Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
When is RRS 21.1 active?
Douglas McKnight
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
- Club Race Officer
- Club Judge
0
Assume Green is OCS at the start, position 1. The question is when, exactly, does Rule 21.1 apply. The salient words are "A boat sailing towards the pre-start side of the starting line ... ... to start..".
I think I would interpret the word "towards" to imply a direction, which would suggest 21.1 is active at positions 7, 8, and 10, but not 5, 6, and 9.
If the Rule said "sailing to the pre start..." then I would think the rule applies from position 5 onwards. In other words, as soon as the boat breaks off the beat and begins the maneuver to go back to start correctly.
Personally, I feel that the spirit of the rule would have it apply from 5 onwards, but I don't think that's what the rule says, due to my understand if what "towards" means.
I haven't thought much about this rule, which shows that it isn't much of a practical problem in my world, but I'm curious what the correct interpretation is. (I haven't found a case, appeal, etc).
It also occurs to me that this rule seems to require the other boat(s) to divine why a boat (OCS unknown) is sailing towards the pre-start side of the line. Are they sailing back to start, or for some other reason (no matter how tactically or strategically misguided)? Again, this doesn't seem to be a problem in practice, but one can imagine a situation in which a starboard tack boat might actually have ROW, but a port tack boat might (reasonably) think that 21.1 is in effect.
I'll be very interested in your thoughts.
Doug
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
It just seems a little counterintuitive that a boat could "park" on starboard (assuming compliance with other rules) and cause disruption for boats that have started correctly. As I mentioned, I think I would have a preference for a rule that switched on at position 5, when the maneuver starts. I wonder why it's written this way? Presumably there's a reason.
Between points 6 and 7 her SB rights ceases to apply and she needs to keep clear other boats not doing so.
But here is the curveball: what if returning boats meets a boat doing penalty turns on collision course?
Falling off to begin her safe transit back to the line would be constrained by any leeward boats due to rule 11. So, the turn from position 4 onward would violate 11 if there were a leeward boat there. If a port tack boat was approaching and would cross clear ahead, no worries, green can turn down.
If a port tack boat were sailing to pass clear astern, rule 16.2 restricts green from bearing off.
16.2:
A clear-astern boat would also be protected by rule 16 to the extent that Green would have to make sure Clear Astern had room to keep clear.
So, from position 5-9, other rules would apply. After 9, things are clear again. At position 9, things are a bit weird. She is not backing her sails, so 21.3 doesn't apply. Green is still "racing," so 23.1 doesn't apply. 23.2 also doesn't apply limiting the other boats.
She is clearly sailing to comply to correct a starting error. The spirit of the rule would apply. But the use of the word "toward" is potentially problematic.
I could see deciding that "sailing toward" could include course changes that might momentarily point the bow away from the start line (such as adjusting to weather to avoid a port tacker. That interpretation might be a bit risky, however.
-Tony
I do think it's valuable to have the ability to return to more normal ROW rules. OCS boats (often) need to extract themselves from the fleet before they can sail toward the line, and may need to again if they encounter other late starters. That might be nearly impossible if they could not interact, say with a pair of crossing upwind boats in a more normal way.
Nicholas: I attempted to draw position 9 to have the boat sailing parallel to the line (and its extensions of course). I think parallel is not "towards" (it's not "away" either.) So, if position 9 is parallel, I would argue that 21.1 is not active.
And, your second paragraph gets to my question, really. I, too, think the way the rule is written means that an OCS boat can return to normal rules by changing their direction away from (or parallel to) the line.
When I posted I was feeling that I favored the spirit of a rule that required an OCS to keep clear of everyone from the moment they started their return maneuver until they started correctly. Now, I'm coming around to thinking that the OCS boat does maybe need some protection against getting boxed into truly impossible situations as she tries to get back. I suppose we could think of this question as being part of how seriously we wish to punish an OCS boat. We already make their life more difficult, by having 21.1 at all. We could increase the difficulty of their situation by making 21.1 apply from position 5 in my drawing. This may require them to stay on the beat a bit longer until traffic thins out around them to allow a way back. That could be a looong time, and going back is already quite painful...
