Red had room to complete her tack, so she was given room to tack. She also had room to keep clear once she was on port.

No foul.

Red is not entitled to a close hauled course and needs to continue turning to starboard to clear blue.  No foul. 

Supposing red has to turn violently in an unseamanlike manner, say completely letting go of the mainsheet, perhaps losing control or capsizing. Would you still say no rules broken? Or is the rule only broken if there is contact? 

I agree with the first two posts above.

However, Red's misunderstanding of the rules is quite common. What has helped correct this is often the statement: "Red, you have room to tack and avoid. You do not have room to tack and sail on-the wind on Port."

Further, it's probably instructional to remind Blue that when they reply with a hail of "You Tack" they have take responsibility for providing room to Red while she is executing on the tack and bear away. In one-design racing, it is comparatively easy for Blue to accurately estimate the room required, as it is the room they would need. However, in handicap racing of disparate boats this become much more problematic. In a recent classic yacht race a more maneuverable boat answered "You tack" to a hail under Rule 20 from a far less maneuverable boat. As the un-maneuverable Red boat proceeded through her tack, Red was forced to make a crash-tack to avoid contact as they realized their error.

Room to tack at an obstruction is RRS 20, right? 

Definition of room says the keep clear boat is entitled to room to maneuver in a seamanlike way. I think if Red's maneuver is unseamanlike it would still be necessary to find that there was not room to complete the maneuver in a seamanlike way (that is, did Red's unseamanlike maneuver result from insufficient room given by Blue or insufficient skill by Red?). Would probably be hard to prove to a jury if contact was avoided. 

Tim -- Of course it is. Post edited. Thanks -- Beau

As this is RC boats, Appendix E applies. The hail of 'water' is not adequate. Often the boats may be some distance away and so the hailing boat must identify herself clearly so a hailed boat may know that the hail applies to them.

E1.3
(b) Hails under rules 20.1 and 20.3 shall include the words ‘room’ and ‘tack' and the sail number of the hailing boat, in any order.

Also as this is RC, there is a very good section in the World Sailing Call Book for Radio Sailing, titled General Principles  that has comments that relate to room and seamanlike. 

Here is the section.

1 Limitation on Interpretations
In radio sailing the boat and the competitor controlling her are usually separated by
some, possibly significant, distance. The competitor may not be well placed to view
any incident and to rapidly analyse the relative speed, angle and distance between the
boats. Therefore, interpretations of the rules should be appropriate to the conditions
and should take account of these limitations.
2 Definition: Keeping Clear
A boat is keeping clear if a right-of-way boat can sail her course with no need to take
avoiding action. In accordance with WS Case 50, a right-of-way boat needs to take
avoiding action when she has a genuine and reasonable apprehension of a collision.
If, in such circumstances, she does not take avoiding action and there is contact, the
right-of-way boat will break rule 14.
3 Definition: Room, meaning of 'manoeuvring promptly'
When the term room, as defined in the Racing Rules of Sailing, is used, manoeuvring
promptly includes the time needed by the competitor controlling the boat to analyse
the situation and react accordingly. In radio sailing, this time may be longer than the
time needed to carry out the manoeuvre itself.
4 Definition: Room, meaning of 'in a seamanlike way'
WS Case 21 states that 'extraordinary' and 'abnormal' manoeuvres are unseamanlike.
Some actions that are abnormal in larger boats may be considered normal, and
therefore seamanlike, in radio sailing. However, any manoeuvre that puts a boat at
risk of damage is unseamanlike. It is also unseamanlike to hit a mark, a pontoon, a
bank or a patrol boat

John

John-  I don't think it's RC boats.  I don't see any mention of RC except in your post.

 Oops! Sorry - mixed it up with the other new topic on R 11 and R 18 which is RC based.
John

I agree with John though that although RRS doesn’t specify the language of the hail, Red’s hail of “water” might be regarded as ambiguous and Blue might have been OK not responding. But clearly Blue did interpret it as a call for room to tack at the obstruction and responded accordingly.

Yes. blue is at fault- breaks rule 20.2c

Simon, Blue responded ASAP with the appropriate action. Red is only entitled to tack, not Right of way,   Red is obligated to keep rotating past close hauled until she clears Starboard Blue (rule 10). I might agree with you if red had to sail past Dead down wind and had to jibe, but that is not in the facts found. 

I think you are right Paul. I confused the direction of the last part of rule 20.2 c " ...and avoid her" as referring to blue.

Case 35?

PS: Jim Champ, you are correct to ask about Red’s maneuver and whether or not she was forced into an unseamanlike maneuver..  With no contact and no non-contact damage, it comes down to that, which would come down to a PC’s determination.. 

I neglected to state in the OP that this is in fact concerning RC boats, so John Ball's comments are relevant.

Although I did not state it in the OP (for brevity), in fact the RC boats did use the correct hail, and identified sail numbers.

20.1 The hail  is room to tack not water .

Since the timing of a hail for room to tack under RRS 20 is important to the application of the rule it might be better if that rule was more specific, as in RC rules, or accompanied by a required gesture as in match racing.

