To have the middle Port boat exonerated, you would have to have some fact to support that she was compelled to break rule 10.

If you found as fact that all 3 Port boats saw and ignored Starboard, then you've also got Rule 2 going on (doesn't have to be "all", "any" would suffice).  If they didn't see S or were compelled to not keep-clear, then Rule 2 wouldn't be an issue.

WE have the same situation and i wonder if  in this true course should be after the start. I know it is not in the rules YET.

Assuming S was established on starboard in time for the port boats to keep clear and held her course until rule 14 applied then S is right of way boat with bo obligation to give room to keep clear and one or more port boats infringed when S had to luff to avoid collision.  PW could have luffed to keep clear so that she broke rule 10 and is not exonerated.  If PW could have luffed behind PW, she broke rule 10 and is not exonerated.  If not, she is exonerated because she was prevented by PW (windward, give way boat) from keeping clear.  PL could have gybed onto starboard and initially kept clear before becoming right of way boat under rule 12.  PL broke rule 10 and is not exonerated.

I have team raced on the Schlei with a similar downwind start and a fixed line from a dock to a navigation mark.   In that case shallow water beyond the pin meant tack at the dock and approach the favoured pin end on port.  Interesting but not the chaos one might imagine.  

No proper course before the starting signal.  After the starting signal, S is not constrained by any requirement re proper course.  

This is actually kind of interesting.  While you might think that all three port tackers may have broken rule 10, in all likelihood, only PW broke rule 10.  PL and PM are 'protected' by PW.  If you take a look at WS Case 147, you will see something similar.  Once S changed course to avoid PW, PW has broken rule 10.  But now S is on a course where PM and PL are keeping clear.  The reason that S is on this new course is not relevant.  Nor is the fact that, in the absence of PW, PM or PL might have needed to do something to keep clear of S.  What is relevant is that for PM or PL to no longer be keeping clear of S after the course change to avoid PW, S would have to change course and would be required by rule 16 to give PM & PL room to keep clear after the course change.  It certainly looks like the P boats are all close enough that this would not be the case and S would be at risk of breaking rule 16.

Depending on facts found I could make a case that if PL failed to keep clear (which she could have done by gybing) and thereby prevented PM and PW from gybing, all three broke 10. It appears PW also had an option to head up and possibly tack to keep clear of S. If either PW or PL had maneuvered PM could have followed, but when neither did PM had no place to go so she's exonerated as she was compelled to break the rule. 

S did everything right except for failing to protest. 

Tim - I would be interested in what those facts might be and how those would exonerate PW.  PW has complete control over keeping clear of S by heading up and taking S's stern.  PW has an out and doesn't take it, so she is not compelled to break a rule and there is no exoneration.  PW doesn't get to force PM or PL to gybe to avoid S.

W should protest each and every boat that she had a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision with, had she not changed course, regardless of intervening boats. Picture a pile-up of four boats.
Even PM chose to make a port gybe approach with full knowledge of the eventual and likely circumstances.
Per the diagram, PM is not physically overlapped with PW, hence PM could have luffed above S and kept clear. She chose not to.

Phil - I assume you mean S and not W.

Just because there was a chance of a boat on stbd doesn't make any of the boats on port guilty of breaking rule 10 or guilty by association.

PM will not have to do anything to give S room once S alters course to avoid PW.  Unless S changes course again, PM and PL are keeping clear.  Case 147 makes this clear.

Yes, S.
PM not guilty by association, and not guilty - until she eventually is.

John, I don't think PW is exonerated as she has an out even if PL and PM do nothing. There doesn't appear to be anything preventing PW from heading up to a reciprocal course with S and eventually taking S's stern. 

If the jury finds that PM had an opportunity to maneuver to keep clear when PL and PM did nothing then she's not exonerated either. But if there was nothing she could do to keep clear of S without contacting either PL or PM she's exonerated. 

Tim - I'm not following the P's in your second paragraph.  I think there are supposed to be some PWs in there somewhere.

PW is really the only boat at risk here.  PW is the first boat that S encounters and PW does nothing to keep clear and S has to alter course to avoid.  Whether PM or PL would have kept clear if PW had maneuvered to keep clear of S is moot.  PW didn't keep clear and PM and PL didn't have to do anything to keep clear of S once S altered course.

Thank you for the great comments everyone! I think John Christman's answer makes sense and I'll read the case he cited. 

