Episode 7: A New Mark Trap

Yes to all

ISAF has finally spoken:

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/RapidResponseTRCall2009005-[7187].pdf
(but note that things are different at mark 1: http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/RapidResponseTRCall2009004-[7186].pdf)

A shorter version: http://www.sailgroove.org/videos/coverage/view_video/234352-the-rules-rrs-2009-2012/110273-the-move

Ricardo-

That's a great point, I hadn't thought about how this move would apply at mark 4.
I agree with you that, to pull it off at mark 3, you would need some very fancy boat handling. In US college sailing, the main team racing boat is the FJ, which is slow and very maneuverable. So I think it might work in these boats; but I guess we'll have to wait 'till the spring to find out. Unfortunately, in college sailing, there is no second reach as there is no mark 4; you go right from mark 3 to the finish. But in non-college racing, I think this could be very valuable at mark 4.
Also your point about 18.2(e) is important for everyone to remember as well. As I mentioned in my video, the previously clear ahead boat doesn't have to give room if they can't give room from the time the overlap was created. This is a potential defense against the move.
Best for 2009!
Matt

Sounds like you all need an atorney on board. Good luck with new rules....Great explanation Matt. Thanks.

I think I am like many who think this doesn't seem right. I have been looking at this scenario and have a question...

-Does rule 18.2(b) apply between the boats when the windward boat tacks?
If rule 18.2(b) doesn't apply at that moment, then it can't be turned off by the tack of the windward boat (rule 18.2(c)) and would then apply when the boats are again overlapped later.
The phrase that is hanging me up is the last part of 18.2(a) which says, "unless rule 18.2(b) applies." I think we all assume that it would always apply, but I'm not sure it does. 18.2(b) seem to deal with situations that have the boat allowed room losing the position that would give her that room. For example, if the clear ahead boat was no longer clear ahead and the clear astern boat became overlapped on the inside, or if the inside boat became clear astern and then overlapped again. In the situation in the video rule 18.2(a) would apply and we would never have the need to go to 18.2(b) until the boat that tacked became clear astern.
This idea is supported by rule D1.1(b) which seems to address this same situation in rule 18.2(b). There is really no reason to make the change in rule D1.1(b) unless the tack has no impact on 18.2(b) in the first place. You had the right idea Val!
Since rule 18.2(b) doesn't turn on until the outside boat becomes clear aster, after her tack, it can't be turned off by rule 18.2(c). So, when the overlap is re-established rule 18.2(b) would then apply (for the first time) and we would have to go to the history of the overlap in a fleet race and rule D1.1(b) would apply in a team race making the original inside boat the one who is entitled to mark room.

Vsmith-

I think the "however" at the start of the second sentence of 18.2(c) is key. It emphasizes an exception to what has just been stated.
You're right that the first sentence of 18.2(c) stays active. However, consider the first clause: "When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b)"... If 18.2(b) "ceases to apply", a boat cannot be required to give room by 18.2(b)... There is a good reason why the drafters of 18.2(c) included the word "however".
The change to 18.2(b) in Appendix D isn't always turned off; just in the situation where 18.2(b) is turned off because one of the boats crossed head-to-wind (per 18.2(c)). Also, remember that the change from Appendix D is the same as in the old rules, whereas 18.2(c) has changed.

A good question. I don't think that 18.3 would be activated. There are three conditions for 18.3 to turn off 18.2

1) 2 boats approaching mark
2) 1 of them changes tack, and
3) as a result, is subject to rule 13 in the zone when the other is fetching the mark
I don't think the third condition is met, because even though one boat passes head to wind (see rule 13), the other boat is not fetching the mark at the time.
Fetching is now (not under the old rules) a defined term. The definition of fetching is "A boat is fetching a mark when she is in a position to pass to
windward of it and leave it on the required side without changing tack."
The other boat cannot both pass to windward of the mark AND leave it on the required side, since in order to leave it on the required side she would have to pass to leeward of it. In other words, I don't think that fetching (and therefore 18.3) applies at a leeward mark.

the change from Appendix D isn't relevant; 18.2(c) turns off rule 18.2(b) when either boat crosses head to wind.