Firstly, I'm not convinced that there wasn't a change of course by L; albeit that the helmsperson may not have induced it. My (assumed) findings subject to a clearer answer to the above : L (ROW) lost control of her mainsheet and suddenly altered course and heeled quickly to windward. There was contact between the mast tops of W and L that caused damage. W failed to keep clear of L. L failed to avoid contact with W. My conclusion : W was keeping clear of L until L lost control of her mainsheet. In not keeping clear of L, W broke RRS 11 and 14. L failed to avoid contact with W and broke RRS 14 (and probably 16.1). My decision : The contact with W was caused through no fault of her own (not having time to avoid the contact, albeit not ROW boat, thus need to find on 16.1) and L broke a rule of Part 2. W is exonerated (RDG) for breaking RRS 14 (and probably 11). L is DSQ for breaking RRS 14 and possibly 16.1 as well.
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a). 2. L did broke 14 as she caused contact but exonerated under 43.1(c) as no damage or injury. 3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
There is a third alternative. 14 states "If reasonably possible". It would appear that it was not reasonably possible for W to avoid contact, so no breach of 14 by W. Whether or not it was reasonably possible for L to avoid contact would depend on why the heel (with no change of course) took place. If the PC found that it was not reasonably possible for L to avoid contact, then W would be in breach of 11 and there does not appear to be any basis for 43.1(c) to apply to W.
If W was unable to avoid contact: if L immediately heeling to windward caused the contact then can L be penalized? Then again how is W unable to avoid contact? W could have changed course to windward. Since W is not the ROW boat there should be someone watching L's moves. Avoiding contact is the most important act a skipper can take other than avoiding human injury.
Ah ! That is the trap Chin. If it was not reasonably possible for L to avoid contact with W, nor cause contact between them, then L would not have broken 14, so 43 does not apply at all. Very unfair in these apparent circs, but who ever said RRS were fair ?
I think Matt is correct. It's unlikely that L changed course, especially to windward, given the heel and associated weather helm. This may be one of those unfortunate situations for W that isn't covered by the rules. W was obviously quite close to L. Maybe less than a boatlength to allow this to occur.
W kept clear by definition. L did not change course. W exonerated of contact. L should have taken a turns penalty. Who hailed Protest? Who would dare take the 50-50 shot in the room and file? L should offer over beers to pay for repairs.
Phil- Please 'splain how W kept clear 'by definition'. And when you write the conclusion in the hearing, under what rule would you penalize L? I read the definition of keep clear, and I don't think W kept clear. L was indeed sailing her course, but while doing so, she inadvertently dropped her mainsheet (I know about that!) At that point she would have had to take avoiding action to prevent contact with W, so by the definition it seems to me that W was not keeping clear. I think 'tough luck' for W. And this likely happened in about a second, and L did not break 14.
"b) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact."
Going back to the original post: "J24, lateral separation between boats is 1 hull Length".
If the windward boat is 1 boat length abeam of the leeward overlapped boat, it seems to me that the leeward boat has plenty of room to change course in both directions without immediately making contact, right? How did the windward boat not keep clear?
This seems like an ideal example where Case 77 would apply. In the case, the give way boat didn't violate Rule 14 since it "was not reasonably possible for B to avoid contact with A".
Yes Will More, I consider case 77...that is come to my conclusions as below:
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a). 2. L did broke 14 as she caused contact but exonerated under 43.1(c) as no damage or injury. 3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
This one is dirt simple: Rule 11. Every PC I've ever been involved with, on either side of the table, would penalize W and exonerate L.
I don't see how Case 77 applies as a boat can sail at whatever heel angle she pleases. I.e., heel angle does not have an "equipment in normal position" component.
Furthermore, a windward boat sailing over a leeward boat must certainly anticipate L "standing up" in her wind shadow (been there!). In this case, it supposedly happened because of L mishandling the mainsheet. So what? What if L had just decided that it's time to sail flat? Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule11!!!
Kett, If you want to apply 11 in this case you are saying that W always has to allow space for L to act in this unpredictable way. If this is the case, then start lines would need to be at least three times longer that they are. It could also lead to people deliberately dropping their mainsheet to initiate contact which would be rule 2 imo but almost impossible to prove. The fair result for me in this case would be L broke 14 as she caused contact with another boat but, as she was RoW and there was no damage or injury, she is exonerated under 43.1(c). W was compelled to break 11 by L breaking 14 and is exonerated under 43.1(a). I appreciate the rules are not always fair, but this does not prevent them being applied fairly when necessary.
" The fair result for me in this case would be L broke 14 as she caused contact with another boat but, as she was RoW and there was no damage or injury, she is exonerated under 43.1(c). "
In the description of the incident there was damage, which changes the situation
If there is contact between boats one of them needed to take action to avoid the other, so one of them has not kept clear and a right-of-way rule must have been broken.
