1. 
If B does not prevent A from bearing away to sail her course, B is "within rights" to take space freely given.
2. 
B violates A's mark room. DSQ B.
B violates 14, but if B has no reasonable opportunity to avoid A's change of course and speed, B may be exonerated for the breach of 14.
If A changes course without providing B opportunity to keep clear, A violates 16. EDIT: A is exonerated when changing course within mark room that is hers.
By causing contact, A violates 14, but is exonerated unless damage or injury resulted.

"If A changes course  - - -A violates 16". I disagree. If A has Mark Room, then she will be exonerated under R43.1(b).

1. At a mark, when space is made available to a boat that is not entitled to it, she may, at her own risk, take advantage of the space. WS Case 63

Agreed. 

1. Yes.
2. It sounds as though, without a diagram, that 18.2 (c) (2) applies: the inside overlapped boat must give the right of way boat room to sail her proper course.  Presumably this includes the bear away for boat A, so B has infringed 18.2(c)(2).  Both boats have broken rule 14, but, as Stewart says, A is exonerated under 43.1(b). 
If the boats haven't cleared the mark then 16.1 may apply to A, as hitting a mark isn't a seamanlike manoeuvre. A should wait until the mark has been cleared, change course in such a way that B can keep clear, and then protest.

Thank you, experts. Couldn't find an exact example in the Case Book.

After B establishes the inside overlap to leeward of A, I don't believe A is in a position to infringe 16.1 as she is not a right-of-way boat.  
If A bears away and fails to keep clear of B, A breaks rule 11.  However, if by bearing away, A is sailing her proper course to sail close to the mark and is within the entitled room to do so, then B breaks rule 18.2(c)(2) and A will be exonerated for breaking rule 11 and, in the case of contact, rule 14.

Murray

Question on “space made available”

If boat A tracks a course parallel to and outside B but wants to round close to the mark and so protests, what is the likely conclusion of a protest committee?

1. From B’s perspective, the space was “made available”, to use the words of the Case. “A” didn’t have to alter course to avoid B.  

2. Would a hail from A make any difference?  

3. My initial thought is that perhaps A should be required to make a slight bear away such that a converging course is created that would then force them to have to alter course to avoid contact.  Then it clearly isn’t “space made available”.  

4. Or perhaps the committee might consider what they think a reasonable competitor would want to do in the circumstance and if the protester says “yeah, I wanted to bear away hard around the mark but B was in the way”, maybe they would accept that?

A hail would not hurt, might attract witnesses.
But no hail regarding mark room is required, other than "Protest!"
Hail, avoid contact, fly flag, and file your protest.

I'm with Murray. Scenario 2 (contact). A is Keep Clear with Mark Room. Therefore, she isn't inhibited by R16.1 - she can turn as hard as she likes. She is however required to Keep Clear by R11. But since she is acting within Mark Room, to which she is entitled, if there is contact, she is exonerated by R43.1(b). A is not inhibited by R17 either (though B is inhibited by R17) and is entitled,R18.2(b), to sail her chosen course round the Mark (notwithstanding definition Mark Room) - without the need to consider B's presence (notwithstanding R14 - and in RC racing, damage is very unlikely so R43.1(c)). So I figure both A (R11) and B (R18.2(b)) have infringed rules, but A is exonerated (R43.1(b)) and B disqualified.

Hi Bob,
To quote from Case 63, "The risk the other boat takes is that the boat entitled to mark-room may be able to close the gap between herself and the mark while sailing her proper course."

 If A can demonstrate that her proper course is to bear away to sail close to the mark, and she is unable to do so by B establishing the leeward overlap between A and the mark, then B has denied room for A to sail her proper course to the mark and breaks rule 18.2(c)(2). 
 
 If the proper course for A is no longer to sail to the mark, then B does not have to give A room to do so.  As required by rule 18.2(b),  A has room to leave the mark on the required side and to sail the course without touching the mark.
Therefore, when it is not the proper course for A to sail close to the mark, B breaks no rule.

 The decision of a protest committee would rely on whether it was the proper course for A to sail to the mark or not.

 Note that Case 63 is a different situation in that B was denied room to sail to the mark by A, not C.



 

I think Murray is on the right track.

Some of the earlier posts were a bit quick on the draw.

I think it's always a good idea to resolve right of way and rule 15/16 room obligations first, then go on to rule 18/19, then exoneration for those, then rul3 14 and exoneration for that.

So, A is overlapped to windward, required to keep clear of B (rule 11), but B is required to give mark-room and room to sail her proper course to A (rules 18.2(b), and (c)).

A changes course to leeward and makes contact with B.  A does not keep clear of B and breaks rule 11.

IF A was sailing within the room or mark-room to which she was entitled, she is exonerated for breaking rule 11 by rule 43.1(b).

A boat entitled to mark-room will not always be sailing within the mark--room to which she is entitled. The question then is, whether A was sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled?

In this case that will probably depend on the proper course to the next mark.  If the next mark is anywhere to leeward of the present mark, then A's proper course will probably be to sail close to the mark, or to sail towards the next mark (say a wing mark or an  outer trapezoid mark).  UNLESS B is sailing very significantly below that course at the time of contact; then A will be sailng  to the mark or sailing her proper course as she is entitled to do, and will be exonerated.

If it was a wing or an outer trap mark, it's conceivable that B was sailing well below the course to that mark, and was not interfering with A sailing her proper course, in which case A would not be exonerated.

But, more likely than not, A is sailing within her room or mark-room and is exonerated for breaking rule 11, and B is failing to give A her room or mark-room and is breaking rule 18.2(b), or (c).

There was contact.

A, the windward boat changed course to leeward towards B the right of way boat.

Rule 43.1(b) does not provide exoneration to a boat entitled to mark-room for a breach of rule 14.

Only if there is no damage or injury can A be exonerated for breaking rule 14 under rule 43.1(c).

Bottom line:

If A, after she initially changed course to leeward, had curtailed her course change, or changed course away from B and avoided contact, she would have avoided the risk of breaking rule 14 herself.

As there was no diagram given, nor description of the overlap, John's decision that B had no opportunity to keep clear is just guesswork.
Nonetheless, the result stands that A took mark room to which she was entitled.
Dave Perrry makes clear that regardless of the path A has taken, her course thence TO the mark and round it remains hers to take.

I remember back in the day when I raced in schoolboy team racing, it was quite common (or at least occasional), to heave to just inside the three boat length circle leaving a gap between the mark and boat.  When an opponent boat comes, if it goes between  you and the mark, just bear down and protest, if goes windward then sheet in and take them well past the mark, letting your previously third place boat into first place before bearing away. and continuing the race.