An RS500 established an overlap to leeward of a Phantom from astern outside the zone of a mark from where the course to the next mark was a reach, and where both boats needed to bear away and gybe in order to round it. The Phantom gave the RS500 mark-room, and neither boat became clear ahead of the other during this time. After both boats had left the mark astern, the Phantom, sailing high, hailed ‘Windward boat keep clear’ to the RS, which was under gennaker. There was contact within three lengths of the mark, and the Phantom protested. The protest committee disqualified the RS500 under rule 11, and referred its decision to the RYA, noting that rule 18 was not relevant at the moment of the incident, and that, although the Phantom may have been sailing above her proper course, ‘rule 11 and not rule 17 applied’, and that, in any case, rule 17 did not apply to the overlap.

The decision of the protest committee to disqualify the RS500 is confirmed.

The protest committee was correct to decide that, since the incident occurred after the RS500 had been given mark-room as required by rule 18.2, her entitlement to that room had ended. Rule 16.1 did not apply to the situation after the boats had left the mark, since the protest committee found that there was no change of course by the Phantom. The RS500 was a windward boat that did not keep clear, and broke rule 11. If her gennaker prevented her from sailing as high as the Phantom, that was no excuse for breaking that rule. See case RYA 1984-03, and also case RYA 2006-04 which describes the responsibilities of both the right-of-way and the keep clear boat. If rule 15 had applied to the Phantom when she gybed, she initially gave the RS500 room to keep clear.

With reference to the protest committee’s comment that rule 11 and not rule 17 applied, those rules are not mutually exclusive. If rule 17 had applied to the Phantom and she broke it, rule 11 would still have applied to the RS500, with the result that both boats should have been penalized. The fact that a leeward boat is sailing above a proper course is not a reason in itself for the exoneration of a windward boat that did not keep clear, having been given room to do so.

However, the protest committee was correct to decide that rule 17 did not apply, even if the Phantom were sailing above her proper course. Rule 17 placed a proper course limitation on the RS500 when the overlap first began. The boats never ceased to be overlapped as defined even if they were momentarily on opposite tacks while gybing, since they were both at that moment sailing at more than ninety degrees from the true wind. However, rule 17 applies only as long as the boats not only remain overlapped but also remain on the same tack, and so it will cease to apply when either boat gybes. No new proper course limitation applied to the Phantom when, during the overlap, she became the leeward boat within two hull lengths of the other. There was only ever one overlap, the only proper course limitation applied to the RS500, and it had already ended.