Originally posted by laser161774
Can anyone help? My first post. Today I was on port tack and realised I was give way boat to a boat on starboard, I left it as late as possible to tack, I was ready to go when the STBD boat tacked onto port. So I didn't alter course. By the time he had completed his tack he was about one boat width below me(I'm being generous here), with little or no overlap( I'm not sure which). He then called me up. At this point I looked back to see his bow overlapped I tried to point higher but I was at the limit. His bow was so close I could not tack without making contact. I complained "I have no room to manoeuver " he replied "windward boat" His bow then made contact with my STBD side about 1' from the transom.
Lets deal with rule 17 (Proper Course) first.
You say 'He then called me up. At this point I looked back to see his bow overlapped'. This implies that before that you didn't observe whether S was overlapped or not before that time.
If S said, in a protest hearing that she reached a close hauled course overlapped to leeward of you (and that therefore, in accordance with rule 17 last sentence, proper course limitations did not apply), the protest committee would have no reason to disbelieve her, and would not conclude that she had broken rule 17, even if she did sail above her proper course.
However, as you describe it, S was sailing higher and at least as fast as P was: it would be hard to argue that sailing higher than and as fast as another boat of the same class was not S's proper course, even if she reached her proper course clear astern of P and rule 17 did apply.
My thoughts; (1) I did not need to anticipate his pointing higher than me.
No you didn't, but once S reached a close hauled course overlapped to leeward of you, you were required to keep clear of S (rule 11).
(2) He did not give me room to manoeuver
You say 'By the time he had completed his tack he was about one boat width below me(I'm being generous here)'
At about a boat width apart, there would have been ample space for you (P) to have pinched higher than S and kept clear, although it is arguable that at that distance apart, P was keeping clear. As the gap closed, P would need to do something to keep clear of S.
When S reached a close hauled course to leeward of P, S acquired right of way, and was required by rule 15 initially to give P room to keep clear: with a boat width between boats, it could not be said that there was no room for P to keep clear, and S complied with her obligation under rule 15.
You than say 'I tried to point higher but I was at the limit. His bow was so close I could not tack without making contact.'
I take it that you mean that you couldn't point higher without pinching and slowing: if that was what was necessary to keep clear of S then that was what you were required to do.
If S started out about one boat width to leeward than reached a point where she was so close P could not tack without making contact, then the gap between P and S must have closed, and as the gap was closing P needed to do something, like pinching higher or tacking, to keep clear.
(3)He created his overlap less than two boat lengths below me so had no luffing rights.
There is no such thing as 'luffing rights' in the rules. All that there is is the limitation on luffing and sailing above proper course contained in rules 16 and 17.
If you conceptualise situations in terms of 'luffing rights' or 'no luffing rights' you will probably not apply the rules correctly.
As discussed above, S probably was not limited by rule 17, and probably was not sailing above her proper course in any case.
If the close hauled course that S reached when she completed her tack one boat width to leeward of P was a higher course than P was sailing, and S closed the gap without further changing course, then, when she last changed course to adopt her high close hauled course, at one boat width from P, she was giving P room to keep clear and complied with her obligation under rule 16: as the space between S and P diminished as a result of S sailing higher, S was not changing course and had no further obligation to give P room to keep clear.
If, on the other hand, and differently from what you have described, S initially sailed a course parallel or below that of P, then [hailed and] changed course towards P, then, for that change of course, rule 16 applies and S is required to give P room to keep clear. 'Room' is the space a boat needs ... manoeuvering promptly ...' If P wants to argue that she has not been given room, she needs to have taken some responding action 'promptly', from the time S begins to close the gap. Just deciding that P couldn't sail any higher without slowing down is not 'manoeuvering promptly'.
(4) He may have been the overtaking boat so (see Point No (3)
Difficult for P to prove and in any case, probably irrelevant (see opening discussion on rule 17).
(5) He made no attempt to avoid contact.
Ah, there you have him, but you are also yourself exposed to rule 14.
If S, a leeward boat converging on a windward boat, made no attempt to avoid contact, and there was contact, then, almost inevitably, S broke rule 14.
However, if there was no injury or damage, S shall be exonerated for breaking rule 14, in accordance with rule 14( b ), and, in any case, a breach of rule 14 by S will have no effect on previous breaches of rule 11 by P.
Guess what I did my turns to keep the peace.
A very wise thing to do.
You were a give way boat, that took no action to keep clear, and there was contact, when you were initially given ample room to keep clear.
It was very very likely that a protest hearing would have concluded that you broke rules 11 and 14 and penalised you.
Should I be aggrieved ?
No, you did exactly the right thing. |