Here's one which has bothered me for years. (Similar, but different to another recent thread on RRS14 and Case 87.)
*On the Water:*
Two boats (W and L) are sailing downwind, on quite different but converging courses. Both helms are very competent sailors.
W, watching the situation carefully, intentionally waits as long as possible. Just before she thinks that RoW may need to act to avoid contact, W acts by luffing hard. She luffs enough so that her action alone would have been enough to prevent a collision. Throughout the incident, due to their widely differing courses, L is able to change course in both directions without immediately making contact.
The leeward boat (L) is watching the situation carefully. At exactly the same time as W's action, she assesses that there may be a collision, L bears away hard. She bears away enough so that her action alone would have been enough to prevent a collision. There is no contact.
----------------------------
*In the Hearing:*
L protested W, claiming that she bore away to avoid contact and if she did not bear away then they may have collided. Thus, she claimed W must have broken RRS 11.
W claimed that she was watching the situation carefully, and luffed at exactly the right time and L did not 'need' to take the avoiding action she took. Thus, she kept clear and no rule broken.
The PC accepts that W's actions alone would have prevented a collision.
L argued that she shouldn't have to take risks to comply with RRS 14. She argues that if she waited until it was clear that W was not keeping clear (RRS 14 - last paragraph), then it would have been too late to avoid a nasty collision. She argues then, that common sense and good seamanship needs her to act before it is clear that W will take action to avoid the contact!
The PC accepted that L's action was made at the last reasonable opportunity and appropriately to avoid collision had W not acted.
----------------------
*Discussion*
1. Is L's judgement important here, or is it only the geometrical reality which counts?
2. Is L allowed any 'reasonable apprehension'?
3. What if L had acted a few moments earlier?
4. What should the final decision be? How would it be explained to the parties?