
Facts and Decision of the Protest CommitteeTwo PHRF fleets in the same event were racing on different courses that used the same government buoy as a rounding mark. For one fleet it was a windward mark, to be left to port. For the other fleet it was a leeward mark, also to be left to port. Two boats in the first fleet approached the mark close-hauled on starboard tack, with Silhouette, a Beneteau 40.7, overlapped to leeward and about one half of a hull length behind CC Rider. Air Boss, a J/105 sailing in the other fleet, approached the mark on a broad reach, also on starboard tack. When Air Boss was about one hull length from the mark, she gybed onto port and luffed to round the mark. As she luffed, her bow made contact with the port side of Silhouette, causing damage. At the time of contact, Silhouette was going about 5.5 knots, and Air Boss about 3.5. Silhouette and Air Boss protested each other.
The protest committee decided that rule
18 applied, and that when
Air Boss reached the zone,
Silhouette and
Air Boss were overlapped, since neither was clear astern of the other. It decided that at that time
Silhouette was the leeward boat, and that rule
11 applied, requiring
Air Boss to keep clear. It also decided that
Silhouette was the inside boat with respect to the mark, and therefore
Air Boss was required by rule
18.2(b) to give mark-room.
The protest committee also decided that since rule
18 applied, the gybe by
Air Boss did not break the overlap, rule
18.2(b) continued to apply, rule
11 no longer applied, and rule
10 began to apply. The committee further decided that as
Air Boss began to luff, she failed to give mark room and to keep clear of
Silhouette, breaking rules
10 and
18.2(b). Since it was reasonably possible for
Air Boss to avoid the contact and she failed to do so, she also broke rule
14. When it became clear that
Air Boss was not going to keep clear,
Silhouette was unable to change course to avoid the contact, because of the presence of
CC Rider to windward. Therefore
Silhouette did not break rule
14.
Air Boss was disqualified, and appealed.
Decision of the Appeals Committee
At position 1,
Air Boss reached the zone and rule
18 began to apply (see rule
18.1). At that time,
Silhouette and
Air Boss were overlapped.
The first sentence of rule
18.2(b) concerns situations in which boats are overlapped when approaching a mark. However, in order for that sentence to create rights and obligations between two boats, there must be both an “inside” and an “outside” boat. An “inside” boat refers to the one rounding or passing “between” the other boat and the mark. At position 1 on the diagram, neither
Air Boss nor
Silhouette can be identified as the inside or the outside boat in the sense that one of them is (or is about to be) “between” the other boat and the mark. If the courses of the boats were projected straight ahead, neither boat would pass between the mark and the other boat. Alternatively, if the courses were projected to show the boats sailing around the mark, each boat’s course would pass between the mark and the other boat’s course. Neither of these methods identifies an “inside” or “outside” boat.
In these circumstances, no part of rule
18 creates any obligations, and therefore rule
10 applies. Beginning at position 4 in the protest diagram,
Air Boss was on port tack, and was required to keep clear of
Silhouette, on starboard tack. In colliding with
Silhouette,
Air Boss broke both rules
10 and
14, and is disqualified. As determined by the protest committee,
Silhouette did not break rule
14, since it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid the contact in the very short interval of time after it became clear that
Air Boss would not pass astern of
Silhouette.
The appeal by Air Boss is denied, and the decision of the protest committee is corrected as explained above.
April 2007