Q2: I would argue that a capsized boat can't be overlapped as the test requires referencing if the ".. boat's hull and equipment in normal position" ..and testing if the boats in question are on the same tack or not.

Ang

Answers:
Both 18 and 19 apply. 18 requires W to give L mark room. 19 requires L to give W room at the obstruction, unless (19.2) she has been unable to so... Your scenario states there was room for only one boat, so L was unable to give W room at the obstruction.
The capsized boat obstruction cannot overlap with anything. It is the overlap between W and L that is referred to in 19.
18.4 will apply to L, but has no effect in the situation before rounding the mark.
23 applies to both boats, but does not affect the relationship between L and W.

Q: What rule applies on these facts, 18 or 19? Both

Q: Does it matter whether or when the capsized vessel is overlapped with the two boats in question? (See Rule 19.1(b)). No

Q: Does Rule 18.4 apply? No, because they are not overlapped at the point blues proper course would require a gybe.

Q: Does Rule 23 place any onus on L to alter course to allow W to avoid the capsized vessel? No

Q: What rule applies on these facts, 18 or 19?
Q: Does Rule 18.4 apply?

R19 does not applies - see R19.1(b), so only R18 is applies -18.2(b) and 18.4.

I would argue that a capsized boat can't be overlapped as the test requires referencing if the ".. boat's hull and equipment in normal position" ..and testing if the boats in question are on the same tack or not.

Words 'in normal position' (from the definition Overlap ) apply only to 'equipment' so the boats are overlaped.

only 18 applies as the boats are overlapped.
the normal position only refers to what is included in calculating the overlap.
once you get to this the matter is resolved.

I was all for that too but a bit of digging into English gramma turned up the rule of parallelism i.e. each side of a conjunction should have the same word structure.

Since "hull" has the same structure as "equipment", but not "equipment in normal position" we should really take the phase "hull and equipment in normal position" to mean "hull and equipment both in their normal position".

However, I bow to custom and practice.

as I see it there is no evidence they had anything, not in its normal position, but things were upside down.

Is capsized one of the normal positions of a dinghy? If yes 18 applies and 19 does not. If no I guess we're looking at a common obstruction and both apply.

Would we rule differently if it was a keelboat?

To irritate officialdom, how about:

A boat is clear astern of another when she is behind a line abeam from the aftermost point of the other boat provided a boat between them does not overlap them both. The other boat is clear ahead. They overlap when neither is clear astern. Equipment that is not in its normal positon is excluded when judging whether a boat behind another. These terms always apply to boats on the same tack. They apply to boats on opposite tacks only when rule 18 applies between them or when both boats are sailing more than ninety degrees from the true wind.

In my view

The capsized boat complies with the definition of obstruction. However it could be argued that the obstruction is not another boat overlapped with yellow and blue - it is capsized therefore its hull and equipment are not in its normal position. For those reasons therefore rule 19. 1 (b) does not apply. Accordingly rule 19 applies.

However rule 18 applies. There is nothing in the situation stated to prevent it.

It could be argued that blue could have given room to yellow for the capsized boat, sailed past the mark and gybed back. Under those circumstances it could be argued that yellow would still have to give mark-room in theory for blue to leave the mark on the required side. But then by going past the mark to give space for yellow to pass inside the obstruction blue is not sailing her proper course as in para a) of the definition. So yellow could sneak through taking advantage of case 63. If my thinking is right yellow's protest could be upheld.

If that doesn't work my thought is that rule 63.7 applies and there is a clear conflict between the rules. The rule in this case being the racing rules of sailing.

Where you go again is anybody's guess. Both boats have avoided contact with the capsized boat as required by rules 14 and 23.
The protest committee can apply the rule which gives the fairest result for all boats affected. Redress however is not in theory possible for yellow under rule 62.1.

I would put this one to the World Sailing Q&A panel and see what they come up with.

Michael and Boris, on determining if the term overlap can apply between the capsized-boat and any other, on what tack is the capsized boat?