As you mite guess, I was S. There was plenty of time for PW to alter course to yield. Since she did not, I had to come up hard to clear her stern and come down slow to avoid hitting PM. I did hail "protest." There was nothing PM could have done to avoid me if I had come down hard. PL was no longer an issue at that point. Despite my yelling "STARBOARD" and PW's driver looking right at us, I think it was more of a panic situation for her and I don't think her crew knew what to do, so they froze. In fact they were so rattled and busy looking at us that shortly after this incident they struck another boat. It was pretty loud and they are lucky the wind was just 10 kts. Unless I know she deliberately ignored us I'll give her the benefit of doubt. That said, she didn't do any turns. 

These are all yachts ranging from about 32 feet to 42 feet. It was the Turkey Day regatta, which is the last race of the year for us. It was an unimportant standalone race, and no one was in a mood to attend a protest. It was not the only rule 10 incident of the day. Toward the end of the race I was nearly T Boned by another boat from another class. So it was an "exciting" day, probably the most exciting day of the entire season! 

Nobody had to go to a protest hearing. PW at least clearly infringed and could have done turns. Sounds like PM was exonerated & PL kept clear. Hopefully this was at least discussed in the bar. 

In fact, the proper thing for PW to do at this point is to retire. Maybe your chief judge or RC chair should have a word. 

In my experience boats that get protested & suffer consequences generally (not always) learn the rules (at least the one they broke) and are more careful in the future. Boats that don't, don't. 

Tim Hohmann

Said Created: Today 17:17

Depending on facts found, but as diagrammed, I don't think that S ever gets close enough to PL for PL to fail to keep clear of her.

Unlike room, keep clear does not include room to comply with other rules. 

There would probably come a time, as S, bearing away behind PW and approaching PM is an obstruction to PM, and also an obstruction to PL, so that PL is required to give PM room to pass between S and herself (RRS 19). If PL does not give PM room to comply with PL's obligations with respect to S, PL compels PM to break rule 10.

As soon as you say S is changing course rule 16 kicks in and S is required to give both boats the room to keep clear.  Given the diagram, I can't see how PM and PL could do anything but continue straight ahead as their best course of action to keep clear of S.

Dear everybody. I may miss something, but the way I see it is as follows. As long as S is on starboard  you will agree that all P-boats have an obligation to keep clear. The starting line mark is a mark, so it has a zône around it. Therefore RRS 18 applies. This is missing in the comments above. From the diagram there is overlap between S and  PW when the first of them reaches the zône, which entitles S to mark-room. So she should also be given room to gybe around the mark.
S is an obstruction to PW and PW has a choice as to  which side to pass it. If she decides to bear off to provide mark room to S,  PM and PL  will have to follow suit, not unlike any ordinary leeward rounding mark. 
S protest PM or PL as the facts will show.

Feike

Feike - rule 18 does not apply per the preamble to Section C.  That it is a downwind as opposed to an upwind start does not matter.  This is simply a starboard-port incident.

John, you are absolutely right. My fault.
Feike

John C re: “While you might think that all three port tackers may have broken rule 10, in all likelihood, only PW broke rule 10.  PL and PM are 'protected' by PW.  If you take a look at WS Case 147, you will see something similar.  Once S changed course to avoid PW, PW has broken rule 10.  But now S is on a course where PM and PL are keeping clear.  The reason that S is on this new course is not relevant.  Nor is the fact that, in the absence of PW, PM or PL might have needed to do something to keep clear of S. ”

I like how you described this.  It really comes down to the accuracy of the drawing (and evidence gathered in the room) and relative position of the 3 P boats.  Move PM a bit more forward filling the space between PL and PW (and overlapping both) and all of a sudden it’s falling on PL room to avoid an obstruction (as John A mentioned earlier).  

All it would take is the nose of PM to overlap both PL and PW. 

PS: Even as drawn, as soon as PW bares away a little, we could see the situation above, as PW’s downward angle could put PM as overlapped between both PL and PW. 

I'm not sure how PM having an overlap matters.  PL and PW are still overlapped so rule 19.2 would apply between them.  But first PW has to do something and PL only has to give her enough room to keep clear of S, if PW takes more room she breaks 11. They cannot assume that S is going to gybe (although that is probably where the smart money is) and just bear off enough to give her room to go around the mark and gybe.  Also, once PW bears off a little she would probably be overlapped with PM, no rule 15, but 11 & 19.2 would immediately apply between them.

