Case Q&A 2025.003

In a kiteboard regatta under Appendix F, three kiteboards P, SL and SW were sailing close-hauled. P, on port, was on a converging course with SL and SW, both on starboard. SL was clear ahead and to leeward of SW. P failed to keep clear of SL, and SL luffed and changed tack to avoid contact with her; in doing so, SL got tangled with SW. As a consequence of the tangle, SW score was made significantly worse. SL retired immediately. P did not, and she only retired after getting injured in a later incident. Since both P and SL had retired, SW did not protest.

Who caused the tangle: P, SL, both or none?

P, by not keeping clear as a kiteboard on port tack, caused the tangle between SL and SW.

Did P or SL break a rule, and if so, did they take the appropriate penalty?

P broke rule 10. P retired from the race, therefore she took an applicable penalty as per rule F4.44.1(b). SL broke rule 10 by not keeping clear of SW, but is exonerated as per rule 43.1(a) as she was compelled to do so by P breaking rule 10.

If P or SL were to cause tangles in a subsequent race, would this tangle be their first or second one for the purposes of rule F5.64.2(c)?

For both P and SL it would be the first one as there was no valid protest hearing.

In order to apply rule F5.60.5(e), shall the PC track any tangle – no matter if a protest was involved – or only the ones arising from a protest?

The protest committee can’t decide that “a kiteboard has broken a rule and, as a result, caused a tangle” without a valid protest hearing.

If the answer to the previous question is that any tangle should be tracked or monitored, how this should be done?

Not applicable.