Reliant vs. Taveuni
A boat that completes a tack onto starboard need not thereafter remain close-hauled, but is subject to rules 16.1 and 16.2 as she changes course.
Facts and Decision of the Protest Committee
Taveuni (A), a 42-foot cutter carrying only a headsail, and Reliant (B), a Cal-29 carrying a small jib and reefed mainsail, were on a close reach toward a mark to be left to port. The wind was 35 knots, gusting to 45. Boat A was ahead by 3 to 6 hull lengths and on a course slightly to leeward of B’s. She sailed on until the mark was off her port quarter, tacked to starboard and bore off continuously until reaching position 2, then hardened up to the course shown in position 3.
When A reached position 2, the boats were on a collision course, nearly head on, so B tacked immediately to avoid the impending collision. Before B reached a close-hauled course, A struck B on her starboard side three times between the forward end of the cockpit and the transom. The two boats were then nearly at right angles to each other. B sustained major hull damage and was forced to withdraw.
The protest committee found that A had completed her tack and was on a new course, causing a port-starboard crossing situation under rule 10 (On Opposite Tacks), requiring B to keep clear. B chose to tack but could not avoid a collision. Accordingly, the committee disqualified B for breaking rules 10 and 13. It held that rule 11 was not applicable and dismissed B’s protest against A. B appealed.
Decision of the Association Appeals Committee
The association appeals committee upheld the protest committee’s decision, but observed that A did not hold her course during B’s tack. A had claimed in her protest that B tacked inside of A and was in irons on starboard tack dead ahead when A luffed to fetch the mark, whereupon the collision occurred. However, the association appeals committee, relying on the fact that neither B nor the protest committee had protested A for breaking rule 16.1, took no further action. B appealed again.
Decision of the Appeals Committee
The protest committee, having found that A had met her obligations under rule 13 (she kept clear until she had borne away to a close-hauled course), acted correctly in not disqualifying her for breaking rule 13. B had argued in her appeal that A broke rule 13 in that, while tacking, she bore away to a reach and had not yet luffed to close-hauled when the collision occurred.
Rule 13 requires a boat that is tacking to keep clear until she has borne away to a close-hauled course. In this case, A reached, passed, and fell off below close-hauled to a point where she was heading 130 or more degrees off the wind, thus well beyond a close-hauled course. A had the right to sail below close-hauled after tacking.
However, when A became the right-of-way starboard-tack boat and bore away to a collision course with B, she thereby forced B, a port-tack boat that was keeping clear, to immediately change course to continue keeping clear. A therefore broke rule 16.2, which applied because when A became the right-of-way boat under rule 10, B was sailing to pass astern of her. Almost immediately afterward, A also broke rule 16.1 by luffing to a new collision course with B, making it impossible for B to keep clear.
The association appeals committee erred in failing to consider whether A broke rule 16.1, 16.2 or both during her course changes. That B did not protest under rule 16.1 or 16.2 was immaterial, and A should have been disqualified, in compliance with rule 64.1, which provides that a “penalty shall be imposed whether or not the applicable rule was mentioned in the protest.” B is exonerated under rule 21(a) (Exoneration). Concerning rule 14, B complied with it by tacking to avoid A. However, A broke rule 14 by failing to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible to do so.
B’s appeal is upheld. The decisions of the association appeals committee and the protest committee are changed. B is reinstated in her finishing place, and A is disqualified for breaking rules 16.1 and 16.2.
January 1976