Forum: Rule 18 and Room at the Mark
Rule 18.2 or Rule 10 at a Gate?
James Kammert
Nationality: United States
0
The attached image and title are at the heart of the question here. At a leeward gate mark (asymmetrical sails), yellow boat (Y) clear ahead enters the zone for mark 1 on starboard, gybes onto port to round the left gate. The blue boat clear astern (B) is now on starboard but gybes to avoid Y and ends up rounding the mark inside despite Y's hails of no room. Y then rounds up to head to wind to make a point, makes contact with B, then bears away and sails her proper course. Ignoring what seems to be a violation of R14, who would win if this scenario went to the room? Does the situation change if B is attempting to round gate mark 2 or 1?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Also, was there any damage or injury?
Finally, for your final question about rounding mark 2, did you purposely draw the scenario with the marks so close that the zones overlap?
As diagrammed, that's irrelevant.
@1.5 Y reaches the zone of the starboard rounding mark clear ahead of B, so she also gets mark-room for that mark., and B never enters that zone in any case.
I think however, if Blue is intending to round mark 2 (starboard), then penalize yellow for rule 10 (P/S) at point 3I'm much less certain about that last point. I'd hope this comes up rarely, as the marks should regularly be set further apart AND Blue will usually take a better path to the mark.I see now, the way the rule is worded. Blue owes yellow mark-room at m2, even if she is intending to go to m1 because they are "required to leave [both] mark(s) on the same side and at least one of them is in the zone."
mark for one but not both of them is to tack". If Blue is planning to take Mark 2 (even with hindsight?) then she is not planning to tack at Mark 1 so R18 does not apply. So Yellow should be disqualified (if contact) R10. Then again, Yellow may not need to tack either for her Proper Course?
Secondly, you can hardly ignore the contact, it's critical to whether Y breaks RRS 16.1.
No matter what, B is not giving mark-room and breaking RRS 18.2 @4, @5, and probably @6.
As diagrammed,
@6 Y, a right-of-way boat changing course, does not give B room to keep clear. Ý breaks RRS 16.1.
@6 - 2delta Y has left the mark clear astern, mark-room has been given and RRS 18 no longer applies (RRS 18.2 last sentence).
Y is no longer sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled, and is not exonerated for breaking RRS 16.1 (RRS 43.1(b)).
In real life,
On the evidence that could be presented in a hearing, absent some Americas Cup telemetry, or some exceptional evidence from an observer in a wing position, it's not going to be possible for the protest committee to determine without doubt that @6 the mark was no longer influencing Y's course, and that RRS 18 switched off. Last point of certainty was that the mark was influencing Y's course and RRS 18 still applied, Y was still entitled to mark-room.
The question then arises was Y, rounding up nearly head to wind, sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled?
Y might well have wanted to tack at the mark. If so that is part of her rounding manoeuvre, and she is within the mark-room to which she is entitled until she passes head to wind and RRS 18 ceases to apply.
In my opinion a protest committee would conclude that Y was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled and was exonerated for breaking RRS 16.1.
There's a further complication. RRS 18.2(c) entitles Y to room to sail her proper course while ever she is in the zone and overlapped. Y's proper course may be to tack, and until she passes head to wind, she is entitled to room to do so, and will be sailing within the room to which she is entitled.
No.
RRS 18 depends on a boat being in the zone, not on her intentions.
I think you can safely follow the convention that the wind blows from the top of the page.
I would like some more information about the lengths of the boats, wind strength, and sea state to understand the distances involved to come to a better-informed conclusion.
Without more detail on distances, I'm left wondering if B was keeping clear under the definition of Keep Clear. Based on the drawing alone, my conclusion would be that Y is entitled to room under 18.2 from B which B did not provide so B breaks 18.2. I would also conclude that B is the keep clear boat under 11 at positions 4/5/6. Under the definition of Keep Clear, B isn't keeping clear of Y as I believe Y isn't able to change course in both directions without immediately making contact. I would conclude that B wasn't keeping clear and also breaks 11.
If there was contact at either 5/6 Y breaks 14 however, she is exonerated under 43.1c
Quite right. B is required to keep clear throughout, initially under RRS 12, then RRS 11.
You're also quite right that in any protest involving room the protest committee should consider and record facts about existing conditions.
