Case 29

Rules
Definitions, Continuing Obstruction
Definitions, Obstruction
Rule 19.2(b), Giving Room at an Obstruction
Rule 19.2(c), Giving Room at an Obstruction

Summary:
A leeward boat is an obstruction to an overlapped windward boat and a third boat clear astern. The boat clear astern may sail between the two overlapped boats and be entitled to room from the windward boat between her and the leeward boat, provided that the windward boat has been able to give that room from the time the overlap began.

Facts:
When running on a downwind leg, W became overlapped with L when almost two hull lengths to windward of her. Subsequently, M sailed into the space between L and W. All three boats held their courses, with no narrowing of space between L and W and no contact. W protested M for taking room to which she was not entitled, citing rules 19.2(b) and 19.2(c). The protest was dismissed on the grounds that W had given room to M as required by rule 19.2(b). W appealed.

Facts:

When running on a downwind leg, W became overlapped with L when almost two hull lengths to windward of her. Subsequently, M sailed into the space between L and W. All three boats held their courses, with no narrowing of space between L and W and no contact. W protested M for taking room to which she was not entitled, citing rules 19.2(b) and 19.2(c). The protest was dismissed on the grounds that W had given room to M as required by rule 19.2(b). W appealed.

Decision:
Rule 11 required W to keep clear of L throughout the incident. While M was clear astern of L, rule 12 required her to keep clear of L, and after she became overlapped with L rule 11 required her to keep clear of L. As the diagram shows, both M and W met these requirements. Because both W and M were required to keep clear of L throughout the incident, L was an obstruction to W and M during that time (see the last sentence of the definition Obstruction). However, because L was a boat under way, L was not a continuing obstruction to them (see the definition Continuing Obstruction). When M became overlapped with W, rule 19.2(b) began to apply between them. It required W to give M room between her and the obstruction, unless she was unable to do so from the time the overlap began. As the facts clearly show, W was able to give M that room when the overlap began and continued to do so at all times until the boats finished. Therefore, W complied with rule 19.2(b). Rule 19.2(c) did not apply because the obstruction, L, was not a continuing obstruction. M broke no rule; therefore, W's appeal is dismissed.

Decision:

Rule 11 required W to keep clear of L throughout the incident. While M was clear astern of L, rule 12 required her to keep clear of L, and after she became overlapped with L rule 11 required her to keep clear of L. As the diagram shows, both M and W met these requirements.

Because both W and M were required to keep clear of L throughout the incident, L was an obstruction to W and M during that time (see the last sentence of the definition Obstruction). However, because L was a boat under way, L was not a continuing obstruction to them (see the definition Continuing Obstruction). When M became overlapped with W, rule 19.2(b) began to apply between them. It required W to give M room between her and the obstruction, unless she was unable to do so from the time the overlap began. As the facts clearly show, W was able to give M that room when the overlap began and continued to do so at all times until the boats finished. Therefore, W complied with rule 19.2(b). Rule 19.2(c) did not apply because the obstruction, L, was not a continuing obstruction. M broke no rule; therefore, W's appeal is dismissed.