Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 44.1, Penalties at the Time of an Incident:
Taking a Penalty
Rule 64.1(b), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
A boat that is not keeping a lookout may thereby fail to do everything
reasonably possible to avoid contact. Hailing is one way that a boat may ‘act
to avoid contact’. When a boat’s breach of a rule of Part 2 causes
serious damage and she then retires, she has taken the applicable penalty and
is not to be disqualified for that breach.
Summary of the Facts
Between the preparatory and starting signals, Ephesian on starboard tack and
Jupa on port tack approached each other head-to-head. Both boats were heavy
keelboats, 33 feet (10 m) long. Neither boat was aware of the other. The bowmen
on both boats, who normally would have been stationed by the forestay, were
handling their genoas, and no other crew members were keeping a lookout. Ephesian
was moving slowly with limited manoeuvrability. They collided, causing serious
damage to Jupa, who therefore retired. In the resulting protest, Jupa was disqualified
under rule 10, and Ephesian was disqualified under rule 14. Ephesian appealed,
claiming that she could not have avoided Jupa by changing course or speed.
Decision
Rule 14 begins ‘A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably
possible.’ This requirement means a boat must do everything that can reasonably
be expected of her in the prevailing conditions to avoid contact.
This includes keeping a good lookout, particularly in a crowded starting line
situation.
The protest committee concluded that if either boat had seen the other a collision
could have been avoided, even at the last minute, particularly if Ephesian had
hailed Jupa when it was clear that Jupa was not changing course to keep clear.
Until that moment, rule 14(a) allows a right-of-way boat to delay acting to
avoid contact. It follows that at that moment she must begin to act in an effort
to avoid contact. The word ‘act’ is not restricted to changing course
or speed. Hailing was an action that Ephesian could and should have taken. Ephesian
broke rule 14. Because the collision resulted in damage, the protest committee’s
decision to disqualify Ephesian was correct (see rules 14(b) and 64.1(a)). Her
appeal is therefore dismissed.
Clearly, Jupa broke rule 10. As a result of the serious damage she suffered
in the collision, she retired from the race and thus took the applicable penalty
(see rule 44.1(b)). Rule 64.1(b) prohibits penalizing her further. The disqualification
of Jupa is reversed and she is to be scored DNF.
RYA 2004/6