Hi Mike:

I think we would need to know a little more about the nature and intent of the “touch” to decide this correctly. Case 73 hangs the Rule 2 infraction on a demonstrated intent of a crew member on the leeward boat to cause W to infringe Rule 11. In my experience, this is not always the case when boats converge in this way.

one of the answers 1-4 is correct. The question is an example of NJ exam questions I will sit in 2 weeks time . No more info is available. Decision required !

I’m guessing the writers want you to choose option 2, but I would also object to the question on the basis that we don’t know of the crew member’s intent. Key to deciding this incident correctly.

Grant, ( a nice Scottish name !)

Can't object I'm afraid, the question is an example of a 30 question multiple choice exam. I'll keep turning my rulebook pages !
(and maybe have a wee play on my Les Paul from time to time !)

Mike
(Scotland)

Hii
As Grant introduced, you can begin reading case and derive it wondering whether W was keeping clear or not. Then you can adapt answers with a similar thinking, writing facts and drawing appropriate conclusions.

My thoughts on this matter:
- If L could not change his course without immediately making contact with W, W was not keeping clear. A few inches is probably not far enough.
- On L, question is Did L's crew have to reach out, or was it intended to touch W? If the extension outwards was needed, then L broke 14 but is exonerated. If the extension was NOT needed, L broke 14 and 2, and is exonerated from her breach of rule 14.
==> Answer 2


Based on the language of the answer, I'd say 1 or 2, because you can find it there the definition of keeping clear, and no answer is really clear as to why you may believe L broke rule 2

4 is of course out of any range of possibilities
On 3, I'd like to know why you would exonerate W of her breach of rule 11 by a breach of rule 2. Anyone'd like to argue on this? ;)

The question indicates that crew on the leeward boat deliberately touched the windward boat. I'm wondering why we wouldn't read intent into that language. And secondly, the windward boat was not converging with the leeward boat. Perhaps the only allowable intentional contact would be fending off, but I'm not reading that in the facts. I fail to see how this would not be an RRS (as interpreted by Case ) and an 11 and 14 (as answer 2 suggests)..

what Rule says you can't touch another boat? Why is it "unfair" (rule 2 ) if you do?, assuming u don't push off (42). It does demonstrate proximity.

Not trying to be difficult, just asking.....

Touch another boat : 14 ?
Unfair : doing it deliberately ?

Would L be exonerated 14b for contact by reaching out?

Is there a case that says it is “unfair” to reach out?

As for RRS 2, makes it clear that we can infer from the action the intent was to cause windward to break a rule. We could also say another alternative is that windward reached out and touched leeward, and we might not interpret that as an intent to cause leeward to break a rule. So point well taken; there is probably more than just fending off that would be intentional, yet not intending to cause the other boat to break a rule.. Take a look at Case .

And yes, touching another boat is contact under RRS 14. It does not need to be just hull or equipment. Just to stir up some trouble, take a look at Case RYA1999-05...

PS: I don't often find myself defending exam questions. Feels strange... ;)

I Think there are two incidents. Leading up to the protest, it seems W is not keeping clear, therefore dsq W

the reaching out (not in normal crew position) is dealt with in case 73, L is in breach of rule 2. Presumably the protest cttee heard of this in the protest of W by L and so can act. Dsq L. My inclination is this would be discardable

I don't see an inconsistency between Case 73 and RYA Appeal 1999/05. They require careful reading.

The critical condition in Case 73 is "which action could have no other intention than to cause W to break rule 11,".

That is, if W has already broken rule 11, the condition of Case 73 does not apply,

The test then, is going to be, could the right-of-way boat change course in both directions without immediately making contact?

I would normally be satisfied that if a leeward boas was "a few inches from and parallel" to a windward boat then she could NOT change course without immediately making contact and thus that the windward boat was not keeping clear. I would be prepared to be argued out of this position if the existing conditions were calm, wind light, and the 'few inches' closer to 6 inches than 3 inches.

In the question posed, Options 1 and 2 both provide the condition "if there would have been immediate hull-hull contact if L had changed course, either by luffing or bearing away".

On that basis I think we can conclude that before the contact, W was not keeping clear, W broke rule 11 an that Case 73 did not apply, and L did not break rule 2.

This is exactly what the RYA Appeal says.

However, the question then states that a person on L deliberately reached out and touched (made contact with) W. It was reasoably possible for that person to refrain from that action.

It was reasonably possible for L to avoid contact witih W. L broke rule 14, but, L being the right of way boat and there being no injury or damage, L shall be exonerated for breaking rule 14 in accordance with rule 14b.

OK, L deliberately broke rule 14: that is getting near a breach of rule 2, but, in my opinion, for it to be "clearly established that these principles have been violated" as required by rule 2 we need to read 'deliberately broke' as "deliberately broke so as to gain an advantage". That doesn't apply in this case and I would argue that L has not broken rule 2.

