Indeed that doesn't seem to be good R/C practice ;-) . However, as  the obstruction could also be an anchored boat, the scenario is likely to happen. Would anyone penalize the inside boat at mark 2 (Goofy)?

I don't think the rock is a continuing obstruction.  From the way the picture is drawn, it sticks out into the sea and there is nothing 'continuing' about it.

This is a situation not covered by the rules.  In practice it would have been sensible for the leeward boats to slow down and protest on the basis that they weren't given room to avoid the shore which they should have been.

My question is this.  Underdog, the boat that sank, presumably claimed redress under 62.1 (b).  Would you give her redress or do you reckon that her damage was not 'through no fault of her own'?

For the obstruction, I assumed the green part was earth. According to the scale of the drawing, the rock was very very close to the shore. That's why I thought it was continuous.
And still according to the drawing, where could Underdog escape? She is within the zone, really no room to jibe.

With regard to the question whether the obstruction is a continuing one, I think it's hard to decide, but it's a crucial point in the case: Either you penalize only one boat (Goofy) or you apply rule 18 and 19 at the same time and penalize "Barge" also. (Goofy under 19.2.b) and "Barge" under 18.2.b).
In both options, I'd say the 3 requirements for redress are being met: 

• -significantly made worse -->no doubt
  
• -physical damage ... a boat that was breaking a rule of part 2 --> sure thing -
• -no fault of her own: she can expect "Goofy" and everyone else to give her room at the obstruction. Later, she has no other option but to crash...

If it's to be considered as a non continuing obstruction, 18.2 says that Barge had to give mark room to both Bumper and Underdog, as clear astern at zone, and to Goofy at her inside
Failing to do so, she broke 18.2.b and 18.2.c. Plus 14, and may be 2

Between Barge and Underdog, Rule 19 applies because the "obstruction" is not excepted: 19.1 (a) It is not a mark, and 19.1 (b) altho rule 18 applies, the obstruction is not a third overlapped boat.  Rule 19.2 (a) governs - The leeward boat, Underdog, is the right-away boat and may choose which side to pass (thru water). Barge clearly did not keep clear - hit her when she luffed.  Same concept applies to other boats.

Hi all,

I think the underlying original problem has been missed!  Surely this is an RO error?  With the mark so close to the rock it should have been a starboard passing mark then this problem would not have occured?  What does it say in the NOR, SI's about mark 2?

Surely this is an RO error? 

Not an uncommon response, but be more specific.  What rule was broken?

I'm interested in the obstruction: Surely it's a "continuing obstruction".

The land mass is an obstruction by definition; it appears to satisfy the requirement of "continuing"; and is not the rock  simply a part of the obstruction?

Conclusions and Rules that Apply

Right of Way

A.    Ba, overlapped to windward on the same tack, did not keep clear of U.  Ba broke rule 11.

B.    Bu, overlapped to windward on the same tack, did not keep clear of Ba.  Bu broke rule 11.

C.   G, overlapped to windward on the same tack did not keep clear of Bu to leeward.  G broke rule 11.

Room to keep clear

D.  U, a right of way boat changing course did not give Ba room to keep clear.  U broke rule 16.1

E.    Ba, a right of way boat changing course did not give Bu room to keep clear.  Ba broke rule 16.1.

F.    Bu, a right of way boat changing course did not give G room to keep clear.  She broke rule 16.1.

With respect to the rock:

G.  Ba, overlapped outside, did not give U room to pass between her and the obstruction.  Ba broke rule 19.2.

At the time the overlap between Ba and U began Ba could readily have luffed, if necessary requiring Bu and G also to luff.  Ba is not excused by unable to give room when the overlap began.  That she may have broken rule 18.2 in doing so, does not make her ‘unable’.

H.  Bu, overlapped outside, did not give Ba room to pass between her and U, an obstruction, being a right of way boat. Bu broke rule 19.2

At the time the overlap between Bu and Ba began Bu could have luffed, if necessary requiring G also to luff.  Bu is not excused by unable to give room when the overlap began.

I.      G, overlapped outside, did not give Bu room to pass between her and Ba, an obstruction being a right of way boat.  G broke rule 19.2.

At the time the overlap between G and Bu began G could have luffed, if necessary above the mark.  G is not excused by unable to give room when the overlap began.