On the second observation about a hypothetical port-tacker having to divine why a starboard-tacker is sailing towards the line. Clearly, the context takes care of it 99.9% of the time, but it just struck me as quite unusual that the reason a boat is doing something comes into a rule.
At the point where she knows that she is OCS she is "sailing towards the pre-start side".
Positions 7,8 and 10 are unambiguous: Rule 21.1 applies. Positions 5 and 6 are covered adequately by 11, 12 and 16. Why green is changing course is not relevant. The only ambiguous point is 9.
As I said, "sailing toward the line" could include course changes that may momentarily turn away from it. But, perhaps position 9 is when Green decides she wasn't OCS and will continue turning back to close hauled. Again, the other rules would be adequate to determine whether they fouled any other boat.
Indeed, though, your point is well taken that (generally) other rules get involved.
Regarding your comment that "sailing toward the line" could include course changes that momentarily turn away from it: I am very interested in what support you have for that view. It's at the heart of this question. I don't see that in the words of the Rule, and I haven't found any appeals/cases/Q&A references for this rule. Indeed, if we stray from the simple "towards" means pointing/moving towards", why not take the view that "sailing towards" means everything from position 5 onward in my drawing?
As I said, I can imagine the sport adopting such a rule, but I don't think that's what this rule says. Again, I'm very interested in support for other interpretations.
This seems like a philosophical discussion about the meaning of "towards". The rules of section D (rules 21 and 22) apply between two boats. You diagram shows only one boat (I understand your effort to not complicate the picture).
In your scenario, green can sail anywhere she likes. Once you add water and introduce the 'other' boat(s), a bunch of rules will influence what green can or is required to do in order to keep clear or to give room. In any case, this is not a good position for green in presents of other boat(s). If your question implies: at position 5 rule 21.1 does not apply to green, then Section A is back in the picture. I am sure we can visualize the consequence of that rule change and what it means for green.
Kim
Yes, I am trying to get to a precise understanding of the activation of RRS 21.1 which does depend greatly on the meaning of "towards". I realize that, absent other boats, there is certainly no limitation on green and the question is entirely academic. But, that's my intent. Not to get into one specific scenario between two boats, but to understand how to determine if 21.1 is active. In a given scenario between boats, that may or may not be relevant, but it's something I'd like to understand properly.
So, if you will indulge the question, how do you think we should interpret "towards" in this rule? Does "towards" imply direction, and 21.1 is active only at positions 7,8,10, or is 21.1 triggered by breaking off the beat and everything from position 5 is considered "sailing towards" the line. Again, please indulge the hypothetical. (I think it's the former option.)
Thx, Doug
A vessel is called over early (or as the rules states, on the pre-start side or one of it's extensions) and acknowledges the fact. (If they do not acknowledge then that is a different question?)
She must return and start properly to be scored other than OCS.
At the point she acknowledges that she is OCS she is sailing towards the start line.
The actual heading, track, tack point of sail or the position of other vessels (other than other vessels who were also OCS) is irrelevant as her obligation is to keep clear of all of vessels in that race until she has crossed completely.
I don’t agree with that.
IMO, a starboard tack OCS boat that is in the front row, having front row boats close to leeward and windward of her after the gun, and boats on her same tack in the 2nd row close astern, may luff a boat to windward (within 16.1) and not break 21.1 if the windward boat alters course to keep clear of her … or if a 2nd row boat behind her needs to alter course to go around her.
The OCS boat is operating under Part 2 sections A and B until she turns and is sailing toward the line.
Reference definition of keep clear.
I agree with your point that in some cases she may not be able to immediately return.
