Extreme 40 crash decision

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 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.

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.

Originally posted by Scooby_simon Does the tacking boat have to assume that the other boat(s) will NOT take appropite action.

The tacking boat has to assume that if they break a rule the right of way boat may not succeed in taking sufficient avoiding action in time to avoid a collision.

Edited by JimC - 26 Sep 11 at 3:48pm

Originally posted by Brass There's no doubt that R could have made 'more of an effort to bear away'. The question is, why should anyone think she was obliged to make 'more of an effort'?