Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
New Rule 14
John Standley
Certifications:
International Judge
0
I agree with Mark T that we need a separate rule 14 discussion as I think there may be some traps (and maybe unfairness) for the right of way boat, so I am happy to get the ball rolling by posing this question. The scenario image.png38.7 KB
Yellow is clear astern when Blue enters the zone.
Yellow has difficulty getting her spinnaker down and is travelling faster than Blue
Blue realises that if she were to ‘close the door’ there may be contact.
Blue leaves what she believes is enough room, but the boats become very close and Yellow hits the mark.
There is no contact between the boats.
Yellow's spinnaker sheet wraps round the mark and her spinnaker gets torn as a result.
Both boats yell ‘protest’ and display flags.
Yellow promptly sails clear and completes a two-turn penalty.
Seeing Yellow take her turns Blue removes her protest flag.
Yellow submits a protest alleging Blue could and should have given more room and that Blue has broken rule 14(c) and cannot be exonerated under 43.1(c) as there was damage.
What is your decision?
.
Created: 24-Nov-11 04:32
Comments
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
There is an enormous body of law about causation, and I was surprised to see causation inserted into 2025 RRS 14, and I suspect that the rules drafters didn't realise what they would be getting themselves into.
There are a number of possible causes of Y making contact with the mark:
B by changing course close to the mark left Y with no other course of action but to make contact with the mark
Y's inadequate seamanship and boat handling,
Y's choice to attempt to round the mark to leeward instead of baling out to windward.
I think Blue's defence to Yellows protest would be that
She gave Y room to keep clear but if she failed to do so she is exonerated by RRS 43.1(c).
The cause of Yellow contact with the mark was her choice to attempt to round the mark between the mark and B and/or her inadequate seamanship and boat handling.
B's removal of her protest flag is irrelevant: A hearing of Y's valid protest will address all of the incident.
Created: 24-Nov-11 05:22
David Nieman
Nationality: South Africa
0
As Blue is in the zone first with yellow clear astern, there is no obligation for Blue to give mark room. Yellow is the keep clear boat Rule 11 (windward leeward) when she overlaps blue. Yellows obvious action even with battling with her spinaker is to bail out to windward in order to keep clear and then turn back and re-round the mark, or slow down to keep clear of Blue and the mark. Yellow continuing her course and hitting the mark is due to her action/choice alone. Yellow exonerates herself for breaking rule 31 by taking her penalty turn for hitting the mark.
Created: 24-Nov-11 07:16
John Standley
Certifications:
International Judge
0
David N, In this scenario I think we would all agree that Yellow should probably have tried to go the wrong side of the mark, but the fact is she didn't. Bue recognised that she was not going to do so and gave room to try to avoid any contact. As there was no contact between the boats, she had no belief of a possible breach of rule 14. Under the current rules she hasn't broken 14. Under the new rules I think she may. This is a significant change. The point I am trying to bring out is the possible jeopardy for Blue in such a situation. If there is contact between the boats and Blue feels at risk under rule 14, she is at liberty to take a turns penalty which is OK if there is not serious damage. (rule 44) Blue however is not always in a position to know if Yellow may have hit the mark and is certainly not aware if there is damage. IF the PC felt Blue could have given more room so Yellow could have avoided hitting the mark my question is; Has Blue broken 14(c)? And, if she has, does the fact there is damage mean that, even though she is RoW and entitled to mark-room, she cannot be exonerated? Under the current rules the contact and damage referred to in rule 43.1(c) relates only to the two boats. Does damage in 43.1(c) now refer equally to damage between the other boat and a third boat or object?
Created: 24-Nov-11 08:59
Ant Davey
Certifications:
National Judge
International Judge
Umpire In Training
0
It depends. Wind speed, boat speed and sea state all need to be considered. At what point could yellow not have luffed to windward of the mark? At what point did it become clear that yellow was not going to give mark room? Yes, there is an expectation of a reasonable level of seamanhip from yellow. But, it may also have been possible, given an appropriate amount of time, for blue to have borne away so that yellow did not have to contact the object to be avoided. Though rarely humble, these are only my opinions, and I'm ready to stand corrected.
Created: 24-Nov-11 09:00
David Nieman
Nationality: South Africa
0
Thanks John. Could Blue not argue that Rule 14c applies to Yellow? The rule 14c says "A Boat" shall not cause contact between "A Boat" and an object that should be avoided. By Yellow's actions she is the boat caused the contact with the mark. It may also only have become apparent to Blue that Yellow had no intention of keeping clear only at position 4. At position 3, Yellow was still able to turn up to windward and circle back. At position 4 Blue has begun turning up and rounding the mark and would have to make an extremely drastic bear away as yellow barged in.
The interpretation of 14c could become problematic for a PC (and a ROW boat) as it seems to allow for a keep clear boat to barge into a gap that isnt there and thus prejudice a ROW boat
Created: 24-Nov-11 10:11
John Standley
Certifications:
International Judge
0
David, You say 'The interpretation of 14c could become problematic for a PC (and a ROW boat) as it seems to allow for a keep clear boat to barge into a gap that isnt there and thus prejudice a ROW boat' That is my point exactly and the difficulty a PC may have in determining who has 'caused' the contact and who could or maybe should have avoided it. I generally don't like rules that muddy the waters and give a keep clear boat an escape and have a concern we may just have created another situation where this may be the case. Will be interested in what others think and how this evolves.
Created: 24-Nov-11 10:22
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John S ... looking at the interaction of RRS 43.1(c) and RRS 14 in 2025, I think it's clear that the absence of a "however" note for 14 (b) and (c) might be problematic.
John A gets to the rub as well as one can cause something by both action and inaction. Causality is a wet watermelon seed.
So .. is the problem mainly in RRS 43.1(c) or is it in RRS 14's "however" clause?
My first instinct was to structure the "however" to exclude (b) and (c) when the current "however" is satisfied ... (wording will need some work .. but just to get the idea across).
However, a right-of-way boat, or one sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled, need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clearor giving room or mark-room. [Such a boat does not break rule 14(b) or 14(c).]
So ... now if the causality involves the unpredictability of a KC boat, the ROW/room boat can't be found to have "caused" the contact.
Does that close the holes we are most concerned with?
Created: 24-Nov-11 12:50
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
PS: or is it the structure of (a), (b) and (c)?