With about 1 hull length separation between boats, W is keeping clear until she isn't.
A give way boat can always sail as close as she likes to a right-of-way boat, but she takes the risk that she will fail to keep clear.
I also think that if there is contact (and no room or mark-room applies) it is always reasonably possible for a give way boat to have avoided contact by keeping clear as she was required to do.
Ant, I'm not convinced that there wasn't a change of course by L; albeit that the helmsperson may not have induced it.
I don't think that's a very good line of argument.
As a judge you may not be convinced, but until a party brings evidence that you can evaluate on balance of probabilities that the boat changed course, you can't find that as a fact.
And until one of the parties advances the proposition that the boat changed course, I think a judge asking whether a boat changed course would be impermissibly leading.
John, you've got to my point. Helm says I did not do anything to alter course. Next question to L : Did the boat change its heading after the mainsheet was released ? Then : Once L had regained control of the mainsheet, what was the distance between the hulls ? What actions did W take after the contact occurred ? Releasing the mainsheet changes the centre of effort on the sails significantly. In 15 knots of wind I don't see that there wouldn't be a change of course. Judges are required to use their own sailing experience to help come to a determination of what most probably happened.
All the rules make the assumption that the boats are handled in a seamanlike manner. Suddenly releasing the main sheet is not seamanlike. No foul on w as the incident was caused by L.
Facts (from your sketch) Both boats are on the same tack. L is the leeward right-of-way boat under Rule 11. W is required to keep clear. They are sailing at about 15 knots. L did not alter her heading, but suddenly missed the mainsheet, causing the boat to heel rapidly to windward. As a result, the windward side of L rose into contact with W. There was no serious damage.
Rule 11 W must keep clear of L. The definition of Keep Clear requires that L be able to sail her course and, while overlapped, change course in either direction without immediately making contact. If W was sailing so close that a sudden but unusual heel of L caused contact, I would ask whether W was, in fact, keeping clear.
Rule 16? Probably not. Rule 16.1 only applies when a right-of-way boat changes course. If the committee finds that L's heading did not change, only her angle of heel changed because the mainsheet was briefly released, then Rule 16.1 is not engaged. A boat can heel substantially without changing course.
Rule 14 Both boats had a duty to avoid contact if reasonably possible. If the contact was instantaneous and caused solely by the unexpected heel, it may not have been reasonably possible for either boat to avoid it.
Relevant(ish) Case Law The most relevant authority is Case 74:
"There is no rule that dictates how the helmsman or crew of a leeward boat must sit. Contact with a windward boat does not break rule 2 unless the helmsman's or crew's position is deliberately misused."
Although Case 74 concerns crew position rather than heel, it reinforces the principle that a leeward boat's normal movements do not, by themselves, constitute unfair sailing.
Also relevant is Case 91, which states that a keep-clear boat must keep clear of another boat's equipment when it has been out of its normal position long enough to have been seen and avoided. While this case concerns equipment rather than heel, it illustrates that the keep-clear obligation extends to foreseeable movements of the right-of-way boat.
I would make the following findings:
L remained the right-of-way boat under Rule 11.
L did not change course, so Rule 16.1 did not apply.
The rapid heel did not remove W's obligation to keep clear.
If the heel was an ordinary consequence of sail handling, W failed to keep clear and broke Rule 11.
L would only be penalised if the evidence showed that she could reasonably have avoided the contact under Rule 14 and failed to do so.
Windward boat (W) is disqualified for breaking Rule 11.
My new thought after aware there are damaged.. 1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a). 2. L broke 14 as she caused contact and not exonerated under 43.1(c) because there are damage. Penalized L. 3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
One could argue that her action (suddenly and unexpectedly releasing the main sheet causing L boat to stand up) didn't give W opportunity/time to stay clear, thus causing the rigs to collide, and her action was not seamanlike
Rene said Reply to: 21970 - John Standley It could also lead to people deliberately dropping their mainsheet to initiate contact which would be rule 2 imo but almost impossible to prove.
That would then be a Rule 14 violation.
Agree, 2025 RRS 14(b) causing contact between boats.
Now I'm starting to think that even inadvertently dropping the mainsheet would cause the contact, so L breaks RRS 14(b), whether deliberate or not.
Would it have been reasonably possible for her to not drop the mainsheet?
I think we have to remember that rules 14 to 17 are limiting rules. A seasoned defence lawyer will exploit this endlessly. I don't think examining Rule 14 first or in isolation is helpful. Rule 11 was broken - did not keep clear.
Christian One could argue that her action (suddenly and unexpectedly releasing the main sheet causing L boat to stand up) didn't give W opportunity/time to stay clear, thus causing the rigs to collide, and her action was not seamanlike
No rule requires a boat to sail in a seamanlike way.