This would enable both boats to be able to positively determine when a boat is making "advisory" hails (which might be prudent well before she needs to tack) and when she is invoking RRS 20 and a response is required. 

I believe it's wise to keep in mind that the RRS is used across yachts from tiny dinghies to 200+ foot classic racing yachts. If a rule gets too restrictive (such as requiring a hand signal or that a "hails" be made without the aid of a radio) it simply won't work and will require modification by the SIs to be effective in numerous cases. Please note that a common term like "Hails" is carefully define or chosen not to be defined for good reasons.

Let's say that Blue is close enough to Red that Red cannot tack and go behind or in front.  In this situation, Blue must also tack in order for Red to tack.  How does that change the hail and rules?

David, I think the answer lies in RRS 20.2(c)

Does blue have any obligations if red uses the wrong words when hailing? (20.1 "room to tack")
If blue responds to this wrong hail saying you tack does she then take on a responsibility (20.2 b)
20.4 gives us provision for arm signals
My opinion is no foul because wrong hail, no arm signals and  
red could bear away and avoid blue.

Lesley, “room to tack” isn’t in quotes in rule 20. Only ‘you tack’ is. 

Ang

I submit that it would be a very bad thing to have the hail wording specified in the rules. This is a vital safety rule and the last thing needed when a boat is rapidly approaching a solid object is an argument over whether the hail was valid. 

Jim, I think that's a problem we have now. If a boat hails "water" (or even "hey hey hey", which could be a valid hail under the current rule) is she saying "I need room to tack right now, RRS 20 is on" or is she saying "I'm not so close that I need room to tack right this minute (and i know I break a rule if I hail too soon) but heads up, I'll need that room and be making that hail in a little bit". 

I don't feel like asking that the RRS 20 hail includes "room to tack" is too much of a burden and it makes it clear to the hailed boat exactly which hail she must respond too. 

The difference is that is what's called a safe side failure. If the hailed boat misinterprets an alert to be the 'official hail' all that happens is that both boats tack off a little earlier than they might have liked. But if there's a disagreement about whether a hail is valid then the result could be a collision or grounding. 

Greig, how much wind is there, and what is the sea state?

These are relevant questions since the definition of Room refers to existing conditions. And since Rule 20.1 means a boat isn't just asking for room to tack to close hauled -- they're asking for room to avoid; per this diagram, avoid means bearing away ~30 degrees in one-quarter of a boatlength, per the diagram. 

I don't know about radio-controlled boats, but few other examples to illustrate:

Room refers to "maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike way". Seamanlike isn't formally defined in the RRS, but Webster defines seamanlike as "characteristic of or befitting a *competent* seaman". "Competent" is the key word here. Oxford defines "competent" as "acceptable and satisfactory, though not outstanding".

In example 2 above, if I were on a protest committee, I would not penalize Blue; a competent sailor on Red should be able to duck Blue.

But in examples 1, 3, and 4, Red doesn't need to be merely competent to avoid a collision; they need to be a miracle worker. They need to be outstanding and lucky -- which is not the definition of competent, and thus not the definition of seamanlike.

Put another way: how many people on this mailing list have spun a Laser from close hauled onto a reach in 3.5 feet? I know I can't.

Al,

The conditions were very light.

In terms of the distance required to avoid contact, in my opinion it was a miracle that there was no contact.  It is in fact possible that there was light contact, but it was hard to discern by looking at the situation from a distance

Thanks Greig. 

Seems like Red needed outstanding (not just competent) skill, and perhaps a bit of luck, to avoid Blue. That's not the definition of seamanlike. If I were on a protest committee, I'd penalize Blue.

It'd be interesting to hear what the certified umpires and judges here would decide on this case, given the additional facts you've presented.

Thanks Al.  I tend to think that the fact that Red appeared able (just) to avoid the collision leads me to think that the correct decision is no foul to Blue. But I think the fact that Blue continued without tacking was very risky.  If Red had delayed the bear away due to the tiniest indecision, and hit Blue, then this should be considered in accordance with the World Sailing Call Book for Radio Sailing, General Principles:

"Definition: Room, meaning of 'manoeuvring promptly'
When the term room, as defined in the Racing Rules of Sailing, is used, manoeuvring
promptly includes the time needed by the competitor controlling the boat to analyse
the situation and react accordingly. In radio sailing, this time may be longer than the
time needed to carry out the manoeuvre itself"

In the case of a collision, Blue would certainly have been found by the PC to be in the wrong.

Whether you are Blue or Red, the scenario is very instructive on how best to act.  Red should tack and bear away without hesitation, and Blue should tack.

I wonder if Rule 16.2 applies when red is sailing astern of blue if blue then tacks requiring red to change course to continue keeping clear.

Richard, 16.2 was changed in the 2021 quad to include the phrase “… shall not bear away” .. which is more specific than the phrase “… shall not change course“ .. that existed in 2017’s quad. 

Blue would be turning to windward, not “bearing away”, when she tacks, so 16.2 doesn’t apply in that scenario.