Facts
As the two 14-foot (4 m) dinghies manoeuvred before the starting signal,
they crossed the starting line. While bearing away to return to the pre-start
side, L, initially the windward boat, assumed a leeward position by sailing
under W’s stern. Immediately after position 4, L luffed to close-hauled and
sailed straight for the port end of the line. W meanwhile, with sheets
eased, sailed along the line more slowly. At position 5, there was contact,
W’s boom touching L’s windward shroud. L protested W under rule
11; W
counter-protested under rules
12 and
15.
The protest committee found that L had right of way under rule
11 from the time she assumed a steady course until contact. W had room to keep clear, although she would have had to cross the starting line prematurely to do so. Therefore, it dismissed W's protest and upheld the protest by L. W appealed, this time citing rule
16.1.
Decision
W's appeal is dismissed. Between positions 2 and 3 L became overlapped to leeward of W, acquiring right of way under rule
11 but limited by rule
15's requirement to initially give room to W to keep clear. L met that requirement because L gave W room to keep clear. Just after position 4, when L luffed to a close-hauled course, she was required by rule
16.1 to give W room to keep clear, and she did so.
L had been clear astern of W and was within two of her hull lengths of W when she became overlapped to leeward of W. Therefore, she was required by rule
17 to sail no higher than her proper course. However, she had no proper course before the starting signal (see the definition
Proper Course) and the starting signal was not made until after the incident. Therefore, L,s luff did not break rule
17 and she was in fact entitled to luff higher than she did, even as high as head to wind, as long as while so doing she complied with rule
16.1.
After L became overlapped to leeward of W, W was required by rule
11 to keep clear of L. She did not do so and accordingly her disqualification under rule
11 is upheld. In addition, W broke rule
14 because she could have avoided the contact with L.
L also broke rule
14 because it would have been easy for her to bear off slightly and avoid the contact. However, she is exonerated because she was the right-of-way boat and there was no damage or injury.