Pepin,
Again, you present a reasonable argument, but one that can be difficult to win in a protest hearing. I think you'd have a better chance now, than under the previous rules when the Flying Fifteen would have been considered a continuing obstruction.
Now however, she is not:
... A vessel under way, including a boat racing, is never a continuing obstruction
Let's analyze the situation step-by-step.
- Three boats, the Flying Fifteen (L), the F16 (M), and the Wayfarer (W) are approaching the line to start, all on starboard tack. Initially, W is clear ahead of L and M, and is parked just below the starting line at the signal boat. At this point, L and W are required by RRS 12 "ON THE SAME TACK, NOT OVERLAPPED" to keep clear of her. W is also clear astern of L and is required to keep clear of her too.
- L establishes an overlap to leeward of W from clear astern, I presume within two of her boatlengths. Just how far apart they are is not specified. W must now keep clear of L under RRS 11 "ON THE SAME TACK, OVERLAPPED". L must initially give W room to keep clear under RRS 15 "ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY". M must still keep clear of both W and L.
- M sails in between L and W. Now all three boats are overlapped with each other (see the definition of overlap). W must keep clear of L and M (rule 11). M must keep clear of L (rule 11). M must initially give W room to keep clear (rule 15). RRS 15 does not apply between L and M, so L is not initially obligated to give M room to keep clear. How close the boats are at this point is vitally important, and will probably determine the outcome of a protest hearing.
- 30 seconds before the starting signal, L heads up. M also heads up, and so does W (to head-to-wind). W crosses the starting line and stops. L must give M room to keep clear under RRS 16.1 "CHANGING COURSE". M must give W room to keep clear also.
- After the starting signal, M hails for room. L bears away. L's transom swings towards M. M steers away and makes contact with W. The is no damage.
At position 5, W did not keep clear of M. It is arguable whether or not M kept clear of L. It seems apparent that M did not have room to keep clear of L.
The crux of the matter is "why" didn't M have room to keep clear? Remember that rules 16 and 64.1(c) are "shields, not swords". A protest committee will generally look at which boat (L or M) was being the aggressor. If there was plenty of space between L and W when M sailed in, and L
forced M up into W, then L breaks rule 16, and M should be exonerated under rule 64.1(c). If, on the other hand, there was little separation between L and W, and M nosed her way into a space where she really didn't have enough room, then she breaks rule 11 and is not entitled to exoneration.
In order to receive exoneration, the boat must have been "compelled" to break a rule, and the other boat's action must have been against the rules. Rule 64.1(c) exonerates a boat that is forced to break a rule, but it doesn't protect one that sails into an untenable position.
There are some points in the story that make me suspect that the boats were too close. For example, When L turned down, and her transom swung over, how could M keep clear by heading up? Wouldn't that cause M's transom to swing towards L, making matters worse? Or was she only overlapped bow-to-stern? Also, when M made contact with W, W was head-to-wind, but M was not. How is that possible unless M and W were barely overlapped as well? I have difficulty reconciling that small an overlap on both sides, with having a large hole to sail into.
As I said, the argument is valid, but tough to sell. I think most protest committees would penalize M. W would probably be exonerated, but would still have to restart.
I hope that helps,
Eric
