Not compiled to inspect for damage.

This should be DP for this problem 
Mike

Mike beat me to it.
Rules such as this should be DP to allow a protest committee to apply common sense.
Hard to see how the RoW boat might not have broken rule 14 which, because there was damage, would preclude any exoneration.

You might want to change that SI to allow for emergencies.   You wouldn’t want to DSQ someone for going out of the cockpit to help someone out of the water or to fix a problem that could be a danger.   

I have concerns about an interpretation of a rule that forbids the crew of a boat from taking prudent seamanlike actions in the event of a collision.

Likewise, I have concerns about whether the SI is an effective prohibition at all.

It looks like a [possibly erroneous] simple statement of fact.  It does not say what crew shall or shall not do.

If it is to be interpreted as an obligation rule, it seems to have some other problems:  it says that crew may not leave the cockpit to go below, either to take shelter from the elements, or to inspect for internal damage or water ingress.

 See Appendix LG 3.5:  it should have the words 'except in an emergency'.

And it should be [NP][DP].

Surely Rule 1 applies. 

"A boat, competitor or support person shall give all possible help to any person or vessel in danger." 

1. Rewrite:  While racing, no crew can leave the cockpit of the boat. to read 'Except in an emergency, no crew shall leave the cockpit or cabin of the boat'


2.  Q1: If the bow-hit boat sends a crew to inspect for damage that might effect the safely of her boat, is she exonerated for breaking the SI by RRS 43.1(a)? 
Only if it is the T-boned boat that broke a rule compelling the bow-hit boat crew to leave the cockpit.

3.  Q2: What if crew were tossed overboard and she had crew leave the cockpit to effect a rescue?   
The crew is required to comply with RRS 1.1, Helping those in danger. Also they are required to comply with RRS 48.2. However, neither RRS 43.1(a) nor 62.1(c) apply so neither exoneration nor redress available. 

I do appreciate the suggestions for SI improvement .. but the OP Q's still stand. 

John A: Correct ... crew can go below. It's a prohibition from being on deck/topsides other than the cockpit. 

Let's assume the boat continued racing because the skipper believed they were exonerated under 43.1(a) .. and another boat saw the crew out of the cockpit and validly protested them. 

You are on the panel in the hearing ... 

Gordon re: "The crew is required to comply with RRS 1.1, Helping those in danger. Also they are required to comply with RRS 48.2. However, neither RRS 43.1(a) nor 62.1(c) apply so neither exoneration nor redress available. "

As a general idea, would 43.1(a) be improved by adding RRS 1.1 as a condition?

If the facts found lead to the conclusion that it was the T-boned boat that broke a rule, that the T-boning boat could not avoid contact, that in view of the damage to the side of the T-boned boat, it was reasonable for the T- boning boat to believe that there was considerable damage to the bow that required immediate inspection to verify the safety of the boat, that the inspection could not be carried out from inside the boat (watertight compartment in the bows, for instance, then the jury could consider exoneration. The outcome would depend on the jury's interpretation on 'compelled'
Personally I would exonerate because it would be unseamanlike, and possibly dangerous, to continue sailing without knowing the nature of any damage. Therefore the only reasonable action of the boat was for a crew member to leave the cockpit to inspect the bow.

I know colleagues who would not exonerate on the basis that to compel means:
 to cause (someone) by force (to be or do something), to obtain by force; or, to overpower or subdue
However, using this dictionary definition any exoneration under 43.1(a) would result from the use of force,  which should be considered as misconduct.  In other words, using the standard dictionary definition does not result in a workable rule.
I believe that the word 'compel' is being used here in the sense of the boat being unavoidably obliged or required to break a rule against their own wishes, because of the action of the other boat. In this case the only reasonable, or seamanlike, action  that the boat can make is to inspect for damage. If the need to inspect for damage was created by the other boat breaking a rule, then exoneration under RRS43.1(a) can be given.

Angelo --

I would argue that:
-- The SI establishes a "Rule" (don't leave the cockpit)
-- There is evidence that one or more boats required that crew leave the cockpit while racing to evaluate the danger, repair damage, or standby to render aid.
-- I'd argue that Rule 43.1.a exonerates everyone except the boat that is found to have caused the original problem. "Rule 42.1.1a When as a consequence of breaking a rule a boat has compelled another boat to break a rule, the other boat is exonerated for her breach." Every boat, that is inspecting for damage or standing by to render aid is "the other boat" mentioned in Rule 43.1.(a). (The rule could be made more readable by putting a "(s)" at the end of "boat" in the bit I just quoted, but it doesn't change the logic.) 
-- I'd ague that Rule 62.1.c allows redress under the same logic.

