L and W were close-hauled on port tack, one boat length apart, when they approached a number of boats close-hauled on starboard tack. L hailed for room to tack, a hail that was not heard: she then hailed again, tacked at the same time, and collided with W. W, uncertain of her standing, took a two-turns penalty and protested. L was disqualified under rule 13
. The protest committee concluded that W was not required to anticipate the need to tack, that L’s inaudible first hail did not activate rule 20.2
(b), and that L’s tacking at the same time as her second hail broke rule 20.2
L appealed on the grounds that although W did not respond to her initial hail, she should have foreseen that L would have to tack to avoid the starboard-tack boats. She also appealed because W had not provided a diagram in her written protest.
L’s appeal is dismissed.
The conclusions of the protest committee are confirmed. When W did not respond to the first hail, L should have hailed more loudly a second time. A hailed boat is not required to take any action before an audible hail is made, although she must be on the alert for a foreseeable hail, and, when it is made, she must respond promptly to it, as W did.
Neither protestor nor protestee is required by the rules to produce a diagram of the incident.