This situation occurred two days ago in one of our classes between 21-foot Indians. I was the PRO, and observed the incident, but was not on the PC. I would have penalized Port, as Starboard had a reasonable apprehension of contact and felt the need to take avoiding action. (WS Case 50) The actual PC disallowed the protest.

Had Port completed her tack (on new course), before Starboard tacked away? If so, then no foul and even if Starboard hit the competed tacked lee bow attacker, if she had had time and room to avoid, she would be the fouler. Remember a tack is complete when on the new course, dead in water, flogging sails etc no bearing.

Hi John,

The answer to the first part of your question is; it depends!

If Starboard's decision to bear away was the result of her "genuine &'reasonable apprehension" of a collision if she didn't change course, then Port broke rule 10.
To determine whether or not Starboard's apprehension was genuine and reasonable, a protest committee would need more information than the question provides, such as the type & size of the boats; the light, wind & water conditions that prevailed, the speed of the boats and the distance they were apart when starboard first commenced to alter course. Have a look at WS Case 50, because it deals with the principles involved in just such a scenario as you describe.

As to the second part of the question: It often occures in the protest room that there can be disagreement about if and when a hail was made, the words used & whether a protest flag was displayed. It's the task of the PC to satisfy itself from the evidence submitted whether or not the protest is valid. But having said that, for incidents in the racing area, it's not neccessary that a hail is heard, it's only necessary that the hail is made.

Phil.

But having said that, for incidents in the racing area, it's not neccessary that a hail is heard, it's only necessary that the hail is made.

Phil, I'm not suggesting that the above is not the case, but I'm wondering if you have any cases/appeals/QA's or other references which have explored this question.

Ang

This is not an uncommon situation in competitive small boat racing. As the distance between port and starboard closes to a few feet, and there is no sign that port is about to tack, starboard has to make a quick decision whether to bear away or tack in order to avoid contact. If starboard had reasonable cause to believe that either action was necessary, port is subject to a penalty under Rule 10 (refer to Case 50). It may be difficult for a protest committee to determine reasonable cause when there is a big experience difference between the parties..

Hi Ange,

No, I'm afraid that I can't provide a precedent. It's simply my own opinion. But I can offer the opinion of a very senior multiple AC Jury Chairman, Bryan Willis, when he states in his book " Protests & Appeals":
"Remember, if you don't shout "Protest" immediately, you cannot lodge a protest. The hail doesn't have to be heard for this validity requirement to be satisfied, but you have to be reasonable: hail more than once if the first hail is not acknowledged, and loud enough to be heard in the prevailing conditions", and later on ".....when the rules require a hail, then a hail must be made for the protestto be valid".

It is, therefore, to my mind only necessary for a PC to be satisfied that an appropriate hail was made, for a protest to be valid on these grounds.

Cheers,

Phil.

It seems to me that the breach of the rule occurred when starboard thought port was not going to give way, provided it was reasonable for starboard to think that at the time. It was up to port to keep clear and starboard clearly considered that she could not sail her course without taking avoiding action. As Eric says, WS Case 50 is on the point. Port's tack was too late to keep clear within the definition. While Phil asks for more facts, it seems to me that we have enough to come to that conclusion. The boats must have been close because starboard had to crash tack to avoid port after port tacked.

As has been said, the fact that the hail of protest was not heard doesn't matter as long as it was made. However she didn't protest for some reason so the question doesn't arise in practice.

David

There was an Australian Sailing Appeal Midnight Rambler v Swish in 2015 which expressly dealt with this issue: Not hearing a hail does not prove that no hail was made.

Unfortunately the appeal is no longer shown on the Australian Sailing Website.

I agree with David, in a none contact sport if we do not accept there was a breach here we are in difficulty.
To me, Crash tack sounds like unseamanlike tack to another breach, you might get the balance of doubt on one of these but not both.
If you believe there was a hail, then that is fine you just have to assess the evidence.
It would be to give rule breakers a way out by relying on them to say they heard a hail, certainly at many hearings I attend they say they never heard the hail.
I like protests heard on their merits, I now always consider the "hailing distance" to see if the hail is required at all.

John E (OP) .. found this CAN Appeal which touches your scenario as well (except from the opposite POV). - Ang

CAN Appeal CAN6

Interesting, no-one commented on my reply that port only did a proper and completely legal lee bow attack, as I have done many times over the years in one design racing and NEVER lost a protest. In the description it says port TACKED ( c
ompleted) in time for Starboard to avoid, so where is the foul? Hailing is neither required nor has any affect and neither boat is required to anticipate the action of the other. If the situation was PORT had NOT completed her tack, or if Starboard hits Port while trying to avoid then PORT as fouled Starboard! Case 17 defines when TACK is completed.

Mr. Thorpe, I suggest that you take a good look at Case 50.

Ernest Thorpe
said

Interesting, no-one commented on my reply that port only did a proper and completely legal lee bow attack, as I have done many times over the years in one design racing and NEVER lost a protest. In the description it says port TACKED ( completed) in time for Starboard to avoid, so where is the foul? Hailing is neither required nor has any affect and neither boat is required to anticipate the action of the other. If the situation was PORT had NOT completed her tack, or if Starboard hits Port while trying to avoid then PORT as fouled Starboard! Case 17 defines when TACK is completed.