“Rule 21 is actually three rules in one. Let’s look at rule 21.1 first. Rule 28.1 (Sailing the Race) reads in part, “A boat shall start...”. So, if your hull isn’t completely on the pre-start side of the starting line or its extensions at the starting signal, you have to get there before you can start the race. However, even when you and everyone else knows you are on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal (OCS), you keep all your right of way until you are sailing back towards the pre-start side of the starting line or one of its extensions; i.e., you are converging with it. This means that you continue to have rights even while slowing down or luffing in order to get clear enough to turn back. When it is obvious that you are sailing back towards the starting line, you must then keep clear of all boats that have started properly or are on the pre-start side of the starting line.”
His last sentence indicates to me that the intent of 21.1 is that it turns on when you initially start sailing back toward the start line or one of its extensions (in this case somewhere between position 6 and 7) and from that moment on it doesn’t turn off until you get back to the pre-start side of the line as indicated by his words “you must then keep clear of all boats that have started properly or are on the pre-start side of the starting line.” He gives no caveat about your course in relation to the line, such as position 9, once you’ve made your initial move back toward the starting line. I realize the rule doesn’t explicitly state what I just said but I do believe that’s the spirit and intent of the rule.
And guys, beware fo thinking about the 'spirit' of the rules. The rules don't have a 'spirit', they just have their words.
I also do not agree with the proposition that OCS boat "shall" keep clear of all vessel who are not also returning.
OCS boat can continue to sail with her 'rule rights and obligations' the entire course. She will be scored OCS but that is it. Actually, it may be NSC, by Case 128. Case 31 provides some possible discussion, but that is a rabbit hole I do not wish to go into.
Now, from the moment she sails course to return to start correctly (more than 90 off the wind and toward the line or its extensions), rule 21.1 turns on.
Kim
Towards means towards.
Intention may come in to the 'to start' part of RRS 21.1, but not the 'towards' bit.
I don't think that is a good interpretation either of the rule or what Dave Perry is saying.
RRS 21.1 applies when an OCS boat is sailing towards the starting line. If the boat is [clearly] not sailing towards the starting line the rule doen't apply.
And I suggest that the Green boat has ROW up to the moment that the line judge calls "Green OCS". And from then on, no matter which way she is pointing, up till she is called "Green clear", she is KC boat.
I think both Kim and John A have it right. “Intention” has a part to play because rule 21.1 adds to it the “reason why” (using “reason” because that’s what Case 126 uses) a boat is sailing toward the starting line. A boat sailing toward the start line for other “reasons” is not covered by rule 21.1. “Sailing Toward” means sailing in a direction which is decreasing the distance between (as Dave P has been quoted).
For instance, assume a boat is OCS but is unaware (as Kim points out above). The boat reaches the windward mark and now is sailing back toward the starting-line because that’s the direction of the next mark. Rule 21.1 does not apply to her because the reason she is sailing toward the starting line is to round the next mark, not to start.
This same sort of “reason” discussion comes up when thinking about rule 23.2. I’d suggest reading Case 126 (emphasis added) .. it is about a different rule but I think the same “reason” concept applies.
But since you asked about support for a broader interpretation of "toward," the RRS say that any word or term not covered in "Definitions" should be interpreted based on common definitions and use.
Webster's Online defines "toward" as follows:
"1: in the direction of
"driving toward town"
: along a course leading to"
There are more, but, they are less applicable.
With regard to definition 1: when I'm driving toward San Diego from Santa Barbara, There are several times along the route where I will be pointing more than 89.99 degrees off the direct line to San Diego. There is nothing in the definition that deals with the maximum degree away from the direct line you can be pointing.
With regard to definition 2, I think this applies quite well to the situation we are discussing.
So, while I maintain that this is an academic discussion with little real-world application and that other rules would be in play, I think saying that from the time the boat in question realizes they are OCS and stops sailing a course toward the next mark and instead are sailing "along a course leading to" the start line, rule 21 is in effect.
-Tony
The thread of this post. " When is RRS 21.1 active?".