W was keeping clear in situation 1 to 3, as L, the right-of-way boat, could sail her course with no need to take avoiding action and also change course in both directions without immediately making contact (see defnitio Keep Clear). Therefore, W did not break RRS 11.
L did not change course. Therefore, RRS 16.1 did not apply.
It was not reasonably possible for W to avoid contact with L. Therefore, W did not break RRS 14(a).
It was reasonably possible for L to avoid contact with W. Therefore, L broke RRS 14(a). The diagram states: "Not a serious damage". If this means that the contact caused damage (no need to be serious), L was not exonerated under 43.1(c). Penalize L for her breach of RRS 14(a).
However, if the contact did not cause damage or injury, L was exonerated under 43.1(c) for her breach of RRS 14(a). No penalty.
I’ve just lost a draft post with detail on heel angles and distances….
With a hull width of 9 feet, air draft of 35 degrees and maximum upwind sailing heel angle of 12 degrees the boats can be separated by no more than 2.75 feet (less than 1/3 of a hull width) for this scenario to occur.
L would have to heel to windward by 26/27 degrees to hit W who has a 5 degree normal heel if they were one hull width apart.
She can’t do that if she’s got a legal weight crew aboard. And she’d be slipping sideways at a rate of knots!
But reimagine the scenario with credible distances and W ain’t keeping clear.
If you look at the situational drawing, the boats are heeling about 30-35 degrees - not 12. At 30ish degree heel the masthead will shift ~20-25 feet to leward which means that if the boats are separated by ~15 feet will have ww's masthead directly above the center line of leeward boat with a good chance of the rigs colliding if leeward boat suddenly stands straight up
I’ve just lost a draft post with detail on heel angles and distances….
With a hull width of 9 feet, air draft of 35 degrees and maximum upwind sailing heel angle of 12 degrees the boats can be separated by no more than 2.75 feet (less than 1/3 of a hull width) for this scenario to occur.
L would have to heel to windward by 26/27 degrees to hit W who has a 5 degree normal heel if they were one hull width apart.
She can’t do that if she’s got a legal weight crew aboard. And she’d be slipping sideways at a rate of knots!
But reimagine the scenario with credible distances and W ain’t keeping clear.
I’d say no John. Firstly I don’t think it would happen that way….then If the waves were coming in at a size to do that from a normal direction then:
1. No-one should be racing. 2. The waves would be travelling at a speed such that both boats would be heeled by them before contact occurred. 3. If the waves were that big then at one hull width (even without considering rigs) W wasn’t keeping clear.
If the waves were from an abnormal direction (change of wind) maybe then
1. Definitely no-one should be racing.
I say that based on real J24 experience….including the French J24 Nationals at Port Crouesty in the early noughties. A F7-8 blowing straight into a mighty ebb out of the Gulfe De Morbihan produced the conditions that I would most and least want to experience again.
I did the geometry work because I wanted to understand how the question was so polarising….and how anydody could think this was anything other than a W not keeping clear issue.
I think the reason that L can’t hit W with heel unless the gap is much smaller than specified.
Thus if you look at the gap as one hull width W must be keeping clear.
But if you look at what happens W can’t be keeping clear.
I be interested to know from the OP if this was set-up deliberately….
The artificial paradox created makes for some interesting my view unhelpful attribution of fault to L.
I understand your concern about the artificial nature of the scenario, Matt.
However, I do not see this as an attribution of fault to L, but simply as applying the rules to the assumed facts.
If W satisfies both parts of the definition of Keep Clear, she does not break rule 11 merely because L subsequently heels rapidly to windward and contact occurs. Rule 14(a) needs to be considered separately for each boat.
If the geometry is changed so that W no longer satisfies the definition of Keep Clear, then of course W breaks rule 11. However, that would be a different set of facts.
On those revised facts,
W is penalized for breaking rule 11. She does not break rule 14(a) because it was not reasonably possible for her to avoid contact with L, and
L is penalized for breaking rule 14(a) because it was reasonably possible for her to avoid contact with W. Since the contact caused damage, L is not exonerated under rule 43.1(c).
Hmm or L doesn’t break 14 (a) because she isn’t looking behind her and therefore doesn’t know that W isn’t keeping clear….so doesn’t need to act to avoid contact - the last ‘However’ paragraph.
I find it difficult to envisage how W’s wind shadow, given the relative positions shown, could cause L to heel so rapidly to windward that contact occurred.
Could you explain the relative fore-and-aft positions of the boats and how W’s wind shadow would reach L and produce that effect?
If that were established as a fact, it would of course need to be included in the rule analysis and the conclusion might be different.
Yes. There was a case some years ago - as best I remember in an OG in the 470 class. Jury decided that the windward boat hadn't kept clear because it could reasonably expect the leeward boat to 'stand up' as it passed. Both boats were under spinnaker at the time.
