From: kellerd@ilex.lle.rochester.edu (David E. Keller)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: protest question (rule 32
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:12:18 GMT
Reply-To: kellerd@ilex.lle.rochester.edu (David E. Keller)
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics

In article <26100022@hpcvra.cv.hp.com>, ben@hpcvra.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) writes:
> 
> I wasn't there.  All I have to go on is what has been posted, so there
> maybe something significant which invalidates my points, but I can't
> sit still any longer.  The committe screwed S.  That's all there
> is to it.  I'll enlarge upon one of Guido's latest postings.
> 
> > In other words, if a judge was suspended over the action with a camera
> > he should have all the information required for a decision.  The
> > judge does not need to have any information as to what a skipper was
> > thinking, or what he saw or said.
> > 
> > In the example above, if the skipper of S had said, "I saw P all the
> > way and I thought P was ducking me", should S be DSQed according
> > to to 32.1? The answer should be the same regardless of S said.
> > Expecting P to duck when they are already behind the bow of S
> > is quite reasonable as is expecting P to tack at the last second
> > and S can't possibly know what P is planning on doing and therefore no
> > course change is reguired by S.
> 
> I very much agree with Guido.  This removes the subjectivity and
> moralizing that the committee in question involved themselves in.
> 
> The committee fixated on one rule--the requirement to maintain a proper
> watch.  The question that best demonstrates this is "OK, assume that
> there had been a proper watch kept on S, what difference in outcome
> would have occurred?"  As Guido very correctly points out, nothing.
> 
> > (Going full speed forward without course alteration can be a perfectly
> > reasonable action to avoid a collision). 
> 
> In fact it is REQUIRED.  The privileged vessel is primarily responsible
> to maintain course and speed so that the burdened vessel can avoid
> her.  In crossing and overtaking situations, any other actions are
> bound to cause problems ("Uh oh, they're overtaking us, looks like
> they'll pass too closely on the right.  Quick, bear off to the left!"
> *crunch*).  If you require the privileged vessel to second guess the
> burdened vessel, you will ensure chaos.
> 
> The hailing thing is a red herring BTW.  The last time I was involved
> in a port-starboard collision of any magnitude, we were screaming our
> lungs out at the other skipper.  We kept expecting him to tack.  Not
> so, and he stuck is masthead through our #1.  (Then he tacked. :-( 
> 
> ---
> 
> Ben
> 

I have been following this thread with many differant reactions as it has
evolved.  

Initial:  Gee, I did not realize that in a clear port/starboard situation,
          starboard could still be DQ for not keeping a good watch.  Hmm, makes
          sense...  after all, safety comes first.  

Stage 2:  Although I would hope everyone else is watching out for my dumb
          mistakes, race rules do not require it.

Stage 3:  Starboard REALLY SHOULD have been keeping a better watch.  But the
          the rules REALY DO NOT say you can be DQ for not being omnipotent.
          If the watch had noticed port too late to react should they be DQ?

Final:    It was not up the committee to slap starboards hands over his honest
          statement he had not seen him.  He suffered the time and aggravation
          of a protest, damage to his boat, and the guilt that he might have
          been able to avoid a potentially dangerous accident.  We did not need
          to add the shame of a DQ from the committee.  Who are these people?
          Didn't they ever have a close call that could have been a collision?
          Are they so perfect they NEVER are looking the wrong way?  If 
          anyone ever caused me to have trouble with an insurance company when
          I clearly followed the law, I would be very very unhappy.
          My Mom (and a few other omnipotent) people say "Judge not, and you 
          shall not be judged".

Dave
Newsgroups: rec.boats