18.2(d) If there is reasonable doubt that a boat obtained or broke an
overlap in time, it shall be presumed that she did not.
but...errr...wait a minute. which one? obtained or broke overlap? If "reasonable doubt" could go either way, then what is the point of this rule? That should fall into a duh-huh.
Either one. Imagine:
- Two boats are approaching a mark and one is overtaking from clear astern. They become overlapped very close to the zone. Boat A claims that she was still ahead at the zone. Boat B claims that she gained overlap just before A reached the zone.
- Two boats are overlapped approaching a mark, but one is pulling away from the other. They become clear ahead/clear astern very close to the zone. Boat A claims that she broke overlap just before she reached the zone. Boat B claims that overlap was broken just afterwards.
In the first case, there is reasonable doubt that an overlap was established in time. In the second case, there is reasonable doubt that overlap was broken in time. Therefore, Protest Committee must presume that the overlap was not gained in time in scenario 1, and that it was not broken in time in scenario 2.
This is the one place that the rules place a burden of proof on one boat or the other. It is up to the boat claiming to have gained or to have broken overlap to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she did so in time.
Given that it is quite difficult to determine exactly where the zone begins on the water, RRS 18.2(d) makes it easier for boats to apply RRS 18.2(b) while racing.
Regards,
Eric
