Hi Oddvar,
perhaps this will help you:
http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/13214RacingRulesofSailingRule21-[17504].pdf


Rule 21 most certainly does not apply at a  start mark and it's anchor line. Rule 21 only applies when a boat is taking room or mark room to which she is entitled - see first sentence of the rule. The preamble to section C states that none of the rules in that section apply at a starting mark surrounded by navigable water or at it's anchor line......

it follows that no boat is entitled to mark room under rule 18 or room under rules 19 and 20 at a start mark or it's anchor line as these rules have been disapplied by the preamble to Section C. If boats are not entitled to room or mark room then Rule 21 does not apply because the precondition in it's first sentence is not met.

No change from the old rules.

I was a litle fast with the starting mark. I remove that.

This is a big change that complicates some situations! But it's very little about the change and the conseqence.

Thank you for the link Willii!

Why do you think it complicates things?

The submission explains that it is intended merely to provide a different rule, and a somewhat different test for exoneration in the case of breaches of rules 15 or 16.

Please describe a situation that you think is made more complicated.

Oddvar, no, no - keep your remark about the starting mark, as it wasn´t wrong. I think Bill mixed up some things.
Section C rules (18, 19, 20) do not apply if we have navigable water around the starting mark, etc. etc. But 21 is now a section D rule and for sure also the rules of section A and B apply at a starting mark and its anchor line.....
Look at the following example:
At the starting signal two boats overlapped on starboard cross the line close to the committee boat as a starting mark, one to leeward, right of way and one to windward, give way.
While the boats have not passed the starting mark, leeward, right of way, suddenly luffed. There was no chance for windward, give way, to react because a) the luff of leeward was very fast and sharp and b) there was the starting mark and the achorline to windward. Contact, no damage or injury.
Clearly leeward, right of way, broke RRS 16.1. This is a section B rule, which applies here. Windward, give way, did not keep clear as required by RRS 11 (section A rule) but is exonerated by RRS 21, as she had the right to have room to keep clear. In other words she sailed within the room to which she was entitled (to keep clear), but this room  was not given to her.
To apply RRS 21 to situations simillar to this, it was moved from section C to D
Oddvar, personally I cannot see that this complicate things, I think its even clearer and more simple than before
Bill, a clear change from the old rules!
I did not look at RRS 14, because ouer focus here is RRS 21

 Willii - No, there is no change in the situation you describe. When the leeward boat changed course she was obliged by rule 16.1 to give windward room to keep clear. Room in this context means the time and space for windward to manoeuvre in a seaman like manner. Windward's only way to keep clear was to hit the CB which would not be considered seaman like so she had not been given room to keep clear as required by rule 16.1.

Windward's only option to avoid the CB was to break rule 11 but she was compelled to break this by leewards breach of rule 16.1. She is therefore entitled to exoneration under rule 64.1(a). The only change in the new rules is that windward is now exonerated under 21 as well as 64.1(a) but the result is that she is exonerated just like before - no change.

Hi Bill, Thank you for arguing, because we all only can  learn, when we discuss different views.
Two things, first, we agree that RRS 21 can apply at a starting mark...etc.
Secondly you exactly described the change in the rules!!!
In the old rules via RRS 64.1 you needed a hearing, so windward, give way, has to protest and can be exonerated by the PC.
Now, she is directly exonerated by a RRS (RRS 21). This is a major change!
Ask windward give way, what do you prefer: to protest leeward, right of way and perhaps wait until late in the evening for the hearing, or sail on, as you know you are exonerated.
I think,  the boat will be happy with this change in the rules. Don´t you?
I agree, the outcome of the two different ways may be the same, but sometimes the way itself is a major point..

I remain unconvinced it will make any difference to competitors. A boat has only broken a rule as a fact when it is found so by a Protest Committee in a Protest Hearing. It is only after a boat has been found to have broken a rule that the question of exoneration has to be considered, up until that point there are just allegations which may or may not be true.

