On a run, rule 18 does not apply to a starboard-tack boat overtaking two
port-tack boats ahead of her. Rule 10 requires both port-tack boats to keep
clear.
Summary of the Facts
Three boats, one on starboard tack and two on port, were running. S overtook
PL and PW and intervened between them as shown in the diagram. The three
boats continued on slightly converging courses, as shown, until S touched
first PW and then PL. PW protested S, alleging that she had broken rule
18.5 because PL as leeward boat constituted an obstruction to PW as windward
boat, and S had no right to come between them. The protest committee disqualified
both PL and PW under rule 10, and PW appealed.
Decision
While the boats sailed from position 1 to position 4, rule 10 required
both PW and PL to keep clear of S and rule 18 did not apply because during
that time there was no obstruction that any two of the boats were about
to pass or were passing on the same side. The last sentence of the definition
Obstruction means that PW was not an obstruction to either S or PL because
neither of them was required to keep clear of PW. Similarly, PL was not
an obstruction to either S or PW because S was not required to keep clear
of PL. Because both PL and PW were required by rule 10 to keep clear of
S, the sentence in the definition means that S was an obstruction to both
PL and PW. However, rule 18 did not apply because at no time were both
PL and PW about to pass or passing S on the same side.
There was contact between S and PW and between S and PL. However, because
S became trapped between PW and PL as their courses converged, it was
not ‘reasonably possible’ for S, acting after it became clear that PW
and PL were not keeping clear to avoid contact. Therefore, S did not break
rule 14.
Under rule 10, S held right of way over both port-tack boats, PL and PW,
neither of which kept clear of her. The protest committee’s decision to
disqualify both boats under rule 10 is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
CASE 23
