I sent the comment below to Scuttlebutt in the sequence of the post " Was it impossible to avoid contact?" published in Scuttlebutt Sailing News 6512, on 17/03/2026
I believe that many judges and sailors might have a different opinion.
All the best,
Luis Leal de Faria
Case 87 follows what rule 14 says, and it could not be otherwise. In fact, it does not add anything to rule 14, so it might be deleted.
In my opinion, the problem in these situations of a right-of-way boat not avoiding contact (I am not specifically referring to case 87) lies within rule 14, as it contradicts itself in many situations. I would say that with what is written in its last paragraph, rule 14 is an invitation to unseamanlike sailing (protected by the rules), which might result in collisions with possible injuries, even fatalities.
Sailing in a seamanlike way includes trying to avoid contact, and that is the aim of the first part of rule 14 (if reasonably possible a boat shall avoid contact and not cause contact). Mainly with modern boats (which can turn almost on themselves), a give-way boat may get very close (2, 1 or even less boat-lengths) to a right-of-way boat and still be able to maneuver and keep clear of her. So, in quite many situations, mainly when it looks quite likely that the other boat will not keep clear, if a boat waits for the time when it becomes clear that she is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, it might no longer be possible to avoid contact. So, even if, by maneuvering earlier, it would be reasonably possible to avoid contact (as the first part of rule 14 requires a boat to do), the right-of-way boat, or a boat sailing in a room or mark-room to which she is entitled, is cleared under rule 14, even if a collision results in serious damage or, worse, injuries or even fatalities. Is that reasonable? In my opinion it is not.
I believe that the last paragraph of rule 14 should be deleted. Might ruling rule 14 become too subjective? Well, to some extent it is already subjective (what is “reasonable”? How to establish the moment when it became clear that the other boat was not keeping clear?). And as subjective as ruling many other rules is. That is why judges are there. Otherwise, all protests might be dealt with by computers. And we may always apply the "reasonable apprehension of collision" principle used in Case 50 to support the right-of-way boat's action.
And the situation becomes even worse with rule 61.4(b) (2) and (3). Confident that they will be entitled to redress, many sailors do not try hard enough to avoid contact. They rely on the redress, even if they cannot sail one or more races. I am quite sure that, if these rules (is sailing the only sport with such a rule?) or if the last paragraph of rule 14 did not exist, the number of contacts with injury or damage would be substantially reduced.
All the best,
Luis
I would say in Case 87 the fact that S in the facts given didn't at least attempt to avoid the collision would indicate that they did break rule 14, but could be instead be exonerated. (If I'm hailing Starboard and I see no action or acknowledgment on the other boat, I'm starting to think about tacking and protesting). Which leads me to 43 Exoneration. More specifically 43.1(c) " ..[.she] is exonerated for breaking rule 14 if the contact does not cause damage or injury." Which I think is a better way to look at it, and maybe that needs to be ported into rule 14 proper. I'm not going to press my luck in a dangerous situation which is the actual intent of having it possible to have both boats break Rule 14 in the first place.
Both in the IRPCAS and the RRS, the first obligation of the ROW boat is to hold course and speed so that the keep clear boat can fulfill her obligations. In the RRS, if the ROW boat changes course, she must do so in a way that gives the keep clear boat room to keep clear. I think the rule change you are suggesting would put the ROW boat in an impossible situation: she must both avoid contact and not change course.
For the IRPCAS, boats are not expected to get nearly as close as we do when racing. There is time to sound 5 blasts to let the other boat know "we are in danger and I am uncertain of your intentions."
The RRS anticipate very close maneuvering. If the ROW boat were both required to avoid and to hold course, I'm not sure how one could fulfill that. I think expecting both boats to be maneuvering to avoid at the same time without a very clear expectation of which way each will maneuver would lead to more collisions.
When I explain rule 14, I point out that it is pretty much irrelevant for the keep clear boat: she broke whatever rule required her to keep clear.
For the ROW boat, you should hold course so Keep Clear can avoid. At the point you realize Keep Clear is not avoiding, there are two possibilities:
I also don't think there are many sailors that want to damage their boats or worse when they could avoid.
So, I guess put me on the list that disagrees with you.
RRS rule 16.1 requires that when a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear. If the right-of-way boat starts changing course before it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear then the right-of-way risks breaking rule 16.1.
I agree I think you do need that last paragraph, but I do see a case for not allowing a free pass if there was damage. Safety over tactics I'm ok making the ROW boat think twice is the cross is worth it if the other boat isn't looking? You don't have to succeed in avoiding the collision, but try. Racing with holes in your boat is slow anyway and we've come a long way with the rules no longer encouraging "tapping out" an opponent.
Case 87 is a bad example, what really messes those starts up is there are 3 boats to leeward preventing P3 from ducking and tacking may not avoid impact. P3 still at fault, yes, but there wasn't room to avoid either.