In the case in question to get exoneration under 64.1(a) W would have to demonstrate that her breach of 11 was caused by the CB preventing her responding to the change of course and so she had not been given room to keep clear. To get exoneration under 21 she would have to demonstrate that she was sailing within room to which she was entitled which would be the room to luff more slowly in order to avoid the CB. These demonstrations and their timing are of course identical.

A boat may well believe that she is entitled to exoneration under either rule but until it is tested by a PC it remains just a belief and a boat races on after an incident at her peril that the PC will not find facts to support that she is entitled to exoneration under either rule.

Okay Bill, in this case we only can agree that we disagree.

Willin Gohl said

Hi Bill, Thank you for arguing, because we all only can learn, when we discuss different views.
Two things, first, we agree that RRS 21 can apply at a starting mark...etc. 
Secondly you exactly described the change in the rules!!!
In the old rules via RRS 64.1 you needed a hearing, so windward, give way, has to protest and can be exonerated by the PC.

This raises a 'philosophical' question about exoneration, whether a boat is exonerated by a decision or a protest committee or whether the rules do the exonerating, and the protest committee's conclusions are only recording what has already happened.

I am strongly of the belief that it is the rules that do the exoneration, that is, IF a rule is broken AND IF the conditions for exoneration in rules 14( b ), 21, or 64.1( a ) apply, the boat is exonerated from that instant.  That is to say, the boat is exonerated by the rules, NOT by the protest committee.

Bill Handley said

I remain unconvinced it will make any difference to competitors. A boat has only broken a rule as a fact when it is found so by a Protest Committee in a Protest Hearing. It is only after a boat has been found to have broken a rule that the question of exoneration has to be considered, up until that point there are just allegations which may or may not be true.

This raises another 'philosophical' issue.  Whether or not a boat has broken a rule is a fact, whether a protest committee reaches that conclusion or not.  It is a convention of our game that a protest committee is forbidden to assume that a boat has broken a rule or act as if a boat had broken a rule unless facts have been found and a conclusion reached to that effect in a protest committee, but that doesn't mean that the rule wasn't broken until the protest committee made the conclusion.  Remember, an Appeal Committee can always make a different finding about the fact.

But I agree with Bill that it is not necessary for a protest hearing to occur for a boat to be exonerated.

Hi John, May I remind you that RRS 64.1 starts with the sentence "When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing..." In other words we need a PC and a hearing to exoberate under RRS 64.1
RRS 21 doesn´t have this provision. In the old rules this exoneration by RRS 21 was limited to infringements of section C rules and now it is for section A rules RRS 15 or 16 and 31. As I said before:
"I agree, the outcome of the two different ways may be the same, but sometimes the way itself is a major point.."
Best,Willii

I forgot to say, that RRS 21 still applies for section C rules....

Rule 64.1 requires a that there is an identified boat who is a party in a hearing breaking a rule that compels another boat to break a rule, before that boat can be exonerated.
Rule 21 does not.
In other words, in the new 2017-2020 rules, the rules allow the PC to exonerate even when the boat who is at fault is not at the hearing.or even which boat it is. IF the PC find as fact that there was a - for example third unidentified leeward boat in the example Willii described - that forced the middle boat to luff and break 16.1, rule 21 allows them to exonerate Under 64.1 that was not possible.
That is a big difference in my opinion.

I don't think that Rule 64.1 does require that the boat breaking a rule and compelling the other boat to break a rule has to be a party to the hearing. The opening sentence of Rule 64.1 makes it clear that the boat that is to be penalised must be a party to a hearing but 64.1(a) only refers to "a boat" which may or may not be a party to a hearing.

This was covered in an ISAF Q&A a couple of years ago but does not seem to have made it through to a current WS case. From memory the question involved a busy Laser mark rounding where a boat was compelled to break a rule by an unidentified boat and the question was "could the boat be exonerated under 64,1(a)". The answer (and I am working from memory here) was that as long as there was sufficient evidence that the other boat had broken a rule and compelled the first boat to break a rule (in a practical sense this meant witnesses) then the first boat could be exonerated. Clearly the unidentified boat could not be a party to the hearing as she was unidentified.

