Rule 32.1(d) Shortening or Abandoning After
the Start Rule 64.1(b) Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
Definitions Start
When one boat breaks a rule and in so doing causes another to touch a mark,
the other boat is to be exonerated. The fact that a starting mark has shifted,
for whatever reason, does not exempt a boat from the requirement to start as
defined. A race committee may abandon under rule 32.1(d) only when the mark
has moved a significant distance.
Summary of the Facts
As S and P, close-hauled, approached the port end of the starting line,
a strong tide was setting them toward the line and the starting line mark.
When S was two hull lengths from the mark, she hailed P to keep clear.
There was no response, and S was forced to bear away to avoid collision.
Immediately after the starting signal, P rode over the mark. As S luffed
back to close-hauled, on a course to the wrong side of the mark, it jumped
out from under P’s hull and bounced against S. P did not take a penalty,
and S did not return to start between the starting marks.
S protested P under rules 10 and 31.1, and also requested redress, asking
that the race be abandoned, citing rule 32.1(d). The protest committee
disqualified P, refused S’s request for redress, and scored S DNS. The
latter decision was referred to the national authority with a question:
If S had returned to start according to the definition Start, could the
race have been abandoned under rule 32.1(d) because of the mark having
shifted?
Decision
S touched the mark. However, she could not be expected to anticipate how
it would move when another boat touched it. Therefore, as provided in
rule 64.1(b), S is not penalized for contact with the mark because P’s
breach of a rule resulted in the mark touching S.
Because S did not start, the race committee was correct in scoring her
DNS.
Rule 32.1(d) applies only to a mark that has moved a significant distance
from its designated position. It does not apply to a mark that is temporarily
pushed out of position as the result of a boat touching it. Therefore,
abandonment was not an option open to the committee.
CASE 28
