30. In an incident that I was part of at a Clark Lake YC Invitational Regatta, Rebel Some Assembly Required (port) and Rebel Afterburner (starboard) were closing in on a windward mark to be left to starboard in very shifty 5-10 knot winds. The way I saw it from SAR, we appeared likely to cross Afterburner and lay the mark comfortably when SAR was about 3-4 lengths from the mark (see diagram at left).
	At this point, a veered puff came in from the near-by shore, forcing SAR to bear off about 20° and lifting Afterburner by a similar amount shortly thereafter. SAR was still of the opinion that he would be able to cross Afterburner.
	Right after this, Afterburner, who had seen that SAR had been overlaying the mark, began to turn into a tack - only to discover that he might no longer have enough room to squeeze in between SAR and the mark.
	Afterburner then bore away to close-hauled and called starboard. About two seconds later, he collided with Some Assembly Required about 4 feet forward of the transom. There was no damage. (Sorry! trouble with this diagram: Afterburner should be shown in collision with SAR here!)

.....
Both boats felt the other had fouled. Some Assembly Required did not protest because he had forgotten his flag on his Wayfarer, and Afterburner demanded penalty turns but did not file a written protest.  Afterburner said he had a witness (the 3rd-place boat coming in on port about 3 lengths astern of SAR) who was of the opinion that even if the boats had held their original courses, Afterburner would have hit SAR amidships. In the hearing that never happened, SAR would have pointed out that even with half a tack by Afterburner and his subsequent return to a close-hauled course that was 20° higher than his original close-hauled course, Afterburner only managed to hit the last four feet of SAR, and that the witness must not have had a good line of sight. How should the protest committee have ruled, had there been a hearing and Uncle Al's version accepted as fact?

...
Decision
return to Quiz Index