Two boats, 16 feet long, broad-reaching on starboard tack, were approaching a mark to be left to starboard, the next leg being a beat to windward. L established an outside overlap on W from clear astern shortly before W reached the zone. As the boats rounded the mark, W failed to head up to a close-hauled course, and L continued to yield in order to avoid contact until the boats were three hull lengths beyond the mark. At that point beam to beam contact occurred without damage or injury.

The protest committee disqualified W for breaking rule 11 and 14(a), and confirmed that L was exonerated by rule 43.1(c) for breaking 14(a) as the contact did not cause damage or injury. W appealed.

Rule 18.2(a)(1) makes exception to rule 11 only so far as to require the outside boat, although holding right of way, to give the inside boat mark-room.  W's proper course was to sail close to the mark, and the course change she needed to round the mark was to round up to a close-hauled course.  Therefore, in this situation, the space to which W was entitled was only that necessary for her, in a seamanlike way, to sail to the mark, round it onto a close-hauled course leaving the mark on the required side, and leave the mark astern (see the definition Mark-Room).

Rule 43.1(b) only exonerates W if she breaks 11 while sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled. Between positions 1 and 4, L gave W mark-room; therefore, L did not break rule 18.2(a)(1). By position 4, L had given W mark-room; therefore rule 18 no longer applied (see rule 18.1(b)). When W then failed to keep clear, she broke rule 11 and is not exonerated for that breach.

As the contact occurred at position 5, well after rule 18 ceased to apply, and because W could have avoided it, W also broke rule 14(a) and is not exonerated for her breach

W’s appeal is denied. The decisions of the protest committee regarding W is unchanged.  See Case 25

July 1941

Revised January 2025, to conform to the revised definition Mark-Room in the 2025-28 RRS.