Answer, as soon as she acknowledges that she is OCS or complying with 30.1.
As soon as the skipper becomes aware that she is not in compliance with 21.1,
she is not sailing any other course but "towards" the pre-start side.
Towards the pre-start side may require the vessel to make a circular route to avoid other traffic or for better wind, however during this maneuver, regardless of the heading, tack, track, she is sailing towards the pre-start side.
That is her mission.
During her maneuvers, she is restricted from interfering (RRS. 23.2). She is the keep clear vessel from all others in that race (except other 21.1 vessels)
See introductory note for Section D.
"When rule 21 or 22 applies between two boat, Section A rules do not."
I'm in agreement with Angelo, John, Kim, which is my original interpretation, with the appreciation of John's point about establishing what the course is at position 9. A point that Thomas made was that Dave Perry's interpretation seems to not allow for 21.1 to be switched off by a boat in position 9 heading up more. That is interesting, and I'd be interested to understand if that's his opinion and, if so, why.
I started with trying to distinguish between the "clearly breaking off the beat" trigger and a "sailing in the direction of the line" trigger. I think we all have our own internal sense of how we have to keep clear as we head back, but the bottom line for me, absent appeals/cases/etc is that the words in the rule contain a strong concept of a direction with the word "towards". The rule-writers could have used any number of ways to capture a different concept. If they had wanted 21.1 to apply from position 5 in my diagram, they could have easily done so with some fairly simple words to express that idea. Even changing "towards" to "to" while not completely unambiguous, could express the idea that position 5 is when the boat starts sailing "to" the prestart side of the line.
Mark & Tony, I don't see any support in the rule for your idea that acknowledgement of OCS is involved. Not only that, I can imagine lots of weird situations, were that to be the case. A boat remaining on the beat, without changing course, could lose rights over a clear astern or windward boat simply by acknowledging they are OCS? Why would they acknowledge they are OCS, and how would they do that? Also, regarding the word "towards". Even the dictionary definition cited starts with "in the direction of". In the context of a boat, I think direction is pretty clear...
Again, thanks to all.
Doug
You’ve heard from plenty here on this thread that would disagree with you if they were on that panel with you.
As a Judge, I’ve never heard a rule 21.1 protest.
As a racing sailor, who is OCS at least 2 times a year (being VERY charitable to myself there) I have never applied that rule that way to myself and have never protested an OCS competitor to leeward who luffed me momentarily as they tried to slow and make room to head back to the line.
Douglas, you misquoted me. Yes, I had the words "acknowledge" and "realizes" in my posts. But the actual thing I said was:
"realizes they are OCS and stops sailing a course toward the next mark and instead are sailing "along a course leading to" the start line, rule 21 is in effect."
It is not merely "realizing." They have part B rights until they begin sailing a course leading to the start line (or its extension).
You asked me for "support" for my definition of "toward," and I provided it. Webster's is a fairly well respected source of definitions. According to the introduction of the RRS: "Other words and terms are used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use."
The definition you (and others) want of "toward" is: "pointing no more than 89.99 degrees away from something."
Where is your support for that?
If there is more than one acceptable definition of a word, MUST we choose the one that makes the rule impossible to interpret? Can't we choose the dictionary definition that makes it work well? You cannot deny that a Webster's Definition is at least one "sense (of the word) ordinarily understood." Why would you want to choose one that is not in the dictionary and clearly renders the rule all but uninterpretable?
If I told you to "take the 101" toward San Diego from Santa Barbara, would you get off the 101 South of Ventura because it temporarily points NE?
I assume you would understand that taking the 101 towards San Diego means in terms of its overall direction and you would not be all confused by a momentary turn in the highway.
In the very unlikely event that this came to a protest jury, I would ask Green: "Were you trying to find a way to maneuver back to the line to restart?" If the answer is "Yes," rule 21 applies. If the answer is "No, I had turned down and let my sails out to rescue an MOB," we would apply 22. If there were some other reason, we would apply appropriate rules. It's really not that hard.
