Start line colision

OK. I will say form the outset I am not one who knows the rules off the top of my head. I was on the start line. Very bias pin end start. I was in the middle of the line on starboard. Not moving with my boom out. Looking around and keeping clear of any boats to leeward of which there were not any near me. Then a boat comes from clear astern and hits my transom - about 20 cm to leeward of the rudder. He looks and says "well, you are windward boat". I thought OK but I had no chance of keeping clear from him as to do so would mean to go above close haul and tack and as I had no way it would not have been possible to do so. And beside I had no way of anitipating he would not change his course.

So who broke which rules?

I assumed it was because he hit to leeward of the centre line. Thus he got an overlap from at the point he past the rudder. Does this make sense??

Originally posted by laser193713 If he plainly sails up behind you then he is the overtaking boat and must keep clear.

No such rule.

I'm not Brass, but lets go through this.

It started off with you (Y) more or less stopped on the start line and the other boat (O) coming from behind, no overlap. RuLe 12 applies, O must keep clear of Y.

O claims that he gained an overlap to leeward of Ys rudder, and became ROW boat, so Rule 11 starts to apply, and Y will henceforth need to keep clear of O.

So far so good, but we then get onto part B. Rule 15: When a boat acquires ROW she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear. And you need to read this with the definitions of room and keep clear. If O is alongside Ys rudder then Y cannot turn to windward or the stern swing will make contact. So Y is unable to turn to windward, which I think means Y has not been given room to keep clear. In addition, reading case 30, I think that there's a sound argument that H, in making the overlap within inches of Ys rudder, was not keeping clear just before the overlap occurred.

So, unless a wiser (wo)man on the PC corrects me, I disqualify H under rule 12 and rule 15, and exonerate Y for a breach of rule 11 that was a result of H breaking 12 & 15.

Case 24 and 30 in the case book are worth reading.

However, and its a big however, when you hear the other party's version of events these things can look very different...

That must surely be because once upon a time there was such a rule?

I can remember having it drummed into me as a kid in around 1971 to give any adult quoting it on the water a stiff ignoring.