Starlight vs. Bow #23

Another week and we had another arbitration hearing this time between Joe and Joseph in the 2nd race of Spring Series 2 Night 2. The arbitrator was Norm Smit.

Facts found:
1. Wind was 5-8 knots from the south.
2. On the first down wind leg of race 2 on May 24th, Starlight was on starboard tack approaching Bow #23 on a converging course.
3. At between 4 and 5 lengths from the leeward mark, which was to be rounded to starboard, Bow #15 had to alter course to avoid contact with Bow #23 amidships
4. Bow #23 did not alter course to keep clear of Starlight.

Rules that apply:
Rule 10, On Opposite Tacks; Rule 18, Mark Room.

Conclusions:
Rule 18 did not apply per rule 18.1 because the incident took place before at least one of them reached the zone.  Bow #23 did not keep clear as required by rule 10.

Decision:
By SI 11.4c Bow #23 is assessed a 30% penalty in race 2 on May 24th

This is a case where it must be determined if the boats were at the zone.  Clearly Starlight is entitled as right of way boat to sail her course as she pleases if they are both outside the zone.  If they are on opposite tacks outside the zone, there is no limitation requiring starboard to sail directly to the mark and give mark-room until one of them reaches the zone. Because of rule10, port must keep clear even if it means she is forced to sail further from the mark than she would like. Bow #23 would have been better served to gybe and keep clear.  She could have worked to maintain her inside overlap at the zone when they gybed back toward the mark.  This would have been a better play even if she felt they were at the zone. I suggest when you are burdened boat, when there is a doubt keep clear, don’t force the right of way boat to alter course.

By the way I think everyone should give their boat a name and send them to me.  I like writing these summaries with boat names rather than bow numbers. I don’t have names for Bow numbers 2, 19, 23, 24, 26, 30, 32 and 34.