A recent article in the AMYA Quarterly along with a general misinterpretation of Rule 14 (avoiding contact) is leading us in a direction I don't think we want to go. I see a shifting of the burden almost completely to the right of way boat and away from the burdened or give way boat. What I see developing is the attitude that when ever there is a collision that the burdened or give way boat is replying to a protest situation, you hit me so if you are going to protest me I am going to protest you. I see this leading more to a breaking of the sportsmanship rule than the interpretation given in the article in the Quarterly.

I am going from memory since I never got my copy of the Quarterly and just read it once and have heard it discussed around the pond so if I am miss quoting the writer I apologize. The impression I got from the article, and that I have heard others, take away was that the writer saw an incident at a mark where the outside boat denied the existence of an overlap at the four boat length zone and the inside boat deliberately turned down and hit the outside boat. The writer interpreted this to be a breaking of the sportsmanship rule and advocated throwing out the inside boat for not avoiding a collision with a possible ban of the inside boat from sailing under rule 69 allegation of gross misconduct. I have read other articles by this same writer where he has openly advocated ignoring the second part of rule 14 avoiding a collision.

Let's look at Rule14 in its entirety and remember that we can't just take that part we agree with and throw out that that which we don't.

RULE 14 AVOIDING CONTACT A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible. However a right of way boat or one entitled to room a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room, and b) Shall not be penalized under this rule unless there is contact that causes damage.

In ISAF CASE 19 damage is further interpreted or defined by the following questions.
1. Was the current market value of any part of the boat, or the boat as a whole diminished?
2. Was any item of the boat or her equipment made less functional?
3. Was a member of the crew injured?

There are numerous cases listed under avoiding contact where the protest committee found that there was no damage and the appeals committee has found that even though there was contact that no damage was done and consequently the right of way boat could not be penalized under Rule 14 (avoiding contact)

Case 11 leeward made contact with windward but because there was no damage leeward couldn't be penalized under Rule 14.

Case 13 Room to clear an obstruction to leeward even though windward could have tacked and avoided a collision by hitting leeward she caused no damage and couldn't be penalized under rule 14.

Case 14 A case of two different proper courses L's contact with W caused no damage and even though she broke rule 14 she couldn't be penalized under rule 14.

Case 23 On a run a starboard tack boat makes contact with two port tack boats after it became clear that neither port tack boats were going to keep clear it was not reasonable possible for starboard to avoid contact thus she could not be penalized under Rule 14. Case 26 Starboard and port rounding the same mark in different directions and damage did occur S was disqualified because she made no attempt to avoid a collision where damage did occur.

Case 27 A boat is not required to anticipate that another boat will break a rule. In this case two port tack boats were approaching a windward mark on port tack and when she the leeward and ahead boat reached the starboard tack lay line she tacked and was holed by the clear astern and windward port tack boat. The boat that tacked was found to have broken Rule 15 acquiring right of way and the port tack clear astern windward boat did not have to begin to stay clear until the then starboard tack boat had born away to her new course. Even though serious damage occurred it was not the port tack boats duty to anticipate that the other boat was going to break Rule 15 and she was found neither to have broken rule 2 or Rule 14.

There are other cases that apply to different scenarios but to the T they find that the right of way boat is not penalized if damage does not occur. I have tried to list some cases that damage does occur and some cases where there is a collision and damage occurs so that you will have a better understanding of Rule 14 and its implications.

As far as the author of the article in the last Quarterly who thinks that Rule 2 or Rule 69 should be brought into play against the right of way boat who did in fact have an overlap I might suggest that the outside overlapped boat who intentionally broke the rule by not giving the inside overlapped boat room might be a better candidate for the invocation of Rule 2 (fair sailing) or 69(gross misconduct). He might want to consider a somewhat similar situation where a port tack boat fully knowing that he is not on starboard tack hails starboard tack at a boat who is truly on Starboard to see if he will tack away. See case 47 where the ISAF Appeals Committee invokes the fair sailing rule.

If the scenario was that the inside boat deliberately turned down to where he would T bone the outside boat and cause damage I would tend to agree with him. There is no place for that in sailing. And Rule 2 and Rule 69 should be applied but just to ignore the second half of the rule because he doesn't like it is just plain wrong.

I have been the outside boat going into the windward mark several times where I didn't know if the inside boat had an overlap or not and at or just before the four boat lengths circle and when he came down taking my word for it that there was not an overlap and made contact my reply was I guess that you did have one and I did my penalty turn. From what I have seen this is more likely what occurred.

Remember, we are in model boats which are a long ways away and it is hard to see if an overlap exists or not. I would recommend that you discus the issue prior to arriving at the four boat length circle and remember the burden of proof Rule 18.2(e) If there is reasonable doubt that you obtained or broke an overlap in time, it shall be presumed that you did not and if the outside boat is unable to give room when an overlap begins Rule 18..2 (a) and 18.2(b) do not.

If you are an outside boat claiming to have broken an overlap in time, give room since the burden is on you. If you are overtaking from clear astern, swing wide because the burden of proof is on you.

Whatever the case if you make contact make sure that you do it either just right at or slightly before the lead boat reaches the four boat length circle and make sure that it is soft enough that you don't cause damage. Best of all talk it over and consider where the burden is going to lie. If it is on you give the other boat the benefit of the doubt. Lets not get caught up in playing games of if you protest me I am going to protest you because you made contact. If you are the burdened boat and you don't avoid a collision don't try to shift the blame to the right of way boat who has to hold his course so that you can keep clear under Rule 16. Only when it is evident to him that you aren't going to stay clear is he allowed to change course. When you are on a collision course the give way boat has the obligation to keep clear. The only way she can do this is if she can tell where the right of way boat is going. Several times I have been back in the fleet with right of way and seen the lead boats who fighting it out and I decided to try and stay clear of them even though I had the right of way and every time I did this I caused them more trouble than if I had just held my course.

The purpose of Rule 14 is to avoid damage and it probably be better worded if it said that. That clearly is what the rule does and the appeals speak to that very clearly as does the rule if you read it carefully and fully.