In polite terms, your construction of the simple dictionary definition of 'towards' is 'strained'.
In less polite terms your construction is torturing the English language, and in even less polite Australian terms, you're bloody murdering it.
Douglas in his OP made a nice distinction between driving 'towards' San Diego, and driving 'to' San Diego. They're not necessarily the same thing.
The simple straightforward construction of 'towards' is, as your dictionary citation says, 'in the direction of', not 'with the intention of arriving at'.
Signed
Cleopatra
Let's be clear: It's not My definition. It's Webster's.
Yeah...I don't think we are going to see eye to eye.
Perhaps the immortal words of Dave Barry would be the best way to end this (because it is at an end).
Another thing is that you must read whole sentence. Not "sailing towards the pre-start side of the starting line" but "sailing towards the pre-start side of the starting line or one of
its extensions after her starting signal to start".
A boat being OCS is never started to race by the definition but is racing, so 23.1 has nothing to do with this. She needs to sail towards to starting line to start.
When a boat is OCS at the start it initially retains all her rights, and at the moment when skipper makes a decision to return and starts to maneuvre back, even after a couple of minutes, her ROW rights
ceases to apply and 21.1 starts to apply.
Previously Arto, you agreed with Jusso’s statement, “[…] a boat is sailing towards something when its course is pointing at it.“
However, your statement that I quoted above now includes the idea about the ‘moment a decision is made’ and ‘starts to maneuver’.
So which is it? Does an OCS boat, having decided she is OCS and starting to maneuver to return to the line, but still not on a course which takes them back to the line, is she subject to rule 21.1 or not?
For ease of discussion I’m repeating the OP diagram below.
Q1: Does 21.1 apply to her at position #5?
Q2: What if her “start to maneuver back” at position 5 was a luff to windward to slow herself? Does the answer change?
When you agreed with Jusso, it seemed your answer was “no”, but after your last comment, I’m no longer sure.
Ang
PS: I brought up 23.2 only as another example of where intention/reason for sailing a course was important in applying the rule.
Over and out.
As stated in my first post...
A question at a hearing would be, "at what point did you realise you where OCS?"
When the Skipper acknowledges that she is OCS she has two choices.
Retire or return.
Both options leave the skipper with no rights. Stay out of the way.
That is fair sailing.
Summation.....
At the point of the decision to return, regardless of point of sail, heading, direction to the line, tack or otherwise she is "sailing towards the pre-start side".
She has no other course.
I feel the above is not only an incorrect reading of the rules, but also is likely to add confusion to a crowded situation. The rule says when she is "sailing towards the starting line, she shall keep clear."
Until he is doing so, we expect him to comply with the other rules of part 2. Not only that, but the other racers WANT it that way so we can race around the OCS boat until he is clear and heading back. We can't know what is in his head, only his course will begin to tell us his intentions, as well as when rule 15 begins to apply. Until he bears away, we, as other competitors want the certainty of knowing port and clear astern boats will avoid him. 21.1 is designed to help organize racing while a boat returns to the start line. If it turns on the moment the OCS boat "realizes" he is over, it will only cause confusion, rather than clarity.
For a simple example consider a boat that has not started in accordance with the Definition Start, and is sailing more or less as shown for (G)reen in the diagrams.
She is protested by another boat sailing on port tack, (R)ed, round about close hauled for breaking RRS 21.1.
It is not disputed that G is sailing towards the starting line.
The protest committee can apply a simple test: Did G [shortly after the incident] Start in accordance with the definition?
If so, she was sailing towards the starting line to start and RRS 21.1 applies.
If not, RRS 21.1 does not apply, and the Section A rules apply, but G will be scored OCS or DNS in any case.
As our sport is self governed and as such, requires the fortitude of humans to be honest with themselves first.
The question, with respect to 21.1, is "at what point is a boat sailing towards the pre-start side?"