Right, now they are equal with an AND. They could be structured such that ONLY IF NOT (a), ONLY THEN (b) or (c) are possible ... which maybe we can do with a properly placed OR? (My friend Ric Crabbe will check me on that computer-logic).
The above doesn't work. Scratch that idea.
Created: 24-Nov-11 12:55
P
Benjamin Harding
Certifications:
International Judge
National Judge
Club Judge
Judge In Training
0
A boat shall a, b and c.
Created: 24-Nov-11 13:10
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Ben ... yea ... it's not the structure of (a) - (c). The exclusion of (b) and (c) has to rely upon the satisfied "however" condition of (a) .. which is downstream of the basic structure.
Created: 24-Nov-11 13:14
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
1
Angelo said ' looking at the interaction of RRS 43.1(c) and RRS 14 in 2025, , I think it's clear that the absence of a "however" note for 14 (b) and (c) might be problematic. '
I don't think there's any problem there.
RRS 43.1(c) provides exoneration where a boat breaks RRS 14, and there is no injury or damage.
The 'however' condition in RRS 14 is about a boat not breaking RRS 14 at all.
The 'however' condition only works for RRS 14(a) because it only refers to 'avoid contact'.
I don't think this was intentional.
Created: 24-Nov-11 13:21
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John A re: "The 'however' condition in RRS 14 is about a boat not breaking RRS 14 at all.The 'however' condition only works for RRS 14(a) because it only refers to 'avoid contact'. I don't think that was intentional"
That's what I'm saying with the exclusion of (b) and (c) when the 14(a) "however" is satisfied.
Does something like that help? (Wording needs a lot of work)
However, a right-of-way boat, or one sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled, need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clearor giving room or mark-room. [Such a If contact occurs, the boat does not break rule 14.]
Created: 24-Nov-11 13:27
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Race Officer
International Umpire
International Judge
1
Under the 2025-2028 rules the following conclusions and decision could be reached. Conclusions 5 and 6 are the change.
CONCLUSIONS
Yellow to windward failed to keep clear of Blue to leeward, and broke RRS 11.
Yellow clear astern at the time Blue reached the zone failed to give Blue mark-room, and broke RRS 18.2(b).
Yellow touched the mark and broke RRS 31.
Since Yellow caused serious damage, her penalty was to retire as required by RRS 44.1(b).
Blue caused contact between Yellow and the mark, an object that should be avoided, and broke RRS 14(c),
Since Blue caused serious damage, Blue cannot be exonerated under RRS 43.1(c) for breaking RRS 14(c).
DECISION
Yellow is DSQ
Blue is DSQ
It should have the desired effect of further discouraging contact.
Created: 24-Nov-11 13:46
Doc Sullivan
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
National Judge
National Umpire
0
Yellow deliberately broke rule ll, took room that they were not entitled to to gain an advantage thus breaking Rule 2. Blue should not have to anticipate yellow’s poor sail handling and gave what she thought was enough room so she should not be penalized under 14 as the damage was caused by the poor sail handling, not her action. Unclear if she did break 14b
Created: 24-Nov-11 13:56
P
John Allan
Certifications:
National Judge
Regional Race Officer
0
Ang, Does something like that help?
I wouldn't go anywhere near that until there are some appeals and cases that tell us what 'cause' means.
Created: 24-Nov-11 14:08
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Mark ... what are your FF's for above?
Created: 24-Nov-11 14:13
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
In OP's scenario, I have a hard time finding that Blue caused the contact given that Yellow knew (or should have known) that Blue would be sailing close to the mark, following her proper course.
I will say, is this a scenario where communication might become "required" in that blue needs to say "no room" to yellow, so the relationship is announced (if not necessarily agreed upon). We have very few places where communication is required between boats, but mark-room is always one where I want people to talk more than they're required to do. Maybe this is a way of softly necessitating this so Yellow in fact knows Blue's intentions.
Created: 24-Nov-11 14:16
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
1
Looking at this scenario ... and Marks C5 ... it puts the concept of "room made freely available" on its head.
If we accept Mark's C5, a boat that is entitled to MR will have to leave enough room for all potential bargers ... large enough that they can be confident there is no chance of damage.
Now the bargers see room being freely made available to them and can take it.
This seems like a heck of a future-telling burden on ROW boats and those entitled to room and MR.
Created: 24-Nov-11 14:27
John Standley
Certifications:
International Judge
0
As I said earlier I don't like rules that muddy the water. I am not sure what the rules writers intended other than to try to keep boats from hitting each other or a boat causing another boat to hit anything else. The problem comes in how that is interpreted. I know I would be pretty upset if I was Blue and came out of this scenario with a dsq. The whole situation was caused by the improper actions of Yellow. Blue is simply going about their business and gets highjacked. I am not, however, convinced that is what the rules now say - which would make it a bad rule imo. Yellow knew she was wrong and took a penalty and I think it would be sharp practice for her to protest under 14(c) but if a pickle dish was on the line, then someone might try.
There are several cases in the case book that refer to rule 14 and I assume they will be updated so, maybe, best to stop speculating at this stage and see if the matter gets clarified in the case book when it is issued.
Created: 24-Nov-11 14:36
Kevin Wyp
Nationality: United States
0
Question for Yellow (not for PC): What did Yellow do to avoid contact with Blue, inside the Zone at the Mark rounding ?
Created: 24-Nov-11 14:46
Kevin Wyp
Nationality: United States
0
Yellow could have avoided hitting the Mark; why did it not take those actions?
Created: 24-Nov-11 14:51
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Race Officer
International Umpire
International Judge
0
Angelo, the fact open to interpretation in my mind is that "Blue believes she has left sufficient room, but the boats come very close, and Yellow hits the mark."
If the protest committee concludes that, despite Blue's belief, she did not provide Yellow with enough room to avoid contact with the mark, Blue breaks rule 14(c). However, if the protest committee finds that Blue did provide Yellow with enough room to avoid the mark, and the contact occurred due to Yellow's poor boat handling, then Blue would not break rule 14(c).
We will see what happens when the 2025-2028 Case Book is issued.
Created: 24-Nov-11 14:52
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John S re: "There are several cases in the case book that refer to rule 14 and I assume they will be updated so, maybe, best to stop speculating at this stage and see if the matter gets clarified in the case book when it is issued."
There are several folk on the RulesComm's that follow the forum. To the extent that our open discussion provides food for thought and test-scenarios ... it might be actually helpful to hash it out.
