One I can believe, two is stretching it, but three in a row? Something stinks.
Perhaps you could either make more substantial comments, or alternatively make worse comments so we can flag them?
Ports and canals already have rules about what ships they accept and what fees they charge. These institutions can change their rules as they see fit.
There's no reason to make big ships illegal on the open ocean. And in any case, the economically orthodox answer for dealing negative externalities is to tax them, not ban anything. But that doesn't apply here, because there are no necessary externalities: as said above the ports and canals can deal with this just fine. (Unless there are laws that ban them from making adequate rules. In this case these laws should be fixed.)
Now, anyone who's been in the biz (4.5 years of sea time in the U.S. Navy here) knows that a vessel getting underway has an experienced pilot and a full navigation detail on the bridge while in restricted waters.
Looking at the ludicrous funds already spent over the last three weeks (we must be talking hundreds of millions by now, with no end in sight) and the ripple effects of closing the channel (which costs must jump into billions almost immediately), saying "she missed her turn" is almost a middle finger to the audience.
Was it a steering casualty? Were the radars operational? Was the crew qualified? Does someone want to craft an unsavory theory?
The costs involved were quite literally among the main drivers for creating the idea of insurance[1]. Tell me what caused her to "miss her turn". With stakes that high, such mishaps really need a full-on tsunami behind them for such a simplistic explanation.
BTW "She missed her turn" made me think of something different, it's "she missed a turn", as in going straight forward when she should have turned right or left.
But now I'm really overthinking it ;)
But on a warship, there is a navigation brief, and the people involved in the transit gather to walk thorough the whole evolution. Every single turn is discussed and visualized. No matter how boring and routine the transit.
"We are on this course at this speed for this long. We are shooting this navigation aid from the pelorus. We put on this much rudder for this much time to come to this course. We have shoal water off the starboard bow here. The channel does this."
And so forth.
Even on a merchant vessel, which has an order of magnitude less crew than a warship, the COLREGS[1] will tell you that "Thou Shalt Not Jack It Up".
The costs of screwing it up, in an RMF[2] vein, are astronomical.
Hence my skepticism at the newsreader glibly stating that the vessel "missed her turn".
These media people can spaz out for days over an apparent 9 hour gap on an official phone record with zero real-world effects.
Now, how about committing an act of journalism and getting a preliminary reading.
Did the helmsman have a seizure and throw the rudder over? What?
[1] https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/COLREG.aspx
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_Management_Framework
As for why, the investigation hasn't completed, there is no official ruling on who's fault it is, and a whole lot of lawyers telling people not to comment because this is big, big money.