I would have Red in the wrong.
While they are on "Starboard" Tack, as the boom is over the part side of the boat, the wind is clearly coming over the port side of the boat, and they are sailing in a extreme by the lee manner.
Until they passed the bow of the yellow boat, they were the windward boat, and needed to keep clear.
Once they passed the bow of the yellow boat, they did not give the yellow boat the opportunity to keep clear.

I have looked at this case before and the mirror case where the boat going downwind is on the other side of the boat going upwind.. In this case both boats are overlapped and on the leeward side of the other boat and therefore neither is the keep clear boat. RRS 14 is the only thing that keeps them from hitting each other. Both could have reasonably done something to avoid the collision so both should be disqualified.

In the other case, both boats are overlapped and on the windward side of the other. This means that both boats broke RRS 11 and RRS 14.

Rule 14 is the only rule you can apply...

From the definition of Leeward and Windard: "... However, when sailing by the lee or directly downwind, her leeward side is the side on which her mainsail lies. ..."

By definition they are both to the other's leeward. Neither is windward as defined.

Rule 14 only. Neither are right of way, Neither are keep clear boat. but both have an obligation to avoid contact. " A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. "
As neither are a right of way boat, 14a and 14b do not apply so both breached 14 and neither can claim exoneration.

By the L:ee
http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8273&title=sailing-by-the-lee

Phil, it's very common for Lasers to sail far by the lee to increase straight-line velocity to more easily initiate surfing, as well as to prevent the bow from plowing into the wave ahead when surfing. Additionally, it's very common for Lasers to sail the entire downwind leg on starboard gybe to maintain right of way of any boats that are on port.

But for context, what is the course shape? If the wind is from the top of the picture, yellow is close hauled and she is sailing her proper course. Technically, then, red cannot be. What was red's course prior to the incident? Had there been a recent change of course?
If red was not sailing her proper course she breaks Rule 24.2. Just scrapes into Part 2, so yellow may be exonerated for breaking Rule 14 unless there was damage or injury.

Ant, as mentioned above, for Lasers in surfing conditions it's very common to zigzag downwind, both to gain velocity to initiate surfing, and also to avoid bow-plowing once surfing. When surfing, it's not uncommon for Lasers to briefly sail as much as 45 degrees above DDW, and 45 degrees below DDW (by the lee).

In puffy conditions (even with flat water), Lasers often sail by the lee to more quickly connect to puffs, though sailing 45 degrees by the lee to catch a puff is fairly uncommon.

So, it'd be good to get more details on the wave conditions, wind conditions (specifically around puffiness), and course to red's next mark, all in order to get a sense of red's proper course. As well as whether red had initiated a downturn (to sail by the lee) just before making contact with yellow.

Ricardo and Paul are completely right, only RRS 14 applies, unless a fact found (which is not mentioned here) may lead to the conlusion that 24.2 as Ant mentioned may be broken.
This is a famous very old case going back into the 1990s. The late Giorgio Lauro -perhaps someone in the forum remembers his name- used this example in all IJ-seminars where he was IYRU/ISAF instructor.

http://www.sailing.org/news/5792.php#.WtRgNpdx2Uk
Giorgio Lauro Obituary

Match Racing has a call for a problem like this and you wind back to the last point of certainty and move from there.
I think before the boats become overlapped, Red sailing downwind would be a boat on the same tack to windward as evidenced by the fact it is sailing downwind.
This means it is give way, and if yellow has to alter course for it it has not kept clear.
With respect to 14 there is the give way boats obligation again and it should keep clear.
The other boat could expect even a late alteration of course so I would be reluctant to penalise but would have to look closely at the facts.

I am with Phil on this one.
At position 2 red was clearly the boat to windward and required to keep clear.
That did not change until it was too late for yellow to avoid red.

But we'e they on the same tack and overlapped?
If no, RRS 11 does not apply.

They OVERLAP when neither is clear astern.
And in the same tack

...so rrs 11 applies

Yes. They are overlapped on position 1,2,3. Note that none of them are clear astern. Rule 11 application is a more complicate issue as they are on leeward side of each other...

Note that 11 does NOT refer to one boat being on the leeward SIDE of the other, but rather being windward of the other.
Hence red is give way boat.

Philip, maybe you have a look into the definition of "Leeward and Windward" within the RRS and you will see that each boat is leeward of the other - notwithstanding where the wind comes from. That doesn´t matter.
In this case there is NO windward boat.

Thanks Catalina for referring me to the definition of "clear ahead, clear astern and overlapped"
How counter plain language that a boat ahead of you and coming toward you (bow first) from upwind of you and no part of which overlaps with you in the plain usage of the word is not clear ahead of you but overlapped instead. And then it is not windward boat (as defined, even if it is in ordinary meaning) of you if you on the same tack.
Those are two interesting definitions!