Created: 24-Nov-11 15:41
P
Benjamin Harding
Certifications:
International Judge
National Judge
Club Judge
Judge In Training
1
I just can't see how it can be concluded that Blue 'caused' yellow's collision with the mark.
If Yellow had sailed wider and called for more space, would Blue have given more? We'll never know. But it seems like Blue was pretty aware of her obligation to avoid contact making it likely that more space would have been given by Blue.
What we do know is Blue sailed wide enough to avoid contact with Yellow. We know Yellow sailed lubberly, mishandling her sails, and Yellow had no rights to be where she was. We know that Yellow could have perhaps sailed the wrong side of the mark to avoid all contacts, and Blue without a 'magic 8-ball or an eagle eye overhead view was in no position to know what was happening above her.
If Yellow really does try to claim Blue's position 'caused' her to hit the mark (which I don't accept for a minute), at the very least I'd say it was not reasonably possible for Blue not to have 'been' that cause, given that the mark touch was Yellow's poor seamanship...er. ..ness, which Blue has no control over. In which case Blue cannot be found to have broken 14(c), per the important but seemingly forgotten three words of the rule - "if reasonably possible..." .
Truth be told, I'm having trouble seeing what all the issue is with the new (old actually-see High Speed Rules since 2020) rule 14.
To clarify, I can see how a literal interpretation could lead to confusion, but sometimes we need other strategies to interpret rules. (Purposive, Golden Rule and even perhaps, Occam's Razor could help here!)
Well, as Mark says, we may need a casebook entry to let us know which path of interpretation to take.
Created: 24-Nov-11 15:49
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
1
I'm having a 'through no fault of her own' moment.
It seems like people are penalizing Blue for Yellow's choice to hit the mark instead of Blue. Which is a better option depends on the type of mark, an inflatable vs a government buoy. I don't think if Yellow hit Blue instead of the mark we would be having this thread.
Yellow had options other than hitting the mark. They could have hit Blue or hit neither by going on the wrong side of the mark. And those options were reasonably possible long before Yellow tried to go between Blue and the mark Once you establish that, you cannot say that Blue 'caused' Yellow to hit the mark. It isn't Blue's fault that Yellow chose a bad option.
The however clause simply marks a point in time when a boat, Blue in this case, needs to begin acting to avoid contact. That is the point in time when we start to evaluate what was 'reasonably possible'. This helps a PC decide that 'reasonably possible' didn't start when the boat left the dock, when Blue could easily have avoided the situation. This is similar to the 'reasonable apprehension' concept in Case 50. It helps us put boundaries on the subjective parts of the relevant rules.
IMHO however we interpret this, the answer needs to be the same whether Yellow hits (a) Blue, (b) another boat, or (c) an object.
Created: 24-Nov-11 18:45
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
I can see the concern, but I'm not sure its really a barger's charter. I think the boat that takes advantage of room freely available has to have sufficient space that there is no doubt that she kept clear right through the rounding. I should have thought that a PC would have to be confident that ROW did not alter her course to make space for Give Way.
Created: 24-Nov-11 21:10
Hans Cimutta
Nationality: Germany
Certifications:
National Judge
1
Hi, let my try to solve the problem (for Blue) here:
Is the mark "an object that should be avoided"? - a boat shall not touch a mark according 31 and a mark is "an object the sailing instructions require a boat to leave on a specified side". Both things are not explicitly saying you should avoid a mark. In fact sailors often want to sail as close as they can past a mark to not sail a longer way. Was the mark a soft regatta buoy or out of sharp metal? I think the wording leaves it very open to interpretation what one should avoid. Should cold water be avoided for fear of hypothermia? Does one break 14 when causing another boat to luff and dunk her trapezing crew into the water? I think we need a case or chapter in the judges manual that states what "objects that should be avoided" are.
Did Blue cause the contact between the mark and yellow? Wasn't it Yellow that caused the contact by sailing between Blue and the mark at 3.5 in the picture? Wasn't it the out-of position sheet of Yellow that caused the contact?
In any case Yellow, by breaking 18, 11 and choosing to sail in-between the mark and Blue, compelled Blue to break 14 (and maybe 16). Exonerate Blue according to 43.1a.
One does not need to anticipate, that another boat will break a rule. This is stated in multiple cases. Case 27 for instance (Old book of course, as there is not a 2025 version yet).
The defence would be way easier/more clear if the second part would be written like: "...need not act to avoid or not cause contact until ..." Then Blue could argue that it was not reasonable possible to not cause the contact, from the moment Yellow made it clear that she would not pass astern or slow down. This exact moment was after 3 and Blue even reacted by not luffing to close hauled (which I presume would be normal course).
Created: 24-Nov-12 03:19
P
Benjamin Harding
Certifications:
International Judge
National Judge
Club Judge
Judge In Training
1
Hans,
A good post, which I agree with 99%. Thanks.
Just, I think 'in normal English use 'a mark is an object which should be avoided' by existence of rule 31!
That's all. Otherwise I agree with you in many ways. I was also considering at one point 43.1(a).
B
Created: 24-Nov-12 04:27
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
International Race Officer
International Umpire
International Judge
1
Hans "Is the mark "an object that should be avoided"?"
Yes. See MR CALL D1. "It is not seamanlike to hit a mark."
Created: 24-Nov-12 04:33
John Standley
Certifications:
International Judge
0
Hans, I deliberately worded the scenario to identify what I feel may become an issue for an otherwise RoW boat entitled to room. Yes, Yellow chose to sail there. Yes, it was Yellow's fault the sheet got caught. But Yellow acknowledged all of this and took a turns penalty as allowed under 44.1. Blue saw all this potentially happening and could have given more room for Yellow to miss the mark. However as Blue may not be aware of the contact and that it may be considered she might break 14.(c) she does not take an on-water penalty and becomes at risk of dsq. I don't think any of us would like this outcome. I do not think Blue was compelled to break the rule as, in this scenario, she was able to give more room but misjudged it so I think that rules out 43.1(a), much as I would like to apply it. The fact that you, and others, have suggested alternative wording which may help to clarify the situation probably means there is a potential issue here, which was the point of the original post. In scenarios like this when the whole situation is caused by Yellow which is breaking several rules, I am thinking along the lines that 14 should not be a stand-alone rule for the RoW boat or one entitled to room, and she should have to be breaking another rule for her to also be partly responsible for breaking 14. Not sure how that might translate into rules language though and it will probably not satisfy the need to keep boats apart. That said I feel the boat responsible for the rules breach, Yellow in this case, should have to accept total responsibility and not be given a potential opportunity to blame the other boat.
