CASE 30

Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 18.5, Rounding and Passing Marks and Obstructions: Passing a Continuing Obstruction
Definitions, Keep Clear

A boat clear astern that is required to keep clear but collides with the boat clear ahead breaks the right-of-way rule that was applicable before the collision occurs. A boat that loses right of way by unintentionally changing tack is nevertheless required to keep clear.

Summary of the Facts
Boats A and B were running on starboard tack close to the shore against a strong ebb tide in a Force 3 breeze. A was not more than half a hull length clear ahead of B. B blanketed A, causing A to gybe unintentionally. This was immediately followed by a collision, although without damage, and B protested A under rule 10. The facts were agreed, and both boats were disqualified: B under rule 12 because she was too close to A to be keeping keep clear, and A under rule 10, for failing to keep clear of a starboardtack boat.
A appealed on the grounds that both boats were passing a continuing obstruction, and rule 18.2(c) should have been applied, under which B was the keep-clear boat. The protest committee observed that B caused both A’s gybe and the collision by not keeping clear when both boats were on the same tack.

Decision
The appeal is upheld. In position 1, rules 12 and 18.5 applied. Rule 18.5 made rules 18.2(b) and 18.2(c) inapplicable, and no other parts of rule 18.2 were relevant. When B was clear astern of A she was required by rule 12 to keep clear but failed to do so. Her breach occurred before the collision, at the moment when A first ‘had need to take avoiding action’ (see the definition Keep Clear). At the moment B collided with A she also broke rule 14, although at that time she held right of way under rule 10, so is not subject to penalty under rule 14 because there was no damage.
After gybing, A became the keep-clear boat under rule 10, even though she had not intended to gybe. She broke that rule, but only because B’s breach of rule 12 made it impossible for A to keep clear. A did not break rule 14 because it was not ‘reasonably possible’ for her to avoid contact.
Accordingly, B is disqualified under rule 12, and A is exonerated under rule 64.1(b) for her breach of rule 10.

RYA 1974/3