Despite actually/eventually giving room, W breaks 20.2.c by neither tacking as soon as possible, nor immediately responding with the alternative of  "you tack". 

If I were in the room representing W I might argue that tacking 9 seconds after the first hail of "room to tack" (a shade less than 1 boat length) was "as soon as possible" and since there was no contact obviously I gave L sufficient room. 

When L started coming up to tack, did she have to curtail her luff before reaching HTW? 

You say “no verbal response“. Was there non-verbal communication? If there was effective and understood communication, say by gestures, between the boats then a technical breach of 20.2c by not vocalising doesn't really seem to be a matter for concern. Conversely if there was no communication of any kind from W then that's another matter entirely. 

Tim H. - so I guess the question is what does “as soon as possible” mean after a hail.  I would think we can agree that this means the time to the start of the tack - putting the helm over.  I would estimate the time needed as follows”
Time to comprehend the hail - say 1/2 second
Time to hail my crew to tack - say 1 second
Delay to putting helm over - about 1 second maybe 2
So I think it takes 3 1/2 seconds to respond asap and that 9 seconds is way too long.

Case 54 has this to say
When the boats are clearly approaching an obstruction at which A will need room to tack, B must be alert to the situation and anticipate a hail from A. Anticipation is necessary because rule 20.2(c) requires B to respond either by immediately replying ‘You tack’ or by tacking as soon as possible. If B does not immediately hail ‘You tack’, A must give B the time required for a competent, but not expert, crew to prepare for and execute her tack in a seamanlike manner as soon as possible in the prevailing conditions.


I suppose we should also ask if 20.4 applies, requiring an additional signal when conditions or the Notice of Race require. In these light conditions surely additional signals are not required but the notice of race might be mandatory.

For completeness, on these facts, I think the leeward boat likely breaks rule 13 by tacking in front of W before W tacks.  Presumably L can then claim exoneration as a boat forced to break a rule by another boat breaking a rule.

Given no other boats above W:
At 17 seconds out, is L actually already in a position to "soon" make a substantial course change?
If not, she is in violation of 20.1a.
But W must respond regardless - and protest L.

Jim Champ re: “You say “no verbal response“. Was there non-verbal communication? If there was effective and understood communication, say by gestures,”

No .. no acknowledgement whatsoever that they heard any of the hails. 

Tim Re: “When L started coming up to tack, did she have to curtail her luff before reaching HTW?”

No, W started their tack in time with L’s .. immediately after the hail “tacking” from L. 

> No .. no acknowledgement whatsoever that they heard any of the hails. 
Well then that's just bad manners as well as 20.2c. 
Does the panel think 69.1.b.1 applies [grin] 

Angelo
Said Created: Yesterday 20:58

Indication that she heard the hails is not the point:  10m boats going 2kts, within 1 BL of each other:  didn't hear the hail is never going to fly.

The point is that, at the first hail, after allowing time for W to respond, say 2 heartbeats, W needed to be taking action to tack, giving preparatory instructions to crew, crew moving into stations, etc

If W didn't start taking action to tack as soon as possible, then she breaks the rule.

Jim Champ

Said Created: Yesterday 21:45

OK, Jim I know you're having a bit of a laugh.

Misunderstanding the rules is not a breach of good sportsmanship.

I might suggest that getting on with sailing your boat, according to the rules as you understand them, and keeping your mouth shut is perfectly good manners.

It seems to be  British thing to want to have interminable shouted conversations about the rules in the middle of a race.

OK.

The incident comes to the notice of the protest committee.

The protest committee forms the view that  person may have broken rule 69.1(a).

The protest committee in accordance with rule 69.2(b) decides not to call a hearing.

End of issue.

As an aside, if the incident wasn't validly protested, a protest committee should not allow a trivial rule 69 allegation to be used as a back door to penalise a boat that wasn't protested.

And this is part of why rule 20 is the worst (and most unnecessary) rule in the book and should be deleted.