Created: 24-Nov-12 07:10
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John C re: "The however clause simply marks a point in time when a boat, Blue in this case, needs to begin acting to avoid contact. That is the point in time when we start to evaluate what was 'reasonably possible'. "
That's a nice way to frame what I feel we are collectively saying is either missing or at least not clear in the new 14.
For 14(a), "however" allows the ROW/entitled boat to sail her boat under the assumption that the KC/obligated boat will do what they are supposed to.. until it is clear they are not. After that point, if it was not reasonably possible for the ROW/entitled boat to avoid contact, then she does not break 14.
If that time analysis was applied to 14 as a whole, does that help? I'm using adjustments in the 14's wording to try to get at the heart of the issue.
However, a right-of-way boat, or one sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled, need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clearor giving room or mark-room. At that point, if it is not reasonably possible for the ROW/entitled boat to avoid contact [comply with rule 14(b) or 14(c)], she does not break 14.
Applying the above to the OP, up until almost 3.5, Yellow had opportunity to miss the mark to windward. Actually, the OP shows Yellow significantly altering course toward Blue between 3-3.5. That movement toward Blue could have just as likely been the start of an attempt to take Blue's stern and follow her around.
All that above, I'd contend that it is not clear until 3.5 that yellow isn't going to keep clear and at that point it's not possible for Yellow to avoid contact with either Blue or the mark.
Applying the addition above, we can find that Blue did not break 14 in total.
PS: More better ?? (certainly cleaner .. but does it do it?)
However, a right-of-way boat, or one sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled, need not act to avoid contact[comply with rules 14(a), (b) or (c)] until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room.
Created: 24-Nov-12 12:54
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Huh ... Interesting aside re: 14(b) .. we often say that when applying the rules of Part 2 .. we always apply them between 2 boats at a time.
Does 14(b) now break that adage? It seems to be applied between a boat and multiple "other" boats simultaneously.
Created: 24-Nov-12 14:00
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
Is it much different from the situation with mark room? Given 7 overlapped boats round a mark, whilst the rule only applies between individual pairs of boats, the outside boat has to provide enough room for all to pass the mark. Similarly in this case, whilst the outside boat only has to to give the next boat enough space to avoid contact with an object, if there were multiple overlapped boats between the outside boat and the inside object there would have to be enough space left for all to pass it.
Created: 24-Nov-12 14:42
P
Niko Kotsatos
Certifications:
Judge In Training
0
Blue leaves what she believes is enough room, but the boats become very close and Yellow hits the mark. There is no contact between the boats. Yellow's spinnaker sheet wraps round the mark and her spinnaker gets torn as a result.
I deliberately worded the scenario to identify what may become an issue for an otherwise RoW boat entitled to room. Yes, Yellow chose to sail there. Yes, it was Yellow's fault the sheet got caught. Blue saw all this potentially happening and could have given more room for Yellow to miss the mark.
Strikethrough is mine, as I don't agree or believe that's something Blue can be asked to do given Y's last second hard turn.
Bolded items are also problematic for me.
IMO, this scenario does not do what it claims to. (I'm also skeptical there's not a collision at 3.5.)
Two ways I can easily be convinced the mark-room boat "caused" the collision are... (1) if the GW+GR boat are already between her and the mark when she turns, then she causes a collision, even if sailing within her rights.
image.png23.3 KB (2) if the GR boat is GW and tries to take her legally allowed room despite being GW. image.png29.1 KB Scenario 1 adds risk to the swing-wide and cut-close tactics that the new rules specifically allow, and I'm OK with it. Scenario 2 is already a foul in the old rules, because even as MR boat, she is still GW. All this does is change it so that she's still at fault if she causes G and R to contact even if she's not involved herself. I'm good with that too.
Created: 24-Nov-12 16:29
Douglas McKnight
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
0
Angelo said:
Huh ... Interesting aside re: 14(b) .. we often say that when applying the rules of Part 2 .. we always apply them between 2 boats at a time.
Does 14(b) now break that adage? It seems to be applied between a boat and multiple "other" boats simultaneously. Created: Today 07:00
Indeed. This was one of my first thoughts on this rule. How far does the "causal chain" extend and how many boats may be involved? Does a starboard tack boat sailing towards a large tight clump of port tack boats have to try to anticipate what will be "caused" if they hold their course and chaos erupts within the clump?
Doug
Created: 24-Nov-12 19:58
Phil Mostyn
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
National Umpire
0
Hi John,
To me, at position 3, in the original diagram, it is still not clear that Yellow is not keeping clear, because Yellow has the clear option and obligation of sailing to windward of the mark, as is her responsibility. It really doesn't become clear until yellow pokes her bow in, at which point it is too late , ie., unreasonable for Blue to avoid contact or cause damage.
"However, a right-of-way boat, or one sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled, need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room"
My penny worth?Blue is 'protected by the last sentence of rule 14. Decision............protest dismissed.
Cheers mate, Phil.
Created: 24-Nov-13 05:40
Phil Mostyn
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
National Judge
National Umpire
0
After thought - the words "or cause damage" could be inserted into the last sentence between the words"Contact" and "until"., which would make it's meaning clear, but is the change really necessary? Phil.
Created: 24-Nov-13 05:45
P
Benjamin Harding
Certifications:
International Judge
National Judge
Club Judge
Judge In Training
0
Not necessary.
Created: 24-Nov-13 10:09
P
Benjamin Harding
Certifications:
International Judge
National Judge
Club Judge
Judge In Training
0
Does it help to think that both 'cause' and 'avoid' are used as action words?
To cause contact needs action, as does 'to avoid' contact.
Or..
Contact is 'caused' by a boat's action and contact is 'avoided' by a boat's action.
In 14(a) a boat is required to take an action and 'However' clause tells that boat how long she can put that action off.
No action is required in 14(b-c). So no need to have a similar 'However' for those rules.
In OP scenario, many appear to believe that Blue should have borne away and sailed wider. There isn't a rule which requires her to do that.
So long as Blue complies with 14(a) (which she did) she has complied with rule 14.
14(b) doesn't require Blue to sail wider. It requires that Blue does not close the door if it was ever open.
Look...
