Rule 18.1(a), Mark-Room: When Rule 18
Applies
Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
Rule 18.3(b), Mark-Room: Tacking When Approaching
a Mark
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
If two overlapped boats on the same tack are on a beat to windward and
are subject to rule 18.2(b), rule 18 ceases to apply when either of them turns
past head to wind. When a right-of-way boat is compelled to touch a mark as
a result of the other boat’s failure to keep clear, she is exonerated
from her breach of rule 31.
Summary of the Facts |
Decision
When Jagga reached the zone she was overlapped inside Freebird. From that time
until Freebird turned past head to wind, rule 18.2(b) required Freebird to give
Jagga mark-room. However, after Freebird turned past head to wind, rule 18 ceased
to apply (see rule 18.1(a)) and Jagga was no longer entitled to mark-room. The
boats were then on opposite tacks, with Freebird fetching the mark. Freebird
was subject to rule 15 after she completed her tack. She complied with that
rule because Jagga had room to keep clear by crossing ahead of Freebird.
Between positions 2 and 3 when Jagga turned past head to wind, she became subject
to rule 13 in the zone, and therefore rule 18.3 began to apply. When Jagga completed
her tack, Freebird was overlapped inside her. Jagga was then required by rule
11 to keep clear of Freebird and by rule 18.3(b) to give Freebird mark-room.
After Jagga crossed ahead of Freebird, Freebird had right of way, first under
rule 10, then under rule 13 and finally under rule 11. Therefore, Jagga had
no protection from rule 15 during that time. Rule 11 and the definition Keep
Clear required Jagga to sail so that Freebird could ‘sail her course with
no need to take avoiding action’. The fact that, when Jagga luffed, Freebird
had to change course to avoid contact was evidence that Jagga did not keep clear
and did not give Freebird mark-room as required by rule 18.3(b). The protest
committee correctly disqualified Jagga under rule 18.3(b), but she also broke
rule 11. Freebird broke rule 31 when she touched the mark, but she is exonerated
under rule 64.1(c). Jagga’s appeal is dismissed.
RYA 2000/4