I can make a strong argument that both boats broke the rule.  W for not responding, either by tacking or hailing 'you tack', and L for hailing at 3 BL's before it was necessary for her to do so.  The fact that she did not hail anything about tacking is irrelevant.  A warning that she will need to tack soon is as good as a hail to do so as there are no required words for the hail.

L could have simply luffed head to wind, within the limitations of rule 16, at anytime without the need to hail for room or anything else and essentially forced W to tack away.

John A … I think the “[grin]” from John Champ meant that he wasn’t seriously suggesting 69 …

John Christman re: “L for hailing at 3 BL's before it was necessary for her to do so. “

John … to be clear … the hail at 3BL was not for room to tack … it was an attempt to get the attention of W that an obstruction was approaching and that given the proximity of the mega yacht beyond S, that a call will be coming. 

The hail at 3BL did not include the words “tack” or “room”  … only that a boat on starboard was approaching.  

John Christman

Said Created: Today 00:58

OK, go ahead and make your argument.

OP scenari o was that the the conversational hail was made 3 BL from the obstruction (the starboard tacker). 

Does anyone else here think that a boat, approaching an obstruction close hauled at 3 BL, will not soon need to make a substantial course change to avoid it safely?

 Angelo Guarino

Said Created: Today 01:24

Hi Angelo,

Which bit of 'OK, Jim I know you're having a bit of a laugh' passed you by?

John A asked if anyone else thought 3 boat lengths from an obstruction means it “will soon need to make a substantial course change to avoid it safely?”

 

I think the method for determining how soon a boat can hail was laid down in case 54. 

 

54 states:

 

1.     hail B for room to tack and, if conditions are such that a hail may not be heard, make a signal that indicates her need for room to tack;

2.     repeat that process in the event B does not respond;

3.     give B time to respond (see Answer 2 below);

4.     give time for any additional boat that must respond for A to have room to tack (see Case 113); and

5.     tack herself, in a seamanlike manner as soon as possible after the hailed boat(s) respond, and then avoid the obstruction.

[case is bullets but I swapped in numbers for discussion]

 

So I would go through this list .

1.     Hail. I just made a loud hail for room to tack and it took 1.6 seconds.

        No need to signal as light wind and short distance.
       Wait to see if there is a response – say 3 seconds.

2.     If no response re hail 1.6 seconds.

3.     Give time to respond say ½ second to comprehend, 1 second to advise crew of tack, 2 seconds to put helm over.

4.     No additional boats to consider.

5.     Tack yourself – say 4 seconds (to end of tack)?

 

So a total of 13.7 seconds or 1.4 boat lengths to finish tack plus add safe distance to miss obstruction say ½ boat length. So I’m thinking about 1.9 boat lengths before obstruction is soonest one can hail but maybe round up to 2 boat-lengths.

 

The case assumes that the hailed boat will tack at least after the second hail and at the first reasonable opportunity.  Realistically I think the hailing boat needs to add time for the eventuality that the hailed boat never responds.  I think you should have another boat length to deal with this by going head to wind before slamming the starboard tacker as going head to wind gets you closer to the starboard tacker than the hoped for tack would.

 

So, I agree 3 boat lengths in this case is “soon need to make a substantial course change to avoid it safely”.

 

As an aside, in radio sailing at 1 boat length per second, this would translate to 14 boat lengths from the obstruction. Sure you can reduce the tack time by 3 seconds and the crew delay by 1 second but often one needs to add on the pass on hail and response in a crowd which takes considerable time.  Does this warrant a separate radio sailing thread?

IMO
under the 20.1 not radio sailing the call for room to tack can be almost anything,  "A boat may hail for room to tack and avoid a boat on the same tack." its not,  A boat may hail for "room" to "tack" and avoid a boat on the same tack.  
In Australia its often hail for "water" in your case  "we have a starboard tracker approaching” could be classed as very polite hail room to tack. I do think the model sailing rules e1.3.2 is a step in the right direction with making the words "Room" "Tack" mandatory.