With respect to the mark

J.    Bu, overlapped outside G at the zone did not give G mark-room.  Bu broke rule 18.2( b ).

K.    G touched the mark.  G broke rule 31.

L.    Ba, clear astern when Bu reached the zone, did not give Bu mark-room.  Ba broke rule 18.2( b ).

M.  Once Ba obtained an inside overlap to windward of U from clear astern (just before reaching the zone), there was insufficient space for four J70- boats to pass abreast between the mark and the rock, and U was not required to give mark-room to Ba in accordance with rule 18.2( f ).  U did not break rule 18.2( b )

Rule 14

N.  Once all four boats got between the mark and the rock, it was not reasonably possible for any of them to avoid contact.  No boat broke rule 14.

Exoneration

O.  G was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled.  She shall be exonerated for breaking rule 11, but not for breaking rule 19.2, in accordance with rule 21.

Rule 21 does NOT provide exoneration for breaking rule 19.2.

P.    G was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled and was compelled to break rule 31 by Bu’s breach of rule 18.2( b ).  G shall be exonerated for breaking rule 31 in accordance with rule 21.

Q.  Bu was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled, which included room to give G mark-room.  Bu shall be exonerated for breaking rule 11, but not for breaking rule 19.2, in accordance with rule 21.

R.  Ba was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled, which included room to give Bu mark-room.  Ba shall be exonerated for breaking rule 11, but not for breaking rule 19.2, in accordance with rule 21.

S.    U was sailing within the room to which she was entitled under rule 19.2.  She shall be exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 in accordance with rule 21.

T.    Ba was compelled to break rule 16.1 by U’s breach of rule 16.1.  Ba shall be exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).

U.  Bu was compelled to break rule 16.1 by Ba’s breach of rule 16.1.  Bu shall be exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).

V.    Ba was compelled to break rule 18.2( b ), by U’s breach of rule 16.1.  Ba shall be exonerated for breaking that rule in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).

W.  Bu was compelled to break rule 18.2( b ), by Ba’s breach of rule 16.1.  Bu shall be exonerated for breaking that rule in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).

X.    Ba was compelled to beak rule 19.2 by Bu’s breach of rule 19.2.  Ba shall be exonerated for breaking that tule in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).

Y.    Bu was compelled to break rule 19.2 by G’s breach of rule 19.2.  Bu shall be exonerated for breaking that rule in accordance with rule 64.1( a )

Only one rule breached without exoneration.

G broke rule 19.2 and was not exonerated

Redress

Z.    U was physically damage because of the action of Ba breaking rule 19.2.  U’s score was made significantly worse through no fault of her own.  U was entitled to redress.

AA.It was readily foreseeable, in a fleet or 50 boats that three or four boats might be overlapped at Mark 2, and that there was insufficient space between Mark 2 and the rock.  Placing Mark 2 10m north, south or west of the position it was placed in would have prevented this problem.  Placing Mark 2 in the position where it was, was an improper action by the race committee.  U’s score was made significantly worse through no fault of her own by this improper action of the race committee.  U was entitled to redress.

BB.There being no evidence that Ba or Bu’s scores were made worse by the incident it cannot be concluded that they are entitled to redress.

CC.        G’s score will be made significantly worse by her penalty for breaking rule 19.2, and the placement of Mark 2 contributed to that, but G could have luffed to windward of Mark 2, and, at a tactical cost (which might then have been subject to redress), have avoided the serious damage and sinking of U.  There was fault of G’s own, and G is not entitled to redress.

Decision

G is disqualified in Race 5.

U is given redress being average points for races 1 to 4, in races 5 to 8.

I disagree with John Allen. Contrary to his FF/Conclusions/Decision, the description and drawing shows that G had a substantial o/l on Bumper at the zone, so it is clear that Bumper was obligated to give G room at the mark under rule 18.2.

IMO, U should have luffed and closed the door on Barge before the o/l was established, and should also have yelled a lot, and should have luffed to avoid the rock, even if that resulted in contact with other boats, rather than hitting the rock. But as it is, it is clear that Barge's late-established o/l caused the problem.

The drawing does not show that U ever luffed to force the issue with Barge and the remaining outside boats under 19.