A. Gear failure. B. A wave (maybe what John A was getting at). C. Dropping the mainsheet while wrestling the tiller with both hands while attempting to bear away in order to increase separation.
Reply to Adrian Question, it can happen if W is big Yacht and sailing faster. She may overtake L to Windward and her shadow will block the wind... L may heel to Windward as Sue said...
Reply to Adrian Question, it can happen if W is big Yacht and sailing faster. She may overtake L to Windward and her shadow will block the wind... L may heel to Windward as Sue said...
W knows the risk of being so close and that any contact occurring would be attributed to not allowing enough room to keep clear. Having done similar many times one knows and accepts the risk being taken. It's a classic case of risk/reward. In this case W lost.
Adrian said If W satisfies both parts of the definition of Keep Clear, she does not break rule 11 merely because L subsequently heels rapidly to windward and contact occurs.
I think if contact occurs then the right of way boat necessarily needed to take action to avoid any the give way boat will always break a right of way rule.
I do not think this contact leads to that conclusion.
I understand “suddenly missed a mainsheet” to mean that L accidentally lost control of the mainsheet, allowing it to run out. As a result, L suddenly lost sail pressure and heeled rapidly to windward without changing course.
Even though W was not keeping clear, this contact occurred because L lost control of the mainsheet and suddenly heeled to windward, not because L needed to take action to avoid W.
Matt Hmm or L doesn’t break 14 (a) because she isn’t looking behind her and therefore doesn’t know that W isn’t keeping clear….so doesn’t need to act to avoid contact - the last ‘However’ paragraph.
RRS 14 doesn't work like that
However, a right-of-way boat, or one sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled, need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear
clear that clear that the other boat is not keeping clear' means clear to the protest committee, having found relevant facts about relative positions and speeds of the boats. It doesn't mean 'not clear to the boat because she wasn't keeping a proper lookout' (Case 107)
Yes I know that I was stretching it I’m a J24 with 4 crew facing out. But in a sitting out dinghy? Helm and crew can’t have eyes in the back of their head
Rene I think we have to remember that rules 14 to 17 are limiting rules.
The only thing that makes RRS 14 a 'limiting rule' is the title of Section B.
RRS Definition Rule provides that rules are
The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals, Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices, but not the Basic Principles or titles.
In what way do you say that RRS 14 limits any other rule?
Rule 14 – Avoiding Contact - Limitation: A right-of-way boat cannot deliberately allow a collision simply because she has right of way. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules. Rule 15 – Acquiring Right of Way - Limitation: A boat that suddenly acquires right of way must initially give the other boat room to keep clear. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules. Rule 16 – Changing Course - Limitation: A right-of-way boat may change course, but only if she gives the other boat room to keep clear. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules. Rule 17 – On the Same Tack; Proper Course - Limitation: A leeward boat that gains an overlap from clear astern within two hull lengths cannot sail above her proper course. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules.
Think of the rules in two groups.
Rights Rule 10 — Port keeps clear of starboard. Rule 11 — Windward keeps clear of leeward. Rule 12 — Clear astern keeps clear of clear ahead. Rule 13 — While tacking, keep clear. These rules determine who has right of way.
Limitations Rule 14 — Don't cause avoidable contact. Rule 15 — Don't exploit newly acquired right of way immediately. Rule 16 — Don't change course without giving room to keep clear. Rule 17 — Don't use a newly acquired leeward overlap from astern to sail above your proper course. These rules determine how the right-of-way boat may exercise that right.
In simple terms, Rules 10–13 answer the question, "Who has right of way?" Rules 14–17 answer the question, "What are the limits on exercising that right?"
The concept of keeping clear requires more than simply avoiding contact under normal circumstances. A boat keeps clear only when the right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action. This necessarily includes allowing for the ordinary and foreseeable movements of a sailing vessel.
Consider the analogy of sailing past a large navigation channel marker. The marker is as high as the mast and fixed firmly to the seabed. A skipper may believe they are safely "clear" as they pass alongside it. However, a sudden gust causes the boat to round up violently, the mast swings towards the marker, and the rig becomes entangled around the pole. No reasonable person would argue that the skipper had successfully kept clear of the marker simply because, moments before the gust, there was a narrow gap between the boat and the pole. The boat was not sufficiently clear to allow for the possible effects of sailing, including gusts, waves, steering corrections, and heel.
The same principle applies under the Racing Rules of Sailing. A leeward or right-of-way boat is not required to be insulated from every movement of the keep-clear boat. Wind shifts, gusts, waves, changes in heel and minor steering corrections are all inherent aspects of sailing. If the keep-clear boat leaves so little margin that one of these events results in contact or forces the right-of-way boat to take avoiding action, it cannot reasonably be said that she was keeping clear.
