I do not think it makes a difference re damage as in this diagram R can tack off up to the point that they hit CR. R should do a 360 in both scenarios.

Catalan .. are you intending for us to explore the new 2025 RRS 14?

I was just talking with my son about this and how the change to rule 14 might need to be tested out. Blue never changes course (or changes course giving room for Red to keep clear as she changes course). But, the new 14 b and c (if reasonably possible, a boat shall) (b) "not cause contact between boats" and © "not cause contact between a boat and an object that should be avoided," may put some responsibility on Blue. I say "may" because I'm not sure how appeals will go. 

 It seems that Blue could be in violation of the new rule 14. I hope that for anything other than serious damage or injury, Blue would be exonerated. If there is serious damage, as long as Blue made some effort, she should be exonerated, I hope. 

A few things that need to be worked out:
Can one "cause" something while holding a steady course?  In the scenario you drew in which Blue makes no changes to course, what action of hers could be said to "cause" red to make contact? 
But if Blue changes course in a way that satisfied rule 16? Red should avoid. But if there is contact, would Blue be found to violate rule 14? 
I think it gets even more complicated if there is a third boat positioned to weather of Red and that boat is the one that hits the signal boat. 

Which brings me to the other text that needs to be sorted out: "reasonably possible." In an earlier thread, I was in the minority in proposing that it had to be both reasonable and possible for the ROW boat to avoid. Under my interpretation, it is not reasonable for Blue to give up their perfect line to start. 

I'd like to see an appeal decision clearly resolve what the ROW boat is reasonably expected to do and that holding a course is not something that can "cause" another boat to hit  something. 
We'll see. 

How is Blue responsible for the actions of Red? It's not Blue's fault Red sailed too close to the signal boat. Blue is holding a proper course, Red is in a position where it is too close to one end of the start line (which is a mark). Red broke RRS 31.

Agree that this looks like it needs some case law.  The other question on my mind is whether and how the ‘However’ clause at the end of Rule 14 applies.  If it applies (but the wording doesn’t fit the circumstances) then presumably Blue need not alter course until it is clear that Red is past the point at which it can tack out…..and if she then can not do enough to avoid contact between Red and the CB would be exonerated?

But it’s not abundantly clear to me that the However clause applies.  Unintended consequences?

FWIW .. I've spent quite a bit of time navel-gazing on this one. The most concise way that I came to think about it was finding a way to reword the "however clause" in my mind and then apply it. Here is what I came up with ...

If I apply that to the OP, I would say, given Blue's bow-out position vs Red,

Conclusions 

No hail by Red, no indication that they ATTEMPTED to avoid the RC boat by heading up or down, it's hard to argue that Blue in any way "caused" the contact. If Red did hail for room (rightly or wrongly) Blue should skooch out of the way and protest. 

With or without damage R is not a ROW boat and B is under no obligation to change course even if she could. In a typical starting scenario there would be another boat on B's hip and no room for her to change course to let R avoid contact with RC.  For B there is no rule violation.

See WS Case 146 > Decision > First paragraph; US Appeal 117 > Decision > First paragraph; WS Case 27 > Decision > Fourth paragraph.

Blue is a right of way boat (11) holding course (16.1 off). As a give way boat, Red's obligations are to 'keep clear' of Blue (11) and not touch the mark (31). 

Because the boats are approaching RC to start, no rule of Part 2, Section C applies (Preamble to Section C). 
As a result, Red is not entitled to 'mark room' (18) or 'room' at the obstruction (19).

Red fails to meet her obligations and breaks 14 and 31.

Blue has no obligation to anticipate that Red will break a rule, including 14 or 31, by failing to avoid contact with RC (WS Case 27).

For at least 4 boat lengths Red sailed a course that would inevitably contact the stern of the Start Boat and although he could have steered up and  avoided the collision as late as 1/2 boat length from the Start Boatt decided not to and deliberately continued on her course to sail into it breaking 14 and 31. Red made zero effort to avoid the RC Boat.  (Deliberately breaking a rule could be considered a breach of Basic Rule 2)
 
Irrespective of level of damage I can’t read anything in RRS 14 (2025) that would make blue culpable in any way of  CAUSING  Red to make contact with the Start Boat. 

Which is fortunate can you imagine the carnage throughout the course if it did. 

