There are two discussions happening side-by-side.

1.  There's the practical geometric discussion.. whether the physics is actually plausible.

2.  Then there's the philosophical moral ethical fairness discussion - who's fault?

I am only interested in philosophical debate here in this thread.  (The question of whether the geometry works can be left to PCs at real hearings.)

--------------------------------------------------------

Philosophical moral ethical fairness discussion

Who's responsibility is it to account for / anticipate that lack of perfection / bad luck / unforeseen outcome in sailing?

" the keep-clear boat is required to act only in response to what the right-of-way boat is doing at the time; she is not required to anticipate what the right-of-way boat might do subsequently."

This is a casebook interpretation.  We must apply it, like it or not.  This would acquit the keep-clear boat in the rule 11 / rule 12 scenarios.  According to that, she was keeping clear.

Additionally there is the literal interpretation of the word 'cause' (as an active failure) in R14.

JohnS's interpretation is well reasoned and fits with the rules, and the direct-cause interpretation in rule 14 and Case 92, putting the liability on RoW when they make a mistake and exonerating the keep-clear boat.

Yet, from a practical safety point of view, we know for a fact that there are times when, despite all reasonable precautions, things happen.  Who's responsibility does this greyness fall under?

If we are to go with JohnS's interpretation, there leaves a scope of risk which is unacceptably not accounted for...:  while we can say under the rules that leeward / ahead boat messed up (dropped the sheet/didn't see the gust- 'caused the collision') and should take the penalty AFTER something happened, there is still always be the risk to safety in sailing due to unforeseen/imperfection/bad luck.

We can't just say to RoW, "Don't make a mistake.  Dropping the mainsheet is banned.  Don't have bad luck.  It's dangerous!"

For safety, this risk must be anticipated BEFORE something happens.

(If this were an air crash investigation, the 'root cause' would be 'the insufficient distance between the boats'.  Dropping the mainsheet is an 'active failure' and the wind strength is a 'contributing factor'.  Logic tells us to fix the root cause.)

The only logical solution is to put this anticipation into the definition of keep clear.  That is 'keep-clear' includes separation to account for RoWs full range of reasonable sailing.

(My feeling is that keep clear includes space needed to accommodate the full range of trim of her sails without warning.)

But this is the crux as I see it.  Anticipation is not a thing in RRS.  Safety is.  Here, they collide and conflict.
--------------

Have we reached another dead-end?

When we reach a dead-end it normally means that both sides have a very strong point or are technically correct.  Often it needs an official interpretation to tell us which view to follow.  Sometimes it needs re-work of the rule (this case probably).

Either way, I don't think we will get any further here.  I think all the possible arguments have been presented.

Good discussion.

Looks nifty thanks Michael - will pass along to the Bodies here in the Philippines

Richard, thank you for your open minded response, but i agree with Sue that relaxing the promptness of the hail and RRS 44 penalty requirements would be undesirable.

One of the purposes of the suggestion was to reinforce the requirements for prompt hail and prompt response.

If you let go of those requirements you will get into all sorts of disputes about:

AIUI the purpose of making the respondent (not a word in this RRS) field mandatory is that the system automatically messages that entity that they are the subject of a hearing.  Naming a boat there will make it appear that that boat has been protested.

Wouldn't a better solution for requests fo  redress be to either omit the respondent field or make it non mandatory, and message the race committee that a request has been received in every case?

Thank you for everything that you do.