What am I missing here?

RRS 86 does not allow a change to any rule in Part 1.  There is a conflict between RRS 1.1 and the SI’s.  The panel would I believe find that the SI’s are wrong and allow for the crew to tend to their safety.  

That sounds exactly right to me. Surely a SI that contradicts a fundamental rule must be invalid. 

A few thoughts...

This may all be somewhat academic.  Depending on the actual situation (on a beat to windward, did port hit starboard or did starboard hit port?), there was at least a RoW rule broken and one (port hits stbd) or both boats (stbd hits port) broke RRS 14.  Here we are either finding either the only rule that a boat broke or adding another rule to the list that a boat broke.

I think if I were on the jury, I would be inclined broadly interpret 'compelled' to include the necessary actions that are a direct result of the causal rule being broken to get to where I can apply exoneration under 43.1(a).

As far as changing the SI language, I would look at what is in 49.2 and, rather than the 'emergency' option, go with 'except briefly to perform a necessary task.'  This allows for someone to go outside of the cockpit to fix a fouled sheet or other problem.  Inspecting for damage would certainly be necessary.

Rick ... conflict between SI and RRS 1.1 ... 

That's an interesting approach I hadn't considered. 

Gordon re: "I know colleagues who would not exonerate on the basis that to compel means: .. to cause (someone) by force (to be or do something), to obtain by force; or, to overpower or subdue"

That was basically where we landed when we were talking about it ... that it would depend upon the panel and how adamant panel members were one way or the other on applying "compelled"

Re "If the facts found lead to the conclusion that it was the T-boned boat that broke a rule, that the T-boning boat could not avoid contact, that in view of the damage to the side of the T-boned boat, it was reasonable for the T- boning boat to believe that there was considerable damage to the bow that required immediate inspection to verify the safety of the boat, that the inspection could not be carried out from inside the boat (watertight compartment in the bows, for instance, then the jury could consider exoneration. "

Yes .. those were the facts I attempted to set out in the OP.  I like your thoughts following that. 

John C re: it's academic ... I can assure you that it isn't. 

Ang,  John A: Correct ... crew can go below. It's a prohibition from being on deck/topsides other than the cockpit. 

That's not what I said, I said the opposite:  as written crew can NOT go below, but must remain in the cockpit.

Angelo, 

There are numerous examples of the use of the word "Compel" and "Compelled" that do not involve force in use in English every day.

For example:
- I was compelled by affection to declare my love for you
- It was a compelling argument

In common use one is "compelled" by an argument, affection, force, coercion, belief in a religion, regulations, or the law. It would be quite correct to say that the known damage to the boat and the potential loss of life if the boat sunk compelled the crew to leave the cockpit and break the SI. I think your friends have a strangely restrictive view of how the word Compel is used in English.

from Webster's Dictionary:

com·​pel kəm-ˈpel 

1: to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly
Hunger compelled him to eat.
The general was compelled to surrender.

2: to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure
Public opinion compelled her to sign the bill.

3 archaic : to drive together

John A re: "That's not what I said, I said the opposite:  as written crew can NOT go below, but must remain in the cockpit."

Right ... I was correcting myself not you.  I didn't cut/paste the actual SI but attempted to write the scenario from scratch that gave the gist of the issue.  

The actual SI allows crew down below. 

Beau re: "I think your friends have a strangely restrictive view of how the word Compel is used in English"

I never characterized what "my friends" thought ... other than we collectively could imagine (as did Gordon imagine) that some judges might take a narrower view.   Even on this thread some have expressed themselves along those lines. 

As civil-discussion note from the forum moderator ... let's please refrain from characterizing other's POV as "strange".  It doesn't benefit the discussion. 

If race committees keep writing detailed safety instructions into their SIs, race committees will become ultimately responsible for everyone’s safety and that leads to the end of Corinthian sailing. Safety is the responsibility of individual boats.
That aside your SI does not constitute a rule as it is merely an incorrect statement of capability. 

Angelo - I'm deeply sorry if I've offended anyone. Point taken. It was not my intent.

Thanks Beau ... all clear.