It is a very interesting case.

It took me a while to understand why Y was not exonerated for breaking rule 31. Both 21.b) and 64.1.a) require a boat to be compelled to break a rule and Y was not compelled to hit the mark because she always had the chance to pass the mark on the wrong side. Very interesting...

I only have one concern, about a tiny detail. The decision will not change, but...
Answer 1 states that: "A breaks rules 11 (against X) and 18.2(b) against both X and Y. In no case is she entitled to exoneration." It also states that Y broke rule 11 against A [and X]? but is exonerated for that breach. My concern is that A could have been compelled to break 11 and 18.2(b) against X, because Y failed to keep clear under 11. In other words, A failed to keep clear and to give mark-room to X because Y prevented her to sail on the wrong side of the mark. So technically A could be exonerated for her breach of rule 11 and 18.2(b) against X under (a). The fact that Y is exonerated of her breach does not prevent to apply 64.1(a).

The decision will not change because her rule 18.2(b) breach against Y would remain.

"I only have one concern, about a tiny detail. The decision will not change, but...
Answer 1 states that: "A breaks rules 11 (against X) and 18.2(b) against both X and Y. In no case is she entitled to exoneration." It also states that Y broke rule 11 against A [and X]? but is exonerated for that breach. My concern is that A could have been compelled to break 11 and 18.2(b) against X, because Y failed to keep clear under 11. In other words, A failed to keep clear and to give mark-room to X because Y prevented her to sail on the wrong side of the mark. So technically A could be exonerated for her breach of rule 11 and 18.2(b) against X under 64.1(a). The fact that Y is exonerated of her breach does not prevent to apply 64.1(a).

The decision will not change"



I think you're right, Francisco - there is an incorrect interpretation of the application of the rules.

I once found something similar in The Call Book for Team Racing.

Pls look to TR CALL L4:

"Question 1

X is sailing to get clear in order to take a penalty. Y is overlapped to leeward of

both X and B and subject to rule 17 for both overlaps. Y and B are both sailing

proper courses and Y will make contact with X if she maintains her course. Y

luffs when she is two lengths from X and as a result Y and B pass astern of X. B

keeps clear of Y and protests. What should the call be? 

Answer 1

Penalize X. X is overlapped to windward of Y and is required to keep clear of

her. As Y has to luff to avoid X, X fails to keep clear and breaks rule 11.

Although the incident is between X and Y, which are boats on the same team, it

also involves B. It is only because X breaks rule 11 that Y’s proper course is to

luff to avoid her and this luff directly affects B. If X was keeping clear of Y, Y’s

luff would break rule 17. Therefore rule D1.3(c) does not apply and X is

penalized."  

I think there (red color text) is incorrect interpretation of the definition Proper Course.

As the rule 17 is apply between Y and X so the boat X is «the other boat[s] referred to in the rule using the term.» - see the definition Proper Course: “A course a boat would sail to finishas soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term.”

 

Question: Would Y does the luff to sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence X (and B)?  Answer: No.

Therefore, Y’s luffing due the presence of the boat X, it is not her proper course. 

Though it does not affect the Call's decision - Y breaking Rule 17 with respect to  B, but she does so because X breaking Rule 11 and therefore Y shall be exonerated by Rule 64.1(а). And in this case assertion of involvement in the incident the boat B  looks more logical -  because in relation to her a rule were violated.

Yes Francisco I agree but with a slight variation. The way I see it is that A has been compelled to break 18.2(b) and 11 in respect of X because Y is also breaking 18.2(b) in respect of X. It is because of that breach that A is entitled to exoneration under 64.1(a) . My reading of 64.1(a) is that the requirement is for a boat to be compelled to break a rule by another boat breaking a rule, there does not seem to be any need for the rule that is being broke to apply between the boat breaking the rule and the boat being compelled to break a rule. As you rightly say this does not affect the decision as A breaks 18.2(b) in respect of Y as a separate issue and should be penalized.

The second part of the question is unchanged but additionally if both Y and A passed the wrong side of the mark then neither of them would have broken a rule in respect of X. A would have broken 18..2(b) in respect of Y and should be penalized for that.

