Brigadoon vs. Magoo
A boat is permitted to hail another for room to tack when a substantial course change is required for her to avoid the obstruction.
Facts and Decision of the Protest Committee
Brigadoon (W) and Magoo (L) were sailing on a windward leg with L to leeward and clear ahead. Both were on starboard tack and approaching a 50-foot police launch that was aiding a capsized boat. The police launch was close to the capsized boat, which was to leeward of the launch. L could not pass to windward of the launch without changing course and hailed W for room to tack. A few seconds later, L tacked and W, instead of tacking or replying ‘You tack,’ bore away to clear her.
W protested L on the grounds that L was not entitled by rule 20.1 to hail W for room to tack. The protest committee disqualified L, stating that “L could have avoided the obstruction by bearing away herself. There was open water all around it.” L appealed.
L’s appeal is upheld, the decision of the protest committee is reversed, L is reinstated in her finishing place, and W is disqualified for breaking rule 20.2(c).
December 1959
Decision of the Appeals Committee
The police launch was an obstruction since L could not pass it without “changing course substantially” if she were “one of her hull lengths from it.” This, however, did not necessarily give her the right to hail W for room to tack. If she had approached the police launch sufficiently close to its leeward end so that, with only a slight change of course when one of her hull lengths from it, she could have safely passed to leeward of it, she should have done so. That was not the case here. As is clear in the diagram, L’s course brought her close to the windward end of the police launch. She had to either tack to pass it to windward or bear away substantially to pass it to leeward. Inasmuch as she was required to change course substantially to clear the obstruction whichever side she passed it, she had a right under rule 20.1 to hail W for room to tack.
Rule 20 covers this situation. L complied with rule 20.2(a). When L hailed, rules 20.2(b) and 20.2(c) required W to respond by tacking as soon as possible, or by immediately replying ‘You tack,’ even if she thought L’s hail was not permitted by rule 20.1. W failed to do so. L's tack broke rule 13 or rule 10, but she is exonerated under rule 21(a).
L’s appeal is upheld, the decision of the protest committee is reversed, L is reinstated in her finishing place, and W is disqualified for breaking rule 20.2(c).
December 1959