Rule 20.1, Room to Tack
at an Obstruction: Hailing and Responding Rule 64.1(b), Decisions: Penalties and
Exoneration Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
Definitions, Obstruction
When two boats are involved in an incident and one of them breaks a rule,
she shall be exonerated when a third boat that also broke a rule caused the
incident.
Summary of the Facts
As P approached the mud flats, she tacked onto port. M, on starboard tack,
immediately hailed and then hailed again when one hull length away, since
it was apparent that P was trying to cross ahead and a collision would
be inevitable. When there was no response to her hails, M tacked, hailing
S as she was going about. S tried to respond but there was contact. P
retired promptly after the incident because her crew believed she had
gained an advantage over M and S who had lost considerable time as a result
of the contact between them. S protested M under rule 10. The protest
committee, commenting that M had sufficient time to take avoiding action
to keep clear of both P and S, disqualified M under rule 14.
M appealed, asserting that the protest committee erred in suggesting that
she, a right-of-way boat, was obliged to keep clear of P. Furthermore,
after her second hail, had she borne away and then P finally responded
by tacking, contact would have been likely. M also alleged that S had
not given M room to tack as required by rule 20.1.
Decision
P broke rule 10. When she retired promptly after the incident, she took
the applicable penalty and is not to be penalized (see rule 64.1(b)).
S was subject to rule 14, but did not break it as it was not possible
for her to avoid contact. Rule 20.1 did not apply between M and S because,
according to the definition Obstruction, P was not an obstruction since
M and S were not required to keep clear of P. M, in the circumstances,
took proper action to mitigate the effects of P’s error of judgment.
Both M and S were the innocent victims of P’s breach of rule 10.
M broke rule 13, but is exonerated under rule 64.1(c). M’s appeal
is upheld. M is to be reinstated.