It should be born in mind that in this incident X breaks rule 14 as she could have easily born away and avoided contact. Rule 21 does not provide exoneration for breaking rule 14 so if there is any damage or injury to any of the boats including X herself then she should be penalized.

Finally it seems to me that although this call was for team racing the changes made to 18.2(b) under D 1.1(b) do not materially affect the situation for fleet racing and this call would remain good under the normal 18.2(b).

Boris, I am not sure that the wording you highlight in red is incorrect. Bear in mind that rule 17 does not apply between multiple boats, the rule is clearly written as applying between a boat (singular) and a boat (also singular). In the case you quote we have the rule applying twice, between Y/ X and Y/B as two totally separate situations.

My interpretation would be that B's protest is in relation to Y sailing above her proper course in respect of B only and the relationship between Y and X is irrelevant because the rule 17 protest by B is limited to her interaction with Y alone. Would Y have sailed that course in the absence of B to finish as quickly as possible, the answer is yes and therefore Y is not sailing above her proper course.

The definition of Proper Course does mention "boats" in the plural but of course there are rules other than rule 17 that mention Proper Course where it would be possible for multiple boats to be involved.

'... her proper course in respect of..."

Bill
So we shold assume that the same a boat's course at the same time can be both proper and not proper?
It seems to me that this should not be so.

Boris - To start with basics, there is no rule that requires a boat to sail her proper course - rule 17 just requires a boat not to sail above her proper course in certain circumstances.

In the example in question Y was subject to rule 17 in respect of X . In order to meet her rule 17 obligations with X she luffed to "promptly pass astern" of X as required by rule 17 .  Y was also subject to rule 17 in respect of B and should not sail above her Proper Course which according to the definition would be the course she would sail in the absence of B to finish as soon as possible. Luffing astern of X is exactly the course Y would have sailed had B not been there so at no time does X sail above her Proper Course.

Bill, please answer two questions (let's forget while about the boat B):

1. Is X  "the other boat  referred to in the rule using the term"?

2. Would Y does the luff to sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence X?

Boris 
a X is the other boat referred to in the rule which is rule 17 as it applies between X and Y - remember the rule replies between "a boat" and "a boat" (both singular) according to the wording of the rule.
b No but Y complies with her rule 17 obligations in respect of X because "in doing so she promptly sails astern" of X as required by the rule.

a X is the other boat referred to in the rule
b No

So, if a) X is "the other boat referred to in the rule using the term” and b) Y’s course is a course that she would not sailing (for "to sail to finish as soon as possible") in the absence X, may we name this Y’s course  “Proper Course” (see the definition)? 

The call was in respect of a protest by B against Y so you can't ignore B as the relationship between Y and B is the only subject of the protest and subsequent call. The course Y sailed was the one she would have done to finish as soon as possible in the absence of B. I agree entirely with the publisher of the Call in the Team Racing Call Book.

 

you can't ignore B as the relationship between Y and B 

Bill, I don't do this.

 Y and B is the only subject of the protest and subsequent call. 

Х is subject of the call too.

We  can't ignore Х as the relationship between Y and Х, too. And we can’t ignore the definitions of RRS. We must read them literally.

 I agree entirely with the publisher of the Call in the Team Racing Call Book

.  OK, but me and some others (Dave Perry for instance) don’t agree.

I really don't think we are going anywhere on this. For reasons I have given several times on this thread I agree with the reasoning in the call. Clearly you don't, and nothing I say is going to persuade you otherwise so we should agree to disagree and let it rest.

Please consider that this is not a rapid response call but a call in the Team Racing Call book. The Introduction to the RRS states that this is an "authoritative interpretation" in the same way as a WS Case is for fleet racing. These interpretations only become authoritative having been considered and approved by the rules committee of WS (actually at the time it was probably ISAF) which comprises a large number of senior international judges and umpires. I guess you can disagree with these authoritative interpretations if you want but as judges we have to accept them as written and apply them without variation.