Starting area collision. Who to blame?

[Lakesailor]

It's good to see everyone has such a clear understanding of the Rules.

 

[lw395]

It's good to see everyone has such a clear understanding of the Rules.

Isn't it just!

In my experience more racing rules disputes are about perceiving the situation to be entirely different than applying the rules to the situation.
In discussing a two boat crash, we are probably missing the point entirely!

 

[dom]

I don't recall the exact SI's but I can remember some stressful moments trying to get back to the correct side of our ODM in a small keelboat doing what seemed like 4 knots in 3.99 knots of tide. Plus in the old days, you had to get close enough to the castle to read the course board after the 10 minute gun. The real bloodshed was normally a few hundred yards up the Green though, when all the fleets get mixed up bouncing off the rocks to avoid the worst of the tide.

Ah yes, around Egypt Point, then sneaking in behind the Gurnard Ledge whilst fully powered up, then hoping to exit safely to the West! Hair raising stuff for sure!

 

[flaming]

Lot of discussion here, without actual reference to the rules...

Here's my take on it.

Parts of the RRS that are relevant (in my opinion)

Preamble to part 2

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near
the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing.
However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one
of these rules, except rule 24.1.
When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she
shall comply with the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea (IRPCAS) or government right-of-way rules. If the
sailing instructions so state, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the
right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way
rules.

Definition of racing

Racing A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and
clears the finishing line and marks or retires, or until the race committee
signals a general recall, postponement or abandonment.

Rule 24.1

24.1 If reasonably possible, a boat not racing shall not interfere with a
boat that is racing.

So, taking the OP as read, and assuming that "Boat Y's class had started their starting sequence, whereas Boat X's class had not." means that the preparatory signal (and not just the warning or attention signal) for Y had been made then Y is racing, but X is not.

So, we have a boat that is not racing, on starboard, meeting and colliding with a boat on port that is racing. HOWEVER - the RRS clearly apply to the situation as both boats satisfy the preamble to part 2. namely

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing.

So it is RRS and NOT COLREGS that apply. I was once a witness to a very similar situation (though without the sinking) and that was exactly the ruling.

So RRS port Starboard. For Port not to get DSQ for rule 10, then she needs to show that Starboard gave her no chance - either tacking too close, altering course etc. For Starboard not to be DSQ under rule 14 (though shall not hit anyone) she needs to show she took all reasonable actions once it became clear that port was not keeping clear. A lot of port starboard incidents that result in damage result in both boats DSQ.

BUT X is not racing, so as the premable states that

However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one
of these rules, except rule 24.1.

then X is safe from being penalized under RRS 14.

So what about 24.1?

Well, for starters that rule really is not about collisions. It's about people who haven't started, or have finished, going onto the course and sailing their principal opponent in a series out of the way. So note the soft drafting of that rule - all other rules say things like "shall" and "must". This rule says "if reasonably possible".

And also note, 24.1 uses the ambiguous "shall not interfere with" rather than the defined "keep clear". Clearly designed to catch a boat who decides to finish, then go back onto the course and give bad air to their biggest rival, in the hope that other boats pass them in the race.

So - it's quite possible that X has interfered with Y. If the collision was on the start line with seconds to go, then clearly yes. But what about if the collision is well outside the limits of the line - say 20+ boatlengths past the pin with loads of time left? You could certainly argue the case that this isn't interfering with them sailing the course, as it's not a reasonable place for Y to be. And what it it wasn't reasonably possible? I'm hypothesizing here clearly, but there are plenty of reasons why it may not have been reasonably possible for X not to interfere.

But let's say it's been found to be interfering. Assuming that it was an accident - and not a deliberate attempt to mess with Y that went wrong, what are the penalties? Well X could be disqualified under 24.1. But that would be no worse than DNS (Did Not Start) - which clearly they didn't, as they sank. And since they are racing Y could also be disqualified as above under rule 10.

So what should have happened? Clearly Y on port tack should have avoided X on Starboard. Then, if they felt that X had impeded them they could have filed a protest under 24.1.

However, in my experience this rule is almost never used between fleets except in this, collision, situation as an attempt to shift the blame...