In my opinion, none of Options 1, 2, or 3 are correct. W broke rule 11, L broke rule 14 but is exonerated, L did not break rule

We now come to some issues of examination technique (and sound test question construction).

I fear that this is one of those 'examination preparation questions' that do not have a correct answer but are 'to make the candidate think'.

ISTR that there is a convention in IJ exams that if a fact is not stated, it is to be assumed that it did not occur. The question as quoted does not say that there was a valid protest.

Option 4 is "Decide that L broke rule 2, and so W is exonerated for not keeping clear, but do not penalize L because W did not protest her."

This is a bit curly.

If there was no valid protest by either boat, then Option 4 is wrong to refer to 'decide', because a protest committee is not permitted to 'decide' anything other than validity in an invalid protest (rule 63.5).

I think the question requires the assumption that L validly protested W.

In that case, we might suppose that this Option posits, contrary to Options 1 and 2, that W would have been keeping clear, but for the deliberate touch, and that Case 73 applied, and Case 73 held that W did not break rule 11. So, Option 4 is again wrong: in accordance with Case 73, W is not 'exonerated' for breach of rule 11, she never broke it in the first place.

Option 4 is also dead wrong about non-penalisation of L. This is all one incident. If L broke rule 2 there is no way she should not be penalised.

So the final answer is None of the Above.

If it is going to be an exam, you have a minute or so to answer.
You get no more information than what you have. Don't guess, don't imagine what would happen if this or that.
Look at the rules. Not much more. You are judge in training, looking to be a regional or may be a national judge, not to be the best expert in the world.
So, be simple.
W does not keep clear, as a definition of keeping clear, when overlapped.
L deliberatly touched W, as written. So L broke rule 2.
Then , simple as obvious, DSQ both.
And have a look to the next question, without loosing time.
Good luck.
Loïc

A good exam technique is to establish if any boat took a penalty? It's also a pretty handy fact to establish in real hearings...

From the answers available I would choose 1 as it gets the right result.
If L made contact with W as a result of a crew person on L touching W then L would be exonerated.
The action by the crew of L merely proved that W could not be regarded as keeping clear and caused no damage or injury.

To me one, windawrd is not keeping clear, for exams check out the "few inches" LEEWARD EVONERATED UNDER 15 NO DAMAGE and no rule 2 as leeward did not cause windward ro break a rule they were already.

As to rule 2: the second sentence of rule 2 must not be overlooked: "A boat may be penalisd under this rule only if it is clearly established that these pronciples have been violated."
Don't you like the use of "violated" rather than the normal "breached" or "broken"?.
.

Jeeeeeezzzzz . I thought I'd get a straightforward answer. !

At least it proves my indecision was validated ! But the exam is multi choice, you have to choose one correct answer.

Just to stir up some trouble, take a look at Case RYA1999-05...

I don't see an inconsistency between Case 73 and RYA Appeal 1999/05. They require careful reading.
The critical condition in Case 73 is "which action could have no other intention than to cause W to break rule 11,".
That is, if W has already broken rule 11, the condition of Case 73 does not apply, ...

.. I would be prepared to be argued out of this position if the existing conditions were calm, wind light, and the 'few inches' closer to 6 inches than 3 inches.

Very interesting scenario and enlightening discussion. I wasn't familiar with the color provided by the RYA Appeal 1999/05 .

Couple thoughts on the separation question ...

I think in normal parlance "few" is 2-4. We get squarely into "several" territory when we get up to 5+.

Also, there has been no talk of size of boats here. In my 35 foot boat with 50 feet of mast and rig above the water, there is no interpretation of "few inches" which would suffice for "keep clear" IMO. On the other hand, if it's RC boats, or maybe Opti's or wind surfer where the mast is short and hull closer to the skipper .. maybe there's a question, but even then "a few inches" seems too close.

VERY interesting though, thinking about the RYA Appeal. Definietly broadenend my understanding. - Ang

Given that this is a RYA question, I think they were fishing for RYA Appeal 1999/05: rule 2 not broken.

That being the case, I think the intended answer was Option 1.

I think RYA 1999/05 was wrong to overlook the obvious breach of rule 2, but so be it.

As to guessing, once you have eliminated clearly wrong answers and reduced the odds, guessing is a perfectly legitimate and successful technique in multiple choice tests, especially now that IJ exams do not penalise wrong answers.

By a quick process of elimination, I would choose 2 as the answer.

Answer 1 is eliminated because L breaks rule 14. It was reasonable for L to avoid contact by not reaching out.
Answer 3 is eliminated because the answer itself states W was not keeping clear and W cannot be exonerated for that.
Answer 4 is eliminated - in a valid protest hearing the decision not to penalize cannot be based on whether W protested L or not.