Rule 10 On Opposite Tacks Rule 14 Avoiding Contact Rule 44.1 Penalties for Breaking Rules of Part 2:
Taking a Penalty
The fact that a boat required to keep clear is out of control does not entitle
her to exoneration for breaking a rule of Part 2. When a right-of-way boat becomes
obliged by rule 14 to ‘avoid contact . . . if reasonably possible’ and the only
way to do so is to crash-gybe, she does not break the rule if she does not crash-gybe.
When a boat retires as required by rule 44.1, whether out of choice or necessity,
she cannot then be penalized further.
Summary of the Facts Mumm 30s were racing in difficult conditions. Boat S was running at
10- 14 kts. Before Boat P reached position 1 she had broached and was
out of control. P struck S amidships resulting in serious damage. Both
boats retired. S protested P.
The protest committee found that S had made minor changes of course when
the boats were well apart; that these were thwarted by the erratic motion
of P, still out of control; and that when it became apparent that P was
not going to keep clear the only action available to S was to crash-gybe,
which risked considerable damage to S.
The protest committee disqualified both boats – P for breaking rule 10
and S for breaking rule 14, stating that S should have been aware of the
difficulties experienced by P and should have taken more significant action
earlier. It referred its decision to the national authority for confirmation
or correction.
Decision
The decisions of the protest committee are reversed. Both boats are to
be scored DNF. Clearly, P broke rule 10. The fact that she was out of
control does not justify exonerating her. In breaking rule 10, P caused
serious damage and therefore was required by rule 44.1 to retire at the
time of the incident. She did so, and thus took a penalty for the purposes
of rule 44.1. She was therefore exempted from further penalisation by
rules 44.4(b) and 64.1(a).
Her disqualification is reversed, and she is to be scored DNF.
Turning to S, rule 14 makes special provisions in the case of a right-of-way
boat. First, for her to be penalised, there must be contact that caused
damage or injury. This is not in doubt. Second, she was not required to
act to avoid contact until it was clear that P was not keeping clear.
It was only at that time that rule 14 required her to avoid contact if
reasonably possible. The protest committee found that, when it became
clear to S that P was not going to keep clear, the only action available
to S was to crash-gybe, which risked considerable damage to S. That was
equivalent to finding that it was not reasonably possible for S to avoid
contact. Therefore, S did not break rule 14. Her disqualification is reversed,
and she too is to be scored DNF.
Finally, the protest committee should note that, in light of the changed
decision, rule 60.3(b) entitles it to call a hearing to consider giving
S redress under rule 62.1(b).
CASE 99