Willii, I have no trouble reading the definitions.
Perhaps you should read a little more carefully to see that there is a disconnect.
In most cases there is no disconnect and the rule and the definition work together.
In this case the exact wording of the rule must govern us.
There are no cases that I know of that the language of a rule occurs by accident.
Read carefully and judge by what it says, not by what you have always understood.

Sorry Philip but Rule 11 refers to a windward boat and a leeward boat "a windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat."
The definition of Leeward and Windward says at the end " When two boats are on the same tack overlap, the one on the leeward side of the other is the leeward boat. The other is the windward boat."
The first part of the definition tells us what we would generally understand " A boat's leeward side is the side that is or, when she is head to wind, was away from the wind. "
But the next sentence tells us the exception for saioling directly down wind and by the lee as the red boat is doing in this scenario; " However, when sailing by the lee or directly downwind, her leeward side is the side on which her mainsail lies."
Putting this all together, in this scenario there is no "windward boat" as defined in the definition of Leeward and Windward
So while the word "side" does not occur the expressions:"windward boat" and "leeward boat" do.
If it just said the boat to windward has to keep clear, Red may have failed as is on a higher windward rung as it approaches, but the rule uses the specific expressions "windward boat" and "leeeward boat"

Catalan, sorry for getting your name wrong. I can't really touch type, but sometimes I think I can and thenI make mistakes I don't pick up before posting.

I stand corrected by better minds than mine.
I personally liked Johns view, that they were both in the wrong, not keeping clear of a leeward boat.
This helped to highlight the need to view things from both sides of the protest.

When the RRS only say to not collide, it seems that government rules must fill in.
Both IRPCAS (rules for preventing collisions, after all) together with science and tradition, require a boat sailing free to avoid a boat sailing on the wind.

Has anyone mentioned that the skipper of red was probably facing AFT, as many Laser sailors do downwind?
And probably weaving with the waves, so when yellow last saw red the boats were not on collision course.

Col Regs 12
Rule 12
Sailing vessels
(a) When two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out
of the way of the other as follows:
(i) when each has the wind on a different side, the vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way
of the other;
(ii) when both have the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the vessel
which is to leeward;
(iii) if a vessel with the wind on the port side sees a vessel to windward and cannot determine with certainty whether
the other vessel has the wind on the port or on the starboard side, she shall keep out of the way of the other.
(b) For the purpose of this Rule the windward side shall be deemed to be the side opposite to that on which the
mainsail is carried or, in the case of a square-rigged vessel, the side opposite to that on which the largest fore-and-aft
sail is carried.
(source: http://www.jag.navy.mil/distrib/instructions/COLREG-1972.pdf - downloaded 18/04/2018)

It seems from (b) above, that the same problem of a boat sailing downwind by the lee on starboard and one coming upwind on starboard will face the same problems of determining right of way as under the RRS

I couldn't find the bit you referred to about free and on the wind..

Racing sailors in club events have agreed to be bound by the rules and to resolve diputes in accordance with the rules See all of RRS 3 but when engaging with other vessels not racing then IRPCAS ColRegs are the rules.

Two other regs that are of definite interest are:

Rule 13
Overtaking
(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of part B,
sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall
keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken. (and read the rest of this reg)

Rule 18
Responsibilities between vessels
. Except where
Rules 9,
10
and
13
otherwise require:

a sailing vessel.
(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

Large sightseeing and party boats may well fall within 13 (b) (ii) except for limited changes in speed in some conditions and circumstances. For others it might be inconvenient to change course but they might still be quite manoeuverable (eg twin engines and props, bow thrusters, pods/jets that can rotate 180 degs) although they may well be slow to accelerate and slow to stop and reverse.

On its face someone trolling for fish in a tinnie or drifting over a fishing ground would seem to have right of way over a sailing vessel and of course a small commercial fishing vessel with nets out would certainly have precedence over a racing yacht in most circumstances.

Again, COLREGS define the windward SIDE for the purposes only of determining which TACK a boat is on.
But the rule itself only says a boat to windward on the same tack, not a boat on the windward SIDE.

Hi Philip,
I see what you are saying but, with respect, I can't agree with your interpretation.
ColReg 12 (b) says "For the purpose of this Rule the windward side shall be deemed to be the side opposite to that on which the
mainsail is carried or, in the case of a square-rigged vessel, the side opposite to that on which the largest fore-and-aft
sail is carried."
It does not say it is for the purposes of determining which tack a boat is on.
The word "tack" does not appear anywhere in rule 12.

If it were not for (b) I would agree with you that you just look at which side of the boat the wind is coming over.

But (b) must have a meaning and the only plain meaning I can find for it, especially given the word tack is not in the Rule, is by applying the word windward as defined in (b) as meaning the side of the boat over which the wind is coming, meaning that in (a) when it says about the wind coming over a side it is referring to determining the windward side using the methodology in (b).
On your interpretation ColReg 12 would be silent if the wind was not coming over the side but was instead coming directly over the centre of the stern and running parallel to the centre line of the boat. ColReg 12 would need a subpara (iv) in (a) to deal with the direct downwind run.
If instead you apply (b) as I have suggested the only time that you can't apply 12 is when a boat is directly bow to wind, as it then has no windward side either intuitively and by boom position.