Note, if this was the entire fleet and I were on starboard here, I might be tempted not to gybe and throw the rest of the fleet in turmoil.  I would gybe once I saw one of the Ps luff up to take my stern. :-D

A gybe by S would put her in immediate peril and fault. 

The rest of the fleet was not close, and the approach I made was planned to either give me the option to gybe and start right away or continue on starboard and see how the other boats yielded, and what room they would create. I have done this before, worked a treat. I didn't anticipate I would just be ignored. Next time I'll plan accordingly. 

Really, the RC needs to stop with these starts. We need a boat or a robot mark, that's all being worked on. In the meantime, the craziness will continue. I expect it won't be long before other boats start to follow my lead and then, well, we'll have some real fun! 

Phil - I'll grant you that if S gybes into an overlapped and windward position she is immediately subject to rule 11, but I don't see how that would make her 'at fault'.  If PW has done nothing to avoid S and S gybes instead of luffing to avoid a collision, PW has still broken rule 10.  It may not be S's best out and if there was contact, perhaps, a PC would decide she broke 14 because by luffing she could have reasonably avoided the collision but chose to gybe instead.

John C re: “I'm not sure how PM having an overlap matters.”

Only in that it would more immediately take away the area to leeward of PW and press the issue to PL more quickly.  As it is, it appears that PM is clear astern of both PL and PW and PW was plenty of space to head down. 

Jim Archer

Said Created: Today 17:52

There's nothing wrong with the starting line configuration.

All that is necessary is for boats to comply with the When Boats Meet rules.

Philip Hubbell

Said Created: Today 17:43

Wow, doesn't that sound all rulesy and official.

John Christman

Said Created: Today 17:54

Before becoming bound by RRS 11, from the instant that S bears away into her gybe she is required by RRS 16.1 to give PW room to keep clear.

As diagrammed boats are about 1.5 boat lengths apart.  Advance each boat half a boat length, and you have S gybing within half a boat length of PW.  It may or may not be possible for PW to luff behind S and keep clear.  If PW does all she can to keep clear and there is contact, then S has not given room to keep clear and broken RRS 16.1, and PW is exonerated.

By gybing, S may not necessarily be at fault, but she's certainly at risk.

John A re: “Advance each boat half a boat length, and you have S gybing within half a boat length of PW.  It may or may not be possible for PW to luff behind S and keep clear.  If PW does all she can to keep clear and there is contact, then S has not given room to keep clear and broken RRS 16.2, and PW is exonerated.”

It appears to me that S is closer to the mark than PW and that progressing them puts PW’s bow into S’s starboard midship on the line-side of the pin.  With 1.5-2 BL’s clear to leeward of PW, S might anticipate that PW would alter course to leeward into that space.

Once it became clear to S that PW was not keeping clear, S’s best move to avoid a collision might reasonably be to gybe, possibly hitting the pin in the process, providing room downwind for PW to sail into. If there is contact she does not break rule 14 by that rule’s caveat. If one finds that S broke 16.1, she is exonerated by 43.1(a) as PW compelled her to do so while PW broke rule 10. 

It would come down to evidence as to when it became clear to S that PW was not keeping clear, her actions at that point in time and whether or not those actions were reasonably an earnest attempt to avoid contact with PW. 

Ang,

Maybe we''re speculating too much based on a pretty rough and ready diagram.

With boats stacked up to leeward of her, I wouldn't expect PW to try to gybe, particularly when there is clear water to windward of her to allow her to luff behind S.

I wouldn't expect S to deliberately gybe into the pin to avoid contact when, once again, there was clear water to windward of her to luff behing PW, which, according to Jim's later post is what she did.

Question:  Is an action to avoid contact that breaks a rule (RRS 31) and is unseamanlike (it is unseamanlike to hit a buoy), 'reasonable', hence within the scope of 'reasonably possible' for RRS 14?

In answer to John A's question:

First - there is no mention of 'seamanlike' in rule 14.  We often apply that test to help us with what is 'reasonable' but it isn't really a part of it. 

