S on starboard tack and P on port tack were on a collision course on a windward leg. S hailed, ”Starboard” when some distance from P. P eased sheets and began to bear away to pass astern of S. S then tacked onto port. P hardened up, became overlapped on S to windward, and sailed parallel to S for four or five boat lengths before contacting S who did not alter course after tacking onto port. No damage occurred to either boat. P protested S under rule 16 and S protested P under rule 11. The protest committee upheld both protests. It disqualified P for breaking rule 11 and S for tacking into P’s path after hailing, “Starboard”. S appealed.

One question for interpretation is whether the hail of, ”Starboard” by S altered the respective rights and obligations of S and P. It was not a hail required by the racing rules and is therefore no more than a seamanlike warning to P of the presence of a right-of-way boat. As such, it was not a declaration of intent and the hail by S in no way altered the obligations of P or the right of S to tack subject to rule 13. S did not break rule 13, and as leeward boat was justified in expecting windward boat P to keep clear. The leeward boat S was also subject to rule 14, but there was no damage or injury, and so S is exonerated under rule 14(b).

When P bore away to position 2 to pass astern of S, S became subject to rule 16.2. Although P immediately changed course as a result of S altering course to tack, P did not need to do so. Had P held her course at 2 she would have continued to keep clear by passing astern of S. Thus, S did not break rule 16.2 when she altered course and changed tacks.

S’ appeal is upheld; S is to be reinstated in her finishing position. The protest committee was correct in disqualifying P for breaking rule 11.

See also World Sailing Case 6.