Page 67 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

greater or lesser extent, a conflict of interest. The
chairman of the protest committee in this case would
have been well advised to refrain from serving on it. Wind S5
A person with a conflict of interest does not cease to be P5
such because a party to the hearing is willing to accept
that person as a member of the protest committee.
S4 S3
Request for Redress by L85342, Sheppey YC Gull P4
Gull
Island
Island

RYA 1984/3 P3
Rule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
When W can fulfil her obligation under rule 11 to keep
clear only by tacking, she must do so. No racing rule
requires a boat to keep clear simply because she is P2
overtaking.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
Both boats were sailing close-hauled on port tack for P1
the first mark when L became overlapped more than
two hull lengths to leeward of W. L slowly overtook W, SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
climbing up to weather as she did so, sailing a steady Two boats were beating past an island. P had borne
converging course for two minutes. A collision away slightly to clear this obstruction and she then
followed. There was no damage. W protested L but was luffed to close-hauled on a collision course with S. S
disqualified under rule 11 and appealed. In her original hailed ‘Starboard’ and, when P took no notice, tacked to
protest W maintained that L was in the wrong because avoid a collision. S protested. P was disqualified under
the overtaking boat had a duty to keep clear, and she rule 10 and appealed on the grounds that she was
asserted in her appeal that L should have anticipated entitled to room under rule 19 or 20.
that W would ‘fall down to leeward’ and thus be unable DECISION
to keep clear and that L should have allowed her room P’s appeal is dismissed. Her disqualification for
on this account. breaking rule 10 is upheld.

DECISION Rule 19.2(b) entitles an inside boat to room from an
W’s appeal is dismissed. outside boat when they are overlapped, as defined, at an
obstruction. The term Overlap does not normally apply
Rule 11 was correctly applied: one of its purposes has
always been to give the higher-pointing of two close- to boats on opposite tacks. It may apply to boats at an
hauled converging boats the benefit of her superior obstruction, but only when each is sailing more than
windward ability. W had ample room to keep clear ninety degrees from the true wind, which was not the
when L established her leeward overlap. When W could case here.
not hold as high a course as L, and was in danger of not P did not hail for room to tack, nor was she entitled to
keeping clear, W was required to take whatever action do so, since rule 20 applies only between boats that are
was required to keep clear while she still had room to approaching an obstruction on the same tack.
do so, which in this case included tacking.
P was required to alter course in time to keep clear of S
Rule 17 was not relevant because the overlap was by bearing away and passing astern of her.
established at a distance of more than two hull lengths,
but in any case L never sailed above a proper course. Livewire v Force Tension, ISORA
No racing rule requires a boat to keep clear simply RYA 1984/13
because she is overtaking. Rule 91, Protest Committee
Appendix J, 2.2(21), Notice of Race and Sailing
Astral v Fun, Port Edgar YC
Instructions: Sailing Instructions Contents
RYA 1984/11 Sailing instructions must describe the course clearly,
Definitions, Clear Astern and Clear Ahead: Overlap including the location of the starting area.
Rule 19.2(b), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving
Room at an Obstruction It is undesirable for a member of the race committee to
Rule 20.1, Room to Tack at an Obstruction serve on a protest committee when a request is made for
redress for an action or omission of the race committee.
At an obstruction, a close-hauled boat is not entitled to It is desirable for a protest committee to consist of more
room under either rule 19 or rule 20 from another than one person.
close-hauled boat that is on the opposite tack. Rule 10
alone governs such a situation. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
Akela failed to arrive at the starting area in time for the
start and requested redress on the grounds that the

67