 I do not think a "solid rock next to shore" is a continuing obstruction. That might be different if the obstruction was a rocky point that was part of the shoreline at least when it became necessary for U to change course to avoid it. As a result, IMO both 18 and 19 apply.

Because Barge established her inside o/l after U reached the zone, I would DSQ Barger for failing to give U mark room, as required by rule 18.2, and failing to give U obstruction room, as required by 19. But I am mindful of the
exception in 19.2(b) may let Barge off the hook for the latter offense, but she still failed to stay clear of U as she rounded the mark. (And I always thought that this exception only applied when it was the inside boat that established the o/l, but not when an outside boat established the o/l.)

And kudos to Heiko for coming up with this interesting and challenging scenario.

Graham Kelly said at 18:39 (Responses interlined in Non-Ital

I disagree with John Allen. Contrary to his FF/Conclusions/Decision, the description and drawing shows that G had a substantial o/l on Bumper at the zone, so it is clear that Bumper was obligated to give G room at the mark under rule 18.2.

Facts Found are provided by by OP, not by me.

FF 5 says Bu was overlapped on G at the zone.

My conclusion J was that Bu broke rule 18.2( b ).

However, see my conclusion X  'Bu was compelled to break rule 19.2 by G’s breach of rule 19.2. Bu shall be exonerated for breaking that rule in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).

Do you have any argument to refute conclusion X?

IMO, U should have luffed and closed the door on Barge before the o/l was established, and should also have yelled a lot, and should have luffed to avoid the rock, even if that resulted in contact with other boats, rather than hitting the rock. But as it is, it is clear that Barge's late-established o/l caused the problem.



Sorry, you seem to be saying that U should have deliberately broken rule 14 in preference to hitting the rock and breaking no rule?

Why should we, in a rules discussion, which is about what boats actually did, be addressing what boats shoulda/coulda/woulda done, or what 'caused' an incident?

If you are saying that U was required to luff, what rule do you say required U to do so?

The drawing does not show that U ever luffed to force the issue with Barge and the remaining outside boats under 19.

 I do not think a "solid rock next to shore" is a continuing obstruction. That might be different if the obstruction was a rocky point that was part of the shoreline at least when it became necessary for U to change course to avoid it. As a result, IMO both 18 and 19 apply.

I agree that a rock near the shore is not a continuing obstruction.  Note that the OP made the point that the scenario would apply equally at an isolated rock, that was NOT near a shoreline.

I am inclined to think that a sharp point of land, that boats are NOT approaching by sailing parallel to one of the edges, is not a continuing obstruction.

Because Barge established her inside o/l after U reached the zone, I would DSQ Barger for failing to give U mark room, as required by rule 18.2, and failing to give U obstruction room, as required by 19. But I am mindful of the exception in 19.2(b) may let Barge off the hook for the latter offense, but she still failed to stay clear of U as she rounded the mark. (And I always thought that this exception only applied when it was the inside boat that established the o/l, but not when an outside boat established the o/l.)

Do you mean 'Ba failing to give G mark-room'?  Ba was inside U and in no position to interfere with U's mark-room.

I agree Ba broke rule 18.2, see my conclusion L, but at my conclusion  V, I conclude that 'Ba was compelled to break rule 18.2( b ), by U’s breach of rule 16.1. Ba shall be exonerated for breaking that rule in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).'

Do you have any argument to refute conclusion V?

I agree Ba broke rule 19.2, see my conclusion G, but at my conclusion X, I conclude that '   Ba was compelled to beak rule 19.2 by Bu’s breach of rule 19.2. Ba shall be exonerated for breaking that tule in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).

Do you have any argument to refute conclusion X?

With respect to the get out of gaol provision 'if unable' in rule 19.2( b ), see my comment to my conclusion G, which said 'At the time the overlap between Ba and U began Ba could readily have luffed, if necessary requiring Bu and G also to luff. Ba is not excused by unable to give room when the overlap began. That she may have broken rule 18.2 in doing so, does not make her ‘unable’.

Do you agree with this analysis or do you have an alternative argument?

I agree that Ba did not keep clear of U and broke rule 11, see my conclusion A, but at my conclusion R, I concluded that ' Ba was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled, which included room to give Bu mark-room. Ba shall be exonerated for breaking rule 11, but not for breaking rule 19.2, in accordance with rule 21.