I think that @6 Y cannot bear away without Immediately making contact as her stern swings, and at that point B breaks RRS 11. Also when contact occurs @7, B breaks RRS 11 whether or not Y breaks RRS 16.1.
I also see @4, B's boom is projecting over Y's deck, and Y seems to be bearing away slightly, which she could claim was to avoid B, so B does not keep clear @4, as well.
Y is not giving B room to keep clear therefore it is not reasonably possible for B to keep clear, and B does not break RRS 14.
We're still waiting on more information from James about injury or damage, so we can't yet decide whether Y is exonerated for breaking RRS 14 by RRS 43.1(c).
Edit
James Kammert
Some good stuff up to here
Yes.
If you're doing right-of-way, you could then go on and identify the right-of-way transitions @2 or @2 + delta, when boats become overlapped, @3 - delta, when Y gybes, and at @4 - delta, when B gybes. Alternatively you could just note that all the action in the incident happens after @4, whe boats are overlapped on the same tack, Y to leeward, and you needn’t address right-of-way before that.
Agree
Look at the second sentence of RRS 18.2(b).
Now, maybe you could repeat your analysis from there on.
I’m not sure that’s consistent with how we would apply proper course on a beat to a windward mark far off the top of the page.
If we considered another windward beat scenario such as immediately after the start, a leeward boat on a beat to windward early on the leg and limited by rule 17, would normally be considered sailing above her proper course if she luffed HtW forcing the windward boat to sail above close-hauled.
Or consider a leeward boat limited by 17 that luffed HTW 1 sec before the gun, forcing the windward boat to do the same, and leeward holds that’s HTW orientation long after the gun. I believe it is a common application of rule 17 that such a leeward boat is sailing above her proper course if she does not fall off to a close-hauled course after the gun.
The statement
Decision
In relation to my slipped cog (18.2(b) second part),
"If a boat is clear ahead when she reaches the zone, the boat clear astern at that moment shall thereafter give her mark-room."
I interpret this as saying that if during the time inside the zone, Blue becomes the outside boat, then Blue must give Yellow mark-room. However, this scenario doesn't play out here. I'm I erroneous in this interpretation?
Can you elaborate on why you conclude that:
1. Rule 18.2(b) applies (If boats are overlapped when the first of them reaches the zone...) as you say the boats are not overlapped and this section talks about overlapped boats.
2. Yellow has not been given mark-room?
Mark-Room Room for a boat to leave a mark on the required side. Also, (a) room to sail to the mark when her proper course is to sail close to it, and (b) room to round or pass the mark as necessary to sail the course without touching the mark. Do you interpret the bold part of the definition above to mean that Yellow has the right to be the inside boat as there clearly is a lot of mark-room to the south assuming the bottom of the page is south?
When Yellow reached the zone at position 1, she was clear ahead of Blue so rule 18.2(b) required Blue to give Yellow mark-room.
As I asked John earlier,
"If a boat is clear ahead when she reaches the zone, the boat clear astern at that moment shall thereafter give her mark-room."
I interpret this as saying that if during the time inside the zone, Blue becomes the outside boat, then Blue must give Yellow mark-room. However, this scenario doesn't play out here. I'm I erroneous in this interpretation?
Mark-room can be given or denied, not only by a boat overlapped outside, but by a boat overlapped inside, as in this scenario or a boat clear ahead or clear astern.
In other words, RRS 18.2(b) requires giving of mark-room by:
And you don't mention exoneration for Y for breaking RRS 16.2
So your view is that @6 mark-room has been given and RRS 18 no longer applies?
I can't tempt you with RRS 18.2(c) ?
If Y wants to rely on sailing her proper course, it may be up to her to justify why a course is her proper course.
Both these cases: what about an obviously biased leg, where she is clearly on the disfavoured tack?
Rule 18.2(b) deals with the situation when the first of two boats reaches the zone. The boats are either overlapped or NOT overlapped.
See WS Case 27 and WS Case 63
Rule 18 no longer applies between boats when mark-room has been given.
At position 6 hasn't mark-room been given?
John re: “Both these cases: what about an obviously biased leg, where she is clearly on the disfavoured tack?”
Yes, we could construct a scenario where the next leg is off to the left of the page. But for the sake of the OP, given the approaching course angles of the boats and their sails, the wind is coming from the top of the page and given its a gate, sure looks like we are talking about a W/L course orientation.