If a starboard boat is sailing upwind (had been for some time) and meets a gaggle of port boats who scramble and bounce off each other as they try to avoid her, starboard has not 'caused' the ensuing mayhem and collisions between the port boats. Starboard took no 'action' to cause their collisions. It was the 'inactions' of the port gaggle and failure to comply with the rules.
14(b) doesn't require the starboard boat to choose another path upwind! That's just absurd to even think that.
Alternatively though, if starboard had only just gained starboard rights by tacking right in front of the port gaggle, that action would break 14(b).
So, in summary, 14(a)tells boats to act, 14(b-c) tells boats not to act..
What am I missing?
Created: 24-Nov-13 10:57
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
Ben re: "No action is required in 14(b-c). So no need to have a similar 'However' for those rules. "
I agree that avoid and cause are both actions that a boat "acts" to do.
This gets back to John A's original point. Causation is tricky. A ROW boat that sails without altering course could be found to have caused contact. The Chinese man who stands in the street holding his groceries in the path of a column of tanks .. acts to cause those tanks to stop by standing in the way.
As you say, currently "however" only covers 14(a) and does so by repeating the words of 14(a) "to avoid contact". By replacing "avoid" contact" with "[to comply with rules 14(a), (b) or (c)]" I think properly limits a ROW/room-entitled boat's liability to the time period when it should be obvious she needs to "act"
Created: 24-Nov-13 12:30
P
Benjamin Harding
Certifications:
International Judge
National Judge
Club Judge
Judge In Training
0
The Chinese man who stands in the street holding his groceries in the path of a column of tanks...
I would say we need to ask how the scenario commenced. (Isn't this the crux?)
1. Man was there having lunch in the middle of public park for some time. The tanks turned on a collision course with him. - Man hasn't 'acted' to cause the situation. Man hasn't done anything. Hasn't broken 14(b).
Or
2. Man saw the tanks rumbling down the street and stepped out in front of them so they had no chance of missing him. - Man has 'acted' by stepping out. Man caused the contact. 14(b) busted.
Causation can be tricky, or it can be simple.
I reiterate, 'however' simply tells how long the required action may be delayed.
14(b) and 14(c) are not rules which require an action (if you accept that 'shall not cause' simply means shall not make an action which puts boats into a contact situation (when it didn't originally exist).
Anyway, I'm not sure that we can go any further with this. We'll have to wait for an interpretation from those powers that be.
Created: 24-Nov-13 12:46
John Porter
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
National Judge
Club Race Officer
0
I think there's a missing piece in this conversation. You must have contact to break rule 14. You don't have contact with a mark in RRS 31. You touch a mark. As such, the damage is not caused by contact and rule 14 doesn't apply, so blue doesn't need exoneration.
Created: Mon 14:13
P
Benjamin Harding
Certifications:
International Judge
National Judge
Club Judge
Judge In Training
1
What's the difference between 'contact' and a 'touch'?
Created: Mon 17:09
John Porter
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
National Judge
Club Race Officer
-1
The difference is that every word matters, and the rules committee is deliberate with their words. Practically, touching a mark rarely causes damage while contact between boats does.
Created: Mon 17:39
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
National Judge
National Umpire
2
John P - that depends on where you sail and the courses. On SF Bay many to most of the 'regular' marks are government marks that are big and metal. Fiberglass loses every time. I think the rule writers are trying to cover the case when forced with the choice of hitting/touching/contacting a mark versus a boat, the mark is preferrable.
In the extreme, we have a lot of seals and sea lions that sun themselves on the marks. By law you aren't allowed to disturb them and if you hit the mark and they jump off you could be protested for breaking those laws! :-D
Created: Mon 17:48
Al Sargent
0
To emphasize John’s point: sea lions and seals are found on buoys up and down the California coast. As carnivores, they have large fangs. It’s pretty scary when getting close to a mark with them since they anger easily and can essentially kill you. So, while it's true that touching an inflatable mark rarely causes damage, touching a seal-occupied buoy can lead to serious injury to a crew.
Created: Mon 21:06
Douglas McKnight
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Club Judge
0
What if Blue is removed from the John's original scenario? Yellow hits the mark and tears her spinnaker through her own poor seamanship.
If a mark is, indeed, an "object that should be avoided" then does Yellow break Rule 14 (c)?
If not, why not?
Yellow does cause "a boat" (herself) to hit the "object that should be avoided". Note that 14(a) explicitly refers to "another boat", whereas 14(c) says "a boat".
Doug
Created: Mon 23:41
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
The "however clause", after a little more cooking time ...
However, a right-of-way boat, or one sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled, need not act to avoid contact[comply with rules 14(a), (b) or (c)] until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear, or[not] giving room or mark-room, [or is unable to avoid contact with another boat or object].
Does that capture what many are saying here?
Created: Tue 12:02
P
Angelo Guarino
Certifications:
Regional Judge
Fleet Measurer
0
John P re: "You must have contact to break rule 14."
Not sure if above's use of "you" was specific to your point or not. If it was, I think the point of 14(b)(c) is that in 2025 "you" don't have to have contact to break 14 ... "you" can cause contact that doesn't involve "you" and still break 14.
Created: Yesterday 12:48
Philip Hubbell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
Club Race Officer
Judge In Training
0
I think that the new rule in many instances dictates "avoid and protest."
Created: Yesterday 23:22
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
"Avoid and protest" seems a good description, and on the whole a desirable outcome too.
We mentioned room made freely available above. It seems to me that in a protest situation it will be hard for "sneak in" to defend against "I was not making room freely available, I was forced to make space for" barger in" so as to comply with rule 14. It seems to me that a possible effect of new RRS14 could make it harder for a give way or give room boat to avoid being penalised, since it seems to me to strengthen the concept that no contact does not mean no rule broken.
Created: Today 05:55
P
Benjamin Harding
Certifications:
International Judge
National Judge
Club Judge
Judge In Training
0
Can someone help to clarify what they define/interpret 'cause' to mean?
Created: Today 07:38
John Standley
Certifications:
International Judge
0
An appropriate meaning from my dictionary: to make something happen, especially something bad. In the terms of 14(b) and (c) To do something that leads to a collision between other boats or another boat and an object
Created: Today 08:40
Ant Davey
Certifications:
National Judge
International Judge
Umpire In Training
0
Response to 'avoid and protest' : s/he sailed wide of the mark, so I was only taking space available. Albeit rather wordy, I like Ang's rewrite of the However... clause. Unless the powers that be decide to delete (c) !
