for the new rules to evolve back toward the old.
Mike Breton, US 6985
In response to Mike Breton's comments..
Forget the teenagers, try explaining them to an adult who has spent years trying to get a grip on the old rules, and gotten reasonably close, but who now finds that his "learning new concepts" brain cells have been lost along the way...
I think the term "Hunting" freaks people out. The move is no more agressive than a leeward boat luffing up a windward boat to protect it's air.. Which by the way has to be done so that the windward boat has time to react. Can a similar statement be added to the hunting clause..?? (sorry left my rule book at home) I agree that the move becomes more dangerous in larger faster fleets, but really.. has it been a problem so far..?? In addition, with boats like ours, I've found that sometimes it's better to bear off a bit to get the boat planing. Would this be disallowed if I was close to a crossing situation with a port tacker or is there some type of intent clause we should add to the rules as well..? Even more so, how would I prove that I was in a header if I'm accused of hunting..?? (call in the lawyers)..
Bottom line is that hunting works for some classes (especially match racing), but even I agree that it probably doesn't work for 505's. Instead of changing the rules for all, how about amending the rule in the race instructions on a case by case basis instead?
Remember, it's not the rules that define sportmanship, it's the sailors that are racing that do..
Dan (you won't find me hunting in a 505) Merino
USA 5687
I find most of the comments to reflect a very courteous and civil approach to sailing. Unfortunately, these rules are designed for racing. I do not believe that the two perspectives can be mixed on the front end of a competitive race course.
My reading of an anti-hunting rule is that it tactically empowers the Port tack (give way [sic]) boat. The closer the Port tack boats gets to the Starboard tacker, the more power the Port Tacker has to control the starboard tacker.... where is the logic in a port tacker dictating the actions of a starboard tacker??????
Has anyone seen a proposed definition of hunting? What is the difference between hunting and altering course in order to control a cross, duck or tack situation to protect a favored side of a course, wind shift or finish line?
Charles
7610
My reading of an anti-hunting rule is that it tactically empowers the Port tack (give way [sic]) boat. The closer the Port tack boats gets to the Starboard tacker, the more power the Port Tacker has to control the starboard tacker....
I don't follow your logic. Under any rules port (or otherwise burdened) must keep clear of a row boat. Under the old rules the row could not change course so that the port boat would be unable to keep clear. The new rules allow the row boat to change course to prevent a port tack boat from keeping clear. I fail to see how this improves racing. All the old rules did was enable a port tack boat to cross a starboard boat with out fear of a possible collision, or to establish a lee bow. A starboard boat can discourage a lee bow in some situations even with out hunting. In any case, a lee bow is a port tackers only weapon against a row boat.
Bill Green
OK, Stergios, I take back most of what I said. But the difference all depends on the meaning of the word obstruct.
- Rob.
PS Ditto to you, Peter.
On the subject of hunting, The manifest purpose seemed to be to not have boats crossing so close that collisions occurred. If the ROW boat has the ability to hunt, the burdened boat will have to take that into consideration in whether to lee bow or cross. So far I have not really seen any impact of hunting on the water. At the pre worlds a british boat crossed our bow and did not have enough room to cross we had to avoid with a radical maneuver that affected us and two other boats that had to crash tack. If I had "hunted" the Brit I would have saved my position. Hunting is a double edge sword.
Good Will Hunting
Gary Scott
US 7458
In response to Jesse Falsone's comments....
Jesse. Good comments on hunting. I won't reply to the world at large, but would suggest that hunting has been going on in a subtle way all along. Sailing low to make the port tacker tack early, of course. But people being people, the hunting is bound to get nastier on final beats and near marks. Typically it should be self regulating as you will lose to other boats as you give up ground to windward. But in certain situations where you need to stick it to a particular opponent(final beat, brother in law, etc.) legitimizing hunting will lead to some agressive sailing. Is this what we want to do? As long as we all are playing the same game, it sounds like fun, but when you consider the racing public at large, I'm not so sure this is really in the best interests of the game.
