AMERICA’S CUP

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19946, 2 November 1934, Page 4

AMERICA’S CUP

DISMISSAL OF PROTEST THE INCIDENT DESCRIBED Describing the incident in the recent race for the America Cup which led to Mr T. O. M. Sopwith entering a protest that was dismissed upon the grounds that it was not made within a specified time, an American writer says:— After the first mark of a 30-mile triangle had been covered Endeavour led. She rounded the stake at lhr. smin. 28sec. Rainbow rounded 23sec. later. The racers started for the second mark with the wind pretty nearly abeam—which is to say that it was coming over the side about midships. With Endeavour slightly in the lead Rainbow began to storm up from astern. Now. as yacht racing goes, it is within the rights of the leading yacht to edge over toward the onrushing following boat, in order to prevent being passed. It is called luffing, and when an overtaking boat is being luffed she has to respond, under the rules.

Naturally, if she does not respond she will be crashed by the boat which she is overtaking. But Harold Vanderbilt did not give way. He held straight on a dead line for the second mark. There are some very delicate clauses in the overtaking rule here. For example, if it was certain that in his luffing operation Rainbow would hit Endeavour abaft the mast. Rainbow would still have the right of way. That is to say, he would keep on as he was going.

On the other hand, if it were apparent that Endeavour would hit the defending sloop forward of the mast, then the requirements are that Rainbow must luff and so bear away from the oncoming boat. In essence, the question relates to the rights possessed by a boat which is being overtaken —as Endeavour most certainly was being overtaken by Rainbow. By luffing into the boat coming up Endeavour might have prevented Rainbow from passing her. She might have luffed Rainbow all over the ocean until she got herself into a position to proceed on her course. So Mr Sopwith had the alternative either of sinking her or of giving up his strategy. He decided to bear away and trust to a protest. The following day the same critic wrote:—Here is a rather sickening conclusion to a regrettable incident. All American sportsmen will regret that a full p / dispassionate hearing of Mr Sopwitn’s charges was frustrated by a technicality. Rules, of course, are rules, and must be obeyed, but it does seem too bad that, in a case so serious as this one—a case involving two charges of foul, one of which seems well grounded to close observers —everything is nullified by what can only be regarded as failure to observe a minor technicality.

A British yachting critic says:— “The New York Yacht Club tacitly proclaims you can get away with murder under the club rules —provided the victim does not shriek promptly.”