Paul, if they concluded that RRS 16.1 is in play for STB, shouldn't we have some facts regarding contact, damage and/or injury? - Ang

Well, I guess I’d have to say, “it depends” :D

There are no facts.  There is no analysis of the conclusions. There is no statement what other rules might apply. And you don't have to provide an all-encompassing decision.

And for extra points, does a conclusion that starboard didn't comply with RRS 16.1 require contact, damage and/or injury?

DSQ starboard RRS 16.1, exonerate port RRS 64.1(a), and go skiing for me (no snow nor slopes in my immediate surrounding...). Then peacefully go to bed after a genuine Irish whiskey.

Assuming that STB's change of course mentioned in the 16.1 violation was a consequence of STB taking avoiding action for Port's RRS 10 violation ... 

DSQ Port for RRS 10.  Exonerate STB for the 16.1 with 64.1(a) .  I would site Case 88 and Case 50  (PS .. and maybe Case 26 for good measure depending on facts).

No, you don't need contact for RRS 16.1 .. but the issue of exonerating STB for an RRS 14 violation would depend on the severity of the contact if there was.

Ang 

We have two alternatives so far, though Yves, you can't just drop a decision and go drink whiskey..  Tell us why?

I would say that either of us could be correct .. or both incorrect .... depending upon the facts found .. as we also can add to the possibilities that both STB and PORT are DSQ'd.

RRS 64.1(a) exoneration depends upon "consequence" ... and being "compelled".

In the conclusions as stated, one could infer an order of events .. RRS 10 and then RRS 16.1 .. but that is not specifically stated.

If neither 10 nor 16.1 are a consequence of the other, then DSQ both.
If the 16.1 violation was a consequence of STB taking avoiding actions, then DSQ Port
If the 10 violation was a consequence of STB changing course, then DSQ STB.

Port DSQ RRS 10.

Stbd is required by RRS 14 to avoid collision and does so. She breaks RRS 16.1 but she is exonerated under RRS 21.1(a).

Raise the Blue and Yellow flags. Put them down and then go drink Irish whiskey when you get to shore, because your day is done.
kim

At a hotel at a team race event so not the usual consideration given to this.
It depends on who broke the rule first and perhaps the betting would be on a dsq for starboard because of a bias in the rules.
Starboard breaks 16.1 so when port breaks 10 she is exonerated if she was then sailing in the room to which she was entitled, this is absolute.
If 10 is broken first then 16.1 starboard has to depend on 64 this is not absolute as she has to prove she is compelled. This sis why the odds favour the Port boat.
We are really hard on right of way boats altering course a bias in the rules. 
So if 16.1 broken first port probably exonerated DSQ STB
If 10 broken first Post dsq and Possible starboard dsq dependant on whether she was compelled to break 16.1 or not.

Just a joke, Paul, since you cant really answer the question - or you can accept many answers. Sorry I spoilt the fun...
I disappear...

PS: I dont like whiskey and try to avoid it.

Hi to everyone from the Lake Como.
the conclusions reported, looks very clos to case 88.
If P failed to keep clear of S and therefore broke rule 10, P is dsq.  Whitout a diagram that shows when S begins to alter her course, it is hard to establish why she altered her course. So is S altered her course, infringing rule 16.1,  after P failed to keep clear, S can be exonerated as provided by rule 64.1(a) 

Michael B, I thought your contribution to the discussion of highlighting the comparison of the potential RRS 21 and 64.1(a) exonerations (depending on the facts) was interesting and helpful. - Ang 

I’m with Juuso, and in the absence of clear facts, definitely with Kym.

Seriously, there is no one right answer.  This is akin to a Part C question on the IJ Exam, so it is simply a matter of laying out the facts necessary to support your conclusion and decision.  Correct answers include: DSQ port or DSQ starboard.  I disagree that there is any bias in the rules favouring either the r-o-w boat or the keep clear boat; removing “onus” was one of the big changes to the RRS in 1997.

More important than any of the foregoing, consider 12 year old Scotch as an alternative to Jamieson’s.

Cheers, RH

I think the exercise points out the balance between keeping clear and room to keep clear.  If port was keeping clear until starboard altered such that she is not giving room to keep clear, starboard will be penalized, and port will be exonerated.  If port was not keeping clear, and starboard was compelled to alter (and made things worse - not giving room), port will be penalized and starboard exonerated.  So I think Micheal's comment of "first to foul wins the flag" is on point.  I can't think of a scenario where both are penalized without some other rule being involved, because either port initially did not keep clear or starboard initially altered and did not give room.  

When I see this issue, I think of match racing where starboard has pushed port to the left and they do repeated dial ups, tack, gybe, and then come at each other again.  If starboard gets onto a collision course with enough room for port to keep clear, and stops altering, then port has to keep clear (and is in big trouble).  If starboard is still altering when they get down to a collision course where there is not enough room for port to keep clear, then port gets to force starboard into another dial up and starboard needs to avoid any contact (as long as port does all she can to keep clear).

I too tend to agree with the possibilities of using  RRS 21 and 64.1(a) as brought out by Michael B.
That leaves for lesser scope for a ROW boat to escape in case she acts too  early or doesn't act at all. ( and there is contact resulting in damage)

I'd disqualify them both.  The port boat for a breach of rule 10 - she didn't keep clear; and the starboard boar for a breach of rule 16 - she altered course and didn't give the port boat room to keep clear.  But almost certainly the port boat could have acted before that happened so she also broke her rule and should be exonerated.

I wondered about rule 69 for the two guys who wanted to drink Irish rather than Scotch but I don't think it was that great a sin!  Guys. I'm joking! the best Irish matches the best Scotch.  I'm just glad I'm sitting in a nice warm English house and not suffering the US vortex. 

David

It's not a match race as the instructions say a PC "hears a protest".  In a match race, it would likely be offsetting penalties or green flag.  The PC created 2 conclusions that conflict each other.  Port did not keep clear but was not given the room needed to keep clear.  Port exonerated.  Starboard altered as ROW 16.1 but there is no mention of contact so Port was given room to keep clear.  With no contact, disallow protest.  With contact, he who alters second is at fault.

Useful discussion.  I think its important to bring out cases 50 & 88, and rules 21 (a) and 64.1 (a) and the timing issues .   So I'm following lines of Angelo, Mike and David L. but sitting on the fence as regards the  conclusions and decision.

If the decision went to appeal I would hope that the appeals committee would then go for a re-hearing on the grounds of insufficient facts.  

Neither can I, but our Dungeon Master did say, "There are no facts.  There is no analysis of the conclusions. There is no statement what other rules might apply."

With only the 2 conclusions that each boat violated a rule, I thought it was a good conceptual starting point.  We basically start with 2 DSQ's and each is only removed through 21 and/or 64.1(a).

Randy you said "Starboard altered as ROW 16.1 but there is no mention of contact so Port was given room to keep clear.  With no contact, disallow protest.   ... "

Was wondering if you would be willing to elaborate on your 'no-contact, no-16.1 violation' position? .. 

Ang