Ernest Thorpe
said

Had Port completed her tack (on new course), before Starboard tacked away? If so, then no foul and even if Starboard hit the competed tacked lee bow attacker, if she had had time and room to avoid, she would be the fouler. Remember a tack is complete when on the new course, dead in water, flogging sails etc no bearing.

Based on the OP, provided that 'Starboard's decision to bear away was the result of her "genuine &'reasonable apprehension" of a collision if she didn't change course, then Port broke rule 10' (Thanks Phil Mostyn).

The bear away avoidance was before Port tacked.

In other words, P left her lee bow tack too late.

Ernest Thorpe
said Created: Yesterday 15:28

Sorry, port's only concern should be if she would have had time to cross clearly across starboards bow if she doesn't tack,

I can't dispute that if P can clearly cross starboard's bow, then S can have no reasonable apprehension of collision, and P does not break rule 10.

The point, however, of any Rule 10 protest is that S contends that it was NOT clear that P could cross S's bow.

since she ended her completed tack ahead in front she must have. The act of tacking would have slowed her down but by evidence given she ended in front.

This vector logic only holds good if S does not change her course or speed. In the OP scenario, S does change course, by bearing away before P tacks. The eventual position of P, clear ahead of S, proves little or nothing about what would have happened if S had not borne away.

Case 50 does require the protest committee to agree with starboard's claim, they didn't.

Indeed they didn't.

The protest committee dodged the issue, saying ‘The need to change course could not be substantiated by the conflicting testimony of the two helmsmen.’

The Appeal held that the protest committee was in error and that

On the facts, as shown in the diagram and the report of the protest committee, the ability of P to cross ahead of S was doubtful at best. S’s appeal is upheld, and P is disqualified.

Unless some judgement by some independent review is allowed, every time a starboard tacker wants to claim they might have been affected, they can claim a foul.

"Claim a foul": sounds like a chook raffle.

Independent review is precisely what a protest committee does in hearing a rule 10 protest.

The protest committee finds facts about speeds, distances and existing conditions, and reaches conclusions, in accordance with Case 50 about whether or not

S did not change course or that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on her part, it should dismiss her protest. When, however, it is satisfied that S did change course, that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead, and that S was justified in taking avoiding action by bearing away, then P should be disqualified

I been in that actual situation a few times when the starboard boat had taken action many boat length away and the protest had been disallowed. Case. 50 does not give an automatic defense against Lee bow action.

If a starboard tack boat takes action so that risk of collision (in the COLREGS sense) no longer exists 'many boat lengths away' from a port tack boat, then I would expect a protest committee to conclude that there was "not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on [S's]part" (Case 50),

In the time taken for boats to converge over 'many boat lengths' there would be ample time for P to take action to keep clear or for S to change her course or speed in response to the conditions.

What we we are talking about above is where boats are not 'many boat lengths' apart, but when they are in relatively close proximity.

Many points I could disagree with but the main point is your comments are based on case 50 not the statement describing the incident. My basis...I think Case 50 was clearly wrong and gives too much power to a starboard tacker to defend herself against a lee bower. The only defense a Port attacker has against an unnecessary move by Starboard is the judgement of the PROTEST Committee, which in this case did not "Dodge" but decided that there was not proof that Starboard needed to change course.

What Case 50 has done is allow a boat on starboard seeing a port tacker coming is to wait until the distance closes and then just change course by bearing away, tacking or luffing. This both allows her to avoid the attack and in some cases gives her the ability to likely disqualify a close competitor. And yes it does happen in major one design regattas.

I also have a hard time visualing the situation. If STB "bared away, why did she tack? Seems after bearing away she would have been behind and sailing AWAY from the threat. Tacking back towards it doesn't make sense. But like many of these commentators, I wasn't there nor saw the sketches submitted to the PC.

Guess I'm too old school, in my 25 years of one design racing, mostly in J-24s, the only valid question in a tacking to close argument is Was the Tack completed, and did the Stb boat Successfully stay clear or at least tried to.

I think Case 50 was clearly wrong and gives too much power to a starboard tacker to defend herself against a lee bower.

Ernest .. Case 50 has been on the books 37 years (circa 1981) and thus has been governing the official interpretation of P/S interactions for quite a while. Cases of that longevity are rarely "clearly wrong" unless the RRS's change themselves, thus rendering their previous interpretation moot.

My comment re Case 50 is only my belief, since I been racing since 1974 there have been a lot of changes and some of then I don't agree with, but that's just me, of course I have to follow then whether I like them or not, that is why I prefaced my remarks with "my basis". Given that, only once in my experience have I ever heard in a protest room, as judge or competitor, the "I thought that he wouldn't" clear me argument and as a relative aggressive competitor in one design who belied in using tactics as part of the sport I've been in many. The typical argument is you tacked too close, and case 17 addressed that.