I am aware of why this came up on the board, and it is an intersting question. I found the below on Scuttlebutt. Here we Go:
Three small keelboats, S, P, and X, are going upwind in light air. S(tarboard) and P(ort) are on a collision course. X is a few boatlengths away. P hails to S "Tack or Cross?. S decides that she wants to continue towards the left side of the course, and realizes that if P leebows her she will have to tack away onto port, so she responds "Cross!", and bears down and ducks P, allowing P to cross. Had S not altered course, she would have hit P.
X then yells "Protest P and S!" and files a protest against both. You are on the jury. What is your decision?
In the incident that happened this past weekend, I heard that the Starboard boat "voluntarily" tacked away and underneath the Port boat on to port tack and sailed on. I heard he said to the Port boat that he was going to "tack anyway". I did not see the incedent, nor did I hear any conversation between the boats because I was too far back! Anyway, it seems that these two scenarios are similar and I would like to hear Kenny Morrison's opinion on both scenarios.
I have sailed a lot of Laser, Finn and J-24 regattas and the above happens all of the time for tactical reasons. I thought it was legal.
Here are the comments from two prominent RRS rule guys below:
The situation in question - a starboard tack boat agreeing to duck a port tack boat on an upwind leg - happens all the time on the race course. But the rules are not as understanding. Here are two opinions:
From Jos M Spijkerman, International Umpire/Judge:
Rule 60.1 states that a boat may protest another for an alleged breach of a rule in part 2 if she sees the incident (or was involved). So X has the right to protest. She protests both boats, because she wants to have both stories, and - more importantly - both to become "party" in a protest.
The PC cannot do anything else then conclude that P did not keep clear. The fact that she had to ask for the crossing alone would already mean that S might need to take avoiding action. And that is already not keeping clear.
The facts found that S also ducked and otherwise would have hit P only reinforces that. But even if S did not have to duck, P did not keep clear according the definition. Rule 64.1 dictates that any boat that was a party to a protest is found to have broken a rule SHALL be disqualified!
I understand this might be perceived as "Why is X interfering" and "Leave well enough alone", but the basic principle is not only to follow the rules, but also to ENFORCE!
From Matt Knowles, US SAILING Racing Rules Committee:
Jos makes a very articulate argument and I agree with him. I think in this case the rules force an unfortunate outcome. One boat "keeps clear" of another when "the other can sail her course with no need to take avoiding action." Without a doubt S had to take avoiding action. Therefore P broke rule 10, and must be disqualified per rule 64.1
Now, you can hedge and say "her course" was to duck, but you would have to face the reality that it is only because of P's presence that she is required to duck. S's desired "course" is to keep sailing upwind!
I don't think this scenario is unrealistic either. In my mind the way this is most likely to come up is if, late in a series, P were fighting for a top spot with X, and X saw the incident and decided to press an aggressive 3rd party protest. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if this has never come up before.
In the Jacksonville scenario, the S boat had to take avoiding action and chose to tack...So, It looks to me like in this case a third party protest was warranted and that P would score a DSQ without the ability to drop that score. Was S wrong too by not protesting? Also, It raises the question for me on X in the Jacksonville scenario: Since X saw the incident and called out "someone needs to do a 3rd party protest" a bunch of times ( I heard that, I must have been Catching up), could X be protested by another ( call it a 4th party) for not doing a 3rd party protest and "enforcing the rules (I'm serious). Where does it stop?
Kenny! Help!
I guess ignorance of the rules is no defense...We all learn something new everyday!
Best to all.