Without any testimony from Green, it's difficult to come to any conclusions regarding Blue. Green's gybe (and breaking RRS 11) was the proximate cause of Yellow's damage.

Yellow need not protest Green, but if she convinces the jury that Green broke RRS 11, then she is entitled to redress (Cases and ).

There is no testimony as to the distance between Green and Yellow. However, from the moving diagram it appears that Green broke 15 when she gybed and did not give yellow room to keep clear in a seaman-like manner. Blue broke no rule. Without being able to identify the boat that caused her damage, the request for redress should be denied.

I think Means was responding to the mirror image diagram where 15 applied that I had posted then replaced ...

What kind of boats and how much wind? There is a bunch of information that, if it wasn’t forthcoming in the testimony of the parties, needed to be determined by questions from the protest committee.

One is some confirmation BLUE’s self serving claim of 1 1/2 - 2 boatlengths when GREEN gybed, is correct. If this is the protest committee’s diagram, it looks close as to whether BLUE could fulfill her good intention to keep clear.

If the boats are crewed, it is hard to conclude that no one on either boat knows who GREEN was. It would be important that the protest committee invest enough time to conclude this was not a, “We don’t want to throw out our buddy GREEN, but we do want our buddy YELLOW to get redress.”

There are enough facts here to support a decision that YELLOW’s damage was caused by an unknown boat that was breaking a Part 2 rule, and/or BLUE broke rule 10, compelled unknown GREEN to gybe and break 15.

Good question to open discussions about what conclusions, and additional facts to support those conclusions, would be needed - and - when is it a waste of time to delve into unlikely sceneries.

Paul .. a couple pieces of info that might have impact on the timing and necessity of green's gybe would be ...

1. the speed of the boats and if they were on a plane or not,
2. the wind speed, and
3. the type of boat and thus the maneuverability.

I guess one could infer that the winds are high and boats at hull-speed or on a plane if the crash-gybe was sufficient to break a goose-neck .. but I think those facts would be useful.

Ang

Class Measurer, retired fleet Captain, PC

Good thing this didn't happen in our fleet. Request would have been denied unless yellow had the common sense to amend the request for redress claiming green forced her to crash jibe. Green would then have to pass on the requirement to crash jibe blaming blue. Without that chain yellow's claim has a problem with believability. Am I the only one thinking green is the missing link?

As with most of my posts, I'm not looking for whether or not a boat broke a rule. Rather, I'm provoking discussion. And, as I expected, there is a difference of opinion about when a boat may get redress where a another boat that breaks a rule of Part 2 is not protested. Having been in the position of making a decision on this question, I resisted applying the interpretation of Case 142 and came to the wrong conclusion. It feels like this opens the door for a boat to seek redress on manufactured facts and it made me very uncomfortable. But clearly Case 142 says that if the jury believes another boat broke a rule of Part 2 and the requesting boat suffered damage because of it, she is entitled to redress. But I think Pat & Herbert are voicing the same reservations as I felt. Anybody else worried about this?

Seems to me that either Green or Blue broke a Part 2 rule.

By your facts, Blue testifies that Green gybed onto port 1-1/2 BL's away into Yellow who was STB, forcing Yellow to crash-gybe.

Since a protested boat's ID isn't necessary on the protest form, I would hope that Yellow would have filed a protests against Green and Blue and let the PC sort it out. Without Green finally ID'd, the PC will have to go forward on only the Blue protest and rely upon the testimony of only Blue and Yellow. Without Green there to defend her actions on the water, the PC could go either way depending upon the speed of the boats, maneuverability and conditions vs the 1-1/2 BL separation.

In this case, seems you have 2 boats present and testifying that Green gybed unexpectedly into Yellow (from Yellow's POV) forcing her away .. hard to see how the PC will not find a Part 2 violation and how they can avoid applying Case 142.

It might be a thinner call if Yellow and Blue disagreed on the facts.

Ang

1. Even if Blue broke a rule, was it in an incident with Yellow?
2. If not, did Yellow actually witness the incident between Blue and Green?
3. If so, can Yellow protest Blue without naming Green?
4. It the protest is dismissed against Blue, can Yellow still get redress?

At the moment, when green gybed,blue still had time for her evasive moneuver. So blue broke no rule.
1. If blue brokes rule 10 and green gybes to avoid contact with blue, it was an incident with yellow.
2. ??
3. Yes: RRS 60.1 (..or saw the incdent; ..)
4. Yes Even if green is not identified, redress according to RRS 62.1(b) is possible.

Looking first at the protest. The PC should suspend the hearing and act under rule 60.3(a)(2) and protest Green assuming she can be identified after the race, It should then restart the hearing dealing with both Yellow's protest against Blue and the PC's protest against Green in the same hearing as they involve two incidents that are consequential on each other - see RYA 2003/3. If Green can not be identified then the Yellow/Blue protest should go ahead but still trying to establish the same facts as if Green were a party.

If the PC found as a fact that Green gybed before it was necessary then Blue broke no rule and Green may have broken rule 15. Green gybed on to starboard from port close to Yellow and Yellow responded by gybing. As long as Green gave Yellow room to respond in a seaman like manner once she (Green) became starboard boat then she did not break rule 15 or any other rule. The fact that Yellow broke her goose neck is not conclusive proof that she was not given room to respond as there may be many other factors involved in the breakage - see later remarks.

