Dave Norton

The second diagram shows a situation in which that tactic could be applied. On a beat and well away from all marks, Steve and Stan are overlapped on starboard tack and on a collision course with Paula, on port tack. Steve wants to tack to leeward of Paula, but he can't tack because Stan is blocking him from doing so. Under the 2009 definition of obstruction, at Position 1 Paula was not an obstruction to Steve and Stan because she did not have right of way over them and they were not required to give her room or mark-room. Therefore, at Position 1 Steve could not use Rule 20.1 to hail for room to tack. What team racers discovered was this: If Steve luffed Stan and Stan luffed in response-under the 2009 definition-Paula became an obstruction because both Steve and Stan were then right-of-way boats changing course and therefore obligated to give Paula room to keep clear under Rule 16.1. So, in 2009, if Steve hailed, "room to tack" while he was luffing Stan, then Stan would have been required by Rule 20.1 to tack and give Steve room to tack to leeward of Paula.

Rule 20 is essentially a safety rule, and was not intended to be used in this situation. Under the new definition, Paula doesn't become an obstruction when Steve and Stan luff, and Steve isn't permitted to use Rule 20.1 to force Stan to give him room to tack.

ISAF added to the definition Party to correct some previously unnoticed, and rather glaring, omissions in the definition. For example, in 2009, suppose, after a race committee witnessed a jet ski hit a boat sailed by Harry, causing damage,  it asked the protest committee to give Harry redress (see rules 60.2(b) and 62.1(b)). Only parties are allowed to be present while testimony is given, to give their own testimony, and to call and question witnesses. Under the 2009 definition, Harry would not be a party because he had not himself requested redress, and the race committee would not be a party because the basis for the request for redress was Rule 62.1(b) and not 62.1(a). Therefore, it would have been a very strange hearing with no parties present.

The revised definition will have an important impact on certain controversial redress hearings. Suppose a boat requests redress alleging that a mark was dragging its anchor while the fleet was rounding it. Obviously, if the allegation were true, many boats might well have been affected. The new definition allows the protest committee, under Rule 60.3(b), to consider redress for the entire fleet and invite all boats in the race, if they wish, to send a crewmember to the hearing and enjoy all the rights of a party. Such a procedure could avoid the chain of successive redress hearings that are often triggered in such situations.