Extreme 40 crash decision

Hi guys - I have been folowing this thread with interest.  I think I understand both of the arguments being put.  I think A felt under pressure to make the rounding and tacked slightly too early (thereby taking a risk) and this was at least part of the cause of A's slow and bad tack.  I understand Simon's argument that if sailied differently (better), R might have successfully avoided the collision, but as the jury didn't seem to comment on the reasonablness of R's actions (unless you know differently), I certainly don't think any precident has been set regarding anticipating whether a boat will be sailed reasonably or in a seamanlike manner or whether it will be sailed badly.

Edited by ob1 - 22 Sep 11 at 3:55pm

Originally posted by gordon Totally agree with Brass

Thank you kindly

Originally posted by gordon Incidentally - rule 14 states "shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible". The rule imposes an obligation to take action, not an obligation that the action should succeed!

Originally posted by gordon In this case, however, my reading of the incident is that rule 13 was broken almost immediately after A passed beyond head to wind. As soon as R reasonably felt it necessary to bear away, A had broken the rule. A's failure to accelerate out of the tack  did not break a rule, but rendered the collision inevitable. Gordon

Totally agree with Brass - I should point out that the "Jury's findings" were an attempt to write up the incident as a Jury would have done, rather than a quote from an actual hearing!

Incidentally - rule 14 states "shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible". The rule imposes an obligation to take action, not an obligation that the action should succeed!

On the other hand, rule 13 places an absolute obligation on the tacking boat to keep clear. If the tacking boat has not allowed enough room to keep clear if the tack is less than perfect that is her problem and no-one else's.

In this case, however, my reading of the incident is that rule 13 was broken almost immediately after A passed beyond head to wind. As soon as R reasonably felt it necessary to bear away, A had broken the rule. A's failure to accelerate out of the tack  did not break a rule, but rendered the collision inevitable.

Gordon

Gordon; so does this set a precedent that we HAVE TO ASSUME that crew(s) will not sail the boat properly and thus allow room for people who do not know how to sail the boat (or boats) properly.

I still hold the opinion that IF they had blown the main and not eased the Jib they WOULD have made the bear-off easily... (or they could have tacked)