After A rounded the windward mark to starboard ahead of B and then gybed onto starboard tack, she chose not to sail directly towards the next mark but, for tactical reasons, to reach high above it. To do so, after gybing she luffed sharply, at which point she was bow to bow with B, who was on port tack beating to windward. The boats were now little more than one length apart. B immediately bore away as hard as she could to avoid a collision, but her action was not sufficient. However, A quickly luffed still further and the two passed very close to each other but without contact.

The protest committee upheld A's protest under rule 10 and B appealed, claiming that A had broken rule 16.1 by failing to give B room to keep clear.

B's appeal is upheld; she is reinstated and A is disqualified. Tactical desires do not relieve a boat of her obligations under the rules. A was free to adopt any course she chose to reach the leeward mark, but she did not have the right to luff into the path of B so close to B that B could not keep clear. Despite B's bearing away as hard as possible, a potentially serious collision would have occurred had A not taken avoiding action by quickly luffing further. As it turned out, their combined efforts narrowly averted such a collision, but that does not change the conclusion that in this case when A gybed onto starboard tack, became the right-of-way boat, and continued to change course, she did not at any time give B "the space [she needed] . . . while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way" to enable A to "sail her course with no need to take avoiding action." Therefore A broke rule 16.1. B broke rule 10, but is exonerated under rule 64.1(a).

Although both boats were in the mark's zone, rule 18 did not apply because B was approaching the mark and A was leaving it (see rule 18.1(c)). Therefore, A was not entitled to exoneration under rule 21 for breaking rule 16.1.