Carrying the point a bit further, I think that we see yacht racing (no, not the Y word!), following sport trends in general. A need to rethink the game, apply a false notion of "simplicity", and having the experts rewrite the rules to their own views, is an attempt by well meaning sailors to help expand sailing to the great unwashed public. Well guess what. If you are smart enough to want to buy a decent racing dinghy you are probably smart enough to read and understand a few more explanations in the form of rules. This obcession with fitting all the rules for when yachts meet, on 2 pages or whatever,is problematic. There was a reason for the way that the rules had evolved. Now we all have to get into the heads of Dave Perry and Dick Rose and adapt our instincts and behavior to what's printed in the latest rules quiz in American Sailor. I don't know about you, but most of the time I either disagree with their interpretation, or just say Huh? It very well may be that I am being stubborn, but the new rules suffer from their compaction.
Tom Price
USA 8351
The old old rules were right and simple in my mind.
Port gives way to starboard, and in return starboard holds course when the boats are close together (I would like a good definition of 'close').
I have been party to an accidental collision where there was injury and damage. Let me tell you that it was not fun! Let's have simple and fair rules with no need for 'interpretation'. We have enough to worry about on a windy day with mostly opaque sails blocking our vision.
Also, according to the old old old rules, if Port tacks in front of Starboard, it needs to fill its mainsail before it gets right of way. Here is a simple, fair rule, with no need for 'interpretation'.
cheers -- Rick
In resonse to Pip Pearson's comment, " I think that "hunting" is obnoxious and against the very spirit of previous accepted practice in fleet yacht racing."
Is this really the case? where does this leave last race tactics where there maybe a need to "hunt" down your nearest competitor and sail them down the fleet? It's being done all the time, open meeting, nationals, worlds and olympics and i would suggest is an acceptable tactic at all levels. In its defence this generally takes place between people of similar abilities and no one should be surprised if it were to happen to them.
cheeeers & good sailing.... simon smith
In response to Simon Smith...
The tactics you describe have been with us for some time... From my reading one of the first times a competitor sailed another down into the fleet to assure winning an event was when Paul Elvstrom covered Rolly Tasker on the first beat of the last race at the FD Worlds (I think it was Worlds)... not sure of the year.... as I recall the description (from "Elvstrom Speaks".. Elvstrom and his crew matched Tasker and crew tack for tack until on one tack their polypropelene genoa sheets twisted and jammed in the fairlead or block, slowing their tack and allowing Tasker to escape. None-the-less they had succeeded in pushing him far enough back that he could not recover to finish well enough in the race to catch Elvstrom for the series.
To be quite honest, I have sometimes wondered if these tactics fully meet the spirt of the "fair sailing" rule and the concept of a yacht using wind and water (speed) to win a race, but I accept them, expect them, and use them, as everyone else does.
The hunting we are discussing on this thread is something that I consider to be quite different. It is the ability of the ROW yacht under the new rules to alter course to force a burdened yacht to make a further alteration of course to avoid it, AFTER the burdened yacht has already made an alteration of course to avoid ROW. Contrast this with the old "misleading and balking rule" of the old rules (several four year revision cycles earlier) that prevented the ROW yacht from altering course so as to make the burdened yachts maneuvering to keep clear more difficult (the old luffing after starting rule was a notable exception, and perhaps justified as yachts would collide side to side, going more or less in the same direction, rather than heading towards each other with a much higher closing speed.
I have no problem with Starboard sailing a little free and then heading up slightly to stay a little more clear of a Port tacker attempting a lee-bow, provided Starboard does this early enough that Port can see and respond to it without problem. I DO have a problem with bearing off to duck a starboard tacker and realizing that the starboard tacker is bearing off at me, which in turn forces me to rapidly bear off further to avoid him... There have been rules discussions and magazine article in this that have stated that starboard can maneuver at will providing it leaves port with an escape - even if that escape is gybing around. Now that is an extreme example, that might occur in match racing, and will probably not occur frequently in fleet racing..but WILL at times, simply because the rules now allow it. That is what people refer to by hunting... and that was quite explicitly NOT allowed by the rules prior to 1997. The current limitation on the ROW boat is that the burdened boat's escape must be within "good seamanship", a concept which is not defined in the rule book.