Ang

I do not know but you could use the last point of certainty. It does not matter.
I do know, he was clear ahead at one time in the zone and thus entitlled to mark room on the other two boats.

.. noting that she's no longer acting promptly

I think the definition 'Tack' is not applicable to a capsized boat, so we should not use part of the definition 'Overlapped' which refers about tack.
But now I noticed that in the task says about a "vessel", and if this vessel is not a "boat" then rule 19 should be applied and then we have a conflict between rules 18.2 and 19.2.
PS. I am sorry - I was again inattentive - in the task says: 'a boat that had previously been well clear ahead capsizes '.

Think I'd unwind it this way.

1. Since its impossible to determine the tack and state of equipment of the capsized boat, "overlap" does not apply between the capsized boat and any other boat.
2. RRS 23 says both Yellow and Blue are to avoid the capsized boat if possible and based upon the drawing there is ample room for both boats to pass to either side of her. Therefore the capsized boat is an obstruction for both Blue and Yellow.
3. Blue is RRS 11 ROW boat being leeward, overlapped with Yellow
4. Blue is also RRS 18.2(a) mark-room priviledged boat vs Yellow since Blue was inside overlapped when Blue first entered the zone.
5. Based on the drawing, there is room for both Yellow and Blue to pass between the obstruction and the mark.
6. Blue could have chosen to pass to windward or to leeward of the obstruction, Blue chose leeward. Blue had the opportunity to provide Yellow room since the time Blue and Yellow were overlapped, therefore Blue was obligated to provide Yellow RRS 19.2(b) room to pass the obstruction to leeward as well.
7. Had Blue provided Yellow RRS 19.2(b) room, Yellow could not have forced Blue down any further than she needed to safely pass the obstruction.

Conclusion: Blue did not provide Yellow RRS 19.2(b) room as she was obligated to do. Penalize Blue.

PS .. an interesting puzzle would be to continuously shrink the space between the mark and the capsized boat .. and put 18.2(a) directly in conflict with 19.2(b). I would say 19.2(b) wins that battle and in that instance, blue can't go between the obstruction and the mark if there is only space for 1 boat and expect to "squeeze-off" yellow to the windward side.

That's my WAG .. Ang

Hi everybody, for my Only 18 applies.
19.1 (b) says that 19 is turned off.

Cheers !!!
Cata

Rule 18 unarguably applies to the situation and so blue is entitled to mark room from yellow. This would be room to pass the mark on the required side which yellow would deny her if blue was to give yellow room to pass the capsized boat. Rule 21 does not give exoneration to a boat for breaking a section C rule in these circumstances.

Whether or not rule 19 also applies depends on the interpretation of 19.1(b) which states that rule 19 does not apply - "when rule 18 applies between the boats and the obstruction is another boat overlapped with each of them." In this case rule 18 certainly applies and the obstruction is another boat. It follows that the whole argument turns on whether or not blue and yellow would become overlapped with the capsized boat if blue was to give yellow room in which case rule 19 would not apply and yellow would have broken rule 18. It is significant the "overlapped" in 19.1(b) is in italics so we have to look to the definition of that word for guidance.

As far as I can see there is nothing in the definition of overlapped which precludes a capsized boat meeting the definition. Much has been made of the hull being in the "normal position " but that misses the point. The normal position of hull and equipment is used to determine whether or not a boat is clear astern, the key part of the definition states that if one boat is not clear astern then they are overlapped, in other words the default setting is that boats are overlapped unless they can be shown to be in a clear ahead, clear astern relationship. For all the various reasons given I don't think a capsized boat is capable of being on a particular tack so as long as blue and/or yellow are not clear astern of the capsized boat (according to the definition) which they are not they they are overlapped by definition.

Pulling all that together my view is that rule 19 does not apply and in the diagram as drawn no boat breaks a rule. Had blue allowed yellow to pass the capsized boat on the same side as herself and as a result failed to round the mark the yellow would be disqualified under rule 18.2(b)

Bill, I'll freely admit that my "normal position" argument was tenuous at the very best.