I think there are a lot of factors that go into the 'reasonableness' decision when considering whether a boat broke rule 14.  For example, what were the other options?  In this case, the best option to avoid everything, boats and marks, probably was for S to luff up.  If contact still occurred then a PC could decide that S did everything she reasonably could have.  The types of boats (speed and maneuverability), sea state, wind speed, etc. also plays into this.  Would your decision be different if these were 40 heavy displacement keel boats or foiling dinghies?

Suppose S hit the mark (an inflatable) either before or after gybing instead of PW and protested claiming that PW's breaking of 10 compelled her to break 31 and possibly 11 in order to not break rule 14.  A PC could decide that S's choice of gybing put her in that position and S didn't do what was 'reasonably possible' to avoid a collision as she had the 'up' option and didn't take it.  S doesn't automatically get a free pass for making the wrong decision.  However, if the PC decides that gybing was a 'reasonable' option and the choice of hitting the mark instead of PW was the best of two bad options, then they should exonerate S for hitting the mark.  The upshot is a good decision after a bad one, doesn't make it good overall.

Suppose S hit PW instead of the mark (the mark was a big steel government buoy), again the thought process is about the same.  Was what S did what would be 'reasonably' possible?  S still initially took the bad option for the situation.  Again, a PC could decide that even though S tried to do something, it wasn't what was reasonably possible and therefore S still broke 14.

Consider a situation with foiling dinghies.  Would it be 'reasonable' for a dinghy to capsize to avoid a major collision where people could be hurt and serious damage occurred to the boats?  These boats capsize all the time, even though it isn't really considered seamanlike.  I would hope that someone would take that option instead of having a collision and claiming that they couldn't reasonably avoid the collision because they would have capsized.

Same idea with a big keel boat and rounding up.  While rounding up may not be seamanlike, it may be reasonable to avoid a collision.

To the Johns: IMO it comes down to what were the specific boat orientations and distance at the moment it became “… clear that the other boat [PW] was not keeping clear”

Case 87 “A right-of-way boat need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear.”

From Case 87’s Discussion …

“However, rule 14(a) allowed S to sail her course in the expectation that P3 would keep clear as required, until such time as it became clear that P3 would not do so”

This is an instance where we would have to find the understanding S had.  It’s often said that except for Rule 2, what’s in a helmsman’s head is irrelevant. But rule 14 relies on finding the moment in the mind that something becomes “clear”. 

As you say JC, if at that moment it was reasonable to think that gybing could avoid boat-boat contact (or minimize damage/injury), then we might find S made a reasonable decision.  And it she hits the mark, could be exonerated. 

To use the standard judge/umpire answer 'it depends'. :-)

> Would it be 'reasonable' for a dinghy to capsize to avoid a major collision

I've certainly crashtacked into an inevitable capsize to avoid a port tack boat that wasn't keep clear. Yards short of the finish line. He crashed tacked too at the last second, we both ended up in the p*** and the RC was highly amused.
 
My feeling is that you probably wouldn't succeed in chucking the boat in fast enough to avoid an inevitable collision while sailing in a straight line. The crashtack and swim is liable to be the quickest way of stopping.

Something has been bothering me in this thread regarding the discussion of S’s 16.1 obligation to PW. I think I can put into words what’s been gnawing at me. 

Rephrased the question boils-down to:

I think there is danger of circular logic in applying 16.1 in the above situation. The point of 16.1 is to provide a KC boat, who is already keeping clear, room to continue to do so.  At the point ROW determines (“is clear”) that KC is not keeping-clear, ROW is obliged to avoid contact under rule 14. If ROW changes course under her rule 14 obligation, that change of course does not covey room-rights to KC, that was not keeping clear in the first place.

In our OP, when it is clear to S that PW is not keeping clear, under rule 14 she must try to avoid contact, which may include altering course. If S alters course when it is clear that PW is not keeping clear, rule 16.1 does not apply between them.

This train of thought is supported by MR Rapid Response Call 2021.001 Q/A#2.

Ang - I agree that S cannot break 16 if PW is already not keeping clear.  However, I think there is a grey area here where S is anticipating that PW will not keep clear and it is clear that PW is actually not keeping clear.  Perhaps that bit of time between PW being able to do something seamanlike and something un-seamanlike to keep clear.  PW can argue that they would have kept clear of S even though they had to do something un-seamanlike and S's alteration prevented that.  If S gybes in the time where she is anticipating ("I don't think PW is going to get out of our way") but before it is clear ("We have to do something or we will hit them!") is when there can be a 16 issue.  S should get the benefit of the doubt on when that transition is.  I can say as an umpire in match racing, I have green flagged incidents where the ROW boat altered course and flagged and I felt that they were not close enough to justify saying the other boat would not have kept clear.

