I agree that boats have to give others room and opportunity but still see that GE was at fault given the significant amount of time A gave GE to see its actions.
What significant amount of time? The video shows 4 seconds of boats sailing parallel courses, 2 seconds of Artemis going head-to-wind, 6 seconds of Artemis tacking, and 1 second (at most) of Artemis on starboard tack before contact.
For the first 6 seconds, Artemis has right-of-way and Groupe Edmond keeps clear. For the next 6 seconds, Groupe Edmond has right-of-way and spends 5 of the 6 taking avoiding action. Artemis did not keep clear. Artemis may have regained right-of-way for the last second, but there is no way that she gave Groupe Edmond room to keep clear.
I believe this crash would not have happened had the windward mark not been within a couple of boatlengths of Artemis. Rule 18 applies in this situation...
Artemis was not entitled to mark room under rule 18.2(b) once she passed head-to-wind. See rule 18.2(c). Therefore, the mark being nearby is irrelevant.
GE had two options: it could attempt a bear away as it did unsuccessfully and keep to the tightest racing or it could luff up, crash tack, and possibly hit the mark or have to jibe around to make the mark.
Yes, GE could have crash-tacked instead. Crash-tacking is not a seamanlike maneuver and could have been just as dangerous as a failed bear-away. Either way, Artemis did not keep clear. Artemis had two legal options. She could have slowed down, let Groupe Edmond pass, and tack behind, or keep going until GE tacked and then tack herself. I don't think she was close enough to luff GE up.
Regards,
Eric
