A leeward boat is entitled to sail up to her proper course, even when
she has established a leeward overlap from clear astern and within two of her
hull lengths of the windward boat.
Summary of the Facts
For some time, W had been sailing almost dead downwind on a straight course
towards the starboard end of the finishing line when L, a boat that had
been clear astern, became overlapped within two of her hull lengths to
leeward of W. In the absence of W, L would have sailed a higher course
directly towards the line. In order to do so, she hailed W to come up.
There was no response. L hailed again and luffed to a position very close
to W, but W still did not respond. L stopped luffing and bore away just
before contact would have occurred. L protested under rule 11.
The protest committee held that there was insufficient evidence to show
that W would have finished sooner by sailing a higher course. It said
that even though there might be conflict between the courses of a windward
and a leeward boat, a boat overtaking another from clear astern did not
have the right to force a windward boat to sail above her proper course.
The protest was dismissed and L appealed, claiming the right to luff up
to her proper course under rule 17.
Decision
Rule 11 says that when two boats on the same tack are overlapped the windward
boat shall keep clear. A leeward boat’s actions, however, are limited
by rules 16.1 and 17. There was room for W to keep clear when L luffed,
and so L did not break rule 16.1. The protest committee, although it did
not say so explicitly, recognized that L’s proper course was directly
towards the finishing line. A direct course to the line was not only closer
but would also have put both boats on a faster point of sailing. While
L was not entitled to sail above her proper course, she was entitled to
sail up to it, even though she had established the overlap from clear
astern while within two of her hull lengths of W. Accordingly, she did
not exceed the limitation to which rule 17 subjected her.
W’s proper course is not relevant to the application of the rules
to this incident. She was required to keep clear of L. When L luffed,
she gave W room to keep clear as required by rule 16.1. At the moment
L needed to stop luffing and bear away to avoid contact, W broke rule
11. Therefore, L’s appeal is upheld and W is disqualified for breaking
rule 11.