Created: Today 08:56
Jim Champ
Nationality: United Kingdom
0
Ant, I suppose a case would help, but my feeling is it would be hard for a 'taking space' defence to succeed unless there were something like a raft up or a tidal push involved.
Can we look at Case 50 for some clues? If ROW alters course in a way that delays her I think that would be strong evidence room was not freely given, and most especially if room was not given until boats were overlapped/at close quarters/serious risk of collision. Genuine and reasonable apprehension of contact to mirror the case.
Conversely if a gap was there before give way got close and it would not have been possible for ROW to close the gap then a room freely given defence ought to succeed. It seems to me at the very least Give way needs to keep clear through the entire manouver.
Created: Today 09:39
P
Benjamin Harding
Certifications:
International Judge
National Judge
Club Judge
Judge In Training
0
JohnS,
I'm happy with that. Note the verbs 'make' / 'do'.
I want to now add some logic.
Your definitions must only apply if there was originally no inevitable collision in the first place.
e.g. If there was already a collision going to occur, a boat's subsequent actions can't be said to have 'caused' the collision. Alternatively, if there was no collision going to happen, and a boat 'did something' to 'make' a collision happen she could be said to have 'caused' the collision.
14(b) says a boat shall not do/make. (I. e. If there is not a collision going to happen, don't create one.)
It doesn't say that a boat shall take evasive or avoiding action.
I just can't see the problem with this rule if JohnS's definitions are used.
There are a number of possible causes of Y making contact with the mark:
I think Blue's defence to Yellows protest would be that
B's removal of her protest flag is irrelevant: A hearing of Y's valid protest will address all of the incident.
Yellow is the keep clear boat Rule 11 (windward leeward) when she overlaps blue.
Yellows obvious action even with battling with her spinaker is to bail out to windward in order to keep clear and then turn back and re-round the mark, or slow down to keep clear of Blue and the mark.
Yellow continuing her course and hitting the mark is due to her action/choice alone.
Yellow exonerates herself for breaking rule 31 by taking her penalty turn for hitting the mark.
In this scenario I think we would all agree that Yellow should probably have tried to go the wrong side of the mark, but the fact is she didn't. Bue recognised that she was not going to do so and gave room to try to avoid any contact. As there was no contact between the boats, she had no belief of a possible breach of rule 14. Under the current rules she hasn't broken 14. Under the new rules I think she may. This is a significant change.
The point I am trying to bring out is the possible jeopardy for Blue in such a situation.
If there is contact between the boats and Blue feels at risk under rule 14, she is at liberty to take a turns penalty which is OK if there is not serious damage. (rule 44)
Blue however is not always in a position to know if Yellow may have hit the mark and is certainly not aware if there is damage.
IF the PC felt Blue could have given more room so Yellow could have avoided hitting the mark my question is;
Has Blue broken 14(c)?
And, if she has, does the fact there is damage mean that, even though she is RoW and entitled to mark-room, she cannot be exonerated?
Under the current rules the contact and damage referred to in rule 43.1(c) relates only to the two boats. Does damage in 43.1(c) now refer equally to damage between the other boat and a third boat or object?
Though rarely humble, these are only my opinions, and I'm ready to stand corrected.
Could Blue not argue that Rule 14c applies to Yellow? The rule 14c says "A Boat" shall not cause contact between "A Boat" and an object that should be avoided.
By Yellow's actions she is the boat caused the contact with the mark.
It may also only have become apparent to Blue that Yellow had no intention of keeping clear only at position 4. At position 3, Yellow was still able to turn up to windward and circle back.
At position 4 Blue has begun turning up and rounding the mark and would have to make an extremely drastic bear away as yellow barged in.
The interpretation of 14c could become problematic for a PC (and a ROW boat) as it seems to allow for a keep clear boat to barge into a gap that isnt there and thus prejudice a ROW boat
You say 'The interpretation of 14c could become problematic for a PC (and a ROW boat) as it seems to allow for a keep clear boat to barge into a gap that isnt there and thus prejudice a ROW boat'
That is my point exactly and the difficulty a PC may have in determining who has 'caused' the contact and who could or maybe should have avoided it.
I generally don't like rules that muddy the waters and give a keep clear boat an escape and have a concern we may just have created another situation where this may be the case.
Will be interested in what others think and how this evolves.
John A gets to the rub as well as one can cause something by both action and inaction. Causality is a wet watermelon seed.
So .. is the problem mainly in RRS 43.1(c) or is it in RRS 14's "however" clause?
My first instinct was to structure the "however" to exclude (b) and (c) when the current "however" is satisfied ... (wording will need some work .. but just to get the idea across).
So ... now if the causality involves the unpredictability of a KC boat, the ROW/room boat can't be found to have "caused" the contact.
Does that close the holes we are most concerned with?
PS: or is it the structure of (a), (b) and (c)?
The above doesn't work. Scratch that idea.Right, now they are equal with an AND. They could be structured such that ONLY IF NOT (a), ONLY THEN (b) or (c) are possible ... which maybe we can do with a properly placed OR? (My friend Ric Crabbe will check me on that computer-logic).
I don't think there's any problem there.
RRS 43.1(c) provides exoneration where a boat breaks RRS 14, and there is no injury or damage.
The 'however' condition in RRS 14 is about a boat not breaking RRS 14 at all.
The 'however' condition only works for RRS 14(a) because it only refers to 'avoid contact'.
I don't think this was intentional.
That's what I'm saying with the exclusion of (b) and (c) when the 14(a) "however" is satisfied.
Does something like that help? (Wording needs a lot of work)
It should have the desired effect of further discouraging contact.
I wouldn't go anywhere near that until there are some appeals and cases that tell us what 'cause' means.
I will say, is this a scenario where communication might become "required" in that blue needs to say "no room" to yellow, so the relationship is announced (if not necessarily agreed upon). We have very few places where communication is required between boats, but mark-room is always one where I want people to talk more than they're required to do. Maybe this is a way of softly necessitating this so Yellow in fact knows Blue's intentions.
If we accept Mark's C5, a boat that is entitled to MR will have to leave enough room for all potential bargers ... large enough that they can be confident there is no chance of damage.
Now the bargers see room being freely made available to them and can take it.
This seems like a heck of a future-telling burden on ROW boats and those entitled to room and MR.
The problem comes in how that is interpreted.