16.1.  When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear.
The words shall give here have two interpretations:
Maintain room to keep clear of ROW's change of course. (The usual interpretation)
Create room to keep clear.* 
Hence, whichever avoidance S takes, she is never in violation of 16.

*This does not go so far as to say that a ROW boat shall change course to create room to keep clear, but 14 and 1.1 cover that issue.
14 could be strengthened to allow or require actions to minimize anticipated damage.

John C re: “However, I think there is a grey area here where S is anticipating that PW will not keep clear and it is clear that PW is actually not keeping clear.  Perhaps that bit of time between PW being able to do something seamanlike and something un-seamanlike to keep clear.”

I see what you are suggesting.  That said, the RRS and Cases seem to combine to shrink that ”grey area” in time.

When we consider together:

When we mix all those together, don’t we get to the point that ROW can delay acting to avoid contact until there is a “genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision”, and at that point, ROW’s actions to avoid contact “sets the time” that the KC boat did not keep clear (the basis in Case 50 for the KC boat to be DSQ’d)?

Until that time, Case 87 tells us that ROW “need not act” and that “ .. [ROW can] sail her course in the expectation that P3 [the KC-boat] would keep clear as required”

FWIW, Case 50 shows ROW changing course < 1/2 BL from KC. 

Regarding the grey area, in my experience, the port tacker in a Rule 10 situation pretty much always insists that she was going to tack and that S tacked earlier than necessary. Of course if it goes to protest everyone disagrees on who was how far away when, how much wind, what were the seas... I have taken the approach of avoiding contact at the last possible instant; By the time I am avoiding, it would be impossible for the KC boat to claim I altered course but didn't give her time to react, because there is no avoidance possible at that point. That's my own way of dealing with this "grey area" being discussed. 

I sailed almost exclusively fast dinghies which will almost certainly capsize if crash tacked, and will almost certainly involve serious damage if they collide at  speed so consider that background. 

It seems to me that genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision occurs some time before last possible instant, and if I am going to have to tack from flat out on trapeze or sliding seat without capsize there will be an inevitable slowing as I prepare to tack. I note also that the rule says 'need not act until', not 'may not act until'. Also if I fear I will need to duck behind a port tack boat I tend to duck fairly early so I can come up as close to their stern as possible and lose as little as possible. In craft I sail it seems to me that waiting until the last possible instant something of a high risk exercise. 

As a sideways thought though, if I depower and slow ready for a potential emergency tack, and as a result the port boat crosses ahead, has port failed to keep clear even if I don't eventually have to change course? Generally RRS doesn't seem to consider speed changes. 

Well of course, "last possible instant" is relative to the boats. 

To the Jim’s:  re “last possible second”. 

Isn’t that the main effect of Case 50? A “genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision” is a standard earlier in time than “last possible second”. 

The benefit of the doubt definitely goes to the ROW boat.  This is especially true when you are on a protest committee in the room rather than an umpire on the water watching it unfold in front of you.  As an umpire you can make a pretty solid judgement on whether the KC boat still could keep clear by doing something and whether the ROW boat really had to do something.

IMHO, the 'reasonable apprehension' test does move the point in time earlier, but this is also what helps to create the grey area in the first place.  Now we get to try and figure out if the 'apprehension' was 'reasonable', whatever that means.  If you are driving a wooden piece of furniture, all varnished and pretty, that apprehension might happen much earlier than if you driving the same kind boat made of fiberglass.  But should that count?

On another note, slowing down and speeding up is not changing your compass course.  So, by slowing down and not changing course, all you did was let the port tacker cross.  If they are that close to crossing, you are better off keeping your speed up and ducking to make your point.

Exactly, this is why I try to leave no doubt. I don't mean to imply people should be reckless, as the ROW boat we still need to avoid contact in a seamanlike manner whenever possible. The reality is, the vast majority of races don't have the benefit of an umpire, and the vast majority of jurors are not as well informed and skilled as those people who participate here. At least where I sail (and have sailed in the past) when talking about amateur races, the best way to win a simple Rule 10 or 11 protest as the ROW boat is to leave no doubt.