Lots of skippers think that rule 20 is only applied boats are about to run a ground, not right off way boats, whales, shipping containers, seaweed, logs and even plastic bags which the hailed boat may not be able to see. 

"Obstruction

 An object that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially, if she were sailing directly towards it and one of her hull lengths from it." I do question the practically of one of her hull lengths from it. its could work in your case with light winds, but in small fast boats it just will not work EG foliing moth doing 10 knots with a boat length of less than 4 meters their is no way to get hail completed in that time let along get a response.       

Back to your case 
At 3  boat lengths. with R 20.1 the ambiguous hailing requirements it could have turn on 20.2, W failed 20.2, W could protest that 20.1 was not valid based on more than 1 boat length.   
1-3/4 1 boat lengths  W failed 20.2. 
All are about the same the boat if W only options are tack or hail "You Tack". as the boats where so close had L tack and W did not, contact would have happen only option left to tack.

 I do think Bob Lewis approach it right.
Thanks Bob
 

 

Nick Taylor

Said Created: Today 09:21

See Case 54

Question 4 tells us what constitutes a hail under rule 20.

Question 4

What action by A constitutes a hail as required by rule 20?

Unlike rule 20.2(c), rule 20.1 does not require A to use specific words in her hail but, to meet the requirements of the rule, those words must clearly convey that A requires room to tack. The hail must be directed towards B and be as loud as is required in the prevailing conditions to be capable of being heard by B. A hail is primarily an oral signal, but, when the oral signal may not be heard, rule 20.4(a) requires an additional signal to draw attention to the hail. Examples are physical gestures, a whistle or horn signal, or, at night, a light signal. If boats are required to monitor a particular radio channel while racing, the hail may also be made over that channel. However, if the notice of race specifies an alternative communication, the hailing boat shall use it (see rule 20.4(b)).

These requirements for hailing apply equally to B if she responds ‘You tack’.

In , at least Australian and British sailing, 'water', by tradition, is an acceptable hail for rule 20.  I'd agree that just about any hail containing 'room' and 'tack' can satisfy the requirements of  Case 54, except for a 'conversational ' hail like 'I'm soon going to need room to tack'.  IMO such  a hail is certainly good practice, and a qualified hail like that clearly conveys that it is NOT a rule 20 hail and it doesn’t break rule 20.1.
 
I don't agree that "we have a starboard tracker approaching” clearly conveys that a boat requires room to tack.

With an oncoming starboard tacker there may well be the option to duck and give rule 19 room.

As to prescribed words for the initial hail, the Americans were keen on 'room to tack' and made a submission to put that in the rules about 15 years ago.  The RRC rejected that submission, and has now approved Case 54 which says 'no specific words are required'.

John A re: “Which bit of 'OK, Jim I know you're having a bit of a laugh' passed you by?”

Apparently the bit about 'OK, Jim I know you're having a bit of a laugh' :-P

Nick re: “[about def: Obstruction] I do question the practically of one of her hull lengths from it. it’s could work in your case with light winds,…”

Nick, when reading the def: Obstruction, the reference to 1BL is only used as an object-size test for whether or not such an object qualifies as an obstruction.  This test stands by itself and can be done without boats actually in the object’s proximity. 

It is a test done in the imagination … taking a boat and placing it as described … testing the condition … then qualifying the object an obstruction or not when applying the rule in which “obstruction” is used. 

 > I do question the practically of one of her hull lengths from it.   
There does seem to be confusion in some quarters about this part of the definition. It's only an (arguably somewhat obscure) measure of size, nothing else. There is never a circumstance where that one hull length is used in a rule. The other bit that some folk get confused about is thinking that you have to be sailing towards an object for it to be classed as an obstruction. Not so. The rock two miles to leeward is still an obstruction. 

