Room has to a be given, as soon as mark room is established which is at the zone in this case. Case 75 notes the concept of a notional corridor of space from the point where mark room is established to a position next to the mark as mentioned in the definition.  If red stays within this corridor then they are sailing within the room to which they are entitled and if blue does not give them room to do so they infringe rule 18.  Red might technically break rule 11 but is exonerated.  The key take away is that blue can’t luff for a boatlength and then bear away hard to give red room at the mark in the last boatlength or two.  It’s not “room at the mark” it’s “mark room” with all the multiple requirements found in the definition.  If Red turns down outside the corridor, then rule 11 is fair game and exoneration for red is lost.

The fact had blue set up for a close rounding so that sounds like a fact that they are not giving red room to do that close rounding.  I’d conclude the bear away by red at 2 was still in the corridor so I’d penalize blue.
I agree with Tim OConnell.

Yes. blue is at fault- breaks rule 20.2c

Thanks !

William,

If it were this simple, the original 'sandwich'-case might not have contained som 86 entries encompassing more than 50 pages of text without coming to a clear conclusion. What it comes down to, is (a) the (assumed) facts say rule 10 and 15 are not violated, and (b) contrary to what most sailors think, the rights of Y start at the moment she passes HtW. She is then overlapped on the same tack with G and this entitles Y  to mark room from G. On the other hand Y should keep clear of G under RRS 13. This controversy, unresolved, is the argument central to the post.

Feike

WS Case 107