The test is therefore not whether the keep-clear boat was separated by a few centimetres at a particular instant. The question is whether she left sufficient room for the right-of-way boat to continue sailing, without concern that the dynamics of sailing would immediately create a collision risk. If a gust or wave converts a seemingly safe situation into contact, this strongly suggests that the keep-clear boat had not left an adequate margin and therefore had not been keeping clear within the meaning of the rules.
In essence, "keeping clear" is not a static measurement of distance; it is a practical assessment of whether a boat has remained safely clear despite the possible movements that occur while sailing in a 15-knot wind.
Rene, put briefly, I absolutely disagree with your line of argument. You are importing [quite well known] COLREGS case law into the RRS. It's not applicable.
You said
The concept of keeping clear requires more than simply avoiding contact under normal circumstances.
Logically if keeping clear requires more than avoiding contact, it requires at least avoiding contact.
A give way boat can always avoid contact by keeping clear (except in the Case 77situation.
Depending on the source of your information a J24 in 15kts has an optimal heel angle of 10 degrees or probably a little less. At 10 degrees her mast head would be less than 350mm downwind of the leeward gunwhale (based on the published dimensions of the J24).
For reference for an S80: LOA = 7320mm Beam = 2710mm Mast = 9750mm above waterline
Even if both boats were heeled at 30 degrees in opposite directions there would still be more than 250mm between their mast heads if there was actually 1-boat-length between them (ie. between their gunwhales).
If we are talking about 1-boat-length between the centre-lines then at 20 degrees each way their mast heads would still be around 650mm apart.
The 'facts found' in the original poster's message/subject (including the diagram) are dubious at best.
This is the feeling I came to also. If we were on an actual PC, presumably the L boat would be stating a different distance apart for the PC to consider.
However, if they didn’t for some reason, how much can the PC rely on their own assumption here, or question either party to clarify? Or need they just accept presented and un-argued ‘facts’, even if implausible / impossible?
L would presumably still have the headsail sheeted in. Can’t see it healing to windward enough to make contact unless W was very close or very heeled themselves, to start with. Thus, I’d find it hard to say W was keeping clear to a point L could manoeuvre without immediate contact.
The 'facts found' in the original poster's message/subject (including the diagram) are dubious at best.
I don't think it matters for the sake of this discussion if the OP scenario was mechanically plausible.
The issue, in general terms is whether a windward boat keeping a sufficient distance between hulls so that the leeward boat need not act to avoid and can change course in either direction, fails to keep clear if the leeward boat suddenly changes attitude, without changing course and breaking RRS 16.1, and makes contact.
It doesnt matter if it's a J24, or say a modern Moth that can do a reverse capsize.
In my opinion any contact implies that a right-of-way rule is broken, so once there os contact the distance between hulls is hardly relevant.
I think the simper example of two boats, heavily heeled, so that the top of the rig of the windward boat is vertically about the deck of the leeward boat and the leeward boat suddenly 'stands up' and there is rig contact leads the way. In thcase we would have no hesitation in concluding the the windward boat does not keep clear, although had there been no contact we may conclude that she was keeping clear.
I don't think the fact that the leeward boat counter heels in order to make contact makes any difference.
Matt Michael said
how much can the PC rely on their own assumption here, or question either party to clarify? Or need they just accept presented and un-argued ‘facts’, even if implausible / impossible?
When discussing rules problems on a forum we usually need to make some assumptions. In a real protest hearing we should not make assumptions, although we can rely on our knowledge and experience.
If something a witness describes is implausible we can certainly ask probing questions.
But, as I said to Ant above, in this scenario, although we might think it was implausible for the leeward boat to accidentally start her mainsheet and stand up without changing course, because that would introduce a whole new rule (RRS 16.1) into play, i think that asking the leeward boat whether or not she changed course, by the protest committee without it ever having been suggested by a party, would be an impermissible leading question.
John, I see a big difference between : When the mainsheet was released, did your boat, whether intentionally or nor, change course ? and, When the mainsheet was released, your boat changed course. Can you say by how much ?
Matt: RRS 63.5(a) tells us the basics of how to find 'the facts', but if you want to know more then it is well worth reading section F.5 of the WS Judges Manual which includes 2.5 full pages explaining the application of rule 63.5.
If there is conflicting evidence then the PC can always ask additional questions (of the parties or witnesses), weight the evidence, and may ultimately need to rely on the balance of probabilities. And if there are irrecooncilable differences of opinion between the the members of the PC then it can alsways be put a a vote.
Akin to a car tailgating me and me wrongly reacting to what I thought was something on the road and hitting my brakes. My mistake, but we still expect the car behind me to have left the space for that.