 

[dom]

Wow flaming; a late start but you've already bolted half way up the first beat! I am sorry to say this. but I see the virtual X Flag is still dropped and can only guess you have been issued with an Individual Recall. I think the OP is primarily interested in who pays and this takes us to the murky interface between the RRS and the Civil Courts. You will of course need to "keep clear" of all other posters whilst you sort yourself out!

 

[flaming]

Wow flaming; a late start but you've already bolted half way up the first beat! I am sorry to say this. but I see the virtual X Flag is still dropped and can only guess you have been issued with an Individual Recall. I think the OP is primarily interested in who pays and this takes us to the murky interface between the RRS and the Civil Courts. You will of course need to "keep clear" of all other posters whilst you sort yourself out!

Well he did ask what racing penalties could be applied!

(Answer, I think, is probable DSQ for Port, and a sinking for Starboard. But there are a number of scenarios where Port is blameless, so not necessarily - more info required.) Assuming that it was a straightforward port/starboard incident, a hearing as to whether Starboard should get redress (average points) for the races not sailed whilst she was being salvaged would be interesting, and I think swing on whether she was adjudged to have broken 24.1. And that is not something we should comment on without more info from the OP. The incident I was a witness to was also a claim for redress from Starboard which went to a full protest hearing, and I think Starboard then took that ruling to their insurers - but as evidence rather than a ruling. Strong evidence mind you...

 

[Birdseye]

The conflict between IRPCS ( who was the pedant who put the A in the abbreviation when "at" is a preposition? ) and the RRS in a civil court will be a bit more subtle than either saying IRPCS is statute law, which it is, or RRS alone applies in races. And the courts will add in anything of relevance from the SIs. Y on port was the give way boat and X was stand on. But the congestion of a race start might have made it difficult for Y to give way and even for X to give way when he saw Y wasnt doing so. A court will take into account both the congestion at the start and the fact that X should not have been obstructing under the sailing rules that X had accepted by entering the race. Depends a bit on how far away from the start line they were- I have had boats 100m away at the 4 min time and there is a huge difference between X being there and X being 10 m away when the fleet was running the line. I am pretty sure in my mind that it wont be a 100% award either way.

Mostly RRS adds to IRPCS rather than alters it anyway.

I loved the bit earlier on when someone said that X would not be penalised / disqualified at a protest hearing. Must work for the same power company who tried to fine my mother after she had died.

 

[dom]

Well he did ask what racing penalties could be applied!

(Answer, I think, is probable DSQ for Port, and a sinking for Starboard. But there are a number of scenarios where Port is blameless, so not necessarily - more info required.) Assuming that it was a straightforward port/starboard incident, a hearing as to whether Starboard should get redress (average points) for the races not sailed whilst she was being salvaged would be interesting, and I think swing on whether she was adjudged to have broken 24.1. And that is not something we should comment on without more info from the OP. The incident I was a witness to was also a claim for redress from Starboard which went to a full protest hearing, and I think Starboard then took that ruling to their insurers - but as evidence rather than a ruling. Strong evidence mind you...

I would personally be hesitant to take any view on this at all without knowledge of: (a) the specific SIs in force and (b) the buildup to the incident including the juxtaposition of the surrounding boats, which are bound to have relevance on what came to pass.

Re the sinking, I would guess that the port boat's insurers will in the first seek to pass the claim to the starboard boat's insurers, which may in turn fight back if a protest hearing subsequently penalises the starboard vessel for infringing 24.1. This would probably lead to some sort of 50:50 allocation of costs. Very much doubt this will see the inside of a Court FWIW.

 

[flaming]

I would personally be hesitant to take any view on this at all without knowledge of: (a) the specific SIs in force and (b) the buildup to the incident including the juxtaposition of the surrounding boats, which are bound to have relevance on what came to pass.

I can't think of anything that the SIs could say that would have any bearing, but I totally agree about the exact knowledge of the incident. All I have tried to do is state what I think the likely outcome would be IF it was a straightforward "oops never saw you" port/starboard.

Very much doubt this will see the inside of a Court FWIW.

Agree.