But then the ColReg ends up in the same position as the RRS in that it is unclear which is the carry on boat in the scenario originally posted above, which is that both have to avoid a collision and if one doesn't take action or is deemed to have taken insufficient action, and there is a collision both boats are at fault under the ColRegs and DSQ under RRS 14 (and not able to claim exoneration as neither was right-of-way boat).

If there is any case or authority you could cite for your proposition, other than ColReg12 itself I would of course reconsider my view.

No, it does not use the word TACK, but it does use the word SIDE in determining port tack vs. starboard tack.
And when on the same tack, it does not refer to which is on which side, but which lies to windward of the other.
I think you will agree with me that when the REGs were written there was no concept that a boat would deliberately be 45 degrees by the lee, as that would have been a highly unstable and dangerous situation for the rigging available at the time.
For those unable to differentiate between lying to windward and being the windward (italicized, defined) boat, let me suggest that you insist upon a Sailing Instruction for races with Lasers and their ilk:
"A boat sailing by the lee shall keep clear of a boat sailing a higher angle on the same tack. This changes RRS 11", etc.

Please do not forget RRS 86.1(a) and the fact that RRS 11 is a Part 2 rule.
By the way, here we are in the area of the RRS and not the COLREGS, which never apply on lakes in the inland.
And again, according to the Definitions in the RRS we have no windward boat, therefore 11 never applies here, because for RRS 11 we need a windward boat.

Willi, I think you will find that most states or countries have legislation or regulation which uses or adapts the ColRegs for use on all the waterways they govern. eg http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/maritime/licence/boating-handbook.pdf has a section explaining the rules that apply in NSW, even on inland lakes. Our focus on the RRS might sometimes blind us to the need to sail in accordance with a different set of rules during a race if the other vessel we are encountering is not racing. The reminder that a yacht overtaking a power boat moving slowly has to give way to the power boat is a good example. Philips, point that if a situation between boats racing is not goverened by RRS we need to think about whether it is govererned by other regulation (ColRegs or government or other) even as between two boats racing, at least as far as civil liability and maybe criminal liability as well. In NSW, Australia, anly collision with serious damage or injury would need to be reported to the authorities even if racing. The authorities may act under the non-RRS regulations even when all boats involved in the accident were racing under RRS

Paul, my understanding of this forum is, that we disuss cases within the Racing Rules of Sailing, and not all the different laws in different countries. In case of damage, for sure -at least in most of the European countries- a civil court is not bound by a decision of a protest committee. And on the big e.g. European lakes the COLREGs don´t apply. But this is not the case we are discussing here. Here we had a question about a situation with two boats racing, nothing more nothing less. And we have to look at this situation in terms of right of way or give way or reasonable avoid contact and all this in the light of the RRS. Again nothing more, nothing less. Look at Catalan´s scenario and question. Only if we stay with the topic, then we can find a solution. Adding things, that are not mentioned in the original case will take us into the wrong direction.

Dear Philip,
I have to stand with Willii in this case. I feel that your last post was inappropriate. Whether your post would have 69 consequences in another context I'll leave to the moderators...
This forum is about application of the RRS as they stand at the time. We cannot and should not be discussing the merits or otherwise of national prescriptions and government rules.

As a professional technical editor with British English as my first language, I have issues with the wording of some of the RRS. However, as Mary Pera once told me, we have no latitude to interpret. We have to apply the rules as they are written.

COLREGS are often applied by SIs at night, and they may help us to reach some sort of conclusion in the absence of clarity during daylight hours, but that only results in another interpretation; which we can't apply.

If you want to experience judging at the level that Willii comes from, and learn lots quickly about the breadth of knowledge and experience needed to consider every applicable rule, find an international, or top flight national, regatta and volunteer to be the jury secretary. Then ask if you can sit in on the decision making process. I learned enormously from doing that.

Would you please look at the below.
updated: Feb 14, 2010
STRANGE CASE Num.02 - Both Leeward and Both Starboard
http://ventoorientale.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2010/02/strange-case-2.html

My opinion is for rule 14 only. No boat is windward of other when tey are sideways. Other position before/after are not parte of the question

It seems from the heading of the page that this was protested "both boats penalised".
Rule 14 applies to each. Neither can claim exoneration under that rule.

Lots of great discussion here on how to apply the rules as they stand today; thanks to everyone for that.

I'm not sure if this is a valid question for this forum, but this case seems to expose a flaw in the current rules, especially in terms of the definitions of windward and leeward, that should be fixed. Would it make sense for someone to pass this case to a rules committee for a potential rule revision?