The answer is, when the skipper acknowledges the fact to him/her self that he/she is OCS.
This decision is independent of the actual heading of the vessel and as such, at the moment of the Skipper's decision to return, is subject to the restrictions of the rule at that instant.
We do not have a Case for an authoritative interpretation nor a non-authoritative US/RYA/CAN Appeal to guide us. Therefore we do not have a “The answer is”.
What we have are some opinions from respected authors of books on the RRS (I.e. ‘other non-authoritative Interpretations)
US Sailing developed an app containing the RRS w/US prescriptions (free to US Sailing members). In that e-version of the RRS, Dave Perry has authorized snippets of his book ‘Understanding the Racing Rules of Sailiing through 2024’ to be embedded. Here is an excerpt from the section on 21.1 (Emphasis added):
Next, Arto, without directly answering my question of whether 21.1 applies at pos-5, invites us “to check Trevor Lewis's "Racing Rules Explained" by RYA.” Arto continues, “I believe it gives a quite good explanation on this”. However, Arto does not summarize what Trevor is offering as interpretation, and whether it aligns one way or another in how to apply “sailing toward” (so we are left with a bit of a cliffhanger).
Finally, we have what judges, RO’s and racers have offered here on this thread (also a non-authoritative source of interpretation).
PS: My advice? If you find yourself in a hearing where a breach of 21.1 may apply, and that application hinges on this interpretation, come to a consensus one way or another with your panel-pals and then submit your decision to your regional appeals committee for a decision on whether the panel’s 21.1 interpretation was correct (and maybe get a published appeal out of it).
I disagree with the idea that a boat's heading needs to be towards the line or it's extension, I think it suffices that she is no longer sailing away from or parallel to the starting line, which, of course was the point of OP's question @5, but it certainly doesn't suggest anything about decision or acknowledgement or that the rule can apply while a boat is sailing away from the starting line.
And to take an approach to your 'moral' argument, I surely can't be bullied and harassed and infringed by nearby boats whilst we're all together close hauled sailing upwind, on the basis that they might think that I think I might be OCS? Is hat a defence for a boat in a protest? "I thought she thought she was OCS and so she has to keep out of my way"?
And it's also worth noting that as PC members we're not there to make the racing moral, or fair (except in redress) - we are there to apply the rules as written and officially interpreted as best we can, whether the outcome seems fair to us or not.
Not necessarily.
Only if you were actually over early.
If you were not over early, you have started in accordance with the definition, so when you turn back towards the starting line you are not sailing towards the starting line ... to start, Therefore RRS 21.1 doesn't apply to you at all.
OK, if you're taking insurance by returning to re-start, then you are probably wise to also take insurance by acting as if you were required to keep clear by RRS 21.1, although you might be exposed to RRS 16.
Wholeheartedly agree
Again, though Case 126 does not include rule 21.1 in its discussion, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to apply its principles in this case.
Rule 21.1 could be reworded by replacing “to start” with “to recross the starting line from the prestart side”. Or, Case 126 could be updated to specifically include rule 21.1. I don’t think either is necessary.
Taking this scenario proposed by Russell further, and I think supporting Case 126’s application, say a boat returning to start and subject to 21.1 accidentally unwinds her “string” in the process (and therefore fails to start). Does rule 21.1’s application somehow not apply now retroactively? I don’t think so.
Same applies to Russell’s boat. The fact that the RC later confirms she was not the boat called OCS does not retroactively unapply rule 21.1.
Even without 21.1 listed in Case 126, I think it could be reasonable for a panel to apply it here. The boat’s “reason” for heading back to the line is to start, based on her thought that there is a slight chance she’s the boat that was signaled OCS. Rule 21.1 applies to her “…consistent with her course immediately before the incident and her reasons for sailing that course” (from Case 126’s summary)
This would be different if she was sailing back toward the line to retrieve a piece of equipment or crew that dropped overboard for instance. Rule 21.1 would not apply to her.
