Page 80 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

committee, like the race committee, should have taken Rule 16.1, Changing Course
no action.
A right-of-way boat may change course in such a way
In order to become a party in a valid hearing, Carina that a keep-clear boat is newly obliged to take action to
should have hailed and displayed a protest flag at the keep clear, until a further alteration of course would
time of the incident in accordance with rule 61.1(a), and deprive the keep-clear boat of room to do so.
then lodged a protest within the time limit.
Rule 61.2 permits the protestor to remedy any defects in
the particulars required by that rule, provided that the P5 S5
protest identifies the incident. However, this facility
does not extend to a protest committee itself initiating P4 S4
the changing of request for redress into a boat v boat
protest, and does not permit the protest committee to
protest on the basis of a report from a competitor. P3
S3
Request for Redress by Carina, Upper Thames SC
P2 Wind at
S3-P3
RYA 1990/8
Sportsmanship and the Rules P1 S2
Rule 2, Fair Sailing
After an incident, a boat that knows she has broken a S1
rule cannot protect herself from the consequences of not Wind at
S1-P1
taking a penalty by citing the absence of a protest by the
other boat. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
P and S approached each other on close-hauled
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS converging courses. At some distance from each other S
As a result of an incident between two Lasers, a third altered course to take advantage of a wind shift. At that
boat, L, protested P, alleging that P crossed S, causing time P could still have taken avoiding action, either by
the latter to bear away vigorously to avoid a collision. tacking or by going astern of S. However, she did
S's bow, she alleged, hit P's mainsheet. neither and held her course. When a collision was
The protest committee found that there had been no imminent both boats tacked and there was no contact.
contact, but that S had had to bear away to avoid P. P’s The protest committee disqualified S under rule 16.1,
helmsman was asked by the chairman of the protest and she appealed.
committee if he had broken a rule, had known that he DECISION
had done so, but had not taken a penalty. His reply was S’s appeal is upheld; S is reinstated into her finishing
a simple ‘Yes’. The protest committee disqualified P position and P is disqualified under rule 10.
under rule 10. P appealed on the grounds that S, the
alleged victim of the alleged infringement, had chosen Rule 16.1 says that S may alter course up to the point
not to protest. where any further alteration of course would deprive P
of room to keep clear.
DECISION
P’s appeal is dismissed. Under its powers under rule The effect of this is that a course alteration by S in close
71.3, the RYA further disqualifies P under rule 2. proximity to P may break rule 16.1. The further apart
they are when a course alteration is made, the more
L lodged a valid protest. The facts found show that P likely it is that P can keep clear, so that rule 16.1 is less
broke rule 10 and she was correctly disqualified. likely to be broken. In this case, S altered course with
There is no obligation on a right-of-way boat to protest the wind shift quite some distance away from P, giving
when another boat has not kept clear. That she did not P, the keep-clear boat, ample space to take avoiding
protest in no way diminishes the fact that the keep-clear action had she acted promptly. However, P maintained
boat has broken a rule. Likewise, the intentions of the her course until such time as S had to tack to avoid
right-of-way boat have no bearing on the matter. contact.

The appellant should note that the Basic Principle, Rule 16.2 was not relevant, since P was originally to
Sportsmanship and the Rules, says that when a boat pass ahead of S, not astern of her.
knows that she had broken a rule, she must take a P therefore broke rule 10, and S broke no rule.
penalty, whether or not the right-of-way boat intends to
protest. The appellant therefore broke a principle of Spanish Steps v Uomie, Royal Dart YC
sportsmanship, and is to be penalized further with a
non-excludable disqualification (DNE) for breaking rule RYA 1991/4
2. Rule 10, On Opposite Tacks
Rule 14(a), Avoiding Contact
L137020 v L134598 and L120394, Mumbles YC
A right-of-way boat may hold her course and presume
RYA 1991/1 that a keep-clear boat will give way until it is evident
Rule 10, On Opposite Tacks that she is not keeping clear.

80