However, I find it interesting that you agree that a capsized boat's "tack" can't be easily determined, but blow past that and say that the term overlap applies.

As I read clear ahead and clear astern description at the end .. in the "always apply .. only apply" section, unless one can determine the relative tacks (or even beyond that if " boats are sailing more than ninety degrees from the true wind ..."), then it's hard for me to see how one determines if the term "overlap" applies.

Ang

@Bill,
And if the capsized boat was pointing the other way around?
Or if some equipment was not in a normal position would that mean that a boat that was clear astern now became overlapped?

UPD
I think we should also pay attention to the words in the definition Overlap: "They apply to boats on opposite tacks only when rule 18 applies between them" - R18 is apply between the capsized boat and Blue & Yellow boats so the tack capsized's boat does not matter...And then only the question about "normal position" remains...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in any way it would be logical to apply rule 19.2 (b) at the capsized boat - suppose that in its place can be, for example, the RIB of the Racing Committee which has lost the ability to be managed.
But, of course, we must be guided first of all by the rules, not by a logic :)

Ang - the reason I "blow through" (as you put it) the question of what tack the boat is on is simply because it is not relevant. The definition of Clear astern etc says that the tack of the boats does not matter if rule 18 applies. Rule 18 applies between the capsized boat that entered the zone clear ahead and the two boats that entered from clear astern. It follows that what tack the capsized boat is on is not relevant, the term overlapped may apply irrespective of tack according to the definition.

I agree with those who say the capsized boat was overlapped, so Rule 19.1(b) applies.

The capsized boat meets the definition of overlap. In this case it does not matter whether her crew and equipment were in normal position because we can rely on the hull to say the overlap existed. In any event, whether the crew and equipment is in its normal position is a question of its position in regard to the rest of the boat as opposed to where the boat is. We don't say that the crew and equipment are out of there normal position whenever a boat sails somewhere it shouldn't be.

There is also no reason why a capsized boat cannot be on starboard or port tack. The definition is that a boat is simply that a boat is on the tack corresponding to her windward side. As long as she has a windward side, it doesn't matter whether she is upright, upside down or singing sea shanties.

If a boat is capsized, RRS Pt 2 section A does not apply (by virtue of the preamble to Pt 2 section D), and in that case Pt 2 section B would have little relevance. If that was not the case, the consequences would be ridiculous as a capsized boat on port tack would still then have to keep clear of boats on starboard. However, Pt 2 section 3 (ie rules 18, 19 and 20) still apply.

If Blue luffed Yellow and took her to windward of the capsized boat and Yellow kept clear, Yellow would have given mark room and Blue would have passed the obstruction on the same side as Yellow so there could be no infringement of 18 or 19.

Blue chose to breach R19 and so would be DSQ if the protest got to a substantive hearing.

Q1. Both
Q2. Yes and read the definition of "Clear Astern..." extremely carefully.
Q3. No. It has not come into play yet.
Q4. Only if Yellow tries to come on the same side of Black as Blue, but not in these circumstances as Yellow had room and did in fact avoid Black.

Reasoning (apologies that it convoluted and contains extraneous material)

The important question is whether Blue and Yellow were overlapped with Black at any time and if so when?

Then the question is whether, if both 18 and 19 apply does one take precedence even if there is a solution that allows each boat to comply with the rules?

Initially Black is clear ahead on same tack and Blue and Yellow are clear astern of Black and overlapped with one another.
It seems reasonable to accept that black entered the zone upright, on the same tack and clear ahead and so might be entitled to mark room from Blue and Yellow depending on whether she has "passed head to wind" which she has not even if you accept she has changed tacks by capsizing to a turtle position.