Do you have any argument to refute conclusion R?

I don't understand your reference to 'exception'.

Rule 18.1(d) says 'if the mark is a continuing obstruction [rule 18 does not apply and] ... rule 19 applies

Rule 19.1 says 'at a continuing obstruction rule 19 always applies and rule 18 does not'.

So, if the mark itself is not a continuing obstruction (say it's a laid buoy), rule 18 will apply UNLESS the mark is AT a nearby object that is a continuing obstruction.

In the OP scenario, and supposing that the obstruction was a continuing obstruction, would there be any doubt that rule 18 applied if there were just two boats approaching the mark?

Now we have four boats closely overlapped near the obstruction:  do we agree that the inside boat is at the obstruction, and that each boat overlapped outside her is required to give room at the obstruction and is therefore also at the obstruction?

If G is at the obstruction and has or is about to hit the mark, is there any doubt that G is at the mark?

If G is at the mark,and G is at the obstruction, is the mark at the obstruction, and thus rule 18 switched off?

First, thanks for responding to my message. This is a knotty scenario, and any spark helps to shed light on the relevant application of the rules.

JA said, "Do you mean 'Ba failing to give G mark-room'?" Opps, meant 'Ba failed to give U mark room,' which Ba was obligated to do b/c Ba was not o/l with U when U reached the zone.

IMO, the incident was caused b/c Ba forced her way into the gap between Bu and U, in violation of 18.2(b). In addition, Ba did not meet the definition of keep clear b/c U could not change course w/o immediate contact w/ Ba.

But I still think that U should have been yelling and screaming before Ba established the o/l. And if he had done so, Bu and G might have known what was happening and been able to take action to avoid the incident.

On the larger point, I do not see anything in the rules that creates precedence for rule 19 to override rule 18, when the obstruction (the rock) is not a continuing obstruction.

I also think that 19.2(b) does not apply to Ba, b/c for Ba, U IS a continuing obstruction, and when Ba established her o/l w/ Bu and U, there was not room for Ba to keep clear while passing between Bu and U. And IMO, it is unlikely that Ba could establish by testimony that there was 2.5 meters between U and Bu when Ba established the o/l. FWIW, 0.25 meters = 10 inches

It also seems that for Bu, G was a continuing obstruction under the definition of obstruction and rule 18.2(b). Similarly, for Ba, Bu was also a continuing obstruction b/c she was required to keep clear of her under 18.2(b). Unfortunately, Ba was btween two continuing obstrctios b/c she was obligated to keep clear of Bu under 18.2(b), and U because of 19.2(b). But as suggested above, I don't think Ba had rights over Bu b/c I don't think there was enough room between U and Bu for Ba to pass between them without breaking a rule when Ba established her o/l.

IMO, G was never "at the obstruction" b/c she was never in a position where she was obligated to "change course substantially" or at all to avoid it.

JA said, "Do you mean 'Ba failing to give G mark-room'?" Opps, meant 'Ba failed to give U mark room,' which Ba was obligated to do b/c Ba was not o/l with U when U reached the zone.

OK, I agree Ba was required to give U mark-room because U was clear ahead of Ba when U entered the zone.  FF 8 said Ba became overlapped on U after U reached the zone.

My conclusion M was based on an incorrect fact.  I will edit/correct it.

But in what way do you say Ba failed to give U mark-room?  What was it that U was not given room to do?

IMO, the incident was caused b/c Ba forced her way into the gap between Bu and U, in violation of 18.2(b). In addition, Ba did not meet the definition of keep clear b/c U could not change course w/o immediate contact w/ Ba.




But I still think that U should have been yelling and screaming before Ba established the o/l. And if he had done so, Bu and G might have known what was happening and been able to take action to avoid the incident.

On the larger point, I do not see anything in the rules that creates precedence for rule 19 to override rule 18, when the obstruction (the rock) is not a continuing obstruction.

I agree.  Unless the mark is a continuing obstruction (rule 18.2( d )), or boats are at a continuing obstruction (rule 19), both rules 18 and 19 apply concurrently.

