"I only have one concern, about a tiny detail. The decision will not change, but... Answer 1 states that: "A breaks rules 11 (against X) and 18.2(b) against both X and Y. In no case is she entitled to exoneration." It also states that Y broke rule 11 against A [and X]? but is exonerated for that breach. My concern is that A could have been compelled to break 11 and 18.2(b) against X, because Y failed to keep clear under 11. In other words, A failed to keep clear and to give mark-room to X because Y prevented her to sail on the wrong side of the mark. So technically A could be exonerated for her breach of rule 11 and 18.2(b) against X under 64.1(a). The fact that Y is exonerated of her breach does not prevent to apply 64.1(a).The decision will not change"
I think you're right, Francisco - there is an incorrect
interpretation of the application of the rules.
I once found something similar in The Call Book
for Team Racing.
Pls look to TR CALL L4:
X is sailing to
get clear in order to take a penalty. Y is overlapped to leeward of
both X and B
and subject to rule 17 for both overlaps. Y and B are
and Y will make contact with X if she maintains her course. Y
luffs when she
is two lengths from X and as a result Y and B pass astern of X. B
keeps clear of Y
and protests. What should the call be?
Penalize X. X is
overlapped to windward of Y and is required to keep clear of
her. As Y has to
luff to avoid X, X fails to keep clear and breaks rule 11.
incident is between X and Y, which are boats on the same team, it
also involves B.
It is only because X breaks rule 11 that Y’s
proper course is to
luff to avoid her and this
luff directly affects B. If X was keeping clear of Y, Y’s
luff would break
rule 17. Therefore rule D1.3(c) does not apply and X is
I think there (red color text) is
incorrect interpretation of the definition Proper Course.
As the rule 17 is apply between Y and X
so the boat X is «the
other boat[s] referred to in the rule using the term.» - see the
definition Proper Course: “A course a boat would sail
to finishas soon as possible in
the absence of the other boats referred to in the
rule using the term.”
Question: Would Y does the luff to sail
to finish as soon as possible in the absence X (and B)? Answer: No.
Therefore, Y’s luffing due the presence
of the boat X, it is not her proper course.
Though it does not affect the Call's decision - Y
breaking Rule 17 with respect to B, but she does so because X breaking Rule 11
and therefore Y shall be exonerated by
Rule 64.1(а). And in this case assertion of involvement
in the incident the boat B looks more logical - because in relation to
her a rule were violated.
'... her proper course in respect of..."
answer two questions (let's forget while about the boat B):
a X is the other boat referred to in the rule b No
you can't ignore B as the relationship between Y and B
Y and B is the only subject of the protest and subsequent call.
We can't ignore Х as the relationship between Y and Х, too. And we can’t ignore the definitions of RRS. We
must read them literally.
I agree entirely with the publisher of the Call in the Team Racing Call Book. OK, but me and some others (Dave Perry for instance) don’t
I agree entirely with the publisher of the Call in the Team Racing Call Book