Thistle 1155 (W) was sailing slowly up to the starting line, slightly above close-hauled. Thistle 3221 (M) and Thistle 3229 (L) were approaching the line from clear astern of W, sailing about three times as fast, and were overlapped for several hull lengths before reaching W. L was holding a steady course, while M, reaching on a collision course with L, luffed to keep clear of her as they converged. Very soon after M and L became overlapped with W, there were collisions with no damage or injury. M hit W and then L a second later.

M protested L and W protested M. The protest committee decided that the two protests were relevant to a single incident and heard both protests in a single hearing. The protest committee found that M broke rule 15 with respect to W, and rule 11 (On the Same Tack, Overlapped) with respect to L. The committee imposed a percentage penalty as provided in the sailing instructions. M appealed.

The facts describe one incident, so it was appropriate for the protest committee to hear both protests in a single hearing.

While M and L were clear astern of W, rule 12 required each of them to keep clear of W; therefore W was an obstruction to them (see the definition Obstruction). Because L and M were overlapped, rule 11 required M to keep clear of L. Since L was sailing a course to pass to leeward of W, L (the outside boat) was required by rule 19.2(b) to give M (the inside boat) room between her and the obstruction (W). The room L was required to give M included the space M needed to comply with her Part 2 obligations (see the definition Room).

When M became overlapped to leeward of W, the applicable rules changed. Even though L’s bow was well behind W’s stern, the overlap between L and W began at that time because M was between and overlapped with both of them (see the definition Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; Overlap). Rule 12 no longer applied, and rule 11 required W to keep clear of M and L. W was no longer a right-of-way boat or an obstruction to L and W; therefore, L was no longer required by rule 19.2(b) to give M room between herself and W. Rule 15 required L and M to initially give W room to keep clear, and since both M and W were required to keep clear of L, L became an obstruction to M and W.

Just before M and L became overlapped with W, L failed to give M room between her and W as required by rule 19.2(b), as shown by the rules breaches and contact that occurred shortly after the overlap was established. As a result of L’s breach of rule 19.2(b), there was not space for M to give W room to keep clear after she became overlapped with W, as she was required to do by rule 15.

At the time M and W made contact, the overlap between them had only been in existence for about one or, at most, two seconds. W broke rule 11 by failing to keep clear of M. However, from the time the overlap began, W was entitled to room from M and L to keep clear of M under rule 15. That room was the space that W needed “while maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike way.” Although W was sailing in the space she needed to try to keep clear of M, M failed to give her enough space and time to maneuver promptly and keep clear of M. Therefore W was sailing “within the room to which she was entitled” under rule 15, and is exonerated under rule 21(a) for breaking rule 11.

M failed to keep clear of L under rule 11. However, M was entitled to room between L and W under rule 19.2(b) from L. Since M was sailing within the room to which she was entitled when she broke rules 11 and 15, M is exonerated for both those breaches under rule 21(a).

L failed to give W room to keep clear as required by rule 15, by failing to bear away and allowing M to meet her obligation under rule 15 to provide the space W needed to keep clear of her (see the definition Room). No rule exonerates L for breaking rules 15 and 19.2(b).

When L and M became overlapped with W, rule 19.2(b) required W (the outside boat) to give M (the inside boat) room between her and L, unless she had been unable to do so from the time the overlap began (see rule 19.2(b)). W was in fact unable to give such room, because there was very little time between M’s becoming overlapped and then making contact with W. Therefore W did not break rule 19.2(b).

Concerning rule 14, when it became clear to L that M could not avoid contact with her, L could have avoided the contact by bearing away a few degrees; therefore, L broke rule 14. However, because the contact caused no damage or injury, L is exonerated under rule 14(b) for breaking rule 14. Since it was not reasonably possible for M or W to avoid the contact, they did not break rule 14.

M’s appeal is upheld, and the decision of the protest committee is reversed. M is reinstated in her finishing position, and a percentage penalty is imposed on L as provided in the sailing instructions. See Case 117.

October 1976

Revised January 2017