The ultimate source of the rules is the rules book along with all other documents named in the definition of "rule".

The US Sailing Appeals, ISAF Casebook, Callbooks, and Rule 42 Interpretations are authoritative interpretations of the rules, but do not rank as rules themselves.

Any other rules commentary (including mine) are just somebody's opinion.



My understanding is that RRS 16.2 was written to curtail "hunting" when sailing upwind. It does not, however, specifiy upwind, so I believe it would apply between two boats sailing downwind on opposite tacks as well.

That said, RRS 16.2 does not apply in this instance because neither boat was sailing astern of the other. Rules 10, 14, 16.1, and possibly 64.1(b) do apply. The proximity of the layline is not relevant -- this same situation could occur in the middle of the course.

"P", the boat sailing upwind on port tack was obligated to keep clear of S under RRS 10, and to avoid contact under RRS 14. "S", the boat sailing downwind on starboard tack was obligated to give P room to keep clear under RRS 16.1 and to avoid contact under RRS 14.

There was no contact, so both boats complied with RRS 14. If we accept that S bore away to avoid contact with P, then P did not keep clear and broke RRS 10. If the protest committee decides that S gave P room to keep clear, then they must disqualify P unless some other penalty (such as turns under RRS 44.1) applies. If, however, the protest committee determines that S altered course and did not give P room to keep clear, then S would be penalized for breaking RRS 16.1 and P would be exonerated under RRS 64.1(b).

The one thing that is clear in this example, is that the facts are not clear. In my experience, that is typical in protest situations. The hard part of a protest hearing is not applying the rules, but rather figuring out what happend on the course. Bear in mind also that each witness may give completely honest and completely different testimony - simply because we each see things from a different perspective.

So, if you go to the protest room, be as clear and objective about the facts as you can. Protest committees often give more weight to objective testimony over esitmates. For example, "I bore away xx degrees (from xxx to xxx on my compass) yy seconds (I counted one-one-thousand, two-one-thousand...) and crossed zz feet from his transom" is going to be more convincing than "I turned to miss him". Boat speeds, and closure times are better data than eyeball distance estimates.

Regards,
Eric