Good get, but in my opinion it is too much of a stretch, if only narrowly, for the following reasons:
Before I wrote this question, I thought of a number of scenarios that were interesting. The boat going back "just in case" was one of them. If I were to meet this boat in a PC I think I would try to find a way to justify that 21.1 is active for her. I might argue that's she's sailing this course for the same reason a boat that knew for sure she was OCS would. If we treat a boat that's going back to start as being under 21.1 it's reasonable to treat a boat that's going back to (maybe) start the same way, and say she's subject to 21.1. Like Angelo's argument above.
The whole idea of not knowing which rules apply to boats until we've checked in with RC later seems just too incoherent. I think the sailors need to be able to apply their reasonable understanding of a situation. (IMHO!).
Thx, Doug
The popular vote says: ?????
Kim
We'd probably want to excuse boats under 6m and let the muttering and complaining from the sailors act as a audible signal.
Doug
What exactly is the issue for not knowing if 21.1 applies to another boat or not? 21.1 obliges the returning boat to keep-clear of a boat racing. If she does that correctly, then it should not put other boats in difficulties if they mistakenly believe they need to keep clear.
Consider a boat P on port still racing, meeting boat S on starboard bearing away to restart. If S meets her obligations under 21.1 then she will have acted in a way that P can sail her course and not take avoiding action. If P is put in a difficult position (e.g. trying to take the stern of S, and get's dialed down by P's bear away and keeps turning down further), then S has not kept clear of P by 21.1 (and probably broken 16.2 as well in the case when she wasn't really OCS and 21.1 doesn't apply).
I'm trying to think of the scenario in which P takes a needless duck behind S and I can't really think of one. Whilst S is sailing away from the line, P is going to have to duck her as 21.1 doesn't apply. For S to get from a racing line to a returning line will take a considerable change of course, and thus it takes some time for 21.1 to switch on. During that time S is under the general limitations and thus really can't make P duck any more than she should have. If P is trying for a narrow pass ahead, then it is trivial for S to let her through... unless she has obstructions, in which case what was P thinking?!?!?! She is going to have broken other rules and can not expect any help from 21.1 (and can only hope 14 saves her from damage).
In general, I can't see a huge problem with two boats trying to keep-clear of each other, since the general limitations that apply to the actual ROW boat should stop it acting in a way that makes the incorrectly keeping-clear boat from keeping clear.
Can you think of a scenario where two boats each trying to keep-clear of the other results in either a dangerous or unfair situation without other rules being broken?
Finally, I have certainly seen boats that are undecided about if they were OCS or not and to start to return, only to reconsider and resume racing. The "towards" language of 21.1 helps with this case.
That being said, consider yourself to be a port tacker after the start. You see a starboard tack boat coming towards you heading towards the line, or its extension. It is reasonable to think that it is heading in that direction to start, but how do you know for sure?
Maybe it started correctly and has some other reason for its course? How would you know for sure? You, as port tack might assume that 21.1 applies to them and so assume they will keep clear. They, on starboard tack, might expect you to keep clear because they're starboard and you're port. (They aren't even thinking about 21.1 because they are not going back to start). So, you could have two boats each of which expects the other to keep clear....
Doug
I think the problem that Doug has in mind is not that there will be any particularly difficulty in concluding what rules were broken, but rather that when boats have different opinions about what their obligations are on the water, they may each try to keep clear of each other in the dance of death and that the risk of collision and damage is increased.
I think that
While the rule is not perfect in preventing collisions, it will work properly most of the time.
In general, the more commonly used RRS are the more finely honed and closer to perfection: some of the less commonly used RRS are not quite perfect, and it's not worth spending too much effort trying to get them to cover every possible situation.
Or the opposite. Both boats think they have the ROW, and leave things too late (as in my example above).
In any case, we know these are largely academic problems, otherwise there would an appeal, or case to refer to. But, isn't this the perfect kind of problem to discuss here??