Car behind / boat to windward should maintain separation appropriate for the conditions including their reaction time. Any closer is simply a risk of a penalty if it goes south. The rules do not allow them to put both in danger by being too close.
My (assumed) findings subject to a clearer answer to the above :
L (ROW) lost control of her mainsheet and suddenly altered course and heeled quickly to windward. There was contact between the mast tops of W and L that caused damage. W failed to keep clear of L. L failed to avoid contact with W.
My conclusion :
W was keeping clear of L until L lost control of her mainsheet. In not keeping clear of L, W broke RRS 11 and 14.
L failed to avoid contact with W and broke RRS 14 (and probably 16.1).
My decision :
The contact with W was caused through no fault of her own (not having time to avoid the contact, albeit not ROW boat, thus need to find on 16.1) and L broke a rule of Part 2.
W is exonerated (RDG) for breaking RRS 14 (and probably 11).
L is DSQ for breaking RRS 14 and possibly 16.1 as well.
Let the debate begin.
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a).
2. L did broke 14 as she caused contact but exonerated under 43.1(c) as no damage or injury.
3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
This may be one of those unfortunate situations for W that isn't covered by the rules. W was obviously quite close to L. Maybe less than a boatlength to allow this to occur.
L did not change course.
W exonerated of contact.
L should have taken a turns penalty.
Who hailed Protest?
Who would dare take the 50-50 shot in the room and file?
L should offer over beers to pay for repairs.
"b) when the boats are overlapped, if the right-of-way boat can also change course in both directions without immediately making contact."
Going back to the original post: "J24, lateral separation between boats is 1 hull Length".
If the windward boat is 1 boat length abeam of the leeward overlapped boat, it seems to me that the leeward boat has plenty of room to change course in both directions without immediately making contact, right? How did the windward boat not keep clear?
This seems like an ideal example where Case 77 would apply. In the case, the give way boat didn't violate Rule 14 since it "was not reasonably possible for B to avoid contact with A".
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a).
2. L did broke 14 as she caused contact but exonerated under 43.1(c) as no damage or injury.
3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
What equipment on L is out of its normal position?
I don't see how Case 77 applies as a boat can sail at whatever heel angle she pleases. I.e., heel angle does not have an "equipment in normal position" component.
Furthermore, a windward boat sailing over a leeward boat must certainly anticipate L "standing up" in her wind shadow (been there!). In this case, it supposedly happened because of L mishandling the mainsheet. So what? What if L had just decided that it's time to sail flat? Rule 11, Rule 11, Rule11!!!
If this is the case, then start lines would need to be at least three times longer that they are.
It could also lead to people deliberately dropping their mainsheet to initiate contact which would be rule 2 imo but almost impossible to prove.
The fair result for me in this case would be L broke 14 as she caused contact with another boat but, as she was RoW and there was no damage or injury, she is exonerated under 43.1(c). W was compelled to break 11 by L breaking 14 and is exonerated under 43.1(a). I appreciate the rules are not always fair, but this does not prevent them being applied fairly when necessary.
In the description of the incident there was damage, which changes the situation
If there is contact between boats one of them needed to take action to avoid the other, so one of them has not kept clear and a right-of-way rule must have been broken.
With about 1 hull length separation between boats, W is keeping clear until she isn't.
A give way boat can always sail as close as she likes to a right-of-way boat, but she takes the risk that she will fail to keep clear.
I also think that if there is contact (and no room or mark-room applies) it is always reasonably possible for a give way boat to have avoided contact by keeping clear as she was required to do.
I don't think that's a very good line of argument.
As a judge you may not be convinced, but until a party brings evidence that you can evaluate on balance of probabilities that the boat changed course, you can't find that as a fact.
And until one of the parties advances the proposition that the boat changed course, I think a judge asking whether a boat changed course would be impermissibly leading.
Helm says I did not do anything to alter course.
Next question to L : Did the boat change its heading after the mainsheet was released ?
Then : Once L had regained control of the mainsheet, what was the distance between the hulls ? What actions did W take after the contact occurred ?
Releasing the mainsheet changes the centre of effort on the sails significantly. In 15 knots of wind I don't see that there wouldn't be a change of course.
Judges are required to use their own sailing experience to help come to a determination of what most probably happened.
There was damage so L cannot be exonerated.
Both boats are on the same tack.
L is the leeward right-of-way boat under Rule 11.
W is required to keep clear.
They are sailing at about 15 knots.
L did not alter her heading, but suddenly missed the mainsheet, causing the boat to heel rapidly to windward.
As a result, the windward side of L rose into contact with W.
There was no serious damage.
Rule 11
W must keep clear of L.
The definition of Keep Clear requires that L be able to sail her course and, while overlapped, change course in either direction without immediately making contact.