Now suppose you are racing upwind on port tack in a 505 in a decent 25 knot breeze.. the boat is planing easily, jib sheet is cleated, vang is on hard (US rig, not UK), CB is almost all the way down, etc. You are optimally set up for upwind speed. You see that you cannot safely cross an approaching starboard tack yacht, so you bear off slightly to duck, and then in a terrifying moment (this happened to me) realize that the starboard tacker is cracking its jib, easing its main and bearing off right at you. Realizing what is happening you have to bear off as fast as you can to avoid the starboard tacker.... (within the limits of that undefined good seamanship).. even though the jib might be cleated, the vang is till on hard and the board is down.
Do we have to sail upwind on port always ready to bear off to a beam reach or beyond? That might eventually entail sailing on port with the boat set up and tuned differently (and slower) so as to allow very rapid bearaways to avoid starboard tack "hunters".
Returning to your point, I can cover and push back a boat by covering and maneuvering against them, and can do it without continuing to alter course while they are trying to avoid me, and testing them to the limits of "good seamanship". For that matter, if I am the ROW hunter, do I have to consider the capabilities of each burdened boat that I hunt? Perhaps a top sailor can escape my move without reaching the limits of "good seamanship", but another less skilled team capsizes while trying to avoid me as I continue to bear off at them?
The hunting allowed by the new rules IS NOT the same as covering and driving back under the old rules. It IS like the old luffing rule, which the rule makers did away with.
Cheers,
Ali
In response to Simon Smith's comments...
Are we all talking about the same thing? Hunting is an alteration of course to make a potential port tacker tack early or to duck you. If used against a particularly stubborn opponent, it can be used to draw a foul. The non ROW boat had better be pretty certain he can cross, as you can bear up on him visciously once he's committed. It's a very agressive change in the rules, best used late in the race or leg, on a particular opponent. To use it generally would be foolish as you might stop one boat from crossing but lose 3 more by the steering involved.
The predatory nature of allowing this type of rule to be used in all of sailing is disturbing, as it's indicative of how sports in general are becoming more agressive (perhaps a model of society becoming more violent). Not to put too deep a spin on it, but I see our sport heading that way, with the ambiguous new rules being interpreted in a non intuitive fashion, with agressive behavior being rewarded. It should be emphasized that the rules have to provide the best, fairest, safest racing for all sailors - juniors, dinghies, club racers, Wed night racers, 505 Worlds, ACCR wars or the Olympics. All difficult interpretations should be based upon what is safest, most seamanlike and keeps yachts from contact. Rewarding risk takers and predatory behavior should be minimized.
regards,
Tom Price
8351
In response to Ali's comment...
"The hunting allowed by the new rules IS NOT the same as covering and driving back under the old rules. It IS like the old luffing rule, which the rule makers did away with."
The hunting rule is more like the current luffing rule than the old luffing rule. Under the old rule, you were not required to give the other boat an escape route. Under the new rule, you are. Similarly, in hunting, you can alter course, but not in such a way as to keep the other boat from keeping clear. You cannot 'trap' a boat in a position in which it must foul you.
In response to Ali..
"The hunting allowed by the new rules IS NOT the same as covering and driving back under the old rules. It IS like the old luffing rule, which the rule makers did away with."