I also think that 19.2(b) does not apply to Ba, b/c for Ba, U IS a continuing obstruction, and when Ba established her o/l w/ Bu and U, there was not room for Ba to keep clear while passing between Bu and U. And IMO, it is unlikely that Ba could establish by testimony that there was 2.5 meters between U and Bu when Ba established the o/l. FWIW, 0.25 meters = 10 inches

None of the boats is a continuing obstruction (Definition:  Obstruction).

None of the other boats is required to keep clear of G.  G is not an obstruction to any of the other boats (Definition:  Obstruction, second last sentence)

Nothing in rule 18 imposes any obligation on any boat to keep clear of another.  Not since 2009.

Rule 19.2( b ) does not impose any obligation on any boat to keep clear of another.  The only obligation to keep clear (outside of Section A) is imposed by rule 19.2( c ), which is an exceptional case, which does not apply here.

Ba most certainly did have 'rights' with respect to Bu.  Ba was overlapped to leeward of Bu on the same tack, Bu was required by rule 11 to keep clear of Ba and Ba was the right-of-way boat.  See my conclusions B and Q.

Thanks to Graham Kelly for pointing out that my Conclusion M in my Conclusions and Rules that Apply post was based on an incorrect fact.

That conclusion M incorrectly stated:"Ba obtained an inside overlap to windward of U from clear astern (just before reaching the zone)", and concluded that U was required to give Ba mark-room in accordance with rule 18.2.

A.   

IMO, I don't see any way of resolving the conflict between the obligation of the leeward/ outside boats under rule 18, and the obligation of the windward/ outside boats under rule 19.

I think this might be rare when an obstruction is this close to a mark, but it can also happen when gate marks are set too close together. 

Because this is a safety issue, I think the rulemakers should address the situation.

John Allan on 24 Apr 17 said

Thanks to Graham Kelly for pointing out that my Conclusion M in my Conclusions and Rules that Apply post was based on an incorrect fact.

That conclusion M incorrectly stated:"Ba obtained an inside overlap to windward of U from clear astern (just before reaching the zone)", and concluded that U was required to give Ba mark-room in accordance with rule 18.2.

Fact Found 8 was that "Just after entering the zone, Barge sailed in the gap between Bumper and Underdog and became overlapped with both of them".  Ba was, thus clear astern of U when U reached the zone and therefore Ba was required to give U mark-room.

The question then is, did Ba fail to give U mark-room?

If so, referring to the words in the Definition Mark-room and Room, in what way did Ba fail to give U mark-room?

On review, I see that my conclusions H and I are wrongly worded.  They would have been OK under the 2013 rules, but are no longer correct because of new rule 19.1( b ), which says

[Rule 19 does NOT apply between two boats when rule 18 applies between the boats and the obstruction is another boat overlapped with each of them.

The correct wording for these conclusions is:

H.  Bu, overlapped outside, did not give Ba room to pass between her and the obstruction, such room including room for Ba to give room for U to pass between Ba and the obstruction.  Bu broke rule 19.2

I.  G, overlapped outside, did not give Bu room to pass between her and the obstruction, such room including room for Bu to give Ba room for U to pass between Ba and the obstruction and room for .  Bu broke rule 19.2

Corrected Conclusions and Rules that Apply

Right of Way

A.    Ba, overlapped to windward on the same tack, did not keep clear of U. Ba broke rule 11.

B.    Bu, overlapped to windward on the same tack, did not keep clear of Ba. Bu broke rule 11.

C.   G, overlapped to windward on the same tack did not keep clear of Bu to leeward. G broke rule 11.

Room to keep clear

D.  U, a right of way boat changing course did not give Ba room to keep clear. U broke rule 16.1

E.    Ba, a right of way boat changing course did not give Bu room to keep clear. Ba broke rule 16.1.

F.    Bu, a right of way boat changing course did not give G room to keep clear. She broke rule 16.1.

With respect to the rock:

G.  Ba, overlapped outside, did not give U room to pass between her and the obstruction. Ba broke rule 19.2.

At the time the overlap between Ba and U began Ba could readily have luffed, if necessary requiring Bu and G also to luff. Ba is not excused by unable to give room when the overlap began. That she may have broken rule 18.2 in doing so, does not make her ‘unable’.