If W was sailing so close that a sudden but unusual heel of L caused contact, I would ask whether W was, in fact, keeping clear.
Probably not.
Rule 16.1 only applies when a right-of-way boat changes course.
If the committee finds that L's heading did not change, only her angle of heel changed because the mainsheet was briefly released, then Rule 16.1 is not engaged. A boat can heel substantially without changing course.
Both boats had a duty to avoid contact if reasonably possible.
If the contact was instantaneous and caused solely by the unexpected heel, it may not have been reasonably possible for either boat to avoid it.
The most relevant authority is Case 74:
1.W was compelled to break 11 and exonerated under 43.1(a).
2. L broke 14 as she caused contact and not exonerated under 43.1(c) because there are damage. Penalized L.
3. L *did not* break 16.1( because she did not change course).... How to determine L change course?
RRS 43.1(a) requires that for a boat to be exonerated, she must be compelled to break a rule as a consequence of another boat breaking a rule.
What rule do you say L broke that compelled W to not keep clear?
Agree, 2025 RRS 14(b) causing contact between boats.
Now I'm starting to think that even inadvertently dropping the mainsheet would cause the contact, so L breaks RRS 14(b), whether deliberate or not.
Would it have been reasonably possible for her to not drop the mainsheet?
A seasoned defence lawyer will exploit this endlessly.
I don't think examining Rule 14 first or in isolation is helpful.
Rule 11 was broken - did not keep clear.
Wow, with RRS 14(b) that's looking sort of persuasive.
No rule requires a boat to sail in a seamanlike way.
I’ve just lost a draft post with detail on heel angles and distances….
With a hull width of 9 feet, air draft of 35 degrees and maximum upwind sailing heel angle of 12 degrees the boats can be separated by no more than 2.75 feet (less than 1/3 of a hull width) for this scenario to occur.
L would have to heel to windward by 26/27 degrees to hit W who has a 5 degree normal heel if they were one hull width apart.
She can’t do that if she’s got a legal weight crew aboard. And she’d be slipping sideways at a rate of knots!
But reimagine the scenario with credible distances and W ain’t keeping clear.
I’ve just lost a draft post with detail on heel angles and distances….
With a hull width of 9 feet, air draft of 35 degrees and maximum upwind sailing heel angle of 12 degrees the boats can be separated by no more than 2.75 feet (less than 1/3 of a hull width) for this scenario to occur.
L would have to heel to windward by 26/27 degrees to hit W who has a 5 degree normal heel if they were one hull width apart.
She can’t do that if she’s got a legal weight crew aboard. And she’d be slipping sideways at a rate of knots!
But reimagine the scenario with credible distances and W ain’t keeping clear.
Would some wave action do the trick?
1. No-one should be racing.
2. The waves would be travelling at a speed such that both boats would be heeled by them before contact occurred.
3. If the waves were that big then at one hull width (even without considering rigs) W wasn’t keeping clear.
If the waves were from an abnormal direction (change of wind) maybe then
1. Definitely no-one should be racing.
I say that based on real J24 experience….including the French J24 Nationals at Port Crouesty in the early noughties. A F7-8 blowing straight into a mighty ebb out of the Gulfe De Morbihan produced the conditions that I would most and least want to experience again.
I think the reason that L can’t hit W with heel unless the gap is much smaller than specified.
Thus if you look at the gap as one hull width W must be keeping clear.
But if you look at what happens W can’t be keeping clear.
I be interested to know from the OP if this was set-up deliberately….
The artificial paradox created makes for some interesting my view unhelpful attribution of fault to L.
However, I do not see this as an attribution of fault to L, but simply as applying the rules to the assumed facts.
There was a case some years ago - as best I remember in an OG in the 470 class. Jury decided that the windward boat hadn't kept clear because it could reasonably expect the leeward boat to 'stand up' as it passed. Both boats were under spinnaker at the time.
A. Gear failure.
B. A wave (maybe what John A was getting at).
C. Dropping the mainsheet while wrestling the tiller with both hands while attempting to bear away in order to increase separation.
It's a classic case of risk/reward. In this case W lost.
You mean like this?
We were proabably the only boat not to have a moment like that downwind and therefore won the day’s only race and as a result the championship.
I think if contact occurs then the right of way boat necessarily needed to take action to avoid any the give way boat will always break a right of way rule.
That's my 'offering'. BTW, that's the logo that adorns my Dragon Force RC yachts.
RRS 14 doesn't work like that
clear that clear that the other boat is not keeping clear' means clear to the protest committee, having found relevant facts about relative positions and speeds of the boats. It doesn't mean 'not clear to the boat because she wasn't keeping a proper lookout' (Case 107)
The only thing that makes RRS 14 a 'limiting rule' is the title of Section B.