I know I would be pretty upset if I was Blue and came out of this scenario with a dsq. The whole situation was caused by the improper actions of Yellow. Blue is simply going about their business and gets highjacked.
I am not, however, convinced that is what the rules now say - which would make it a bad rule imo.
Yellow knew she was wrong and took a penalty and I think it would be sharp practice for her to protest under 14(c) but if a pickle dish was on the line, then someone might try.
There are several cases in the case book that refer to rule 14 and I assume they will be updated so, maybe, best to stop speculating at this stage and see if the matter gets clarified in the case book when it is issued.
What did Yellow do to avoid contact with Blue, inside the Zone at the Mark rounding ?
If the protest committee concludes that, despite Blue's belief, she did not provide Yellow with enough room to avoid contact with the mark, Blue breaks rule 14(c). However, if the protest committee finds that Blue did provide Yellow with enough room to avoid the mark, and the contact occurred due to Yellow's poor boat handling, then Blue would not break rule 14(c).
We will see what happens when the 2025-2028 Case Book is issued.
There are several folk on the RulesComm's that follow the forum. To the extent that our open discussion provides food for thought and test-scenarios ... it might be actually helpful to hash it out.
If Yellow had sailed wider and called for more space, would Blue have given more? We'll never know. But it seems like Blue was pretty aware of her obligation to avoid contact making it likely that more space would have been given by Blue.
What we do know is Blue sailed wide enough to avoid contact with Yellow. We know Yellow sailed lubberly, mishandling her sails, and Yellow had no rights to be where she was. We know that Yellow could have perhaps sailed the wrong side of the mark to avoid all contacts, and Blue without a 'magic 8-ball or an eagle eye overhead view was in no position to know what was happening above her.
If Yellow really does try to claim Blue's position 'caused' her to hit the mark (which I don't accept for a minute), at the very least I'd say it was not reasonably possible for Blue not to have 'been' that cause, given that the mark touch was Yellow's poor seamanship...er. ..ness, which Blue has no control over. In which case Blue cannot be found to have broken 14(c), per the important but seemingly forgotten three words of the rule - "if reasonably possible..." .
Truth be told, I'm having trouble seeing what all the issue is with the new (old actually-see High Speed Rules since 2020) rule 14.
To clarify, I can see how a literal interpretation could lead to confusion, but sometimes we need other strategies to interpret rules. (Purposive, Golden Rule and even perhaps, Occam's Razor could help here!)
Well, as Mark says, we may need a casebook entry to let us know which path of interpretation to take.
It seems like people are penalizing Blue for Yellow's choice to hit the mark instead of Blue. Which is a better option depends on the type of mark, an inflatable vs a government buoy. I don't think if Yellow hit Blue instead of the mark we would be having this thread.
Yellow had options other than hitting the mark. They could have hit Blue or hit neither by going on the wrong side of the mark. And those options were reasonably possible long before Yellow tried to go between Blue and the mark Once you establish that, you cannot say that Blue 'caused' Yellow to hit the mark. It isn't Blue's fault that Yellow chose a bad option.
The however clause simply marks a point in time when a boat, Blue in this case, needs to begin acting to avoid contact. That is the point in time when we start to evaluate what was 'reasonably possible'. This helps a PC decide that 'reasonably possible' didn't start when the boat left the dock, when Blue could easily have avoided the situation. This is similar to the 'reasonable apprehension' concept in Case 50. It helps us put boundaries on the subjective parts of the relevant rules.
IMHO however we interpret this, the answer needs to be the same whether Yellow hits (a) Blue, (b) another boat, or (c) an object.
let my try to solve the problem (for Blue) here:
The defence would be way easier/more clear if the second part would be written like: "...need not act to avoid or not cause contact until ..." Then Blue could argue that it was not reasonable possible to not cause the contact, from the moment Yellow made it clear that she would not pass astern or slow down. This exact moment was after 3 and Blue even reacted by not luffing to close hauled (which I presume would be normal course).
A good post, which I agree with 99%. Thanks.
Just, I think 'in normal English use 'a mark is an object which should be avoided' by existence of rule 31!
That's all. Otherwise I agree with you in many ways. I was also considering at one point 43.1(a).
B
Yes. See MR CALL D1. "It is not seamanlike to hit a mark."
I deliberately worded the scenario to identify what I feel may become an issue for an otherwise RoW boat entitled to room. Yes, Yellow chose to sail there. Yes, it was Yellow's fault the sheet got caught. But Yellow acknowledged all of this and took a turns penalty as allowed under 44.1. Blue saw all this potentially happening and could have given more room for Yellow to miss the mark. However as Blue may not be aware of the contact and that it may be considered she might break 14.(c) she does not take an on-water penalty and becomes at risk of dsq.
I don't think any of us would like this outcome.
I do not think Blue was compelled to break the rule as, in this scenario, she was able to give more room but misjudged it so I think that rules out 43.1(a), much as I would like to apply it.
The fact that you, and others, have suggested alternative wording which may help to clarify the situation probably means there is a potential issue here, which was the point of the original post.
In scenarios like this when the whole situation is caused by Yellow which is breaking several rules, I am thinking along the lines that 14 should not be a stand-alone rule for the RoW boat or one entitled to room, and she should have to be breaking another rule for her to also be partly responsible for breaking 14. Not sure how that might translate into rules language though and it will probably not satisfy the need to keep boats apart. That said I feel the boat responsible for the rules breach, Yellow in this case, should have to accept total responsibility and not be given a potential opportunity to blame the other boat.
That's a nice way to frame what I feel we are collectively saying is either missing or at least not clear in the new 14.
For 14(a), "however" allows the ROW/entitled boat to sail her boat under the assumption that the KC/obligated boat will do what they are supposed to.. until it is clear they are not. After that point, if it was not reasonably possible for the ROW/entitled boat to avoid contact, then she does not break 14.
If that time analysis was applied to 14 as a whole, does that help? I'm using adjustments in the 14's wording to try to get at the heart of the issue.
Applying the above to the OP, up until almost 3.5, Yellow had opportunity to miss the mark to windward. Actually, the OP shows Yellow significantly altering course toward Blue between 3-3.5. That movement toward Blue could have just as likely been the start of an attempt to take Blue's stern and follow her around.
All that above, I'd contend that it is not clear until 3.5 that yellow isn't going to keep clear and at that point it's not possible for Yellow to avoid contact with either Blue or the mark.
Applying the addition above, we can find that Blue did not break 14 in total.