 Personally I think it would be better if the definition was simplified to something like "an object greater than half a hull length (or width or whatever) across" (better wording available). I think that would save a certain amount of confusion. 

Angelo - You cannot know how the statement will be interpreted, you say it is a warning that a call for room is upcoming, others would say it is enough.  That the hail did not include the words "room" or "tack" isn't relevant.  That's one of the many problems with the rule.

John A - I don't think I have to make an argument.  I think that everything written since makes the argument for me.  People are discussing how many boat lengths it would take, how long it would take to go that distance, how do you know when they actually asked for room, etc.  It all demonstrates how poorly the rule is written and applied.  From my own observations, in San Francisco, rule 20 is the most broken rule when racing on the City Front in a flood tide.  People calling for room before it is needed, taking more room than allowed, not responding, etc.

The next thing to do is to imagine how this situation would play out without rule 20.  As L approaches either the stbd tacker or mega yacht, what do they do?  They luff head to wind.  W then luffs and tacks away because sitting HTW is really slow and a losing proposition to the rest of the boats in the fleet.  Once W tacks then L tacks.  Obstruction avoided.  Rule 16 keeps L from luffing too quickly.  So why do we need rule 20 at all?

May I add some annotations for what I believe would happen in some breeze to an average crew with the sorts of ultra lightweight unballasted boats I sail? In sailing canoe racing, for instance, a hail for to tack obstruction rule goes back right to the 19thC.

The next thing to do is to imagine how this situation would play out without rule 20.  As L approaches either the stbd tacker or mega yacht, [or shoreline] what do they do?  They luff head to wind.
They then rapidly lose speed due to wind and waves. 
  W then luffs past W's bow and tacks away because they can't sit HTW either.  Once W tacks then L is stalled in the water, and in irons, and not only are unlikely to complete a tack successfully, but can only recover by getting back on the old tack and picking up speed again. If the obstruction has passed they lose maybe 30 or 40 boat lengths. If the obstruction is still there (eg shoreline) they most likely run aground and incur serious damage or worse.  So that`s why in my opinion RRS20 is the most important safety rule in the book and losing it would be catastrophic. 

To add to Jim’s comment, even if not a lightweight class, if the windward boat is a boat length to windward and on starboard (if the obstruction is on the port side) then he doesn’t have to luff at all to sail over top of the leeward boat that has gone head to wind. And then suppose there is another starboard tacker following in the wake of W maybe 1/2 boat length behind.  Then the hailing boat is in danger of falling off on port and fouling the second boat or falling off on starboard and running aground.  This rule is tough to manage when you get multiple boats in the vicinity but I think it’s better than no rule at all.

John Christman, Rule,20 is  about safety, as opposed to tactically pulling a fast one. When approaching obvious obstructions like a shoreline, shoals, piers, moored ships, etc... the skippers in competing boats typically know that boats between them and the approaching obstruction are going to need "water" or ask for room to tack, and therefore get ready and position themselves for a response. It should be no surprise. In the spirit and intent of the rule, windward boats should expect and simply not debate having to quickly make one of two decisions.... either tack or respond "you tack", or pass on a hail asap. and respond to L,  irrespective of whether  its' one BL, or 5 BL's. If W feels they've been forced to make a decision sooner than they'd like, they can always take it to the room later. It's really simple. If the hailed boat's skipper is one who always second guesses room to tack calls for the obvious obstructions, that mindset is going to cause safety issues for the hailing boat if they have to make an urgent call for room when they see something like a deadhead that is barely visible until your almost on it. Rule 20 is essential, and responses shouldn't be debated, or the exact words be quibbled over, or hail questioned on the water. Take it to the room for debate. Regarding the words, calling for "water", it's a pretty well understood colloquialism, however to eliminate any doubt,  I do think it's not too much of a hardship to require that the words "room" and "tack" be required in the hail.

