Originally Posted by Isotope235
Originally Posted by brucat
P doesn't have to anticipate S's course change... S was changing course throughout, both in rounding the mark and the "deer" wiggle. P could make a compelling case that under 16.1, S should be DSQ.

P is not required to anticipate S's change of course, but she must respond to it - which she does not do.

Looking over the video yet again, I see boat H7(S) making two course changes. One is when she rounds the mark at time 0:32-0:34. The other is the "wiggle" at time 0:35-0:36.

During the first course change, boat M87(P) is still 2-3 boatlengths away. I believe that P had ample opportunity to keep clear (by slowing down, heading up, or tacking) during that time.

At time 0:35, however, P is committed to the cross and unable to keep clear by luffing. S makes a quick turn to her right but is unable to avoid P. S then turns quickly back left, taking contact on her bow. P is already not keeping clear so there is no possible way for S to give her room. If you insist on applying RRS 16.1 to the second course change, and conclude that S breaks it, then you should exonerate her under RRS 64.1(a).

Regards,
Eric


At 34-35 seconds, I see H7 (S) make a sharp turn to starboard to avoid P and, in my opinion, was early enough to completely avoid the collision. The problem is that P made a similar and identically timed turn to port meaning both boats continue heading right at each other. Upon realizing this, S reacts to turn back down to port but P reacts in the same identical manner to starboard. After the two zag zigs, there was nothing left to do. The angle of the video makes it a little difficult to see H7's initial turn to avoid P - which was, in my opinion, clearly substantive and early enough to avoid. The problem was that P matched S's moves exactly and there was no avoidance because of the situation P created.

Jake Kohl