 

[dom]

I can't think of anything that the SIs could say that would have any bearing, but I totally agree about the exact knowledge of the incident.

I was just thinking that sometimes the SIs beef up 24.1 quite a bit with clauses like, "‘Boats shall not enter the area bounded by Navigation Buoys 1, 2 & 3 until "x" minutes before their Warning Signal. If the Race Committee sees such an infringement it may ..." If something like this was in force the starboard boat would find himself on a more sticky wicket, although notwithstanding any of this no sailing instruction can change or take primacy over the primary right of way rules RRS 10 to 13.

Actually after all this speculation it would be nice if the OP lets us know the dets of this incident should he find them out and is in a position to post them on here.

 

[Resolution]

Flaming, thanks for your clear dissection of the few facts as presented. Your comment on the difference between "shall not interfere with" and "keep clear" is worthy of special note for all of us milling around on crowded start lines. Hopefully the distinctions between exactly when Racing Rules apply instead of IRPCS will be clearer to a few more of us as well.

I think I said earlier that this situation was as reported to me, I was not present at the time. However, whilst trying to preserve the cloak of anonymity here I will see if I can find out some more details for you all.

 

[Keen_Ed]

RYA prescriptions worth noting.

67 Damages
1. Any issue of liability or claim for damages arising from an incident while a boat is bound by The Racing Rules of Sailing shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and not considered by a protest committee.
2. A boat that takes a penalty or retires does not thereby admit liability for damages or that she has broken a rule.

 

[Keen_Ed]

Should also note that X, having sunk and presumably scored DNF, is deemed to have taken a penalty, so can't be further penalised for breaches of 14 etc, short of a DNE for a breach of 2 or 69. Which seems harsh.

However, if P did not stand by after causing serious damage, then she could well be DNE'd by the PC for a breach of 2.

 

[bbg]

FWIW I think we need more facts. I have been on a port tack boat that was T boned and nearly sunk by a starboard tacker just before the start (both boats racing). Starboard tacker was DSQd, we were exonerated.

The specifics matter.

Insurers will probably want to see the outcome of the protest committee.

 

[Resolution]

OP's Update:
The original source for the report has added some info.
1. There were no other boats involved in the lead up to the collision.
2. Boat Y (port tacker) apparently admitted that they had simply failed to keep a proper lookout and had not seen boat X (starboard tack).
3. Boat Y has handed it all over to their insurers.
4. No protest hearing (so presumably boat Y retired).

From a case book angle that is most unsatisfactory and far too gentlemanly- fancy admitting that you were wrong and paying for your mistake! But from a club sport point of view it is the response which I hope most of us would go for.
Peter

 

[bbg]

The only problem with that is that many insurance policies have a provision requiring that the insured does not admit liability.

 

[Resolution]

The only problem with that is that many insurance policies have a provision requiring that the insured does not admit liability.

Is that not one of those conditions which would not stand up in court? Rather like 90% of the disclaimers the legal eagles attach to every letter.

 

[bbg]

Most contractual provisions do stand up in court.

 

[Birdseye]

Its noteworthy that this thread on rules / laws has got twice as many posts as any other thread on here. Are we a forum of barrack room lawyers?

 

[Triassic]

From a case book angle that is most unsatisfactory and far too gentlemanly- fancy admitting that you were wrong and paying for your mistake! But from a club sport point of view it is the response which I hope most of us would go for.
Peter

Technically they haven't "paid" for it, their insurer has taken it on and they may well act in a less gentlemanly manner......

With regard to the sportsmanship point of view I personally feel their are never winners in a protest hearing, only losers. We were involved in a start line incident last weekend when we had a windward boat trying to roll over us at the committee boat end of the line. We could easily have shut him out however he had another boat trying to do the same to him so we eased and gave him room as he clearly couldn't go up until the other boat responded to his call, however he took everything we gave him plus a bit more and in the end the boat above him made it through as well, leaving us well stuffed! I guess we could have protested the third boat for forcing the eventual outcome, but I took the view that it is after all just a race and instead settled on accepting the RO's appreciation that I hadn't fed two trimarans going at full chat straight into his transom.......