The Q&A says there was enough room for Yellow to either luff or bear away in a seamanlike way without any contact.

That means that there was room for Y to keep clear and rule 15 was not broken.

In the Q&A Y had the option of luffing above close hauled and keeping clear of B, in which case B would have broken rule 18.3.

Y didn't take that option and hit B bow to stern.

Agree with John on 15.

If, after B completed her tack, Y had chosen to luff above close-hauled to avoid B then B would have broken 18.3. If Y had borne away and established an inside overlap then B would owe Y mark-room. Instead Y chose to maintain a close-hauled course and broke 12 & 14 when she caused contact. 

Does 18.3 mean that Y must luff above close-hauled for B to break the rule?  Or if that's the only option Y has then B breaks the rule regardless of what Y does?  In such a case if Y doesn't luff and hits B then both would be DSQ'd, not just Y?  The difference is that on the facts here Y could have borne off to avoid B so 18.3 would not apply?

Y could bear away, establish an inside overlap and be owed mark-room by B but this would be a poor choice if Y could no longer fetch the mark.

16.3 says B must cause Y to sail above close-hauled, so unless Y does so B hasn't broken the rule. The best action for Y in this scenario is to luff above close-hauled & protest. 

A better course of action for B would have been to cross or duck & then tack outside of Y. Better still would have been to aim outside zone while on port, pass HTW outside the zone & avoid the 16.3 issue altogether. 

In this case though B got very lucky. 

Thanks Guys

After all these years my way of thinking rule 15 is the other boat has initially right of way, or rights to sail on its current course.
Now its "room to keep clear" yes i know that's what the rule says dur!. Maybe i should read the rules not listen other sailors as much.  

In this case if yellow change course to keep clear then and only then Blue would have breached 18.3 not rule 15.
   
Thanks Again 

   

Well there's an additional filip. If Y has to alter course before B completes her tack (that is, reaches a close-hauled course), B breaks 13. 

And if B completes her tack and there isn't room for Y to keep clear by either luffing or bearing away (for instance, immediate contact between Y's bow and B's transom) B breaks 15

Hi Nick, it´s not a "15-situation" to me. 
It will probably be tough to convince a jury that rule 15 was infringed. Reason being,  it´s easy and quick  for Y to luff when the ROW changes. It´s more likely that other rules will be broken. (10, 13, 18.3, 12, 14...) 
Rule 15 is written to help other situations, this is not a typical "15-situation".  Rule 15 applies but momentarily. Hard for the sailors to judge themselves if it was broken and probably even harder work to convince a jury. 

Anders .. “this is not a typical "15-situation".”

Agree in a 2 boat scenario.  But start adding some boats around to trap-in Yellow and add rule 16.1 obligations to Yellow, 15 can more easily come into play. Yellow’s rule 15 room includes room for her comply with her other Part 2 and rule 31 obligations.  Start adding the action-reaction times to a course alteration of Yellow and responses of keep-clear boats around her, rule 15’s “initially” room can grow to more than an instant. 

This “trapped-in” scenario happened to me this past season.  I was Yellow. I had a boat close to windward and 1/4 BL ahead of me, there was no offset and I had boats ahead who had rounded and were heading back, trapping me from heading down below the mark.  My bow ended up hitting Blue’s stern-starboard corner and bent her stern pulpit. Blue took a penalty. 

I don't agree that it's clearly not rule 15.

IMHO the diagram in the Q&A, if it wasn't for the written fact about there being room, has rule 15 written all over it.

B tacks, reaches her close hauled course, substantially downspeed, less than a metre (say for 12m boats) in front of Y.

Y had no obligation to take any action until B reached her close hauled course, and if B did reach her close hauled course clear ahead of Y, then it was never clear that B, while the give way boat was not keeping clear, so Y was not required to take action under rule 14.

Certainly Y can luff quite quickly, but no more quickly than is seamanlike, and with no faster reaction time than a competent but not expert crew.

Add things like B going up the back of a wave and Y coming down the front of the next one.

I think rule 15 is well and truly in play.

A protest committee, of course, has to find all the relevant facts and make the judgement.

I again agree with John. Only the found fact inthe Q&A that Y had room to bear away or luff in a seamanlike manner makes it not 15 (and also not 13 since B completed her tack without Y having to avoid).

These would be critical facts that the PC needs to find and document. 

Thanks for answers

15 certainly applies and might be broken. In Johns case, with loss of speed, But it is certainly a short moment and it´s only dependning on the manouvreability of Y.   Luffing is quick, most conditions. Normally the tack is not exactly in front of your bow so you might luff or bear off easily; meaning that you actually have room to keep clear. 

If Y clearly breakes a rule (here RRS 12, 14) she must know that she now has to be freed by exoneration, might not be an ideal starting point in a hearing. she will be DSQ if she doesn´t succeed in both parts. 

John, about RRS14, I´m not sure I agree, it has to be clear to Y that blue is not keeping clear sometimes during the tack, so I say Y breakes 14.  If Y is give way boat at moment of contact there should be no exoneration for 14. 

Angelo: Yes I agree. But with more boats involved Y still have to try to luff the boat to windward, or try to bear off of if that is easier on that side. depending on the situation, but must do something.  i would prefer to have a little contact with the windward boat if you have the choice.. . Outside boats should give room (19.2b) as well, if possible. 
And the thougts on RRS14 is there as well, when was it clear etc... 

Anders Rydlöv

Said Created: Today 00:30

Certainly if B reaches her close hauled course other  than dead centre in front of Y's bow, it will be easier for Y to change course and avoid B.  But in the OP scenario, B is dead centre in front of Y.

Y clearly breaks rule 12.  Her bow hits the stern of B.  How can she possibly not break rule 12?

Whether she breaks rule 14 depends on rule 15.

If, when B reaches her close hauled course there is not enough space for Y, acting promptly, but allowing for an appropriate reaction time to initiate action, by changing course, starting sails and slowing, or levitation, to keep clear, then:

OTOH, of course, if there was room to keep clear,  B did not break rule 15, and Y broke both rule  12 and 14 with no prospect of exoneration.

We seem to be moving away from judges applying the rules into the region of competitors strategy here, but so be it.

I understand 'insurance penalties ', but I don't think a competitor on the water would think that way.

I think the competitor might say to themself, and  later to the protest committee 'Wow, that happened so quickly that I didn't even have a chance to move my helm to avoid contact ... B broke rule 15, and I'm exonerated'.

The protest committee would then have to find relevant facts and conclude whether B broke rule 15 or not.

Of course, if Y comes into the protest hearing and says (voluntarily or in answer to the inevitable question 'What action did you take to avoid contact')  "i just held my course and plowed into B's stern" then, to use an Australianism, she's gone for all money.

I don't think so.  IMHO, the converse of Case 50,  on opposite tacks, is that if a right of way boat does not change course or take other action to avoid, and there is no contact, the give way boat has kept clear.

If, while subject to rule 13,  B kept clear, there was no point in time when it could be clear to Y that B was not keeping clear, and Y never has an obligation to begin taking action to avoid contact.

After B reaches her close hauled course, as discussed above, it all depends on the application of rule 15.