CASE 93

Rule 16.1, Changing Course
Rule 18.3(b), Rounding and Passing Marks and Obstructions:Tacking at a Mark
Definitions, Keep Clear
Definitions, Room

If two boats were on opposite tacks, rule 18.3 begins to apply when one of them completes a tack within the two-length zone. When rule 18.3(b) applies, and therefore rule 15 does not, a leeward boat is nevertheless subject to rule 16.1 if she changes course.

Summary of the Facts

As they approached a windward mark, L was directly astern of W after W completed a tack within the two-length zone and was on her new close-hauled course. W’s course was far enough above the layline to allow L to pass between W and the mark. In position 2, L had borne off from a point close astern of W and was about to overlap W to leeward. When the overlap began L immediately luffed and struck W’s port side. The boats then continued around the mark without further incident. L protested W but L was disqualified for breaking rule 16.1. She appealed.

Decision

When W completed her tack within the two-length zone, rule 18.3 began to apply. In her appeal L correctly noted that rule 15 did not apply because rule 18.3(b) made it inapplicable, and argued that W broke rule 18.3(b). That rule required W to give L room to round the mark, and rule 11 required W to keep clear. The definition Keep Clear says that a windward boat is not keeping clear if the leeward boat would immediately make contact if she changed course. In this case, although the protest committee found that L luffed immediately after overlapping W, it did not find that the contact occurred immediately after L began her luff. The diagram does not show the passage of time, but between positions 2 and 3, which show the boats shortly before the overlap began and then at the moment of contact, there is no clear evidence that at the moment L began to luff she immediately struck W. We therefore conclude that W was keeping clear until L luffed.

Although rule 15 did not apply, rule 16.1 did, because rule 18.3 states that rule 18.2(d) does not apply. L’s luff quickly deprived W of room to keep clear. No seamanlike action was available to her to do so. L thus broke rule 16.1. W unavoidably broke rule 11, but she is exonerated because of L’s breach of rule 16.1.

L became overlapped from clear astern within two of her hull lengths of W, and so rule 17.1 prohibited L from sailing above her proper course. The protest committee did not find as a fact that L either did or did not sail above her proper course after becoming overlapped. If she did, she broke rule 17.1. However, nothing is to be gained by seeking the facts needed to resolve this question because L would remain disqualified under rule 16.1.

The protest committee did not discuss rule 14. W did not break rule 14, as it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact. In causing the contact, L broke rule 14 and would have been subject to penalty unless there had been no damage or injury to either boat. No facts were found about damage or injury , but this issue need not be addressed since L would remain disqualified under rule 16.1.

For the above reasons the appeal is denied.

USSA 1998/76