|

|
34.
Facts found: Gutbucket
was approaching a buoys-to-port windward mark on the port tack layline. He
reached the two-length circle ahead
of Tally-Ho who was coming in on
starboard as shown at left. When Gutbucket
completed his tack, Tally-Ho was about
one boatlength directly astern of Gutbucket's
transom. However, Gutbucket's crew was
slow to bring the jib over and Gutbucket
stalled at the mark.
|
|

|
Tally-Ho did not see that Gutbucket had
virtually stopped. At the last second, she luffed up but collided with Gutbucket's transom, causing
considerable damage. Both filed valid protests - Tally-Ho
under rule 18.3, and Gutbucket
under rule 12 and rule 14.
|
.....
Ruling: When Gutbucket completed
her tack with any part of her inside the two-length zone, she became subject
to rule 18.3 because Tally-Ho was
laying the mark. Since Tally-Ho was forced "to sail above close-hauled", Gutbucket broke rule 18.3 and is DSQ.
Gutbucket's protest
under rule 12 (overtaking boat keep clear) is valid
but Tally-Ho is exonerated under rule 64.1(b) since
Tally-Ho's foul came
as a direct result of Gutbucket's foul.
Gutbucket's protest
under rule 14 is upheld. By her own admission, Tally-Ho was not
keeping a good look-out. Tally-Ho could have - and should have -
avoided the collision by luffing up more promptly. Tally-Ho is also DSQ.
.....
Al's
note: My original scenario here was to have Tally-Ho not alter
course at all and plough into Gutbucket's transom.
But then, if you go strictly by the wording of rule 18.3,
Gutbucket has
committed no foul since she did not force Tally-Ho to
- sail
above close-hauled, or
- prevent
her from passing the mark
If I were protest committee, I would be tempted to rule that Gutbucket broke rule 18.3 anyway, since Tally-Ho would
clearly have had to luff above close-hauled to avoid a collision. I think it
would set a bad precedent to let Gutbucket off
entirely when she clearly violated the intent of rule 18.3.
I would then wait for Gutbucket to appeal and be most
interested what the Appeals Committee would have to say.
.....
Case #34A
return to Quiz Index
|