Hi all i have 2 questions on 18.3 that have been bugging me.
Question 1
On a windward mark round to port, boat P tacked safely without interfering with the boat (rule 13 and 15 does not apply) close to the mark from port to starboard in the zone and was the inside boat, Boat S was on starboard when entering the zone and was fetching the mark.
As the boats were about too round the mark they touched gunnel to gunnel, windward leeward. The starboard boat was sailing close hauled but not above it and did not try to avoid the other boat even though she could have sailed above close hauled.
I would assume the following.
18.3 is on 18.3(a) never on as the starboard boat never sailed above close hauled.
“18.3 (a) shall not cause the other boat to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact,”
Therefore, Rule 11 applies and Boat S is at fault?
Question 2
Same first part as above but this time, there was no contact as they were about to round the mark the wind shifted to a header that now puts boat S above close-hauled and thus cannot round the mark without contacting boat P.
Has boat P effectively but caused the other boat above close hailed, just by being at the wrong place at the wrong time when the wind shifted?
My thinking is yes P broken rule 18.3.(a)?
Both scenarios I have seen happen with radio sailing where skipper and boat are quite a distance apart and sailed in shifty winds.
Many Thanks
Nick
Leeward in 1 not 2 seems to have broken no rule as w does not go ebove closehaulled.
W is always w so breaks that rule.
She would be exonerated if she had mark room, here i need to check but my suspicion is she does not.
Question 1
I would say that S has broken rule 11 as she is the windward boat and required to keep clear. P does not break 18.3(a) until S goes above close-hauled, up until that point, it is simply a windward/leeward. Neither boat is entitled to mark room as 18.2 does not apply. S also breaks 14 as she could have avoided the contact by luffing. P is the right-of-way boat so does not break 14 as it is highly unlikely that she could have done anything to avoid the contact once it was clear that S was not going to keep clear.
Question 2
I would say that P has broken rule 18.3(a) as S had to sail above close-hauled. The rule does not say anything about why S had to sail above close hauled, it is just that if S does sail above close-hauled then P has broken the rule.
Actually, 18.3 uses the word "cause" .. so we are in a cause-conundrum .. just like the new RRS 14 (b) and (c).
What does it mean to "cause" a boat to do something ... and can we apply that consistently through 18.3 and 14?