What would the jury rule.... with these facts and testimony.
My fleet has a very cautious racer who pulls the escape rip cord early... sometimes he pulls the cord a bit too late as described here in this example and argues that you backed me into a corner ...
Mark,
I don't quite follow the scenerio you're describing, but I gather that you have a racer who has difficulty reacting at the right time when boats meet. The best advice I can give is to leave him a little extra room until he develops the experience and comfort to judge crossings better. At the clubs where I usually sail, we offer reticent sailors a green ribbon to fly while racing. That lets the other boats know he's not comfortable in close situations and we give him a wider berth.
...Starboard must understand ... they have some restraints on their maneuver's that they make ... they must give the burdened boat room to respond to their change of course.
Yes, that's Rule 16.1 - the topic of most of this discussion.
The "I took action to avoid a collision" is not a get out of jail free card for the ROW boat.
True. I only quoted half of ISAF Case 50 in my last post. The other half reads:
When a protest committee finds that in a port-starboard incident S did not change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest.
The pivotal phrase here is "genuine and reasonable apprehension". An inexperienced sailor will often have a genuine apprehension of collision that is not reasonable. He will take avoiding action earlier than necessary or when not necessary. He may take actions in panic that actually make things worse.
These situations can be tough to sort out in a protest hearing because the testimony is usually as erratic and tangled as the boathandling. The point of Case 50 is that there is no burden of proof on either the right-of-way boat or the give-way boat. Both boats must present adequate evidence to support their case. Protest Committee must then determine the facts and apply the rules. If PC finds that the ROW boat had a reasonable and genuine apprehension of collision, and took avoiding action, then they should rule in her favor. If PC finds that the ROW boat's apprehension was not genuine, or not reasonable, or that she did not take avoiding action, then they should dismiss the protest (assuming no other rules apply).
I hope that helps,
Eric
