Page 102 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

keeping clear, the right-of-way boat will be exonerated of that incident. See WS Case 99. When there is serious
if in the process she breaks rule 16.1 damage which may have been her responsibility, she is,
by retiring, taking the penalty in rule 44.1(b) and she is
When it is clear that a give-way boat that is limited in exempted from further penalties in respect of that
her manoeuvrability cannot or will not keep clear, and incident because of rule 64.1(b). S is to be scored DNF.
the right-of-way boat maintains a collision course with
her, the right-of-way boat breaks rule 14, even if the In general, a right-of-way boat should be found to have
actions of the give-way boat hinder the right-of-way broken rule 16.1 only if the give-way boat cannot keep
boat from avoiding a collision. clear after taking proper action to try to keep clear in
response to the right-of-way boat’s changing course, or
if the change of course frustrates what otherwise was a
successful keeping-clear. Since P was unaware of S
during S's hardening up between 6 and 2 lengths apart,
and was therefore not acting to keep clear, S should not
be found to have broken rule 16 during that time.
The protest committee found that, from 2 lengths apart,
S's alterations of course were an attempt to avoid
collision with a give-way boat. S sailed on a collision
course until contact was imminent when she
changed course to comply with rule 14(a) which
says that she “need not act to avoid contact until it is
clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving
room”. This means that P was already breaking a rule.
In this circumstance if the avoiding action by S
(whether successful or not) breaks rule 16 she is entitled
to exoneration under rule 64.1(a), as in WS Case 88. P
had been give-way boat at all relevant times, first under
rule 10, then under rule 13, and possibly under rule
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS 21.1. As S did not break rule 16.1, P was correctly
Before the start for two-handed cruiser-racers in a force disqualified for not keeping clear of her.
4 wind, S was approaching the starting line to start on a
broad reach. P, thinking that the start was to windward, S was aware of P from at least 6 boat lengths apart.
was approaching the starting line from the course side With P moving very slowly, and S having good speed,
on a close-hauled course, slowly and with sheets eased. and therefore manoeuvrability in those conditions, the
Had they held their courses, contact would have RYA has no reason to question the protest committee’s
occurred. conclusion that S could, and therefore should under rule
14, have been able reasonably to avoid contact. The
S hailed at six lengths, and luffed to a course that was decision that S broke rule 14 therefore stands.
still a collision course. P did not hear the hail. When
they were two lengths apart, P saw S for the first time Percussion v Cruella de Vil, Royal Naval & Royal Albert YC
and started to tack, which put her across S’s bow. S
bore away to try to pass astern of P, then, when it was RYA 2002/6
Rule 62.1, Redress
clear that this would not succeed, luffed to try to cross
her bow. There was contact before P reached a close- Rule 71.2, National Authority Decisions
hauled course on starboard tack. S was seriously When there is a prize for a certain category of boat
damaged and retired promptly. She protested P. within the overall results of a race, competition for the
prize ranks as a race for the purposes of rule 62.1.
The protest committee disqualified both boats, P for
breaking rule 13, and S, firstly for breaking rule 14, as When the conditions relating to the awarding of a
she could have avoided contact by an earlier decisive trophy are ambiguous, the RYA is normally no better
change of course in either direction, and secondly, placed than the protest committee to interpret them.
under rule 16.1, for changing course and not giving P
room to keep clear. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
Guffin, a J/24 built by Westerly, entered a handicap race
S appealed. with an overall trophy and many additional prizes and
trophies for boats of different classes and types,
DECISION including a trophy for ‘the first Westerly Class Yacht on
S’s appeal is upheld to the extent that the
disqualification of S, and the finding that she had handicap.’ She was awarded the trophy. Kishmiro, a
Westerly Tempest, requested redress because Guffin
broken Rule 16.1, are annulled.
was not a ‘Westerly Class Yacht.’ While J/24s were, for
When a boat retires promptly after an incident, for a while, built by Westerly, she asserted that the J/24 was
whatever reason, she has complied with the Basic not recognised as being a Westerly boat, nor, unlike
Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules, in respect of ‘proper’ Westerlys, did Guffin carry a Westerly logo on
any rules (apart from rule 2) she may have broken. In so the sail.
doing, she is exempted from further penalties in respect

102