CASE 51

Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
Rule 64.1(b), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

A protest committee must exonerate boats when they are compelled by another boat to break a rule.

Summary of the Facts
Positions 1 and 4 represent four large boats at between one minute before the starting signal and fifteen seconds before. At position 4, MW was forced to bear away to avoid collision with W, and ML and L were also forced to bear away to avoid the boat to windward. Had W steered a course to keep clear, she would have crossed the starting line before her starting signal. Each boat to leeward hailed the boat to windward, and each such boat protested the boats to windward.

The protest committee disqualified W, MW, and ML and justified its action with respect to the middle boats by stating that ‘failure to do so would limit the effectiveness of rule 11 because all boats, except the most windward one, would be immune to disqualification.’ MW and ML both appealed.

Decision
Both appeals are upheld. MW and ML are to be reinstated. Both boats were forced into a violation of rule 11 solely because of W’s illegal course. They bore away only to comply with rule 14 and were entitled to exoneration under rule 64.1(b).

When it can be shown conclusively, in any such situation, that an intervening boat connived, in effect, in a windward boat’s failure to keep clear by accepting that boat’s lee side as a refuge or by exercising little or no initiative in attempting to force her to keep clear, she should be disqualified under rule 11. In making such a determination, the following points may be considered, although no one of them may be conclusive. Was the intervening boat herself purposely bearing away? Did she luff so as to force the windward boat to luff to keep clear? Did she hail the windward boat to keep clear and do so promptly? Was she benefited or hindered by the windward boat’s failure? Finally, did she sail herself into an obviously untenable position between two boats ahead?

In this case, while W was in continuous and flagrant violation of rule 11 for a considerable period of time, there is nothing in the facts found to suggest that ML and MW be disqualified on the basis of any of the above considerations. In fact, neither intervened or bore away before W forced them to do so, and both of them, by hails and declarations of protest, asserted the obligations of windward boats to keep clear.

USSA 1950/37