J Peters wrote:
Let me try and clarify a little bit.

A and B are sailing down the line towards the pin, a couple of boatlengths
below the line. It is fairly light air so nothing is happening very quickly
although
there is enough air that boats keep moving, etc...

B overtakes A and gets her bow to leeward of A's transom. There is no
chance of B tapping A from behind although B could head up and hit A. They
are overlapped by a foot or so, and close enough laterally so that A cannot
head up nor can B. They sail like this for some time, 30 seconds, so I
think
the "initially" time has past.

At this point other boats to leeward on close hauled courses want to get
"through B" to get to the line. B tells them she can't alter course due to
A's
presence but does not hail A to come up because she knows that A can't
alter course without hitting her.

My question is whether B has any obligation (with respect to the boats
to leeward) to give A room to manouver as it is her position that turns A
into an obstruction. If B bears off then A will have enough room to turn up
after which B can turn up and give room to the boats to leeward.

Much of the problem here is one of good faith & intent on the part of
the windward boat. The way the rules are written now, the windward boat
can easily take a passive-aggressive course and insist that she cannot
head up. However it is obvious that unless the boats are already in
contact, she can. If her stern quarter 2" clear of the leeward boat's
windward side, she can head up such that her stern swings only 1" and
that of course will lead to increasing distance etc etc.

However I have never seen any protest committee ever hold the windward
boat to her obligation to keep clear if it required any diligence or
attention to detail. The rule was not written to enable windward boats
to claim the de-facto right-of-way, but IMHO that is what has happened.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King