If the PC found as a fact that Green had a reasonable apprehension of contact with Blue and gybed at the appropriate time to take avoiding action (taking into account sea conditions, speed and manoeuverability of the boats etc) then Blue broke rule 10 and should be disqualified - WS Case 50. Green may or may not have broken rule 15 but that is irrelevant as she would be exonerated under rule 64.1(a) even if she did.

Turning to the request for redress, it can be seen from the above that there are three possible outcomes of the protests - no boat broke a rule, Green broke a rule, Blue and Green broke rules with Green exonerated. If no boat broke a rule then the conditions for redress under rule 62.1(b) are not met and no redress can be given. If either Green or Blue broke a rule the PC would then have to consider whether Yellow's position has been significantly worsened as a direct consequence of damage resulting from the rule breaking through no fault of her own. This would turn on the question of whether or not the goose neck breaking was caused by the crash gybe or some other reason such as age, not sufficiently strong in the first place etc. A point of consideration would be whether or not there was a history of goose necks breaking in these circumstances. The PC would also need to consider if the crew of Yellow acted competently in the way the gybe was carried out and if their incompetence contributed to the damage then she fails the "through no fault of her own" test. If the PC decided that that there was a causal link between the rule breaking and the breakage and Yellow was not at fault then redress could be given.

Bill ...

Green gybed on to starboard from port close to Yellow and Yellow responded by gybing....
.... there are three possible outcomes of the protests - no boat broke a rule, Green broke a rule, Blue and Green broke rules with Green exonerated

Think you've got your P's-n-S's flipped. Green gybed from Stb to Port into Yellow who was leeward, starboard and overlapped with Green and well outside the zone. Unless RRS 17 was in play, it seems Yellow has every right to hold her course until the cows come home and certainly to the 45 deg port layline.

"No boat broke a rule" is not a possible outcome from my POV.

I really like your process description though of how to separate the cases with the missing ID.

The way I'm looking at it is that I'm assuming as facts that..

1. the animated drawing is the adopted drawing of the PC.
2. that this drawing was developed by evidence given by both Blue and Yellow and both boats agree that this represents what happened.
3. Blue gives evidence that Green was 1-1/2 BL's away when she gybed into Yellow, Yellow says Green gybed causing her to crash-gybe to avoid Blue, therefore
   1. Green exists (she isn't a figment of Yellow's imagination or a contrivance)
   2. Green gybed into Yellow from Stb to port into Yellow
   3. From the drawing it appears she breaks first 11 then 10 as Green's main flips first .. so either Blue is at fault exonerating Green or Green faces 11 and 10.
4. Therefore a Part 2 violation exists and it's either on Blue or Green.

If Green is not found by the time the protest is opened, I like Bill's description of splitting the issues into 2, suspending Green's and going forward with Yellow v Blue. If Blue is vindicated, the PC must find Green broke a Part 2 rule (because they adopted the drawing and Blue's testimony). I think redress is then likely.

Case 135 talks about a capsized boat and damage resulting. Boats aren't supposed to operate upside-down .. so something breaking in that situation is one thing. A boom getting thrown quickly from one-side to the other in heavy winds and slamming against its extremes is what booms do under normal operation.

Let's assume this scenario all happens in 8-10kts of breeze? I'm then starting to have even more heartache about the redress and the Pandora's Box that I think Paul's trying to instigate discussion around.

Really my only question is the condition of the goose-neck prior to the incident and whether or not it should have been capable of handling this shock-load. What if instead it was a shroud that broke and in testimony it is found that the rigging hadn't been replaced for 20 years?

Ang

Ang - sorry, I wrote this early this morning. Yesterday we won a major cup in the Falmouth working boat and ended up filling it with two bottles of rum so I was not really on my game first thing. Having raced my RS 400 this morning and sailed my Jenneau 32 this afternoon my head is much clearer and I agree I flipped port and starboard in my mind.

Green certainly broke a part 2 rule in respect of Yellow. Whether she was compelled to do so by Blue appears to be irrelevant as the wording of 62.1(b) only requires a boat to have broken a part 2 rule as far as I can see. So that part of the conditions for redress was met but the questions I raised regarding the direct causal link and the "through no fault of her own" test appear to remain valid.

We've got two separate matters here.

1. A 'third party' protest by Y against B for not keeping clear of G. As far as I can see, there are no grounds for thinking that B broke any rule with respect to Y.
2. A request for redress by Y because of worsening of her place in the race or series by damage because of the action of G, in breaking a rule of Part 2.

The outcome of the request for redress is in no way dependent on the outcome of the protest. Whether B broke a rule, or even whether B compelled G to break a rule, has no effect on the issues in the request for redress which are whether G did break a rule, and whether this caused damage to Y.

There's something to be said for announcing a decision and closing the protest hearing, then opening the redress hearing, or at least reaching and recording conclusions deciding the protest before considering the entitlement to redress.

Congrats of the Cup Bill .. those working boats sound like a blast. - Ang