Rule 19.2(b), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving
Room at an Obstruction Rule 19.2(c), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving
Room at an Obstruction
Definitions, Obstruction
A leeward boat is an obstruction to an overlapped windward boat and a third
boat clear astern. The boat clear astern may sail between the two overlapped
boats and be entitled to room from the windward boat to pass between her and
the leeward boat, provided that the windward boat has been able to give that
room from the time the overlap began.
Summary of the Facts
When running towards the finishing line, W became overlapped with L when
almost two hull lengths to windward of her. Subsequently, M sailed into
the space between L and W. All three boats finished with no narrowing
of space between L and W and no contact. W protested M for taking room
to which she was not entitled, citing rules 19.2(b) and 19.2(c). The protest
was dismissed on the grounds that W had given room to M as required by
rule 19.2(b). W appealed.
Decision
Rule 11 required W to keep clear of L throughout the incident. While M
was clear astern of L, rule 12 required her to keep clear of L, and after
she became overlapped with L rule 11 required her to keep clear of L.
As the diagram shows, both M and W met these requirements. Because both
W and M were required to keep clear of L throughout the incident, L was
an obstruction to W and M during that time (see the penultimate sentence
of the definition Obstruction). However, because L was a boat under way,
L was not a continuing obstruction to them (see the last sentence of the
definition Obstruction). When M became overlapped with W, rule 19.2(b)
began to apply between them. It required W to give M room between her
and the obstruction, unless she was unable to do so from the time the
overlap began. As the facts clearly show, W was able to give M that room
when the overlap began and continued to do so at all times until the boats
finished. Therefore, W complied with rule 19.2(b). Rule 19.2(c) did not
apply because the obstruction, L, was not a continuing obstruction. M
broke no rule; therefore W’s appeal is dismissed.