Based on the facts stated Black rounds up before the mark and, without passing head to wind, capsizes to a turtle position (based on the diagram), no longer pointing more than 90 degrees from the wind. Black is now capsized. Now the wind is coming over her port side (assuming that port and starboard don't change sides because of a capsize, ie port is the left side of the boat looking towards the bow, determined with the boat upright). She is therefore now on port tack because of turning upside down. (I can understand that people might disagree, but I am just reading the words of the definition of Tack).

So now Black on the one hand and Blue and Yellow on the other hand are on different tacks and Black is not pointing more than 90 degrees from the wind. But Rule 18 still applies between them. None of the exclusions in 18.1 have come into effect and nor has the requirement for Blue and Yellow to give Black mark room come to an end or terminated (because Black has not passed head to wind). But Black has no need of any room as she is capsied and is not in the process of doing a seamanlike rounding.

Blue now enters the zone. She is not overlapped with Black as black is on a different tack and not pointing more than 90 degress from the wind but Blue is. Blue enters the zone with Yellow's bow outside the zone and Yellow overlapped to windward and on the outside in relation to the mark. Blue is entitled to mark room from Yellow. At the time that the overlap began Black was not capized and Yellow could give Blue mark room. Even as they approach Black, Yellow can sail above capsized Black to give Blue mark room. (if you don't agree that Black is on a different tack, then Black and Blue are overlapped, and separately Yellow and Black are overlapped and separately Blue and Yellow are overlapped))

Now they approach capsized Black which is an obstruction, but not a continuing obstruction. The critical question is does 19 apply or is it excluded under 19.1.b? This raises the question of whether a capsized boat can be overlapped with another boat?
And whether Black is or becomes overlapped with Blue or Yellow in the given and implied facts?

Rule 18 applied between Black on one hand and Blue and Yellow on the other hand as Black entered the zone clear ahead of each of them and on the same tack, all having to gybe around the mark. It has not stopped applying as Black has not passed head to wind, and mark room has not been given yet to Black or Blue. So even if Black is now on an opposite tack, given she has not passed head to wind, 18 applies. (if you believe Black does not change tack by having the wind blowing over the opposite side as she turtles, then the boats are all still on the same tack so 18 still applies. You don't have to consider whether Black and some other boat are sailing at more than 90 degs to the wind because it is an "or" test in the definition of "overlap".

Now we turn to the second part of 19.1.b. Is the obstruction another boat overlapped with each of them. Black was clear ahead at the zone before the capsize and so not overlapped then but what is the situation as Blue and Yellow approach her? As I have found 18 still applies between them then they are overlapped under the definition (which is totally counterintuitive, given Black is in front of the bow of each of Blue and Yellow and vice versa). But no boat is between any other two boats in the normal meaning of the word between which is not a defined term. But Black is still overlapped with each of them because of the peculiar way in which "overlap" is defined. So Rule 19 applies.

The overlap of Blue and Yellow began 10 boat lengths from the mark and under the usual interpretation of room at an obstruction there was room for Blue to allow yellow to pass beween her and the obstruction as the mark 10 boat lengths away surrounded by navigable water is not an obstruction. It would have meant Blue passing to Leeward of the mark which she would not normally have to do. But sometimes the combination of rules and circumstances require boats to sail below marks they might otherwise have been able to sail to windward of.

So Blue could have taken a course to windward of Black, Yellow would have had to go too as a windward boat if she remained overlapped and Yellow, so long as she kept clear, would have allowed Blue her mark room. If Yellow allowed the overlap to break, then Blue could sail down to the mark and allow Yellow to follow her around.

Blue chose to breach 19 and would be DSQ.

If a capsized boat is to be treated as a mere obstruction and not as a boat racing then the answer would be different as a capsized Black would then be treated as not being able to be overlapped with approaching boats.

If Black was standing in irons on starboard tack and not sailing forward would the answer be different?

A very interesting scenario.

Paul. At the end of the 9th paragraph of your reasons you say that Black is overlapped with each of them (referring to Yellow and Blue) so Rule 19 applies. If Black is overlapped with each of them, and Rule 18 applies between Yellow and Blue, doesn't that mean that Rule 19 does not apply because of Rule 19.1(b)?

