Conclusion and rules that apply
Boat X broke rule 42.1, Propulsion. She did not compete, using only the wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her speed, by holding on to the anchor line of the committee boat.
Boat X also broke rule 45 for the same reason. She made fast but not to bail out, reef sails or make repairs. She did not anchor (herself) or stand on the bottom.
She is not penalized under rule 31.1. The anchor line of a mark is not part of the mark itself (see definition Mark)
Decision:
Boat X DSQ
Next question: Again, in a valid Protest, the following facts were found:
- Cadet 800 on Port, beam reaching below the starting line and Cadet 900 close hauled on Starboard on a collision course, approximately 3 minutes before their starting signal.
- 800 did not see 900 until the last moment when 900 calls "STARBOARD!"
- 800 bears away hard, to try to pass astern of Cadet 900
- 900 tries to avoid collision by luffing hard when boats are about half a meter apart
- There is contact with serious damage to Cadet 900 (a hole in side port stern quarter)
- Cadet 900 capsized after the incident, but after righting, cannot continue and goes to shore
- Cadet 800 starts and sails the race.
.
Conclusion and rules that apply.
ReplyDeleteCadet 800 broke rule 10. On port tack she did not keep clear of Cadet 900, on starboard.
Cadet 800 broke rule 14. Her failure to maintain an adequate lookout does not exonerate her from her obligation to avoid contact.
Cadet 900 also broke rule 14. She was aware, as demonstrated by her hail, that a risk of collision existed. She took action to avoid a collision only when the boats were half a metre apart and a collision was inevitable, and cannot be exonerated under 14(a)
In addition, Cadet 900 cannot be exonerated under 14(b) because there was contact causing damage, even if the damage to herself.
Because Cadet 900 infringed rule 14 she cannot be entitled to redress under rule 62.1(b)
Decision Cadet 800 and 900 DSQ
Comment : on first reading the facts I felt that 800 should be DSQ and that 900 should be granted redress. However, when I examined in detail the distances between boats, I felt that 900 should have taken action earlier to avoid a collision that soon became inevitable. Maybe the parents of Cadet 900's crew will think tyhat I am being unduly harsh!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFollowing Gordons argumentation i would ad:
ReplyDelete……. Further Cadet 800 did not retire from the race when she caused serious damage to Cadet 900 and broke rule 44.1. In doing so she did not compete in compliance with recognised principals of sportsmanship and fair play. She also broke rule 2.
Cadet 800 is disqualified DNE.
One of the facts is: Cadet 900 retired from the race.
If she broke rule 14 too the conclusion is:
Cadet 900 did not avoid contact with Cadet 800 when this was reasonably possible and broke rule 14. In retiring form the race she acted in accordance with rule 44.1. Rule 44.4.b) applies.
Cadet 900 is not penalized further. Her score remains DNF.
Adrian Bauder
800 retired - she did not continue in the race.
ReplyDeleteShe cannot be DSQ as she has already accepted a penalty - retirement.