A boat clear astern that is required to keep clear but collides with the
boat clear ahead breaks the right-of-way rule that was applicable before the
collision occurred. A boat that loses right of way by unintentionally changing
tack is nevertheless required to keep clear.
Summary of the Facts
Boats A and B were running on starboard tack close to the shore against
a strong ebb tide in a Force 3 breeze. A was not more than half a hull
length clear ahead of B. B blanketed A, causing A to gybe unintentionally.
This was immediately followed by a collision, although without damage
or injury, and B protested A under rule 10. The facts were agreed, and
both boats were disqualified: B under rule 12 because she was too close
to A to be keeping clear, and A under rule 10 for failing to keep clear
of a starboard-tack boat.
A appealed on the grounds that she was compelled by B’s action to
break rule 10. The protest committee, commenting on the appeal, stated
that B caused both A’s gybe and the collision by not keeping clear
when both boats were on the same tack.
Decision
The boats were passing close to the shoreline, which was an obstruction
and also a continuing obstruction. Therefore, the conditions for rule
19 to apply were met. However, because the boats were not overlapped,
neither of the two parts of rule 19 that place an obligation on a boat
(rules 19.2(b) and 19.2(c)) applied. When B was clear astern of A she
was required by rule 12 to keep clear but failed to do so. Her breach
occurred before the collision, at the moment when A first needed ‘to
take avoiding action’ (see the definition Keep Clear). When B collided
with A she also broke rule 14. However, at that time she held right of
way under rule 10, so is not subject to penalty under rule 14 because
there was no damage or injury. After gybing, A became the keep-clear boat
under rule 10, even though she had not intended to gybe. She broke that
rule, but only because B’s breach of rule 12 made it impossible
for A to keep clear. A did not break rule 14 because it was not ‘reasonably
possible’ for her to avoid contact. Accordingly, B was properly
disqualified by the protest committee under rule 12. However, A is exonerated
under rule 64.1(c) for her breach of rule 10. A’s appeal is upheld,
and she is to be reinstated.