(This is an installment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Call book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2010. All calls are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The calls are copied from the Call book, only the comments are written by me.)
Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
Rule 18.3(b), Mark-Room: Tacking When Approaching a Mark
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration
two overlapped boats on the same tack are on a beat to windward and are
subject to rule 18.2(b), rule 18 ceases to apply when either of them
turns past head to wind. When a right-of-way boat is compelled to touch a
mark as a result of the other boat’s failure to keep clear, she is
exonerated from her breach of rule 31.
Summary of the Facts
the windward mark, Jagga and Freebird were overlapped on port tack,
Freebird being between one and two boat-lengths to leeward. Freebird
tacked. Jagga then tacked into a position to windward of Freebird.
Jagga luffed so that her swinging stern required Freebird to change
course to avoid contact, which she did, touching the mark as a result.
The protest committee disqualified Jagga
under rule 18.3(b). Jagga appealed on the grounds that, as an inside
overlapped boat, she was entitled to room to pass the mark.
Jagga reached the zone she was overlapped inside Freebird. From that
time until Freebird turned past head to wind, rule 18.2(b) required
Freebird to give Jagga mark-room. However, after Freebird turned past
head to wind, rule 18 ceased to apply (see rule 18.1(a)) and Jagga was
no longer entitled to mark-room. The boats were then on opposite tacks,
with Freebird fetching the mark. Freebird was subject to rule 15 after
she completed her tack. She complied with that rule because Jagga had
room to keep clear by crossing ahead of Freebird.
positions 2 and 3 when Jagga turned past head to wind, she became
subject to rule 13 in the zone, and therefore rule 18.3 began to apply.
When Jagga completed her tack, Freebird was overlapped inside her. Jagga
was then required by rule 11 to keep clear of Freebird and by rule
18.3(b) to give Freebird mark-room. After Jagga crossed ahead of
Freebird, Freebird had right of way, first under rule 10, then under
rule 13 and finally under rule 11. Therefore, Jagga had no protection
from rule 15 during that time. Rule 11 and the definition Keep Clear
required Jagga to sail so that Freebird could ‘sail her course with no
need to take avoiding action’.
The fact that, when Jagga luffed,
Freebird had to change course to avoid contact was evidence that Jagga
did not keep clear and did not give Freebird mark-room as required by
rule 18.3(b). The protest committee correctly disqualified Jagga under
rule 18.3(b), but she also broke rule 11.
Freebird broke rule 31 when she touched the mark, but she is exonerated under rule 64.1(c). Jagga’s appeal is dismissed.