Rule
19.2(a), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an Obstruction Rule 20.1, Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Hailing
and Responding Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
A leeward port-tack boat, hailing for room to tack when faced with an
oncoming starboard-tack boat, an obstruction, is not required to anticipate
that the windward boat will fail to comply with her obligation to tack promptly
or otherwise provide room.
Summary of the Facts
S hailed PL as the two dinghies approached each other on collision courses.
PL then twice hailed ‘Room to tack’, but PW did not respond.
PL, now unable to keep clear of S, hailed a third time, and PW then
began to tack. At that moment, S, which was then within three feet (1
m) of PL, had to bear away sharply to avoid a collision. PW retired
and S protested PL under rule 10. The protest committee disqualified
PL observing that, not having had a timely response from PW, she should
have used her right to luff and forced PW to tack.
S hailed PL as the two dinghies approached each other on collision
courses. PL then twice hailed ‘Room to tack’, but PW did not respond.
PL, now unable to keep clear of S, hailed a third time, and PW then
began to tack at the same that S, which was within three feet (1m) of
PL, had to bear away sharply to avoid a collision. PW retired and S
protested PL under rule 10. The protest committee disqualified PL observing
that, not having had a timely response from PW, she should have used
her right to luff and forced PW to tack.
PL appealed, claiming that:
(1) she had no right to force PW onto the opposite tack;
(2) even with both of them head to wind, S would still have had to change
course to avoid a collision; and
(3) she had foreseen the development and had hailed PW in ample time.
Decision
PL’s appeal is upheld. PL is to be reinstated. Because S was an
obstruction to PL and PW, PL was entitled to choose between tacking
and bearing away (see rule 19.2(a)). Having decided to tack and having
hailed for room to do so three times, PL was entitled by rule 20.1 to
expect that PW would respond and give her room to tack. She was not
obliged to anticipate PW’s failure to comply with rule 20.1. PL
broke rule 10, but she is exonerated as the innocent victim of another
boat’s breach of a rule, under the provisions of rule 64.1(c).