Case 144 was very close to this scenario.
Is it It is still out for revision.(PS: just checked the 2022/23 supplements and still no 144 revision)
Agree, by the diagram Y has left the mark astern, it is no longer influencing her course and mark room has been given.
I have reservations about the diagram as discussed in my first post in the thread
Angelo,
I think the headnote to Case 144 as originally written is helpful here
An obligation to give mark-room continues until the entitled boat has passed the mark, leaving it on the required side.
This indicates that mark-room has been given when the boat entitled to it has passed the mark, which the diagram in the case indicates is when the mark is 'clear astern' of her, but doesn't say so definitively.
So why does it matter wher the wind and windward mark are? @6, if it wasn't for B, Y could turn in any direction she liked.
My words in the above paragraph about 'influencing her course ' come from Case 127 about clearing a finishing mark. I admit that clearing a mark is not the same as having been given mark room.
I'm guessing the problem with Case 144 is the apparent contradiction between
RRS 18.1 last sentence and RRS 18.2(c).
I appreciate the depth of the analysis here! To provide some additional information that might help, because I excluded it in the original post:
Is there a definition of the requirement to leave a mark on the same side that describes an interaction at the gate and/or precedent? This is more for my own pedantic curiosity than anything. However, we have the option to choose either mark (1 to port OR 2 to starboard), and therefore it seems unclear whether Rule 18 applies unless both vessels intend to round the same mark (how do we decide who intends to do what, and when), in which case they are required to leave it to the same side.
Further interpretation of Rule 18.4 seems to also suggest that there is still some right of way for a starboard boat in the case where R18 does apply: "When an inside overlapped right-of-way boat must gybe at a mark to sail her proper course, until she gybes she shall sail not further from the mark than needed to sail that course. Rule 18.4 does not apply at a gate mark." In a non-gate rounding, S inside must gybe around the mark she shall sail no further than the room needed to gybe to round the mark, but the inverse would suggest that the vessel on S still has right of way at a gate mark. Does "right-of-way" only apply to the boat entitled to mark room here? Or does this definition also include S/P and Rules 10/11? At position 3, B was required to gybe to avoid Y (large boats with limited maneuverability), which is where I am wondering if B initially had right of way prior to her change of course. Is there precedent for this interpretation either?
If Blue, exercising her STB ROW between #3 and #4 (because Blue chooses to round M2), forced Yellow to alter course away from M1, Blue would not have provided Yellow the MR she is entitled to and thus Blue would break rule 18.2 (b).
The rules Section A & B of Part 2 apply simultaneously with the obligations of Section C, unless a rule specifically states that those rules do not apply. For instance, rule 19.2(c)(2).
PS: Alter your OP such that Blue was overlapped inside Yellow at M1 when Yellow reached the zone, now Blue does not owe Yellow MR at M1, but based on their positions at #3, Blue will likely owe MR to Yellow at M2 if they both headed toward M2 from #3. Blue could have held course between #3 and #4 and forced Yellow to gybe over toward M2 (Blue exercising her ROW).
Once Yellow gybed, Blue could choose to continue to M2 with Yellow or gybe and round M1.
I'd like to explore a counterfactual.
Y has not yet passed the mark.
Has mark-room been given?
Is Y sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled?
Blue and Yellow are sailing towards mark 2 on stbd.
Yellow gybes onto port (to sail towards mark 1) in front of Yellow and breaks rule 10.
Blue is compelled to gybe to avoid contact.and thereby breaks 18.2(b).
Decision
Yellow dsq for breaking 10. Blue exonerated under 43.1(a).
Decision: Yellow dsq for breaking 10. Blue exonerated under 43.1(a)”
Hmmm. Yes, Yellow definitely breaks rule 10 between #3 and #4, but what about 43.1(b) for Yellow? On what basis is Yellow NOT sailing within the mark-room she is entitled to when rule 10 is broken?
In this case Yellow gybes first so forces Blue to take avoiding action and this is the cause of the whole problem.
If Blue had gybed first then she would break18.2(b) BUT only if Yellow also then gybed to sail round the same mark.
If Yellow goes on to round mark 2 then no rule is broken.
Yellow reaches the zone of M1 clear ahead of Blue. Yellow’s room is a corridor to the mark from the spot she reaches the zone.
My interpretation also gives certainty to the situation even if the rules don't!
