Because of the speed of these boats I've heard it argued that the zone can change and become 4 or even 5 boat lengths in this weather condition and at this speed.
Sailing Instructions may change the size of the zone from three boatlengths to two or four (but not five). See RRS 86.1(b). I've heard rumors that SI's will no longer be able to change the zone size in the upcoming rules. Lacking any information about this regatta other than the video, I assume the default zone size.
With the benefit of video (and pause), I see some potential flaws with your facts found at Time 4. To me, it looks like when SD/red gybed, she was not in the zone (defined as when the HULL reaches the zone of three HULL lengths). When I looked at the video and paused it, it looked to me (especially at 0:07 when zoomed out to see the mark), the gybe occured outside the zone (looking at the wakes), and PD/black was never overlapped inside of SP/red prior to the collision (and SD/red entering the zone). These boats have long poles, so it makes them look longer than they actually are.
Having said that, I don't know how easy it would be to get to that conclusing in a real hearing, without the video. Witness testimony may or may not have helped with the speeds involved.
I don't agree with PD/black breaking RRS 10, at all. PD/black was coming in hot on the layline (probably overstood), and SD/red gybed to round the mark (proper course). Had she continued on STBD and forced PD/black to gybe, that would be a different question, and may have caused a RRS 17 issue, and almost certainly would have brought SU2 into the discussion.
Said another way, I think that in the absence of PD/black, SD/red would have gybed there anyway (or perhaps sooner).
The only thing that PD/black did wrong was to then come into the zone and round inside of SD/red without rights (I maintain that PD/black did not have inside overlap when S/D red's hull hit the zone); although the room may have been freely given, since SD/red was probably dealing with the trauma of the collision.
I think that SD/red gets DSQ for RRS 11, and it probably stops there.
As I said, different people will see the same incident differently. It looks to me like SD/red reaches the zone at the completion of her gybe. The two were overlapped before the gybe, overlap was broken after the gybe, and reestablished shortly again. For the analysis of this incident, however, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that she began turning while she and PD/black were outside the zone.
SD/red began her turndown about one boatlength from PD/black. Had SD/red held her course, I don't think PD/black could have avoided contact. Therefore, I see SD/red's gybe as "avoiding action". "Proper course" isn't an issue here as neither Rule 17 nor 18.4 apply. If PD/black hadn't been there, would SD/red still have gybed into PU? If I were SD/red, I wouldn't. I'd sail on an extra 1/2 boatlength and gybe behind PU. There's no upside to giving up right-of-way into or immediately in front of another boat.
Since we don't know how overlap was established, and there's no indication that any boat sailed above her proper course rule 17 does not apply.
If we say that SD/red was clear ahead at the zone (and therefore did not owe PD/black mark-room), nothing really changes. SD/red doused late (after recovering from the collision) and rounded very wide. PD/black and another boat took that opportunity to round inside. Room freely given may be freely taken.
I see this as when they got to the gate, black was not inside red (was not between red and the mark).
Looking upwind from the mark boat: If red were coming in from the right side of the left gate mark (and black were coming from the left, as in the video), then I can see black being inside. But, because they are both to the left of the left gate mark, I don't think black can be called inside. Is there a case or other citation to clarify this?
Either way, with a 3-length zone, I think red broke the overlap before her hull came into the zone.
To me, with the video evidence, 16.1 doesn't apply, as red was on port tack when contact occurred, therefore W/L, RRS 11. Obviously, this happened immediately before contact was made, and without the video, it may have been tough to prove this, so I could see 16.1 being used.
Rule 18 doesn't apply until boats reach the zone (although boats sometimes have to act prior to that in order to satsify rule 18). See RRS 18.1. I also think that SD/red and PD/black reached the zone after SD/red's gybe, so in this instance, "inside" doesn't have meaning at the time are on opposite tacks. In the general case, however, if boats reach the zone on opposite tacks, then the inside boat is the one on the side on which they must leave the mark.
As to whether or not the boats were overlapped when the first one reached the zone, the onus of proof is on SD/red. Rule 18.2(d) states "if there is reasonable doubt that a boat obtained or broke overlap in time, it shall be presumed that she did not".
Actually, because PU changes course before SD/red completes her gybe, I think that SD/red broke rule 16.1 as well as rule 11. I didn't list it earlier becuse I didn't want to overcomplicate the incident.
There's more to the story, according to SA...
Seems that PU was actually coming down to the gate (not heading back up to weather). Who knows if you can actually believe that the guy who posted was really on the PU boat as he claims, but the wake in the wide shot does show a track for him coming down from the left side, then heading up to avoid the SU boat(s).
I wondered about the wake, but I don't think it makes much difference. If PU was headed for the left gate mark (as SD/red and PD/black were), then she would be entitled to mark-room. Why then, was she sailing away from the mark? Neither of those boats prevented her from sailing "to the mark". If PU was heading to the other gate mark, then rule 18 does not apply to her. Either way, the rest of the analysis is the same.
I think we agree that SD/red broke rule 16.1 or 11 (or both), and most likely 14. Whether or not PD/black broke rule 10 hinges on whether you think SD/red's gybe was purposeful, or avoiding action. If you feel that PD/black broke rule 10 and compelled SD/red to gybe into PU, then SD/red is exonerated. If not, then she is penalized. These are difficult judgement calls, and small changes in the facts found can swing them one way or the other. Given the proximity of SD/red and PD/black at the time of SD/red's gybe, I believe that PC would most likely penalize PD/black and exonerate SD/red.
Regards,
Eric
US SAILING Certified Judge
Member Area D Appeals Committee
