Case 135

Rules
Definitions, keep clear
Rule 44.1(b), Penalties at the Time of an Incident: Taking a Penalty
rule 62.1(b), Redress

Summary:
Discussion of the decisions that a protest committee must make if a boat breaks a rule of Part 2 by failing to keep clear, and the right-of way boat, or a third boat, requests redress under rule 62.1(b).

Facts for Question 1:
Two dinghies, P on port tack and S on starboard tack, are on a collision course on a beat to windward in strong wind (more than 20 knots). P holds her course and, when it becomes clear to S that P is not keeping clear, S immediately and rapidly tacks onto port tack to avoid P. Despite S’s attempt to avoid P, there is contact between the boats, but it does not cause damage. However, while tacking to avoid P, S capsizes and in capsizing, the helmsman falls and damages the tiller. After righting the boat, the tiller cannot be repaired and S retires from the race. S requests redress under rule 62.1(b).

Facts for Question 1:

Two dinghies, P on port tack and S on starboard tack, are on a collision course on a beat to windward in strong wind (more than 20 knots). P holds her course and, when it becomes clear to S that P is not keeping clear, S immediately and rapidly tacks onto port tack to avoid P. Despite S’s attempt to avoid P, there is contact between the boats, but it does not cause damage. However, while tacking to avoid P, S capsizes and in capsizing, the helmsman falls and damages the tiller. After righting the boat, the tiller cannot be repaired and S retires from the race. S requests redress under rule 62.1(b).

Question 1:
Is S entitled to redress if her request is valid?

Answer 1:
Rule 62.1(b) does not require physical damage (or injury) to have been caused directly by the boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2. It is sufficient that any physical damage (or injury) was the probable consequence of the action of the boat breaking a rule. In this incident, the physical damage to S was ‘serious’ because it could not be repaired on the water and, as a result, S retired from the race. Therefore, the ‘appropriate’ penalty for P was to retire (see rule 44.1(b)). S may be entitled to redress, but only if the protest committee follows this two-step procedure. First, the committee must determine that either P retired from the race after the incident, or P was protested and penalized for breaking the rule of Part 2 in the incident with S. If so, S is entitled to redress provided that the protest committee concludes that a collision was probable, and S took avoiding action as soon as it was clear that P was not keeping clear; the capsize and the helmsman’s fall were the result of P not keeping clear and not the result of poor seamanship by S; and the damage was not due to the tiller previously having been in poor condition.

Answer 1:

Rule 62.1(b) does not require physical damage (or injury) to have been caused directly by the boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2. It is sufficient that any physical damage (or injury) was the probable consequence of the action of the boat breaking a rule.

In this incident, the physical damage to S was ‘serious’ because it could not be repaired on the water and, as a result, S retired from the race. Therefore, the ‘appropriate’ penalty for P was to retire (see rule 44.1(b)). S may be entitled to redress, but only if the protest committee follows this two-step procedure.

First, the committee must determine that either P retired from the race after the incident, or P was protested and penalized for breaking the rule of Part 2 in the incident with S. If so, S is entitled to redress provided that the protest committee concludes that

a collision was probable, and S took avoiding action as soon as it was clear that P was not keeping clear;
the capsize and the helmsman’s fall were the result of P not keeping clear and not the result of poor seamanship by S; and
the damage was not due to the tiller previously having been in poor condition.

Facts for Question 2:
Two boats, A and B, are on a collision course in strong winds. A is required to keep clear of B by a rule of Part 2. A holds her course and, when it becomes clear to B that A is not keeping clear, B immediately and rapidly makes a large change in course to avoid A. There is no contact between A and B. However, while manoeuvring to avoid potentially damaging contact with A, B collides with C, a third boat nearby. C is damaged and retires from the race. C requests redress under rule 62.1(b).

Facts for Question 2:

Two boats, A and B, are on a collision course in strong winds. A is required to keep clear of B by a rule of Part 2. A holds her course and, when it becomes clear to B that A is not keeping clear, B immediately and rapidly makes a large change in course to avoid A. There is no contact between A and B. However, while manoeuvring to avoid potentially damaging contact with A, B collides with C, a third boat nearby. C is damaged and retires from the race. C requests redress under rule 62.1(b).

Question 2:
Is C entitled to redress if her request is valid?

Answer 1:
C may be entitled to redress, but only if the protest committee follows this two-step procedure. First, the committee must determine that either A retired from the race after the incident, or A was protested and penalized for breaking a rule of Part 2 in the incident with B. If so, C is entitled to redress provided that the protest committee concludes that a collision was probable, and B took avoiding action as soon as it was clear that A was not keeping clear; the damage to C was the result of A not keeping clear and not the result of poor seamanship by B; and after B began to change course, it was not reasonably possible for C to have avoided the collision and resulting damage.

Answer 1:

C may be entitled to redress, but only if the protest committee follows this two-step procedure.

First, the committee must determine that either A retired from the race after the incident, or A was protested and penalized for breaking a rule of Part 2 in the incident with B. If so, C is entitled to redress provided that the protest committee concludes that

a collision was probable, and B took avoiding action as soon as it was clear that A was not keeping clear;
the damage to C was the result of A not keeping clear and not the result of poor seamanship by B; and
after B began to change course, it was not reasonably possible for C to have avoided the collision and resulting damage.