Facts for Question 1
Two dinghies, P on port tack and S on starboard tack, are on a collision course on a beat to windward in strong wind (more than 20 knots). P holds her course and, when it becomes clear to S that P is not keeping clear, S immediately and rapidly tacks onto port tack to avoid P. Despite S’s attempt to avoid P, there is contact between the boats, but it does not cause damage. However, while tacking to avoid P, S capsizes and in capsizing, the helmsman falls and damages the tiller. After righting the boat, the tiller cannot be repaired and S retires from the race. P takes a Two-Turns Penalty and finishes the race. S requests redress under rule
62.1(b).
Question 1
Is S entitled to redress if her request is valid?
Answer 1
Rule
62.1(b) does not require physical damage (or injury) to have been caused directly by the boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2. It is sufficient that any physical damage (or injury) was the probable consequence of the action of the boat breaking a rule. B is entitled to redress provided that the protest committee concludes that
- P broke rule 10;
- a collision was probable, and S took avoiding action as soon as it was clear that P was not keeping clear;
- the capsize and the helmsman’s fall were the result of P not keeping clear and not the result of poor seamanship by S; and
- the damage was not due to the tiller previously having been in poor condition.
Facts for Question 2
Two boats, A and B, are on a collision course in strong winds. A is required to keep clear of B. A holds her course and, when it becomes clear to B that A is not keeping clear, B immediately and rapidly makes a large change in course to avoid A. There is no contact between A and B. However, while manoeuvring to avoid potentially damaging contact with A, B collides with C, a third boat nearby. C is damaged and loses several places. A takes a Two-Turns Penalty and finishes the race. C requests redress under rule
62.1(b).
Question 2
Is C entitled to redress if her request is valid?
Answer 2
Yes, provided that the protest committee concludes that
- A broke a rule of Part 2;
- a collision was probable, and B took avoiding action as soon as it was clear that A was not keeping clear;
- the damage to C was the result of A not keeping clear and not the result of poor seamanship by B; and
- after B began to change course, it was not reasonably possible for C to have avoided the collision and resulting damage.
World Sailing 2014