CASE 99

Rule 10 On Opposite Tacks
Rule 14 Avoiding Contact
Rule 44.1 Penalties for Breaking Rules of Part 2: Taking a Penalty

The fact that a boat required to keep clear is out of control does not entitle her to exoneration for breaking a rule of Part 2. When a right-of-way boat becomes obliged by rule 14 to ‘avoid contact . . . if reasonably possible’ and the only way to do so is to crash-gybe, she does not break the rule if she does not crash-gybe. When a boat retires as required by rule 44.1, whether out of choice or necessity, she cannot then be penalized further.

Summary of the Facts

Mumm 30s were racing in difficult conditions. Boat S was running at 10- 14 kts. Before Boat P reached position 1 she had broached and was out of control. P struck S amidships resulting in serious damage. Both boats retired. S protested P.
The protest committee found that S had made minor changes of course when the boats were well apart; that these were thwarted by the erratic motion of P, still out of control; and that when it became apparent that P was not going to keep clear the only action available to S was to crash-gybe, which risked considerable damage to S.
The protest committee disqualified both boats – P for breaking rule 10 and S for breaking rule 14, stating that S should have been aware of the difficulties experienced by P and should have taken more significant action earlier. It referred its decision to the national authority for confirmation or correction.

Decision

The decisions of the protest committee are reversed. Both boats are to be scored DNF. Clearly, P broke rule 10. The fact that she was out of control does not justify exonerating her. In breaking rule 10, P caused serious damage and therefore was required by rule 44.1 to retire at the time of the incident. She did so, and thus took a penalty for the purposes of rule 44.1. She was therefore exempted from further penalisation by rules 44.4(b) and 64.1(a).
Her disqualification is reversed, and she is to be scored DNF.
Turning to S, rule 14 makes special provisions in the case of a right-of-way boat. First, for her to be penalised, there must be contact that caused damage or injury. This is not in doubt. Second, she was not required to act to avoid contact until it was clear that P was not keeping clear. It was only at that time that rule 14 required her to avoid contact if reasonably possible. The protest committee found that, when it became clear to S that P was not going to keep clear, the only action available to S was to crash-gybe, which risked considerable damage to S. That was equivalent to finding that it was not reasonably possible for S to avoid contact. Therefore, S did not break rule 14. Her disqualification is reversed, and she too is to be scored DNF.
Finally, the protest committee should note that, in light of the changed decision, rule 60.3(b) entitles it to call a hearing to consider giving S redress under rule 62.1(b).

RYA 2001/7