More of the joys of rule 18!
Mark room only requires room to be given for a boat to leave (pass) a mark on the required side. In this case Blue has given room for Yellow to leave mark1 to port on her way to mark 2.
(a)and (b) in the definition do not appl as, in this case, Yellow is not required to sail close to mark 1 and it is not necessary for her to round it to sail the course as she can round mark 2 to stbd.
I do not think Blue needs to anticipate that Yellow is going to gybe. It would of course be different if there was only one mark but this is a gate.
My concern with your approach is that, following its logic, it erases all mark room entitlement at a gate.
I see a few issues:
The phrase from def: MR is:
In the absence of Blue, Yellow sailing to M1 from position #2 and to sail close to M1 is certainly a reasonable proper course.
2) The word “required” appears in the first application test in rule 18.1
3) “I do not think Blue needs to anticipate that Yellow is agoing to gybe.”
Blue needs to anticipate that she (Blue) is required to give Yellow MR … which from position #2 would include Yellow gybing and sailing a path to the mark, close to the mark, leaving it on the port-side.
Ang
The rules applied position by position.
Position 1 - Rules 12 and 18.2(b). Yellow enters the zone clear ahead of Blue. Yellow is ROW and gets mark-room. Blue shall thereafter give Yellow mark-room unless Yellow tacks or leaves the zone. Blue needs to figure out how she will give Yellow mark-room. One method is to slow down by steering or luffing her jib.
Position 2 - Rules 11 and 18.2(b) x2. Blue acquires the ROW because Yellow's change of course caused the overlap, Rule 15 does not turn on. Blue is still obligated to give Yellow mark-room. Yellow now has mark-room at both marks as the RC placed the gate marks so close together the zones overlap.
Position 3 - Rules 10 and 18.2(b) x2. Between positions 2 and 3 Yellow gybes. Gybing does not turn off mark-room. Blue is still ROW, but under Rule 10 now. Yellow gets mark-room 18.2(b).
Position 4 - Rules 11 and 18.2(b). Blue gybes to port tack. Yellow becomes ROW and Rule 15 is not on as she gained the ROW by Blue's actions. Blue, keep clear, breaks Rules 11 and 18.2(b) as she is not keeping clear or giving mark-room.
Position 5 - Rules 11, 16.1, 18.2(b). Yellow has super power, ROW and mark-room. Yellow, changing course, must give Blue room to keep clear. If Yellow breaks 16.1 and does not give Blue room to keep clear, Yellow is exonerated by Rule 43.1(b) as she is sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled.
Position 6 - Rules 11 and 16.1. 17 is not on and Yellow may luff. Some may say that mark-room has been given, others may not. The mark is not clear astern of Yellow, therefore some may say mark-room still applies. A judgement call. If it is determined that mark-room still applies, Yellow would still be under the protection of 18.2(b) and be exonerated if she breaks Rule 14 with no damage or injury, Rule 43.1(c), or Rule 16.1, Rule 43.1(b).
To me there are 4 distinct protest incidents and they should not be treated as one.
Although it would not be clear to B at position 1 or 2 whether Y was going for M1 or M2, Y is entitled to mark room of M1, so B should have been aware of the potential (I agree with Angelo on this & disagree with John as, although rule 14 gives leeway not to act initially, good seamanship must require a boat that knows that another clear ahead is entitled to mark room, places an additional requirement for keeping a good lookout & taking care) and this would have become clearer as Y continued to bear away & gybe from position 2.
Based on the diagram, Y is clear ahead on entering the zone of M1 therefore B has to give mark room 18.2.(b). When Y starts to bear away she still appears to be clear ahead at first but after 2 becomes overlapped on B, both on stbd tack, so Y as upwind boat has to keep clear of B. The first point of issue is whether or not by changing course at 2 Y breaches 11. I would say not as there at least 2 boat lengths between them.
When Y continues to change course & gybes between positions 2 & 3, they are then on opposite tacks with Y on port. B gybes onto port inside and so disrupts Y's proper course and Y bears away. B also becomes the upwind boat so has to keep clear of Y, as well as give Y mark room. If a boat has to bear away even slightly from her proper course to a mark then she is not being given mark room. It does not appear to be correct to say that an outside boat entitled to mark room is given it however wide she is required to sail due the the actions of an inside boat.
