After an inside overlapped windward boat has been given mark-room, rule 18 no longer applies, but rule 11 continues to apply. The inside windward boat must keep clear of the outside leeward boat, and the leeward boat may luff provided that she gives the windward boat room to keep clear.
Facts
Two 15-foot (4.5 m) dinghies, IW and OL, were approaching a leeward port-hand mark. The next leg was a beat to windward. IW established an inside overlap on OL well before the boats reached the zone, and OL gave IW space to sail to the mark and to round the mark onto a close-hauled course. After IW passed the mark, OL began to luff to her course to the next mark. IW was slower in heading up, and her boom, still well out, touched OL's helmsman and shrouds. At the time of the contact IW was a hull length from the mark and sailing below a close-hauled. No damage or injury occurred. IW protested OL under rule 18.2(a)(1), and OL protested IW under rule 11.
The protest committee decided that, because IW did not promptly head up to a close-hauled course after sailing to the mark, she took more space than she was entitled to under rule 18.2(a)(1). IW did not deny this but attributed it to her main sheet being led from the end of her boom, as compared to the centre-boom lead used by OL.
The protest committee dismissed IW's protest, upheld OL's, and disqualified IW for breaking rule 11. IW appealed.
Decision
IW's proper course was to sail close to the mark, and the course change necessary to sail the course was to round up to a close-hauled course. Therefore, rule 18.2(a)(1) required OL to give IW room to sail to the mark and room to round it onto a close-hauled course, leaving it on the required side. Between positions 1 and 2 OL gave IW room to sail to the mark and between positions 2 and 3 room to round the mark onto a close-hauled course. Therefore, OL did not break rule 18.2(a)(1) (see also Cases 21 and 103).
The contact, which was the incident that led to the protests, occurred at position 3. At that time, IW had been given the space she needed to sail to and around the mark, leaving it on the required side without touching it, and to leave it astern. As OL had given all the components of mark room, as required, and as IW had left the mark astern, rule 18 no longer applied between OL and IW at the time of the contact (see rule 18.1(b)).
Throughout the incident IW was required by rule 11 to keep clear of OL. IW sailed a hull length away from the mark on a course below close-hauled, and shortly before the contact at position 3, IW broke rule 11 by failing to keep clear.
When OL luffed between positions 2 and 3, OL was required by rule 16.1 to give IW room to keep clear. OL luffed approximately 30 degrees while moving forward two hull lengths. Even with a boom-end mainsheet rig, a boat sailed in a seamanlike way can turn through 30 degrees and trim her mainsail appropriately while moving forward two hull lengths. Therefore, OL gave IW room to keep clear and did not break rule 16.1.
IW was not exonerated by rule 43.1(b) for breaking rule 11 because, when she did so, she was sailing to leeward of, not within, the room to which she was entitled under rule 16.1.
OL could have avoided contact with IW, and so OL broke rule 14(a). However, she was exonerated for doing so by rule 43.1(c) because she was the right-of-way boat and the contact did not result in damage or injury.
Throughout the incident IW was required by rule 11 to keep clear of OL. IW sailed a hull length away from the mark on a course below close-hauled, and shortly before the contact at position 3, IW broke rule 11 by failing to keep clear.
When OL luffed between positions 2 and 3, OL was required by rule 16.1 to give IW room to keep clear. OL luffed approximately 30 degrees while moving forward two hull lengths. Even with a boom-end mainsheet rig, a boat sailed in a seamanlike way can turn through 30 degrees and trim her mainsail appropriately while moving forward two hull lengths. Therefore, OL gave IW room to keep clear and did not break rule 16.1.
IW was not exonerated by rule 43.1(b) for breaking rule 11 because, when she did so, she was sailing to leeward of, not within, the room to which she was entitled under rule 16.1.
OL could have avoided contact with IW, and so OL broke rule 14(a). However, she was exonerated for doing so by rule 43.1(c) because she was the right-of-way boat and the contact did not result in damage or injury.
It was possible for IW to have avoided the contact, and therefore IW also broke rule 14. However, because IW was entitled to room under rule 16.1 and the contact resulted in neither damage nor injury, she too is exonerated for breaking rule 43.1(c).