Indeed, but to be able to do this driving back will almost certainly necessitate adopting the tactics to which we are objecting. I don't think we can really object when these sort of tactics are carried out between two crews of similar abilities who are having to adopt match racing tactics within a fleet race for a specific reason. What is reasonable to object to was someone doing it out of sheer bloody mindedness.
cheeeers.... simon
I'm not sure the rule has been comprehensively interpreted yet, but my understanding is that S can alter course, but P must be able to avoid S reasonably easily without doing anything radical. Essentially what this will do is make the safe crossing margin a little bigger, as you must also allow for a course alteration to windward by S. I don't know how I feel yet, because I like eeking across the bow of a starboard tacker by inches, but it might actually be good in that it may discourage people from cutting things really close in crossing situations.
Andrew
Mike Breton wrote...
"My two teenage sons, both very experienced sailors of 420's and 505's, "hate" the new rules. Even though they are aggressive males by nature, they think the hunting rule is unfair and dangerous. I quite agree. I have raised them both to believe that, especially in the 505 class, we are not sea lawyers when we race. (Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules!!) Boat speed, tactics, wind shifts, planning, and preparedness all count. Rules are there to untangle messes when they cannot be avoided, not to create them."
I think this basically sums it all up. Kind of an unwritten rule of no hunting in 505's the same way there is no protests in 505's (in general) 505 sailors are out to sail, and sail fast.
In response to Tom Price..
"Are we all talking about the same thing? Hunting is an alteration of course to make a potential port tacker tack early or to duck you. If used against a particularly stubborn opponent, it can be used to draw a foul. The non ROW boat had better be pretty certain he can cross, as you can bear up on him visciously once he's committed."
Again, I disagree. If the port tack boat was crossing clear, then to alter course so as to prevent him keeping clear is breaking the new rule.
Consider this situation: Port & starboard are converging. P bears off to duck behind S. S "hunts" P, trying to force him to bear off harder. P figures he now has room to cross ahead of S, hails "Hold your course!" and bears up hard. S also bears up. Maybe there is contact, maybe not. In the protest meeting P says that S should have held his course. What do the analysts say? Is S free to change course as many times as he likes to force P to go the way he wants him to?
I feel "hunting" is an inconsistency in the rules. Carrying a windward boat far past the gybe-mark has been done away with, so has overly aggressive luffing up in overtaking. The too-brief Rule 16 is now allowing ROW boats to interfere with non ROW's. I vote the 505 class stands against hunting.
Good sailing.
Richard Knott SA 6714 'The Hon. Hercules Gryt-Pype-Thynne'
In response to Richard...
" Consider this situation: Port & starboard are converging. P bears off to duck behind S. S "hunts" P, trying to force him to bear off harder. P figures he now has room to cross ahead of S, hails "Hold your course!" and bears up hard. S also bears up. Maybe there is contact, maybe not. In the protest meeting P says that S should have held his course. What do the analysts say? Is S free to change course as many times as he likes to force P to go the way he wants him to?"
Dear Richard,
Is that such a difficult situation, in theory anyway?
P has to try to keep clear. If S bears away so far that P can keep clear by crossing, P can alter course to cross. S can then come up, but only if P can still keep clear "in a seamanlike way", either by carrying on across, or by ducking (again), or by tacking.
Once S starts changing course, the onus is on him to ensure P has room to keep clear.
P should not hail "Hold your course". That has no relevance. In the protest meeting, he has to convince the jury that he kept a proper look out, saw S in good time, and manoeuvered promptly to keep clear at all times.
Once S starts to change course, if P says anything he should say "Give me room to keep clear".
- Rob
Sorry, Rob - the "onus" provisions are not in the new rules - this means that there is no default loser in this circumstance. while more verbose, the old rules' onus clauses clearly spelled out who had to prove they were right - it made it simpler in my view - if you could not get a witness you were wrong; 720 time. competitors knew what a decision would be ONE THE WATER, and protest judges, if it ever got that far, had straightforward guidance on which to base decisions. indeed, there is nothing in the new rules which requires either boat to prove anything. the ineviable result is more protracted ambiguous protest hearings - and a less rewarding experience for all concerned.
Barney Harris
USA 8643
TEAM SPOT