Facts
Two boats, A and B, close-hauled on starboard tack, approached a mark to be left to starboard. A entered the zone clear ahead and on a track to leeward of B, and tacked onto a close-hauled port-tack course in order to round the mark. B, still on starboard tack, made contact with A, then on port tack, causing no damage or injury. Both boats protested.
Citing rule
18.1(b), the protest committee decided that rule
18 did not apply because just prior to the contact both boats were on opposite tacks and B had to tack to pass the mark on her proper course. Having decided that rule
18 did not apply, the protest committee disqualified A under rule
10. A appealed.
Decision
B was clear astern of A from position 1 to position 4. While B was clear astern, rule
12 required her to keep clear of A. Also, from the time A reached the zone until she passed head to wind, rule
18.2(b)'s second sentence applied, requiring B to give A mark-room. B fulfilled both these obligations. Shortly before position 5, when A passed head to wind, B’s
obligation to give A mark-room ended (see rule
18.2(d) or
18.1(b) ). At that time B acquired right of way and A became obligated to keep clear of B, first by rule
13 and later, after A was on a close-hauled course, by rule
10. Rule
15 did not apply because B acquired right of way as a result of A's tack.
It is not clear from the facts whether B needed to act to avoid A before or after A assumed a close-hauled course on port tack. However, it is clear that B needed to act to avoid A while B held right of way. Therefore, A is disqualified, under either rule
13 or rule
10. Because it was possible for A to have avoided the contact, she also broke rule
14.
Rule
14 applied to B, but the facts do not enable a determination of whether it was reasonably possible for B, acting after it became clear that A was not keeping clear, to have avoided the contact. However, it is not necessary to make that determination because B had right of way and the contact did not cause damage or injury. Therefore, if B had been found to have broken rule
14, she would have been exonerated under rule
14(b).
A's appeal is dismissed. She remains disqualified, and B is not to be penalized.
USA 1993/290