If anyone has an old copy of the Q&As perhaps they could check tyhis and correct me if my memory proves wrong.

@Bill. Found the Q&A and you are right. I stand corrected.

J 006 Q&A 2010-003
Published: 14 January 2010
Assumed Facts for Questions 1 and 2:
Boats are approaching the port-hand windward mark on the starboard-tack layline. Some are
overlapped. Boat X, sailed single-handed, touches the mark and does not take a penalty. The
race committee observes this and lodges a valid protest against boat X.
In the hearing, boat X agrees that she touched the mark, but says that she was compelled to do
so because a windward boat did not give her mark-room and did not keep clear. She says that
she did not believe she was required either to take a penalty, or to protest the other boat. She
does not know the identity of the other boat. The protest committee hears evidence from boat X
of an overlap at zone entry inside the unknown boat. There is no evidence available from the
race committee or from any other boat as to any overlap by boat X with another boat. The race
committee witness cannot exclude the possibility that another boat was nearby and is certain that
no boat took a penalty at that mark.
Question 1:
In the absence of a protest by boat X against an identified boat for not giving mark-room, is a
protest committee entitled to exonerate boat X if it has no grounds for doubting her evidence, but
no possibility of confirming that evidence?
Answer 1:
Although whenever possible it would be wise to protest a boat that compels you to break a rule,
this is not in itself a requirement. However, without a protest and testimony from other boats or
witnesses, the protest committee may not be able to conclude, based on its facts found, that
another boat involved in the incident compelled you to break a rule. Without such a conclusion,
exoneration under rule 64.1(c) would not be available for the boat that claims she was compelled
to break a rule.
Normally, a boat should make sure to positively identify the other boat in an incident, however,
mark rounding in single-handed classes may be very crowded and it is not uncommon that the
competitors lose track of the identity of other boats rounding at the same time. For a protest to be
valid, the protestee must be identified, and there are cases when this will not be possible. Hence,
without a correct identification of the other boat, a protest has to be found invalid.
In itself, the lack of a protest by boat X and the lack of identification of the unknown boat, does
not make it impossible to exonerate boat X. The protest committee needs to find as facts that the
incident occurred as described by boat X and normally the protest committee will need to
consider more than just boat X’s testimony. Without any further testimony as basis for facts found
and conclusions, the likelihood of exoneration is not big.
Question 2:
If the answer to question 1 is No, does boat X break rule 2?
Answer 2:
It depends. Under the basic principle ‘Sportsmanship and the Rules’, boat X is expected to
enforce the rules. Under rule 2 boat X should compete in compliance with this principle. But boat
X may only be penalized under rule 2 if it is clearly established that this principle has been
violated.
Assumed Facts for Questions 3 and 4:
Boats are approaching the port-hand windward mark on the starboard-tack layline. Some are
overlapped. Boat A, sailed single-handed, is seen by boat B, astern, to touch the windward mark,
and not take a penalty. Boat B lodges a valid protest against boat A, referring to rule 31.
In the hearing, boat A agrees that she touched the mark, but says that she was compelled to do
so because a windward boat did not give her mark-room and did not keep clear. She does not
know the identity of the other boat. Boat B’s evidence is that there was indeed another boat that
appeared to have failed to keep clear of and failed to give mark-room to boat A. However, boat B
is also unable to identify the boat concerned.
Question 3:
In the absence of any identification of the boat that may have caused boat A to break rule 31, is
the protest committee entitled to exonerate boat A?
Answer 3:
Yes. Provided the protest committee concludes, based on its facts found, that an unidentified
boat did break a rule and compelled boat A to break rule 31, it may exonerate Boat A for breaking
rule 31 under rule 64.1(c).
The testimony from boat B that there was indeed a windward boat that appeared to fail to keep
clear and to give mark-room, makes it more likely that the protest committee can find sufficient
facts to conclude that boat A was compelled to break rule 31.
Question 4:
If the answer to question 3 is No, does boat A break rule 2?
Answer 4:
Not applicable.