John, I'm almost too embarrassed to reply, but yes. I goofed on the 19.1.b impact of excluding 19 from applying.
I have to admit I found working through the definitions and wordings quite challenging (and obviously got lost in it).

So I now find myself in almost furious agreement with Bill Handley who got to the issues far more quickly and discussed them far more succinctly than me.
I might differ with Bill on whether you can ever determine the tack of an upturned boat (under the wording of the definitions of "leeward", "windward" and "tack") but acknowledge that if the boat bow was pointed straight down wind it would be difficult to tell on which side her mainsail lay. There is also the issue of changing tack without passing head to wind. But I agree that the tack Black is on at the time Blue and Yellow get close is irrelevant to this scenario because Black did not pass head to wind and so did not turn off 18.
I might also say that if Blue, seeing a risk of collision between Yellow and Black unilaterally bore away below the mark and Yellow then went above it and below Black it might not be capable of protesting Yellow for breach of 19 assuming Yellow always stayed (well) clear of Blue.
I have not considered whether Yellow could ask for redress or protest Blue for unfair sailing, given that Yellow would ordinarily have rounded the mark behind blue, but because Blue acted to ensure the safety of Yellow and Black, Blue is now going to be boatlengths behind Yellow by the time Blue unwinds and correctly rounds the gybe mark, particularly as she will likely approach it on port and there may be other starboard tackers reaching down to the mark.

Thanks for taking the time to read through and ask your question.

Bill said ..

"Rule 18 applies between the capsized boat that entered the zone clear ahead and the two boats that entered from clear astern. "

Bill .. if you look at the drawing .. the capsized boat is facing windward. In a breeze, first swinging the bow into the wind wouldn't be uncommon.

18.2(d) .. "Rules 18.2(b) and (c) cease to apply when the boat entitled to mark-room ..... passes head to wind or leaves the zone. "

So as the boat capsized (broached maybe) and the bow spins-up .. then in the water the crew maneuvers the bow into the wind .. seems like 18 turns off then and we are back to considering relative tacks?

I get what you are saying and your arguments are convincing and as usual, iron-clad, I just think it's too much for a racing boat to consider when thinking about a capsized boat. What side is their starboard and port sides? .. the original .. or do they flip when the boat does? A truism in sailing is that the port/starboard sides of a boat never changes .. that's why we use those terms .. but now her former port is her starboard and vise versa? Did the bow pass HTW during the capsize or after while trying to right the boat?

Seems too me too ambiguous to be clear on the water. Her being an 'obstruction' until righted, such that competitors can clearly assess the position of her hull, sails and boom seems much more workable to me.

Ang

Angelo,
In looking at the diagram, which I did very carefully, I judged the turtled Black boat to be almost to windward but not directly and certainly not having passed head to wind. and as the scenario did not say she had passed head to wind and the diagram did not clearly indicate her having passed head to wind I decided 18 was still applicable. If she went head to wind, she still hasn't satisfied the "or if she passes head to wind" test to turn off 18.
Having said that you will see from my earlier comments that I agree it becomes problematic, particularly if the bow is facing directly downwind on a turtled boat, and even more so if there is a tide or other current that could be driving her mainsail under water.
But reading the rules, which clearly contemplate that boats capsize, (see 23 " A boat is capsized when her masthead is in the water." and Appendix B 23) I cannot see anything which authorises or requires a different treatment of a capsized boat in the main rules. On that basis and in the absence of a case to the contrary or other authoritative guidance, I would apply the rules as written. One or other party might then appeal.

18.2(d) .. "Rules 18.2(b) and (c) cease to apply when the boat entitled to mark-room ..... passes head to wind or leaves the zone. "

.... then in the water the crew maneuvers the bow into the wind .. seems like 18 turns off then and we are back to considering relative tacks?

If black boat pases HTW there will be turns off only R18.2(b)&(c) but not R18 (see R18.1).