Well, photographic evidence is suspect, because it is often difficult to judge actual boat placement due to camera angle and foreshortening. Even video can can be misleading.
That said, it looks to me like:
- Both boats were sailing on a beat to windward, on port tack. Team Artemis (A) was about 4 boatlengths ahead of and about 2 boatlengths to leeward of Team Groupe Edmond de Rothschild (GE).
- Boat A proceeded to tack to starboard.
- After A passed head-to-wind, and before she reached a close-hauled course, GE began to bear away.
- GE bore away hard, slacking sail and turning, but her rudders stalled and her port bow hit A's port side just ahead of the transom, significantly damaging both boats.
If that is indeed the case, then the rules that apply are:
- As A started to tack, rules 12 "On the Same Tack, Not Overlapped" and 16.1 "Changing Course" apply. Rule 16.1 requires A to give GE room to keep clear. Rule 12 requires GE to keep clear. Both boats do.
- When A passes head-to-wind, Rule 12 ceases to apply and rule 13 "While Tacking" does instead. Now A is required to keep clear and GE has right-of-way. Rule 15 "Acquiring Right of Way" does not apply since GE acquired right-of-way because of A's actions. A is required to keep clear of GE. Given that GE took avoiding action at this point, A did not keep clear.
- I can't tell if A reached a close-hauled course before contact. If not, rules 13 and 14 "Avoiding Contact" apply. If so, then Rules 10 "On Opposite Tacks", 15, and 14 apply. Rule 14(a) states "...a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room...need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear...". It appears to me that GE acted as soon as it was apparent that A was not keeping clear. If A completed her tack before contact, then GE was required keep clear and A was required to give GE room to keep clear. A was also required to avoid contact if reasonably possible.
Based on that, it looks like A broke rules 13 and 14. GE did not break rule 14. If A reached a close-hauled-course, then A also broke rule 15 and GE broke rule 10, but GE is exonerated under rule 64.1(c) "Penalties and Exoneration".
Therefore, it looks entirely reasonable and appropriate that Team Groupe Edmond protested.
Regards,
Eric