H.  Bu, overlapped outside, did not give Ba room to pass between her and the obstruction, such room including room for Ba to give room for U to pass between Ba and the obstruction.  Bu broke rule 19.2

At the time the overlap between Bu and Ba began Bu could have luffed, if necessary requiring G also to luff. Bu is not excused by unable to give room when the overlap began.

I.      G, overlapped outside, did not give Bu room to pass between her and the obstruction, such room including room for Bu to give Ba room for U to pass between Ba and the obstruction and room for .  Bu broke rule 19.2.

At the time the overlap between G and Bu began G could have luffed, if necessary above the mark. G is not excused by unable to give room when the overlap began.

With respect to the mark

J.    Bu, overlapped outside G at the zone did not give G mark-room. Bu broke rule 18.2( b ).

K.    G touched the mark. G broke rule 31.

L.    Ba, clear astern when Bu reached the zone, did not give Bu mark-room. Ba broke rule 18.2( b ).

M. Ba, clear astern when U reached the zone then overlapped inside did not give U mark-room to sail her proper course to the next mark. Ba broke rule 18.2( c )(2)

N.  Once all four boats got between the mark and the rock, it was not reasonably possible for any of them to avoid contact. No boat broke rule 14.

Exoneration

O.  G was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled. She shall be exonerated for breaking rule 11, but not for breaking rule 19.2, in accordance with rule 21.

Rule 21 does NOT provide exoneration for breaking rule 19.2.

P.    G was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled and was compelled to break rule 31 by Bu’s breach of rule 18.2( b ). G shall be exonerated for breaking rule 31 in accordance with rule 21.

Q.  Bu was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled, which included room to give G mark-room. Bu shall be exonerated for breaking rule 11, but not for breaking rule 19.2, in accordance with rule 21.

R.   omitted.

S.    U was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled under rule 18.2( c ), and the  room to which she was entitled under rule 19.2. She shall be exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 in accordance with rule 21.

T.    Ba was compelled to break rule 16.1 by U’s breach of rule 16.1. Ba shall be exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).

U.  Bu was compelled to break rule 16.1 by Ba’s breach of rule 16.1. Bu shall be exonerated for breaking rule 16.1 in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).

V.    Ba was compelled to break rule 18.2( b ) with respect to Bu, by U’s breach of rule 16.1. Ba shall be exonerated for breaking that rule with respect to Bu in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).  Ba is NOT exonerated for breaking rule 18.2( c ) with respect to U.

W.  Bu was compelled to break rule 18.2( b ), by Ba’s breach of rule 16.1. Bu shall be exonerated for breaking that rule in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).

X.    Ba was compelled to beak rule 19.2 by Bu’s breach of rule 19.2. Ba shall be exonerated for breaking that tule in accordance with rule 64.1( a ).

Y.    Bu was compelled to break rule 19.2 by G’s breach of rule 19.2. Bu shall be exonerated for breaking that rule in accordance with rule 64.1( a )

Only two rule breaches without exoneration.

Ba broke rule 18.2( c ) and was not exonerated.

G broke rule 19.2 and was not exonerated

Redress

Z.    U was physically damage because of the action of Ba breaking rule 19.2 (it is irrelevant that Ba was exonerated for this breach) and rule 18.2( c ) (for which Ba was NOT exonerated). U’s score was made significantly worse through no fault of her own. U was entitled to redress.

AA.It was readily foreseeable, in a fleet or 50 boats that three or four boats might be overlapped at Mark 2, and that there was insufficient space between Mark 2 and the rock. Placing Mark 2 10m north, south or west of the position it was placed in would have prevented this problem. Placing Mark 2 in the position where it was, was an improper action by the race committee. U’s score was made significantly worse through no fault of her own by this improper action of the race committee. U was entitled to redress.

BB.There being no evidence that Ba or Bu’s scores were made worse by the incident it cannot be concluded that they are entitled to redress.

CC.        G’s score will be made significantly worse by her penalty for breaking rule 19.2, and the placement of Mark 2 contributed to that, but G could have luffed to windward of Mark 2, and, at a tactical cost (which might then have been subject to redress), have avoided the serious damage and sinking of U. There was fault of G’s own, and G is not entitled to redress.

Decision

Ba is disqualified in Race 5

G is disqualified in Race 5.

U is given redress being average points for races 1 to 4, in races 5 to 8.