Gene Fuller wrote:
Walt wrote:

My *opinion* is
that M is not entitled to room under 18.5, but a contrary opinion is
that M is entitled to room because there's enough space for her to fit
between the hulls. Is it the the distance between the hulls that
count, or is it the hull and boom? Looking for supporting arguments
one way or the other...

There are few rules or appeals that specifically mention the hull as
opposed to the complete equipment on a boat. For example, there is no
question that touching a sail constitutes contact, even if the sail is
an out of control spinnaker. Touching a line dragging in the water is
also contact. The only two cases I can think of where an unusual
position of equipment would be questioned are the classic cartoon
showing extreme spinnaker position at the finish line and a deliberate
sudden repositioning of the boom or a sail to block or hit an overtaking
boat.

I think the classic example would be towing a 100' floating line while
on starboard, and pulling it in when on port.

In the situation you described it would appear that the W boat had a
perfectly valid reason to have the boom extended over the side of the
boat. The boom is part of the overall envelope of the W boat. I agree
with your position.

While I agree that W had a valid reason to have her boom out, I don't
think W is *required* to have a valid reason. The fact is that the
hulls were X cm wide and there was less than X cm between W's boom and
L's hull when the overlap obtained. To me that says "no room".

Unless someone can come up with a valid reason why W should be compelled
to set her sail a certain way.

BTW, I've searched through the rules and the casebook for examples of
the notion of "equipment in normal position" and I don't see anything
that applies here. Maybe I'm missing something...

//Walt