Wow!  Seems bizarre to me.  Blue had positioned herself such that, if Yellow tacked per 18.3, Blue would not be breaking any rule.  Surely, when Yellow failed to tack, Blue was, as a result, compelled to break rule 10.  Should she not therefore be exonerated under C8.1(b)?

Under another scenario with Yellow (leeward) and Blue (windward) sailing overlapped with Blue keeping clear.  Yellow suddenly luffs hard and touches Blue, giving her no opportunity to take avoiding action.  We would penalise Yellow under rule 16.   We wouldn't penalise both boats and then give Yellow an additional penalty.

What's the difference?

David - I think you anwer your own question. In your second case Blue had "no opportunity to take avoiding action". and so was compelled to break a rule. In the Rapid Response Call blue had every opportunity to take avoiding action but did not and as a result broke rule 10 or rule 13 depending on exactly the point at which Yellow has to take avoiding action.

Bill - So what you are saying is that Blue should have anticipated that Yellow was going to break a rule?

I agree with David, there is no reason for Blue to anticipate that yellow was going to break a rule.  While answer may be the same, it is unneccesary hoops to jump through.....either penalize both and then yellow or, just penalize yellow.  I can't get to a red as control did not change.  I might be able to get to a double as it is a breaking a rule in order to gain a signicficant advantage.

David - No, Blue does not have to anticipate anything, she just has to respond to what the other boat was doing as is always the case with the rules. In this case it was Yellow sailing towards her on starboard while she was on port. What actually happened here was that Blue anticipated that Yellow would tack which she didn't. There is no anticipation required to respond to what is actually happening.

To take the second example you give, suppose that it was a rule 17 overlap and Yellow luffed giving Blue room to keep clear but Blue was slow to respond and there was contact. The decision would be penalise both, Blue under rule 11 and Yellow under rule 17. Blue could not claim (as you do here) that had Yellow not broken rule 17 then she would not have broken rule 11. Her failure to respond may have been caused by Yellow breaking the rule but she was not compelled to do so which is what is required for exoneration.

Bill, I disagree .  Per the diagram in the call Blue DID respond to what Yellow did i.e. when it became apparent that Yellow was breaking 18.3, Blue reacted properly.  Had Yellow not broken the rule, Blue would have kept clear (and given room).

In order for Blue not to have been penalised, she would have had to anticipate Yellow's infringement of 18.3.  That is not how the game is played.

Your second para is a differnt kettle of fish completely - you are introducing an additional element which changes the debate completely.  Apples and oranges.

David - We will have to agree to disagree. Blue's obligation to respond to Yellow by keeping clear did not begin when Yellow broke rule 18.3 as you suggest, it began when the boats approached each other on opposite tacks which was much earlier than that  and at a time when Blue had every opportunity to keep clear.

Bill - I agree - but only with your point about disagreeing!  Until the next time!
 

I disagree with you both. To my mind, the word 'compel' is very strong. It means that the boat had no option to obey the rules during the time she was obliged to do so. In the example of windward/leeward with leeward luffing, I agree that the windward boat was compelled to break rule 11; however, she was also sailing within the room to which she was entitled under rule 16 and therefore is exonerated for two reasons. In the situation given in this rapid response call, Blue is not compelled to break rule 10 because she could have tacked to avoid Yellow. And, unlike the case of windward/leeward, Blue is not sailing within any room to which she is entitled. So she doesn't get off the hook.

I think there's a problem with the rules, here. We want to penalize Yellow and exonerate Blue, but no rule allows us to do that. The RR Call basically solves the problem with a double against yellow even though it's not clear why that's the appropriate penalty. But the same problem occurs in fleet racing at a port rounding leeward mark, when rule 18.4 is broken and an oncoming port tack boat is unable to keep clear when the starboard tack boat doesn't jibe at the mark as she was supposed to do. And in that case, there's no way to administer a double penalty to the starboard tack boat!

Somebody should propose wording to solve this. ;-)