Guys, Do we agree, that in questions 1 and 2 boat X was a party to a hearing? Do we agree that in questions 3 and 4 boat A was a party to a hearing? Do we agree that the PC exonerated the boats?
Best, Willii (just travelling, a little bit out of possibility to discuss)

Willii - I think we all agree on those points. The question was whether or not the unidentified boat had to be a party to the hearing for exoneration to be given under Rule 64.1(a), I thought it did not and this Q&A tends to confirm that view point although the question is so old that the exoneration rule back then was 64.1(c) as mentioned in the answer..

Bill, I thought that the question about the unidentified boat is irrelevant.
I think the rule is quite clear, the boat that may be exonerated has to be a party to a hearing, still!!! I understood this was the question. And for me this is the big difference between RRS 64.1 and RRS 21 and this is why RRS 21 now applies at a starting mark surrounded, etc. etc. Think of the start of the discussion.
However, I think the exchange of the thoughts was/is very valuable.

Willi Gohl said

Hi John, May I remind you that RRS 64.1 starts with the sentence "When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing..." In other words we need a PC and a hearing to exoberate under RRS 64.1
RRS 21 doesn´t have this provision. In the old rules this exoneration by RRS 21 was limited to infringements of section C rules and now it is for section A rules RRS 15 or 16 and 31. As I said before: 
"I agree, the outcome of the two different ways may be the same, but sometimes the way itself is a major point.."

Willi, thank you for drawing my attention to the introductory words in rule 64.1.

However <g>, I see that the sentence introducing the exoneration provision of that rule, subparagraph  ( a ), begins with the word 'However'.

My dictionary (Shorter Oxford) variously defines 'however' to mean 'in any case, ... nevertheless, ... notwitstanding'

I thus understand this exoneration provision to mean 'in any case, whether the preceding part of the rule applies or not ... [ a ) ... a boat shall be exonerated'.

I don't think a particular set of words used in a now-lapsed Q&A, which did not set out to resolve the particular philosophical issue and only used the words in passing, are determinative.

Hoewver <g>, as you said, we may have to agree to disagree and  said the [practical] outcome may be the same.  This is merely a philosophical difference.  The only time that judges should be expressing a conclusion about whether a boat is exonerated or not, is after having found relevant facts in a hearing of a valid protest, in which case, it doesn't matter whether the rules or the judges do the exonerating. 

Willi Gohl said

Guys, Do we agree, that in questions 1 and 2 boat X was a party to a hearing? Do we agree that in questions 3 and 4 boat A was a party to a hearing? Do we agree that the PC exonerated the boats?
Best, Willii (just travelling, a little bit out of possibility to discuss)

Bill Handley said

Willii - I think we all agree on those points. The question was whether or not the unidentified boat had to be a party to the hearing for exoneration to be given under Rule 64.1(a), I thought it did not and this Q&A tends to confirm that view point although the question is so old that the exoneration rule back then was 64.1(c) as mentioned in the answer.

As a wise old teacher of mine once said 'Many a man has walked down the High Street to the Bankruptcy Court because he didn't read the question.'

The question  asked in both Questions 1 and 3 was ' is a protest committee entitled to exonerate boat X?'

There is nothing in the Q&A about whether a protest committee did exonerate a boat.

I agree with Bill that the issue raised by the Q&A was whether a boat could be exonerated where a boat that compelled her to break a rule was not identified, and with a great amount of verbiage, Answer !, to that question was 'yes'.

And I agree with Willi that Answer 1 said 'Without ... a conclusion [that another boat broke a rule] exoneration under rule 64.1(c) would not be available for the boat that claims she was compelled to break a rule.'

I don't agree with that answer, and I'm glad that the Q&A was never binding in the first place and has now lapsed.

Thank you for all the answers. I have been traveling and not had the opportunity to comment . I do not think the change gets such big consequences during daily sailing between boats. But I think we will see some Q&A in The future. Thank you to all and good sailing!