The diagram at left shows a common leeward mark situation in which the judges would be called upon to interpret Rule 64.1(c). Ajay and Brittany were running on port tack as they approached a leeward mark to be left to starboard. Ajay reached the zone clear ahead of Brittany. Just afer position 2 Ajay jibed onto starboard tack to round the mark. Brittany luffed in an effort to avoid Ajay, but there was contact between the boats just after position 3, with no damage. Each boat protested the other.

During the hearing, Ajay claims that Brittany broke two rules—Rule 18.2(b), by failing to give him room to sail his proper course while at the mark, and Rule 10 by failing to keep clear at position 3. Ajay acknowledges that he broke Rules 15 and 16.1 when he jibed, but he asserts that he is entitled to exoneration under Rule 18.5(b). Brittany acknowledges that she broke Rules 18.2(b) and 10 at position 3. However, she claims that if Ajay had not broken Rule 16.1 by luffing abruptly into her path she could have continued to give him mark-room under Rule 18.2(b) and kept clear of him as required by Rule 10.

Brittany claims that she should be exonerated under Rule 64.1(c) because, when Ajay broke Rule 16.1 by turning sharply into her path, he compelled her to break Rules 18.2(b) and 10. Ajay was asked what his proper course was, and he replied, “It was to sail wide of the mark initially so that as I finished my rounding I would be close to the mark and thereby minimize the effect of backwind from boats that had rounded fairly close ahead of me.”

Here’s how I would apply the rules to this incident. Brittany was required to keep clear of Ajay throughout the incident, first under Rule 12 as a clear astern boat and later under Rule 10 as a port-tack boat. In addition, under Rule 18.2(b) Brittany was required to give Ajay mark-room. Between positions 2 and 3, Ajay was sailing his proper course at the mark and Brittany was not giving him mark-room, as evidenced by the contact between the boats just after position 3. Brittany’s obligation under Rule 18.2(b) required her to anticipate that Ajay would turn when he did. She could have and should have sailed a course that would have enabled her to give Ajay mark-room.

After position 1 nothing compelled or forced Brittany to sail the track she ultimately sailed. She had the option to luff astern of Ajay and then to approach the mark either behind Ajay or on a track outside of Ajay’s track, but she did not avail herself of that option. Had she done so, she would not have broken either Rule 10 or Rule 18.2(b). Therefore, Brittany was not “compelled” or “forced” to break Rules 18.2(b) and 10.

My decision would be to disqualify Brittany for breaking Rules 18.2(b) and 10. Brittany is not exonerated under Rule 64.1(c) because she was not compelled to break those rules. Note that, while rounding the mark on his proper course between positions 2 and 3, Ajay broke Rules 15 and 16.1, but was exonerated for breaking them under Rule 18.5(b).