The second point of issue is whether or not Y is in breach of 10 by continuing to change course and gybe onto port across B's course. As there is less than one boat length at Y's gybe, I would conclude that Y is in breach of 10, but the question then becomes whether or not she is exonerated for this under 43.1(b) if she is sailing within the mark room to which she is entitled.
The third point of issue is that B appears to have made a bad decision by gybing onto port inside Y instead of hardening up and going around Y's stern. Which was the best choice to avoid contact would have to be determined by fact finding in a hearing. By changing course inside Y, B was in breach of 18.2(c)(2) (see also Def Mark Room (a)) because she failed to give Y room to sail her proper course to sail "close to" the mark (her proper course from the diagram patently being so) as Y had to bear away. For the same reason B as upwind boat is also in breach of 11.
Deciding exoneration on this third point primarily depends upon whether or not Y's breach of 10 (even if exonerated as exoneration does not mean that the breach did not occur) at position 3 "compelled" B to break the rules at 4. If it was reasonably possible for her to have gone around Y's stern then B is not exonerated from her breaches. If it was not reasonably possible, so resulting in her gybe inside, then she is exonerated 43.1 (a)
The fourth point of issue arises at 6 after both have left the mark. We are told that Y luffs up "to make a point" and there was contact but no damage. Y as downwind boat is entitled to luff but is subject to 16.1. As she had plenty of sea room to stbd it was also reasonably possible for her to avoid contact under 14. As B was in the process of tacking away to port, B was keeping clear. Y is in breach of 16.1 & 14 and is not exonerated. As Y did this deliberately she is also in breach of rule 2.
So Y is not exonerated for breaking 16.1. However, being ROW she can be exonerated for rule 14 under 43.2(c) as there was no injury/damage.
The rule 2 question would need to be handled separately.
I was in a race once on port sailing DW into a leeward mark to be rounded to port. I was just clear ahead of a boat to windward. I sighted down my stern rail and shouted “no overlap”. The boat to windward’s tactician on the main sheet in the back of the other boat disagreed loudly and as I called “no room” i altered course to windward to round … this tactician yelled “I want you to hit that boat!!” to his helmsman/owner (but loud enough that it seemed clear to me that he wanted me to hear it for effect.)
There was no contact between boats and the helmsman took my stern. After racing I took the owner aside and told him he needed to have a talk with his tactician, that such a hail was a breach of sportsmanship and that if anything like that ever happened again, I’d protest him for unsportsmanlike conduct.. .contact or not.
Nothing like that ever happened again from that tactician.
I believe that she can be exonerated under 43.1b just for sailing within her mark-room, and does not need to have been "compelled".
Elsewhere, I agree with Angelo and Mark regarding this incident.
Going by Matt's blow-up in his previous post @6 the mark is astern of Y. I have asked the question how could a protest committee possibly find that fact on normal evidence available in a protest hearing, but so be it.
I then posed the question, if Y had NOT clearly left the mark astern as follows.
Jerry, what do you think?
You say 'My concern with your approach is that, following its logic, it erases all mark room entitlement at a gate.'
Whilst this may be the case in this discussion it is not correct in other situations as it will always apply, for example, when it is apparent that both boats are rounding the same mark, and I cannot think of a scenario when it would not apply at mark2.
I do find it anomalous that rule 18 can apply between two boats that are (Blue will always say this in a hearing) going round different marks.
There are differences in rule 18 at a gate as we recognise in 18.4 and an inside boat does not need to gybe to sail the course as she has a valid course to the other mark.
I will not get into the 'proper course is to sail to the mark' other than to say a more logical course for Yellow would appear to be to mark 2 and I believe it is unreasonable for Blue to have to anticipate she is going to gybe but again accept the other opinions on this. Obviously more information would be necessary to confirm this.
I might argue that at pos#3, Yellow’s proper course is no longer to sail close to the mark, therefore at pos#3 Yellow’s MR no longer includes sailing “to the mark”. If that holds water, then the moment Yellow reaches a close-hauled course at pos#3.5, there is no more mark-room to be given:
I’d argue that the last sentence of 18.1 turns off 18 at pos#3.5 and thus Yellow is no longer sailing within the 16.1 exoneration protection provided by MR.
