Page 79 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

by rule 21, since she was not then taking mark-room to
which she was entitled.)
Once the Laser had capsized, rule 23 began to apply,
requiring the Dart to avoid the capsized Laser, if
Dart 1
possible. Given the brief interval between the capsize
and the collision, avoidance was not possible. When
rule 23 applies, rules of Section A such as rule 10 do
not – see the preamble to Section D.
Laser 1
The Dart did not therefore break rule 23. She did break
rule 10, but is exonerated under rule 21(a) because she
Dart 2
was sailing within the room to which she was entitled
under rule16.1.
Laser 2
Dart 1907 v Laser 132108, Starcross YC
Wind
Force 4
RYA 1990/7
Rule 60.1(a), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress
or Rule 69 Action
Rule 60.2(a), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress
Dart 3 or Rule 69 Action
To next mark
Laser 3
Rule 60.3(a), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress
or Rule 69 Action
Rule 61.1(a), Protest Requirements: Informing the
Protestee
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS Rule 61.2, Protest Requirements: Protest Contents
Two boats approached a port-hand gybe mark on a Rule 62, Redress
starboard-tack reach. When she entered the zone, the
Laser was clear ahead of the Dart, which was steering a Rule 61.2 does not permit a protest committee to change
course further from the mark than the Laser’s. The a request for redress into a protest against a boat. A
Laser gybed on to port tack within one boat-length of protest by a boat must always comply with rule 61.1(a).
the mark to assume her new course.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
Immediately the Laser had gybed, the Dart began her An incident occurred between Atlantis and Caprice, as a
gybe at more than three hull lengths from the mark and result of which Atlantis lodged a protest in which a third
around two hull lengths from the Laser. On taking her boat, Carina, was named as witness. Their hull lengths
new course, the Laser, ahead and to weather of the Dart, were more than 6 metres. There was no damage or
lost control. She skewed to starboard, gybed again onto injury. The protest was lodged 15 minutes after the end
starboard tack and capsized on to her port side so that of protest time, and was refused as the protest
she lay at right angles to the new course and across the committee saw no good reason to extend protest time.
bows of the Dart. Next morning, Carina lodged a report which the protest
committee treated at first as a request for redress, in
A collision took place about 2-3 seconds after the which she stated that she had witnessed the incident and
capsize in which the Laser suffered damage. The Dart alleged that Caprice had broken a rule of Part 2.
protested the Laser. The protest committee disqualified
the Dart under the second sentence of rule 18.2(b) for The protest committee accepted the request for redress
not giving the Laser sufficient room to pass and gybe as a valid protest under rule 60.1(a), extended the time
considering the wind conditions and speed differences. limit, and disqualified Caprice for breaking a rule of
The Dart appealed. Part 2. Caprice appealed.

DECISION DECISION
The Dart’s appeal is upheld; she is reinstated and the Caprice’s appeal is upheld; she is to be reinstated into
Laser is disqualified. her finishing position.

The second sentence of rule 18.2(b) required the Dart to Carina's request began: ‘Under rules 60.2(a) and
give mark-room to the Laser, which was clear ahead at 62.1(a) I wish to inform the race committee of an
the zone. It is clear that the Dart did so. That obligation infringement of the rules in race 3’. That amounted
ended when, shortly after position 2, the Laser no merely to a report. It was not a valid request for redress,
longer needed room to leave the mark on the required as it did not include any allegation that the race or
side. When the Laser then involuntarily altered course protest committee had acted or omitted to act so as to
and gybed, she became the right-of-way boat under rule make Carina's score significantly worse. The report
10. She did not give the Dart room to keep clear, and came from a competitor, but rule 60.2(a) specifically
broke rule 16.1 before her capsize and before the prohibits a race committee from protesting as the result
collision, for which she is to be penalized. The fact that of a report from a competitor, as does rule 60.3(a) in
she was out of control does not excuse her breach – see respect of the protest committee in the absence of a
case RYA 1994/4. (Had her loss of control happened report of injury or serious damage; hence the protest
while at the mark, she would not have been exonerated
79