Page 113 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

crossing a channel was required to make her own choose to allow avoidable contact to occur, but at her
assessment of a powered vessel's capability in order to own risk, depending on the outcome.
determine which rules of IRPCAS apply.
A right-of-way boat (or one entitled to room or mark-
While finding this to be unsatisfactory, the protest room) that deliberately breaks rule 14 by allowing
committee, on reflection, believed that as Red Eagle contact to occur does not break rule 2 if damage or
was a large vessel that was operating in a narrow injury was not caused. The exoneration under rule 14(b)
channel, NJOS should assume that Red Eagle was is immediate and automatic.
restricted to that channel. The protest committee
concluded that Red Eagle was therefore to be regarded RS400 903 v RS400 1189, Blackpool & Fleetwood YC
as a vessel restricted to a narrow channel or fairway. RYA 2004/8
The RYA accepts this finding. The right of way is to be Definitions, Mark-Room
decided according to the most obvious interpretation of Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
the facts of the situation at the time of the incident, Rule 18.4. Mark-Room: Gybing
given that safety is the principal objective of the The room an outside overlapped boat must give at a
IRPCAS and byelaws. NJOS was therefore required mark to an inside right-of-way boat includes room to
neither to obstruct nor impede the passage of Red Eagle, gybe when that is part of the inside boat’s proper course
and so was obliged in effect to keep clear of her. There to round the mark. In determining the right of an inside
was clearly a sudden risk of possible collision, and the boat to mark-room under rule 18.2(b), it is irrelevant that
action of Red Eagle's captain was necessary and boats are on widely differing courses, provided that an
appropriate. overlap exists when the first of them enters the zone.
NJOS therefore broke IRPCAS rule 9(b) and
Southampton Harbour byelaw 10(1) by failing in effect S1
to keep clear, and the race committee was entitled to
disqualify her without a hearing.
Race Committee v NJOS, Royal Southampton YC
Wind Course to
RYA 2004/3 next mark
Rule 2, Fair Sailing S2
Rule 14(b), Avoiding Contact
When a right-of-way boat breaks rule 14 but there is no
damage or injury, she is exonerated under rule 14 and
does not break rule 2. P2
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
L was approaching the finishing line close-hauled. W
crossed ahead and tacked to a windward overlap. There
was contact while W was between head-to-wind and
close-hauled, and then further contact a few seconds P1
later when L, with W close to windward, luffed to shoot
the finishing mark. L protested, and the protest SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
committee disqualified both boats, W under rule 13, and In force 3-4 conditions, following a wind shift, S was
L under rule 14 for failing to avoid contact. L appealed. approaching a leeward mark, which she was required to
The protest committee, in commenting on the appeal, round to port, broad-reaching on starboard tack in order
suggested that, in breaking rule 14, L had also broken to gybe onto a reciprocal close-hauled course. P, on
rule 2, Fair Sailing. another leg of the course, was approaching the same
mark, also to round it, from nearly the opposite
DECISION direction, on port tack.
L’s appeal is upheld and she is reinstated into her
finishing position. S hailed for room to round the mark and this hail was
acknowledged. S judged that she was not being given
L became and remained the right-of-way boat from the sufficient room to gybe in safety, and passed astern of P
moment that W passed head to wind. The RYA does not before gybing. Her protest, under rules 10 and 18, and
question the protest committee's conclusion that L which alleged contact (but not damage), was dismissed
elected to collide with W rather than hit the finishing on the grounds that contact was not proven, that room
mark, thus breaking rule 14 by not avoiding contact was given for her gybe, and for S to decide not to gybe
when it was reasonably possible to do so. However, the was prudence that should not result in the penalization
appeal papers contain no allegation or finding of of P. S appealed.
damage or injury, and rule 14(b) states that a right-of-
way boat is exonerated under this rule unless there was DECISION
contact that causes damage or injury. The possibility of S’s appeal is upheld. P is disqualified
damage or injury is not a sufficient ground for S and P were on opposite tacks, but rule 18 applied,
penalization, and a right-of-way boat may therefore since both boats were not on a beat to windward (see
rule 18.1(a)), nor was the proper course of one of them
113