Starboard boat capsizing onto port boat

Originally posted by jeffers If a boat capsizes n you then I believe you will always be exonerated (unless they had been over for some time and you ploughed in to them).

Sorry, that's not always the case.

If you are the keep clear boat, it all depends on whether or not there was a change of course by the ROW boat (assuming the capsize wasn't deliberate). See above.

If a boat capsizes n you then I believe you will always be exonerated (unless they had been over for some time and you ploughed in to them).

Originally posted by Brass From a strict rules point of view, it depends whether S did or did not change course.  If S changed course, and you did not have room to keep clear, then S broke rule 16, and you deserve to be exonerated for breaking rule 10.

Agree, if S changed course in the act of capsizing then P should be exonerated.

If however S capsized whilst maintaining its course (and it wasn't a deliberate act) then unfortunately P has failed to keep clear.

The extract below to a Q&A in RYA casenotes 1988/8 illustrates this point. Although it refers to a windward/Leeward and a heel to windward (ie in a lull),

rather than Port/Starboard and a heel (capsize) to leeward in a gust. I believe the same principle applies;

QUESTION 1

Two boats are close-hauled on the same tack. L, without

altering course, heels to windward so that her masthead

touches W’s mast or sail. Is it fair sailing?

ANSWER 1

If carried out deliberately and with the intention of

making W break a rule, it would break rule 2, and W

will be exonerated for breaking rule 11 under 64.1(c),

provided that she was previously keeping clear, as

defined. But if the contact is caused by, for instance,

wave motion or a wind shadow, L breaks no rule, and

W has not kept clear.

EDIT;

footnote; S was in the act of 'heeling to leeward' when 'masts clashed' (contact) and at that moment in time wasn't actually capsized. S could argue that the mast contact prevented recovery from the heel to leeward and resulted in the capsize.

Edited by Andymac

Originally posted by laserblue I was beating in a Laser on port  in a gusting 30mph wind and was not sure I could cross a port boat . I bore off to go behind him. Had he sailed normally I would have safetly cleared his transom but instead he was caught by a gust and started to capsize. His mast started to fall in front of my boat. I immediatedly bore off even more but could not avoid the masts clashing. Was I in the wrong being on port or is it covered by the not altering course rule  16.2 ?

I agree with Al.  Morally you did all you could and do not deserve to be penalised.

From a strict rules point of view, it depends whether S did or did not change course.  If S changed course, and you did not have room to keep clear, then S broke rule 16, and you deserve to be exonerated for breaking rule 10.

I have difficulty visualising how, with P dipping S, S could have capsized so as to contact P without changing course.

There was contact.  Rule 14 comes into play.  If S tipped into you so fast that you could not avoid her, then it was not reasonably possible for you to avoid contact.  Just possibly you could win a protest under rule 14 saying that it was possible for S to avoid contact with you by maintaining control, however that would require injury or damage, otherwise S can not be penalised under rule 14(b).

Take it the first line (because you've typed port twice!) that the other boat was on starboard? I think by bearing off enough to pass his transom you've done all you can- you cannot predict a boat capsizing, and should not have to anticipate the other boat doing something stupid/unfortunate.