RRS Definition Rule provides that rules are
The rules in this book, including the Definitions, Race Signals, Introduction, preambles and the rules of relevant appendices, but not the Basic Principles or titles.
In what way do you say that RRS 14 limits any other rule?
Rule 15 – Acquiring Right of Way - Limitation: A boat that suddenly acquires right of way must initially give the other boat room to keep clear. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules.
Rule 16 – Changing Course - Limitation: A right-of-way boat may change course, but only if she gives the other boat room to keep clear. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules.
Rule 17 – On the Same Tack; Proper Course - Limitation: A leeward boat that gains an overlap from clear astern within two hull lengths cannot sail above her proper course. It limits the port/starboard and windard/leeward rules.
Think of the rules in two groups.
Rights
Rule 10 — Port keeps clear of starboard.
Rule 11 — Windward keeps clear of leeward.
Rule 12 — Clear astern keeps clear of clear ahead.
Rule 13 — While tacking, keep clear.
These rules determine who has right of way.
Limitations
Rule 14 — Don't cause avoidable contact.
Rule 15 — Don't exploit newly acquired right of way immediately.
Rule 16 — Don't change course without giving room to keep clear.
Rule 17 — Don't use a newly acquired leeward overlap from astern to sail above your proper course.
These rules determine how the right-of-way boat may exercise that right.
In simple terms, Rules 10–13 answer the question, "Who has right of way?" Rules 14–17 answer the question, "What are the limits on exercising that right?"
You said
Logically if keeping clear requires more than avoiding contact, it requires at least avoiding contact.
A give way boat can always avoid contact by keeping clear (except in the Case 77 situation.
For reference for an S80:
LOA = 7320mm
Beam = 2710mm
Mast = 9750mm above waterline
Even if both boats were heeled at 30 degrees in opposite directions there would still be more than 250mm between their mast heads if there was actually 1-boat-length between them (ie. between their gunwhales).
If we are talking about 1-boat-length between the centre-lines then at 20 degrees each way their mast heads would still be around 650mm apart.
The 'facts found' in the original poster's message/subject (including the diagram) are dubious at best.
However, if they didn’t for some reason, how much can the PC rely on their own assumption here, or question either party to clarify? Or need they just accept presented and un-argued ‘facts’, even if implausible / impossible?
L would presumably still have the headsail sheeted in. Can’t see it healing to windward enough to make contact unless W was very close or very heeled themselves, to start with. Thus, I’d find it hard to say W was keeping clear to a point L could manoeuvre without immediate contact.
Then they need to turn their heads around.
There's just no forgiveness for not keeping a lookout that's sufficient to see what's there to be seen.
I don't think it matters for the sake of this discussion if the OP scenario was mechanically plausible.
The issue, in general terms is whether a windward boat keeping a sufficient distance between hulls so that the leeward boat need not act to avoid and can change course in either direction, fails to keep clear if the leeward boat suddenly changes attitude, without changing course and breaking RRS 16.1, and makes contact.
It doesnt matter if it's a J24, or say a modern Moth that can do a reverse capsize.
In my opinion any contact implies that a right-of-way rule is broken, so once there os contact the distance between hulls is hardly relevant.
I think the simper example of two boats, heavily heeled, so that the top of the rig of the windward boat is vertically about the deck of the leeward boat and the leeward boat suddenly 'stands up' and there is rig contact leads the way. In thcase we would have no hesitation in concluding the the windward boat does not keep clear, although had there been no contact we may conclude that she was keeping clear.
I don't think the fact that the leeward boat counter heels in order to make contact makes any difference.
Matt Michael said
When discussing rules problems on a forum we usually need to make some assumptions. In a real protest hearing we should not make assumptions, although we can rely on our knowledge and experience.
If something a witness describes is implausible we can certainly ask probing questions.
But, as I said to Ant above, in this scenario, although we might think it was implausible for the leeward boat to accidentally start her mainsheet and stand up without changing course, because that would introduce a whole new rule (RRS 16.1) into play, i think that asking the leeward boat whether or not she changed course, by the protest committee without it ever having been suggested by a party, would be an impermissible leading question.
When the mainsheet was released, did your boat, whether intentionally or nor, change course ?
and,
When the mainsheet was released, your boat changed course. Can you say by how much ?
If there is conflicting evidence then the PC can always ask additional questions (of the parties or witnesses), weight the evidence, and may ultimately need to rely on the balance of probabilities. And if there are irrecooncilable differences of opinion between the the members of the PC then it can alsways be put a a vote.
Akin to a car tailgating me and me wrongly reacting to what I thought was something on the road and hitting my brakes. My mistake, but we still expect the car behind me to have left the space for that.
Car behind / boat to windward should maintain separation appropriate for the conditions including their reaction time. Any closer is simply a risk of a penalty if it goes south. The rules do not allow them to put both in danger by being too close.