PART 5
In WS 51, there were multiple protests. Daffodil did not keep clear of Iris to leeward of her. Why? Because Thetis was overlapped to windward of Daffodil, and did not keep clear. Why? Because Intrepid was overlapped to windward of Thetis and did not keep clear when she bore away to try to avoid being OCS. So Intrepid was penalised for breaking rule 11, and Thetis and Daffodil were exonerated on appeal for breaking rule 11 because they were in turn compelled to do so by Intrepid. So the compulsion may be indirect. For a boat to be exonerated, there must be a causal link between her breach and the breach of the other boat. Daffodil may have been wrongly forced by Iris onto the course side of the starting line so as to be OCS at her starting signal, and she may win her protest against Iris, but that does not relieve her of the obligation to return and start, since nothing prevented her from doing so1
. Likewise, if Daffodil is wrongly denied room at a mark and is forced to pass it on the wrong side, she must return and pass it correctly to comply with rule 28. If Iris tacks in the zone at a windward mark so as to require Daffodil to luff above close-hauled to keep clear, Daffodil must luff if she can. If not, she breaks rule 11, even though Iris has broken rule 18.3. Two wrongs, unless intimately linked, do not make a right.
WS 3 and US 2 both look at a situation where the boat seeking to be exonerated had a choice as to what she could do.
When Room to Tack is NOT Given
Mark- Room, please!
PW PL
Room to tack, please!
Room to tack, please!
Room to tack, please!
US 2 PW disqualified under rule 20.1.
PL’s appeal against disqualification under rule 10 dismissed.
S PW PL
Room to tack, please!
Room to tack, please!
Room to tack, please!
WS 3 PW retired.
PL’s appeal against disqualification under rule 10 upheld.
In each case, PL hailed PW for room to tack and clear S, an obstruction, and in each case PW did not respond, preventing PL from keeping clear and obliging S to take action to avoid contact (by bearing away in WS 3, by luffing in US 2).
In US 2, PL was not exonerated for breaking rule 10, because she was said not to have been compelled to break the rule, since she could have gone astern of S when PW did not respond. WS 3 says however that PW was not obliged to anticipate PW’s failure to comply with rule 19. The difference appears to be that in US 2, when PW did not respond to the hail, PL still had the opportunity of passing astern of S and it was not clear that PW would not respond to the hail until she actually failed to do so; whereas in WS 3, by the time PW had failed to respond to PL’s hail (her third), the diagram suggests that bearing away was no longer an option for PL, who could only stand on and hope that S would take avoiding action. But since WS 3’s PL could have borne away astern of S when her first and second hails were unsuccessful, she had a way out at those points, and so became compelled to infringe only because she chose to stand on and hail again. These cases have stood for years2 clear whether they are compatible. If not, WS 3 must prevail3
, but it is not .
1 RYA 2003/6 2 1940, 1962 3 US 19’s facts – a hail not responded to – and decision – the exoneration of PL – are similar to WS 3.
210 RYA The Racing Rules Explained S
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256