Generally, 2 boat lengths is considered sufficient 'room' to allow another boat to veer off. So this was Red's mistake.  Blue did not suddenly cause a problem here. Or so I have been taught as a CRO.

I think Greg's assessment is correct under the 21-24 rules. (By the way Greg: nice to hear from you. Enjoyed working with you back at the Sabot Nats at SDYC). 
I think the concern is that the new wording on rule 14b and 14c seems to open up the possibility of Blue being penalized. I hope the cases go the way you and I both see it. But I'm never certain. 
I agree with Angelo that  by the time it because clear that Red is not avoiding, there is nothing Blue could do--it is not "reasonable possible" for Blue to avoid. 
I think all of us agree what should be the decision. Let's hope that's the way it goes down. 

Reading Angelo's comments below:

"FWIW .. I've spent quite a bit of time navel-gazing on this one. The most concise way that I came to think about it was finding a way to reword the "however clause" in my mind and then apply it. Here is what I came up with ...

If I apply that to the OP, I would say, given Blue's bow-out position vs Red,"

Would an interpretation that creates an obligation for Blue not inadvertently legitimize rule-breaking? (e.g. barging or going inside at marks)
I can't think that could ever be the intent of the rules committee.

Andrew re: "Would an interpretation that creates an obligation for Blue not inadvertently legitimize rule-breaking? (e.g. barging or going inside at marks)
I can't think that could ever be the intent of the rules committee."

That would be a misreading of the rule IMO. 

It seems clear that the WS RRC is making it an imperative to avoid contact, and the costs and dangers that result from contact.

If at #2.5 it was clear to Blue that Red could not avoid the RC and Blue reacted by #2.75 to make room for Red between her and the RC and there is no contact, Red still breaks RRS 11 .. and without contact, there is no possibility of a rule 14 breach by Blue.

We would apply Case 50's "reasonable apprehension" to Blue.

If Blue alters course to help Red avoid contact with the RC, Red Breaks Rule 11.  Nothing is "inadvertently legitimize rule-breaking".  

Do you think it could actually work the other way and make it harder for red to slip through a narrow gap without penalty? If red thinks they've slipped through space made available could they defend against "I had to bear off a few inches to let them get through without contact"? Case 50 being, as Angelo says, very congruent.

From what I am starting to understand, even though blue is the right of way boat, that is no longer sufficient for blue not to fall foul of rule 14c. 
When it becomes clear to blue that red is no longer keeping clear or intending to keep clear, blue must bear away to allow room for red. Thereafter blue must Protest red for not keeping clear and breaking rule 11. 
Blue can l’on longer allow no room so to cause red to hit the committee boat

I think it’s overthinking RRS 14 2025 to put any obligation on Blue when Red decides to crash into the RCB and take absolutely no action to avoid the collision even though she had ample opportunity for at least 3 boat lengths and probably more to avoid the collision. She could have headed up no penalty broken, or borne away breaking RRS 11. 

David, RRS 14 has applied to ROW boats prior to the 2025 quad.   A ROW has previously had to act avoid contact if reasonably possible, once it is clear the other boat is not keeping clear.

Many judges will eventually hear a port v starboard windward-beat-collision protest ... where the starboard boat didn't alter course and the port boat seemingly "came out of nowhere" from the POV of starboard.  This happens often in higher winds, where everyone is on the rail and the heel of the boat makes it difficult to see under the sails (especially if fitted with a 150%+ headsail).

Many times in this scenario, neither boat has adequate lookouts for opposite tack boats. Port breaks RRS 10 but, depending upon how and where the boats make contact with each other, and how long port was on her tack, starboard boat also breaks RRS 14 if it is found that having a lookout would have made it reasonably possible for starboard to avoid contact when it became clear port was not keeping clear.

We have Case 26, Case 87 and Case 107 which are informative on this issue, especially when thought of together.  I'd recommend reading all 3. 

Edited to completely replace the original (struck out).
Red has room to keep clear.
The contact was caused by Red's failure to change course and/or speed to avoid a stationary object.

Conclusion: Blue does not break rule 14 based on points 1 and 2.

If Red has room to keep clear, then the contact is not caused by Blue.
In this case the contact was caused by Red failing to change course and/or speed to avoid a stationary object.