John Standley Also do we not need to only change 61.1(a) if denying a boat the opportunity to request redress? I think the reasons for redress listed in 61.4(b) only apply if there is a redress hearing.

I wouldn't want to deny a boat's right to request redress.  I just want to bar some action or inaction by a committee or OA as grounds for redress.

Currently Appendix LG, 12.5, 12.6, and 16.4 use the words '... will not be grounds for a request for redress. This changes RRS 62.1(a).'

The corresponding 2025 RRS is RRS 61(4)(b).

Jim .. Ben and I are not authorities on this stuff. We just happen to agree on how we look at this question and are sort'of trying out different ways of explaining it (and unfortunately for you and Niko, we are practicing on you! LOL). We certainly could both get popped on the head by a new Case!

Right now the only case that really informs this question is Case 75 and unfortunately it resembles my 1st Orange/Yellow scenario in their positions relative to each other and where they enter the zone ( big diff in Case 75 ... and the focus of the case .. is that the inside boat is on stb).  That close, 2-boat zone-entry-geometry results in a "direct corridor to the mark" in both Case 75 and Ben's and my approach ... because of where they meet. 

One Case that has divergent entry positions is Case 12, but there the boats do not "meet" until they are both at the mark, so again, both approaches result in the same interpretation. 

I like your thoughts about "given".  My unauthoratative response would be that one can't conclusively state the components of MR have been given until each component has been successfully completed ... and thus the topic of this thread.  

Sounds like a really nice addition Paul. 

Catalan .. another great example of what will have to be sorted-out by the WS-RC with the new Rule 14.

John Standley kicked-off a 60+ comment thread on the new RRS 14 here.

Thank you Ben, Jim and Chris for playing along and helping me thrash this idea against the wall.  Hopefully it gave both players and followers food for thought and examples/scenarios to test other language/ideas against.

To me, JMO, I think the idea "works" to the extent that it's an approach that gives a definitive unambiguous answer ... it's just we might not like or feel comfortable with the answer it gives sometimes.

I also think the answer is consistent with how we determine if a boat rounded a mark.  If an NSC question came up in a hearing about rounding a mark, we would determine the question by the taught-string in sail the course ... so there is some synergy there.

But like I said, it seems folk are not completely satisfied with the answer it gives, specifically in those 2 "simple" scenarios we ended the thread with, so it's maybe not a complete enough answer.

Maybe the taught-string touch is a necessary component of rounding a mark, but it is not sufficient to help fully describe the room to round. 

Anyway ... we all wait with baited-breath for a definitive answer from on-high.  :-)

- Ang