CASE 29
Definitions, Obstruction
Rule 19.2(b), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an
Obstruction
Rule 19.2(c), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an
Obstruction
A leeward boat is an obstruction to an overlapped windward
boat and a third boat clear astern. The boat clear astern may
sail between the two overlapped boats and be entitled to
room from the windward boat between her and the leeward
boat, provided that the windward boat has been able to give
that room from the time the overlap began.
Facts
When running on a downwind leg, W became overlapped with L when
almost two hull lengths to windward of her. Subsequently, M sailed into the
space between L and W. All three boats held their courses with no narrowing
of space between L and W and no contact. W protested M for taking room
to which she was not entitled, citing rules 19.2(b) and 19.2(c). The protest
was dismissed on the grounds that W had given room to M as required by
rule 19.2(b). W appealed.
Decision
Rule 11 required W to keep clear of L throughout the incident. While M was
clear astern of L, rule 12 required her to keep clear of L, and after she
became overlapped with L rule 11 required her to keep clear of L. As the
diagram shows, both M and W met these requirements.
Because both W and M were required to keep clear of L throughout the
incident, L was an obstruction to W and M during that time (see the
penultimate sentence of the definition Obstruction). However, because L
was a boat under way, L was not a continuing obstruction to them (see the
last sentence of the definition Obstruction). When M became overlapped
with W, rule 19.2(b) began to apply between them. It required W to give M
room between her and the obstruction, unless she was unable to do so from
the time the overlap began. As the facts clearly show, W was able to give M
that room when the overlap began and continued to do so at all times until
the boats finished. Therefore, W complied with rule 19.2(b). Rule 19.2(c)
did not apply because the obstruction, L, was not a continuing obstruction.
M broke no rule; therefore W’s appeal is dismissed.
USA 1974/163