This is now the second time in a couple of months, where the rules as presently written and scenarios, invert rights of way and turn the keep clear obligations on their head, simply because we keep using the state of inside versus outside positions to override a keep clear boat's primary obligation to keep clear.
In both this scenario and the previous Christmas Tree situation, we first say in 19.2(a) the ROW boat has the right to choose which way she wants to pass/avoid/leave the obstruction to avoid hitting it. Whichever word we apply as synonyms, in this context, they all have the same functional meaning. Secondly, we obligate the ROW, in the same way that 16.1 is used, to give the keep clear boat the room and opportunity to keep clear.
As far as 19.2(a), the situation is over. 19.2(a) has successfully done its job. Blue has chosen to use a gybe to keep clear of yellow ; yellow both a starboard ROW boat and an obstruction, can safely sail on; Green as keep clear boat relative to Leeward Blue AND starboard Yellow, has room and opportunity to keep clear of both.
There's no safety issue and Green can comply with her obligations to keep clear, irrespective of what blue and yellow do later.
Then along comes 19.2(b) and arbitrarily inverts a situation that 19. 2(a) has already resolved. What for? The situation is over.
Inside versus outside is now irrelevant once 19.2(a) has done its job, namely avoid collisions with things to be avoided.
Why do we need to suddenly use inside versus outside to absolve Green from its ongoing obligation to keep clear which, in this scenario, it is easily doing.?
To top it off, the last part of 19.2(b) says..in this scenario, Oops, because i've given you, Green as the new "inside boat", the option to demand inside room (room i don't need to avoid the yellow obstruction, ), what if there was never room to let me give Green that option? Ok guys i tell you what..... forget about it... but GREEN, you're still guilty for stuffing your nose in, as well as Blue, for not letting you stuff your nose in, and you're both exonerated ?? This is perverted.
This is the problem. The application of in 19.2(b) is not needed if another rule, in this case, 19.2(a) has already dealt with the issue.
19 is all about making it safe for boats to avoid things they need to avoid. We should avoid writing rules that complicate rights of way.
I agree with the principle that ROW boats can't create a problem for a keep clear boat, hence the limitations of 15, 16, 17.
19.2.(b) is unlike the principle behind 15,16,17. It is in fact, suddenly giving the ROW boat more than a limitation; it is in fact now saying on behalf of Green, " get out of the way, i'm coming through - unless of course you can't give me room,..... but if there is no room, the onus is now on you to prove you're not guilty of not giving it to me."
This can be solved by giving unambiguous directions to skippers if, in a preamble to 19, we say:
"The application of RRS 19 is not intended to override a keep clear boat's primary obligation to keep clear. When approaching an obstruction, anticipation is required to ensure that a keep clear boat positions itself to meet its foremost obligations to keep clear of a ROW boat. The rules of 19.2.(a), (b) and (c) shall be applied sequentially to provide safe passage to a ROW boat in avoiding an obstruction."
What do you think about this concept?