Page 58 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

PL5
S5
PW5
Wind
PW4 PL4 S4 Wind
PW3
PL3
No room! PW2 W3
S3
PL2 W2
PW1 W4
Room to S2
tack, please!
PL1 L3 L2
S1
Starboard! L4
W1 L1
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
PL and PW were close-hauled. PL could not tack
without colliding with PW. Both boats came on a
converging course with S.

S hailed ‘Starboard’ and PL hailed for room to tack. She SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
then luffed to avoid contact with S. PW, intending to W completed a tack inside the zone, immediately after
cross S, held her course and informed PL that she had which L, which had been fetching the mark, established
no rights under rule 20.1. a leeward overlap. W hailed 'No room' and bore away to
pass the mark. L, to avoid contact, was forced to bear
PL continued to luff and then tacked. Finally PW tacked away, pass the wrong side of the mark and circle back.
too. PW protested PL under rule 13. The protest The protest committee dismissed L's protest on the
committee dismissed the protest, disqualified PW under grounds that L's overlap was established after W’s tack
rule 20.1, and referred the case to the RYA.
was completed and referred its decision to the RYA.
DECISION DECISION
The decision of the protest committee to disqualify PW The protest committee's decision is reversed. W is to be
is confirmed.
disqualified.
The protest committee correctly decided that S, close- Before W tacked, rule 18 did not apply, since, as stated
hauled, holding right of way under rule 10, was an in rule 18.1(b), the boats were on opposite tacks, and
obstruction, as defined, to PL. PL was required to make also because W’s proper course in passing the mark was
a substantial course change to clear S, either by bearing to tack. When W tacked within the zone, rule 18.3
away hard or by tacking to clear the obstruction. began to apply. The question of whether an overlap
Although PL could have avoided S by bearing away, no began outside the zone is relevant at a windward mark
rule required her to do so and she was entitled, under only to boats on the same tack, under rule 18.2(b).
rule 20.1, to hail for room to tack. When S hailed, PW Overlaps established by a tack in the zone are addressed
was required by rule 20.2 to respond as soon as either by rule 18.2(a) or (as here when W after tacking
possible, she did not do so and was correctly is fetching the mark) by rule 18.3.
disqualified.
W was required by rule 18.3 to give mark-room to L
Lindy v Symphony, St Mawes SC
and by rule 11 to keep clear when L became overlapped
inside her. W prevented L from passing the mark by
RYA 1974/8
Rule 18.3, Mark-Room: Tacking in the Zone denying her mark-room, did not keep clear of her, and is
to be disqualified.
When a port-tack boat tacks to starboard within the
zone at a windward port-hand mark, and a boat that is Aurora v Carinna, Loch Long OD Association
approaching the mark on starboard tack becomes RYA 1975/4
overlapped inside her, the boat that tacked must not Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
prevent the other boat from passing the mark on the
required side, and must keep clear of her. The test of whether it was reasonably possible for a
right-of-way boat to avoid contact is an objective one,
and the inexperience of her helmsman cannot justify a
lower standard of care.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
P, close-hauled, was approaching the windward,
starboard-hand mark when one of her crew told the
helmsman to bear away hard, as P was on a collision
course with S which had passed the mark and was
reaching towards P in the direction of the finishing line.
Both boats tried, but failed, to alter course to avoid
contact. The boats collided and both suffered damage. S

58