John Christman .. many of us are familiar with your distaste for rule 20. I think you’ve made your point … but maybe it’d be better for the purposes of discussion, and focus on this topic and your chosen topic of deleting rule 20, for you to author a new thread/topic, discussing deleting rule 20, where you can make your best full throated case that it should be removed from the RRS. 

“Angelo - You cannot know how the statement will be interpreted, you say it is a warning that a call for room is upcoming, others would say it is enough.  That the hail did not include the words "room" or "tack" isn't relevant.  That's one of the many problems with the rule.”

John C, given the closeness of W/L and that L was 1/2 BL forward, and everyone  forward in their boats, L was concerned that W couldn’t see S through L’s sails .. thus the reason for the 3 BL call to W that S existed. 

Tim re: “Regarding the words, calling for "water", it's a pretty well understood colloquialism, however to eliminate any doubt,  I do think it's not too much of a hardship to require that the words "room" and "tack" be required in the hail.”

For myself .. if we had a visiting J105 from UK/AUS who called “water” to me … I wouldn’t have understood before reading discussions like this one on the forum. 

It brings to mind that it might be a good topic of discussion at a skipper’s meeting when water-callers are mixing with room-to-tack-callers. 

I suggest that its key to note that this is primarily a safety rule, not a tactical rule, and with safety issues one should always try and ensure that a failure is on the safe side. As Tim OConnell says the hail should not come as a surprise. If we introduce required words then we are also introducing the possibility of an incorrect hail being ignored, and the consequences of that may be very grave indeed. By contrast the consequences of misinterpreting a hail and tacking off earlier than leeward expected are trivial. If one is expecting the hail, then one should react to it whether or not it includes specific words, or even if its in Swahili or Klingon! The approach to an obstruction is not a place for sea lawyering.

Jim re: “one should react to it whether or not it includes specific words, or even if it’s in Swahili or Klingon!”

The embarrassing truth is that if a boat hailed “room to tack” in Klingon …I just might understand that better than “water” !  LOL

[off topic .. for older Trek fans … “Strange New Worlds” is really good!] 

I was advised that at a recent radio sailing worlds, some English speaking competitors were hailing a warning such as “I’m soon going to be asking for room to tack” in order to alert the windward boat of an upcoming hail.  The windward boats were not English speakers and so tacked immediately and protested.  The jury threw out the hailing boat for hailing too soon even though not a prescribed hail.  Presumably the windward boats thought that 20.2(b) required them to tack and protest.  This rule has some problems that maybe more authoritative interpretations could iron out.

The hail "I’m soon going to be asking for room to tack” contains 2 of the elements required in a hail for room to tack under RRS E1.3(b): the words "room" and "tack".
While the whole phrase may be understood by a native English speaker as a polite warning, a non-English speaker may not be able to understand this nuance. He will only understand the key words : room and tack. In which case the correct action is to respond as requires byRRS 20.2(b).
So it was a reasonable decision for the Jury to take this phrase as an incomplete hail that does not conform to RRS 20.1 as modified by E1.3(b).

If either the commonly-used SYRPH or the Accelerated Protest Procedure (used at most umpired events) apply then the hailing boat would have had the opportunity to take a lesser penalty before the hearing opened. Once the hearing opened the only penalty available to the Jury' is disqualification (RRS E7).

The stereotype of the English speaker being unable to speak other languages, or comprehend that others do not have their own mastery of the idiom, is not unfounded. Radio sailing is a branch of our sport is heavily dependent on oral communication. Especially at international events we all have an obligation to sue a limited, standardised vocabulary that all competitors can understand. This, for instance, is the reason for the rule that sail numbers are to be hailed as individual digits:  'Nine', 'one nine', 'nine nine' and not 'nine', 'nineteen', 'ninety-nine'.

As an aside - at the recent DF95 Globals, Bob was one of the rare 'anglos' who was hailing for room as required by RRS E1.3(b).