Rule 10 On Opposite Tacks 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
The fact that a boat required to keep clear is out of control does not
entitle her to exoneration for breaking a rule of Part 2. When a right-of-way
boat becomes obliged by rule 14 to ‘avoid contact . . . if reasonably
possible’ and the only way to do so is to crash-gybe, she does not break
the rule if she does not crashgybe. When a boat’s penalty under rule 44.1(b)
is to retire, and she does so (whether because of choice or necessity), she
cannot then be disqualified.
Summary of the Facts Mumm 30s were racing in difficult conditions. Boat S was running at
10- 14 knots. Before Boat P reached position 1 she had broached and was
out of control. P struck S amidships resulting in serious damage. Both
boats retired. S protested P.
The protest committee found that S had made minor changes of course when
the boats were well apart; that these were thwarted by the erratic motion
of P, still out of control; and that when it became apparent that P was
not going to keep clear the only action available to S was to crash-gybe,
which risked considerable damage to S.
The protest committee disqualified both boats, P for breaking rule 10
and S for breaking rule 14, stating that S should have been aware of the
difficulties experienced by P and should have taken more significant action
earlier. It referred its decision to the national authority for confirmation
or correction.
Decision
The decisions of the protest committee are reversed. Both boats are to
be scored DNF.
Clearly, P broke rule 10. No rule justifies exonerating her, even though
she was out of control. In breaking rule 10, P caused serious damage.
Rule 10 is a rule of Part 2, and rule 44.1 permits a boat that breaks
such a rule to take a penalty. Because P caused serious damage, the applicable
penalty for her was to retire (see rule 44.1(b)). P did retire (whether
because of choice or necessity does not matter) and was, therefore, exempt
from disqualification (see rule 64.1(b)). Her disqualification is reversed,
and she is to be scored DNF.
Turning to S, rule 14 makes special provisions in the case of a right-of-way
boat. First, for her to be penalized, there must be contact that caused
damage or injury. This is not in doubt. Second, she was not required to
act to avoid contact until it was clear that P was not keeping clear.
It was only at that time that rule 14 required her to avoid contact if
reasonably possible. The protest committee found that, when it became
clear to S that P was not going to keep clear, the only action available
to S was to crash-gybe, which risked considerable damage to S. That finding
was equivalent to a finding that it was not reasonably possible for S
to avoid contact. Therefore, S did not break rule 14. Her disqualification
is reversed, and she too is to be scored DNF.
Finally, the protest committee should note that, in light of the changed
decision, rule 60.3(b) entitles it to call a hearing to consider giving
S redress under rule 62.1(b).