PS: More better ?? (certainly cleaner .. but does it do it?)
Does 14(b) now break that adage? It seems to be applied between a boat and multiple "other" boats simultaneously.
(1) if the GW+GR boat are already between her and the mark when she turns, then she causes a collision, even if sailing within her rights.
(2) if the GR boat is GW and tries to take her legally allowed room despite being GW.
Scenario 1 adds risk to the swing-wide and cut-close tactics that the new rules specifically allow, and I'm OK with it.
Scenario 2 is already a foul in the old rules, because even as MR boat, she is still GW. All this does is change it so that she's still at fault if she causes G and R to contact even if she's not involved herself. I'm good with that too.
Indeed. This was one of my first thoughts on this rule. How far does the "causal chain" extend and how many boats may be involved?
Does a starboard tack boat sailing towards a large tight clump of port tack boats have to try to anticipate what will be "caused" if they hold their course and chaos erupts within the clump?
Doug
To me, at position 3, in the original diagram, it is still not clear that Yellow is not keeping clear, because Yellow has the clear option and obligation of sailing to windward of the mark, as is her responsibility. It really doesn't become clear until yellow pokes her bow in, at which point it is too late , ie., unreasonable for Blue to avoid contact or cause damage.
"However, a right-of-way boat, or one sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled, need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room"
My penny worth? Blue is 'protected by the last sentence of rule 14. Decision............protest dismissed.
Cheers mate, Phil.
To cause contact needs action, as does 'to avoid' contact.
Or..
Contact is 'caused' by a boat's action and contact is 'avoided' by a boat's action.
In 14(a) a boat is required to take an action and 'However' clause tells that boat how long she can put that action off.
No action is required in 14(b-c). So no need to have a similar 'However' for those rules.
In OP scenario, many appear to believe that Blue should have borne away and sailed wider. There isn't a rule which requires her to do that.
So long as Blue complies with 14(a) (which she did) she has complied with rule 14.
14(b) doesn't require Blue to sail wider. It requires that Blue does not close the door if it was ever open.
Look...
If a starboard boat is sailing upwind (had been for some time) and meets a gaggle of port boats who scramble and bounce off each other as they try to avoid her, starboard has not 'caused' the ensuing mayhem and collisions between the port boats. Starboard took no 'action' to cause their collisions. It was the 'inactions' of the port gaggle and failure to comply with the rules.
14(b) doesn't require the starboard boat to choose another path upwind! That's just absurd to even think that.
Alternatively though, if starboard had only just gained starboard rights by tacking right in front of the port gaggle, that action would break 14(b).
So, in summary, 14(a)tells boats to act, 14(b-c) tells boats not to act..
What am I missing?
I agree that avoid and cause are both actions that a boat "acts" to do.
This gets back to John A's original point. Causation is tricky. A ROW boat that sails without altering course could be found to have caused contact. The Chinese man who stands in the street holding his groceries in the path of a column of tanks .. acts to cause those tanks to stop by standing in the way.
As you say, currently "however" only covers 14(a) and does so by repeating the words of 14(a) "to avoid contact". By replacing "avoid" contact" with "[to comply with rules 14(a), (b) or (c)]" I think properly limits a ROW/room-entitled boat's liability to the time period when it should be obvious she needs to "act"
I would say we need to ask how the scenario commenced. (Isn't this the crux?)
1. Man was there having lunch in the middle of public park for some time. The tanks turned on a collision course with him. - Man hasn't 'acted' to cause the situation. Man hasn't done anything. Hasn't broken 14(b).
Or
2. Man saw the tanks rumbling down the street and stepped out in front of them so they had no chance of missing him. - Man has 'acted' by stepping out. Man caused the contact. 14(b) busted.
Causation can be tricky, or it can be simple.
I reiterate, 'however' simply tells how long the required action may be delayed.
14(b) and 14(c) are not rules which require an action (if you accept that 'shall not cause' simply means shall not make an action which puts boats into a contact situation (when it didn't originally exist).
Anyway, I'm not sure that we can go any further with this. We'll have to wait for an interpretation from those powers that be.
In the extreme, we have a lot of seals and sea lions that sun themselves on the marks. By law you aren't allowed to disturb them and if you hit the mark and they jump off you could be protested for breaking those laws! :-D
If a mark is, indeed, an "object that should be avoided" then does Yellow break Rule 14 (c)?
If not, why not?
Yellow does cause "a boat" (herself) to hit the "object that should be avoided".
Note that 14(a) explicitly refers to "another boat", whereas 14(c) says "a boat".
Doug
Does that capture what many are saying here?
Not sure if above's use of "you" was specific to your point or not. If it was, I think the point of 14(b)(c) is that in 2025 "you" don't have to have contact to break 14 ... "you" can cause contact that doesn't involve "you" and still break 14.
We mentioned room made freely available above. It seems to me that in a protest situation it will be hard for "sneak in" to defend against "I was not making room freely available, I was forced to make space for" barger in" so as to comply with rule 14. It seems to me that a possible effect of new RRS14 could make it harder for a give way or give room boat to avoid being penalised, since it seems to me to strengthen the concept that no contact does not mean no rule broken.
to make something happen, especially something bad.
In the terms of 14(b) and (c) To do something that leads to a collision between other boats or another boat and an object
Albeit rather wordy, I like Ang's rewrite of the However... clause. Unless the powers that be decide to delete (c) !
Can we look at Case 50 for some clues? If ROW alters course in a way that delays her I think that would be strong evidence room was not freely given, and most especially if room was not given until boats were overlapped/at close quarters/serious risk of collision. Genuine and reasonable apprehension of contact to mirror the case.
Conversely if a gap was there before give way got close and it would not have been possible for ROW to close the gap then a room freely given defence ought to succeed. It seems to me at the very least Give way needs to keep clear through the entire manouver.
I'm happy with that. Note the verbs 'make' / 'do'.
I want to now add some logic.
Your definitions must only apply if there was originally no inevitable collision in the first place.
e.g. If there was already a collision going to occur, a boat's subsequent actions can't be said to have 'caused' the collision. Alternatively, if there was no collision going to happen, and a boat 'did something' to 'make' a collision happen she could be said to have 'caused' the collision.
14(b) says a boat shall not do/make. (I. e. If there is not a collision going to happen, don't create one.)
It doesn't say that a boat shall take evasive or avoiding action.
I just can't see the problem with this rule if JohnS's definitions are used.
What am I missing?