From: guido@blink.att.com (Guido Bertocci)
Subject: Re: protest question (rule 32
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:42:27 GMT

John.Ball@f764.n153.z1.fido.zeta.org.au (John Ball) writes:


>GB>Rule 32.1 states that for you to DSQ the starboard tack boat
>GB>three things must occur:
>GB>    1)  Substantial damage
>GB>    2)  Right of way boat had the opportunity to avoid the collision
>GB>    3)  Right of way boat failed to make a reasonable attempt.

>GB>The rules don't require that you avoid the collision, only that you
>GB>make a reasonable attempt if you have the opportunity.  If he didn't see
>GB>the port tacker he didn't have the opportunity to avoid. Moreover,
>GB>what did he do when he did see the port tacker?  Did he try to
>GB>bear off or tack as soon as he saw the port tacker?  That would
>GB>satisfy item 3 even if he didn't succeed.

>GB>What rule did you use for disqualification?  I am not aware of any
>GB>rule that requires maintaining an adequate watch in the prevailing
>GB>conditions.

>Hi Guido, thanks for the comments. The committee found that the
>requirements of R32 had been met. There was substantial damage. As John
>Hughes commented in another reply, it is reasonable to expect that
>appropriate lookout be maintained. Stbd failed to keep watch. The stbd
>skipper admitted that he was just 'looking ahead and had been for some
>considerable period of time'. The first he saw of port, was when the bow
>of port drove through his jib, and crunched the toe rail at the shrouds.
>If he had maintained a proper watch, he could have hailed Port, and or
>altered course to avoid the collision.

If I understand this properly, P's bow ran into the side of S?
If I were S I would have filed for YMP (assuming that this regatta was
worth worrying about).  In every major race that I have been I can't
remember a single case where a port tack boat t-boned a starboard
tack boat, knocking it out of the race, and the starboard 
tack boat was not awarded YMP.

It sounds like S was not DSQed, but simply dropped out, however, I
can't imagine a situation in which P hits the side of S and S
should be DSQed.  My belief is that only what physically transpires
on the water is relevant to the protest situation.
In other words, if a judge was suspended over the action with a camera
he should have all the information required for a decision.  The
judge does not need to have any information as to what a skipper was
thinking, or what he saw or said.

In the example above, if the skipper of S had said, "I saw P all the
way and I thought P was ducking me", should S be DSQed according
to to 32.1? The answer should be the same regardless of S said.
Expecting P to duck when they are already behind the bow of S
is quite reasonable as is expecting P to tack at the last second
and S can't possibly know what P is planning on doing and therefore no
course change is reguired by S.
(Going full speed forward without course alteration can be a perfectly
reasonable action to avoid a collision).  In fact, in the situation
described, by the time one can be legitimately aware that P is not
bearing off or tacking, for S to tack or bear off would be even worse.

As a further example, Americas cup racing is now going to the instant
ruling on the water by the judges.  The only relevant information is
the interaction between boats, not what Connors saw, said, or thought.

One last thought.  As soon as S legitimately changes course to avoid
P, S has the right to and should expect to be able DSQ P.  Therefore,
S has the obligation not to change course too early.  
Moreover, in the situation above, P could legitimately sail up to S
and tack with 3 feet, directly to leeward of S.  If S bore off
to avoid P, S would be guilty of violating 35, "altering course so
as to prevent a boat from keeping clear".  If S decides to tack at
the last second, then S would violate 37.3 "Transitional, tacking boat
must keep clear ".
In essence, S has almost no choice other than to sail full speed ahead.
The only real choice S has is to hail, however 32.2 clearly states that
hailing is not required since S is not making an alteration of course.

I think 32.1 was misapplied.  32.1 is intended for the reverse
situation such as S hitting P.