Agreed. I have been arguing (more or less) all along that S was in violation of 16.1. It was my observation that every time I (P) changed course to avoid, you(S) matched my move to keep us on a collision course. Now...note I am not saying you did it to hunt me...I realized the first time was due to a puff, but when I switched to go above you and you then came up....things were getting close and at that point I was stymied as to which way you would "let me" go...then at the last possible moment I could see you pushing your tiller to go up so I pulled hard to dive off. My contention is that I am not required to anticipate your next move, only to react to your latest, and after your last move to come back up, I had no room by that point to make a "seamanlike maneuver" to avoid....hence the last second crash maneuvers on both our parts. I know in your description you stated you held your course waiting for me, but it "appeared" to me that after diving in the puff, that you then came back up....I am not arguing that the first move to dive in the puff was wrong (although there are some on here who have argued that it was). I am arguing against the subsequent maneuver to come back up as by that time our distance was probably half what we started with and I was running out of options. I am curious how our dissagreement on your "course" would play out in a protest room without impartial observers. Seems to me that is a critical key.