Extreme 40 crash decision

Originally posted by I luv Wight Originally posted by Scooby_simon    But IF R in this case had taken avoiding action correctly (and thus no collision) then A would not hve been DSQ. But A would still get a penalty / DSQ for tacking too close.

Scooby Simon- the days are long gone when a collision was needed to prove that a rule had been broken. Once A passed beyong head to wind she was required to sail in such a way that R had noneed to take avoiding action. Once R needed to take avoiding action A had broken rule 13.

Once A had reached a close hauled course she became ROW boat and was required to give R the space needed, in the existing conditions, to manoeuvre promptly in a seamanlike way so that A would not need to take avoiding action. At that moment (not before) A did not meet this requirement. A broke rule 15.

In both these instances A is DSQ, even if there was no contact. If you want a simple guideline - if you oblige another boat to do an emergency manouevre to avoid you, you have almost certainly broken a rule.

The only debate is whether R could have done more to to avoid a collision. Having initially borne away when A broke rule 13, it is questionable whether any seamanlike manoeuvre could have avoided contact when A broke rule 15.

Gordon

Originally posted by craiggo Gordon, You are of course right, A should be disqualified, but surely so should R. While R attempted to avoid the collision they chose the wrong way to avoid it and as a result a collision occured. The argument is therefore, did R do all that was possible to avoid the collision. I would argue Scooby-simons point that, they had opportunity to avoid by 1. tacking or 2. bearing away by blowing the main and leaving the jib on. In bearing away in the way they did, they put themselves into the position of causing te crash and therefore should also be scored as DSQ.

Here's another jury decision about right of way and rule 14.

Jeffers,

A was only clear ahead ROW boat until she passed beyond head to wind. Until she did so she was subject to rule 16.ONE, in that for any change of course she must give R room to keep clear. Once A passed beyond head to wind she became a keep clear boat (rule 13)

Rule 16.2 only applies to boats on opposite tacks when the port tack boat is keeping clear by passing astern. In this incident once a passed beyond head to wind until she reached a close hauled course she was keep clear boat (rule 13). As ROW boat R had no obligation to  keep clear of A so 16.2 does not apply. Once A reaches a close hauled course she acquires right of way but must give room to R to keep clear (rule 15). Only when A has given room, and only if:
- R was then keeping clear by passing astern of A;
and;
- A subsequently changed course

would rule 16.2 apply.

Gordon