In the World Sailing Q & A 2023.003, there is the following situation:
Situation
Two kiteboards were sailing downwind on the same tack, in a breeze of 10 -15 knots.
Kiteboard B was clear astern of and on the same line with kiteboard A, with a distance of 10 metres between them.
Kiteboard A’s foil ran across an invisible nylon sheet suspended underwater and suddenly dropped off the foil, but with her kite not touching water. The rider remained attached to the board but did not have steerage way. One second later, kiteboard B collided with kiteboard A and there was damage.
The Q & A answers the question of whether the kiteboard B (astern) broke rule 14: no she did not.
But I have two other questions:
1. Did kiteboard A break any rules? I don't think she did, given that the situation as described was through no fault of her own.
2. Is kiteboard B entitled to redress? If the answer to question 1 is no, then there is no provision in 61.4 to grant redress to kiteboard B, and B would not be eligible for redress.
3. Who is liable for the damage? I think the answer is that RRS and the jury cannot adjudicate this.
If kiteboard B is not entitled to redress because of the limitations of 61.4, it seems a little unfortunate but consistent with the written rule.
A kiteboard is recovering from the time she looses steerage way until she retains it. Unless she is capsized. She is not capsized as her kite was not in the water and her lines were not tangled.
Looks Iike a therefore at fault.
Let me illustrate a slightly different but similar situation: two small dinghies sailing at maybe 5kts. The one clear ahead suddenyl sailing slower as result of dragging some seaweed. The one chasing has no ROW so it must steer around the one in front... If there is contact we would all agree the one clear astern is at fault - that sailor should have kept more distance in order to be able to react in time to any problem the one in front has...
So, in the case of kitefoling, where speeds are much higher, and the "rig" is much bigger (20m lines!), riders should keep even more distance to be able to react in time and avoid contact with a ROW rider in front. So yes, B is at fault and should not have any redress given.
BTW, I've always found that the limitations of 61.4 are too restrictive. I would like to read a discussion on how these restrictions were defined... but this is another issue altogether...
I should talk to a kiter because something similar should have happened on a course somewhere because they crash pretty often.
There is a significant difference between RRS 14 Avoiding Contact and the right-of-way rules (RRS 10, 11, 12, 13, and 21.
RRS 14 has the opening condition 'If reasonably possible ...'. The right-of-way rules do not have that condition. They are absolute.
I don't think this is correct.
Once you have found that A, while recovering, broke RRS F22.2 and that it was not reasonably possible for B to avoid contact, and that B broke no rule, I don't see how you can say that B was at fault.