Two catamarans were sailing on starboard tack in a light wind on a downwind leg. L was sailing on a beam reach which she considered the fastest downwind course, and was to leeward of W. W was sailing a course more downwind than L and was converging with L from windward. Both boats held their respective courses. L held her course until contact between the boats became imminent, when she bore away, but W’s boom struck L’s shroud.

The protest committee recorded only one fact, ”that L was sailing above a normal course.” The protest committee considered that L’s normal course was a direct line to mark 2, which was almost a dead run, and disqualified L under rule 17. W was also disqualified under rule 14. L appealed.

The protest committee declined repeated requests to supply particulars for the appeal. In particular, it was asked under rule R5 to provide an official diagram, and to comment on the contention of the appellant shown both on the protest form and detailed in the appeal, that:

(1) W was overtaking L from clear astern; and

(2) L maintained a steady course without luffing during the development of the incident.

The protest committee did not supply the requested official diagram, considered (1) as being irrelevant and was unable to advise whether L luffed or not. In the absence of a diagram and meaningful comments, the facts presented on the protest form and supported by L’s appeal are accepted.

The protest committee was remiss in not supplying the particulars required by rule R5 and erred in their interpretation of the rules. It is clear from the facts presented on the protest form, which were not contested by the protest committee, that L was maintaining a steady course without luffing. Also, L was sailing a proper course consistent with normal downwind sailing in catamarans and was never clear astern of W.

Rule 17 did not apply to L since she was overlapped with W while she was well over two boat lengths to leeward and therefore was never clear astern when the distance between the boats became two boat lengths apart. Also, L is exonerated for breaking rule 14 because the established contact between the boats in the light wind did not result in damage or injury and therefore rule 14(b) applied.

L’s appeal is upheld; she is to be reinstated in her finishing position. W is disqualified for breaking rule 11.