Page 72 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

action before the hail is given, she must be on the alert merely because the race officer had made an error in
for it and, when it is made, must promptly respond to it. giving a finishing place to a boat that had in fact retired.
The protest committee stated in its observations that
Neither protestor nor protestee is required to produce a when the race started the warning flag had not been
diagram of the incident.
lowered with the starting signal, thus leading to
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS confusion, in which some boats started late, and that
L and W were close-hauled on port tack, one boat therefore the race should be abandoned.
length apart, when they approached a number of boats DECISION
close-hauled on starboard tack. L hailed for room to The appeals are upheld. The abandonment of the race is
tack, a hail that was not heard: she then hailed again, annulled and the race is reinstated. The five boats that
tacked at the same time, and collided with W. W, completed the two-round course are to be scored for
uncertain of her standing, took a two-turns penalty and finishing positions in the sequence in which they
protested. L was disqualified under rule 13. The protest finished. The boats that retired (including the
committee concluded that W was not required to erroneously recorded ‘winner’) are to be scored RET.
anticipate the need to tack, that L's inaudible first hail
did not activate rule 20.2(b), and that L's tacking at the The protest committee acted correctly in inquiring into
same time as her second hail broke rule 20.2(a). the occurrences before and at the start. However, there
was no recall signal and no boats were recorded as
L appealed on the grounds that although W did not OCS; no boat lodged any request for redress on the
respond to her initial hail, she should have foreseen that grounds that the start was unfair or that any scores were
L would have to tack to avoid the starboard-tack boats. prejudiced by the time differences when starting.
She also appealed because W had not provided a
diagram in her written protest. Request for Redress by Relax and Bat out of Hell, Parkstone YC
DECISION RYA 1988/7
L’s appeal is dismissed. Rule 10, On Opposite Tacks
The conclusions of the protest committee are confirmed. Rule 14(a), Avoiding Contact
When W did not respond to the first hail, L should have Rule 42.1, Propulsion
hailed more loudly a second time. A hailed boat is not When a keep-clear boat indicates that she will take
required to take any action before an audible hail is avoiding action, a right-of-way boat is entitled to delay
made, although she must be on the alert for a taking action to avoid contact.
foreseeable hail, and, when it is made, she must respond
promptly to it, as W did. A boat that checks way by abnormal methods not
permitted by rule 42, including using her engine in
Neither protestor nor protestee is required by the rules reverse, breaks that rule.
to produce a diagram of the incident.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
E20233 v OK1978, Reading Civil Service Club
S (a Wayfarer) and P (a 10-ton yawl) were close-hauled
on converging courses. S hailed but there was no
RYA 1988/4 response. About 15 seconds before the collision, P
Rule 32, Shortening or Abandoning After the Start hailed S to the effect that she was taking avoiding
Rule 64.2, Decisions: Decisions on Redress
action. P’s bow hit S behind the mast shroud, causing
When boats are entitled to redress, and the nature of the considerable damage. P had her engine running full
appropriate redress is clear, a protest committee cannot astern at the time. She did not retire.
instead abandon the race, citing an error made by the S protested under rule 10 and P counter-protested under
race officer earlier in the race about which no boat has rule 14. The protest committee disqualified S, for not
requested redress and the race committee has taken no avoiding contact causing damage when it was
action.
reasonably possible to have done so. P was not
SUMMARY penalized. S appealed.
Ten Merlin Rockets started the race in question. Five DECISION
retired, four of them shortly after beginning the second S’s appeal is upheld; P broke rules 10 and 42 and is
round because the wind was dying and there was a long disqualified, S is to be reinstated.
leg against the tide. The fifth retired rather further on
but without passing the last two marks of the course. It is the duty of a port-tack boat to keep clear of a
Returning, she crossed the finishing line, apparently starboard-tack boat and not, as suggested by P, the other
from the direction from the last course mark, was given way round. P did not keep clear, and also broke rule 42
a finishing signal and recorded as first. The other boats by using her engine. She is disqualified.
that sailed the course and finished were given positions
behind the erroneously recorded ‘winner’. P hailed that she was taking avoiding action, and by the
time it then became clear that she was not going to keep
The five other boats that finished correctly requested clear, it was not possible for S to act to avoid contact. In
redress. The protest committee’s decision was to the circumstances, it was reasonable for S to hold her
abandon the race. Two of the five boats appealed on the course as long as she did.
grounds that five competitors had sailed the course Smokey Grey v Callidus, Felixstowe SC
correctly and should not be deprived of their results
72