Or …
Say that 18 does not turn off at pos 3.5, but Yellow’s MR is limited up to a close-hauled course (as that’s what’s “necessary to sail the course”). Here, Yellow is still entitled to MR, but once above close-hauled, Yellow is sailing outside the MR she is entitled to.
PS: I think I like the 2nd approach better. The first one begs the confusing question how can the last sentence of 18.1 apply when MR was certainly NOT given at position #2.
Rule 18 still applying is consistent with the headnote to Case 144 as originally written I quoted previously.
An obligation to give mark-room continues until the entitled boat has passed the mark, leaving it on the required side.
Jerry, RRS 43.1(b), within mark-room, doesn't exonerate for RRS 14. If Y allows contact the risk is on her that there is no injury or damage to get exoneration under RRS 43.1(c).
Yellow is not overlapped and to windward of Blue. From position 3 to position 6 Yellow is outside and to leeward of Blue.
Yellow wouldn't be fetching the mark after her tack. Yellow would be passed the mark when she completed her tack.
The definition of mark-room uses the unitalicized word "tack" which means it is used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use. Tack is generally understood to mean to change course by turning a boat's head into and through the wind.
At position 6 Yellow breaks rule 16.1 and rule 14 and is not exonerated because she is not sailing withing the mark room to which she is entitled.
Hmm. Isn't it at least plausible that Yellow's proper course is to tack and sail close to the mark? Suppose we have a little bit of a starboard tack lift. Or starboard is the "long" tack on the next leg.)
Not that mark room would allow tacking (passing head to wind turns off 18), but maybe it does allow a sharp luff if your proper course is to tack and sail toward the mark? Hopefully I'm confused about that!
Mark-room doesn't, and RRS 18 will certainly switch off when Y passes head to wind, but RRS 18.2(c) isn't about mark-room.
The Part 2 RRS deal with time and space. They do not rely on intention, expectation or causation.
The intention to round or pass a particular mark was removed from RRS 18.1 in the 2009 rewrite and the application of RRS 18 now depends solely on a boat reaching the zone around a mark.
I think that, up to @6, the analysis of this scenario is straightforward and is just a common late inside overlap.
Initially, B, clear astern of Y is required to keep clear of Y (RRS 12).
@1 Y reaches the zone around the port rounding mark (2p) clear ahead of B and B is thereafter required to give Y mark-room with respect to 2p (RRS 18.2(b)).
@1.5 Y reaches the zone around the starbord rounding mark (2s) clear ahead of B and B is thereafter required to give Y mark-room with respect to 2s (RRS 18.2(b)).
At no time does B fail to give Y mark-room with respect to 2s and this need not be further considered.
@ 2+delta Y, bearing away becomes overlapped to windward of B and is required to keep clear of B (RRS 11), and does so.
@2.5 Y, whose proper course was to sail close to the mark, gybes onto a course to the mark, and becomes required to keep clear of B on the opposite tack (RRS 10).
@3 B needs to take action to avoid Y, Y does not keep clear of B (RRS 10). but she is exonerated by RRS 43.1(b) because she is sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled.
@3.5 B gybes and becomes overlapped to windward of Y and required to keep clear of Y (RRS 11).
@4 I perceive that Y bears away slightly to avoid B. B does not keep clear of Y and B breaks RRS 11.
Between @3 and @4 B is obstructing Y's course to the mark and B is not giving Y mark-room. B breaks RRS 18.2(b).
From @4+delta, Y the right of way boat is changing course towards B and is required to give B room to keep clear ((RRS 16.1), but if she fails to do so she is exonerated by RRS 43.1(b) because she is sailing within the mrk-room to which she is entitled.
@5 B is obstructing Y from rounding the mark and B is not giving Y mark-room. B breaks RRS 18.2(b).
@5+delta Y, not yet having passed the mark, reaches a close hauled course.
@5+2delta Y has still not yet passed the mark, and continuing to be entitled to mark-room, is sailing above her close hauled course and is no longer sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled. Y is no longer exonerated is she breaks a right of way rule or RRS 16.1. Y is still changing course and required to give B room to keep clear (RRS 16.1), and is doing so.
@6 Y has passed the mark, RRS 18 no longer applies, Y can no longer be exonerated by RRS 43.1(b) if she breaks RRS 16.1. Y is changing course towards B, B is doing all she can to keep clear. There is contact between B and Y, with no injury or damage.
Balance sheet
Decision: Disqualify both boats.