Need more detail about their relative positions between positions 2 and 3 during the tack, plus the affect of current. There's a lot going on there that affects rights and obligations during the transition. Your illustration shows no current set on Red in terms of COG. If they were gradually bearing off to offset the current on entry to the zone, then before blue completed a tack, red was subject to 16.1. If blue completed the tack without fouling 13 or affecting red's course while red was ROW starboard tacker, did blue factor in the current set while complying with 15? The contact at 3 could be a compounded consequence of both boats' actions between 2 and 3.

Also need to know if this is windward or leeward mark. 

I’m going to answer assuming this is a windward mark based on the sail position. In this case rule 18, Mark Room; does not apply.  So red could, and may be, slamming the door on blue. I think, given what we know, that blue has attempted to squeeze in and is at fault. 

To me it looks as an upwind mark - rule 10 is in effect there and this appears as a starbord-port tack situation. Red has SB tack and RoW, also Blue could have never make a clean tack as it is shown in the picture. So chances she broke rule 13 and did not stay clear of red (SB tack). In this case Blue DSQ upon hearing/protest. Rule 10 & 13.
If Blue did make a clean tack from port to starboard clear of Red, then she is allowed to luff windward but not beyond the point that Red has to steer aabove close-hauled. Rule 18.3 a. Blue however has to respect Rule 15 and give Red enough time/space to keep clear.

That is how I see it - the way it was visualized in the picture and the way events made have had their sequence. All up to the hearing and how boats present their case.

I think it would be a pretty harsh judgement to say Blue broke 14 by leaving enough room at the mark to ‘cause’ Red to try to tack inside and thus ‘cause’ a collision between her and Red

Catalan, we are missing a key moment .. maybe you can upload a new image.

We need to see the moment when Blue reaches her close-hauled course and the space between Blue and Red at that moment. 

Importantly at #3, though Blue is bow-forward on Red, she is less than 1/2 boat-length ahead.  Therefore it is reasonable to assume that a turn to windward by Red at #3 would cause her leeward-stern quarter to move closer to Blue .. possibly leading to a conclusion that Red was not providing sufficient room for Blue to keep clear (1/3 BL more forward for Blue could make a huge difference in Red's ability to keep clear)

Also, are you showing a slight course change by Red to port between #2 and #3 .. or is that unintentional?  If it is there and intentional, when did that course change occur?

I would say that people are trying very hard to find problems with "not cause" in 14.(b) and 14.(c).  That is probably deserved as we all need to figure out what it really means.  

My initial reading is that 14.(c) only applies for contact in between a boat and an object that is not "a boat" (so far example a mark, a pier, a signal vessel (which might look like a boat to those who have not read the terminology section at the beginning of the rulebook) etc.)    There is nothing in 14.(c) that says that a boat is not an object but I think boats are covered earlier.  In the same way I read 14.(b) as covering contact between two boats where neither one is the one to whom we are applying rule 14.  Boat A causes contact in between boat B and Boat C.     If we are concerned with Boat A when the contact is between Boat A and Boat B then I look at 14.(a).  14 (a) has not changed with the new book.

Having said all of that in the post that started this I always apply the rest of the right-of-way rules before I decide I how to apply rule 14.  I need a lot of information in between position 2 and 3 to apply them.  I am surprised by the conclusion that rule 18.3 was not broken by Blue.   Maybe Red is sailing below a close-hauled course so had to alter course but not above close-hauled?  Since you conclude that Blue broke 15, then you are saying that Blue established right-of-way but did not give Red room to keep clear.  Red clearly didn't keep clear since there was contact.

You don't specify whether there was damage or injury.  If none then EVEN if either boat broke 14 then they would both be exonerated under 43.1(c) exonerated since Red was sailing wtithin the room she was entitled (rule 15) and Blue was right-of-way (rule 11).  

This is an interesting situation that needs some careful analysis but "cause" in rule 14 is probably the last thing we need to worry about.  

"We need to see the moment when Blue reaches her close-hauled course and the space between Blue and Red at that moment."

Blue reaches her close-hauled course in 2,75 ....so blue breaks does notbreak rules 18.3, but in position 3 blue  breaks 15 and 14

"Also, are you showing a slight course change by Red to port between #2 and #3 .. or is that unintentional?  If it is there and intentional, when did that course change occur?"

It´s not a couse change, it´s the current effect.


Has Red violated rule 14?

I agree with Angelo that this picture is not clear enough, i.e. sufficient.  As an experience tactician I can state that Blue can never make a tack from port to starboard, alsmos pivoting 90 degrees in static position. This is where the whole key to this situation lies.  Red = starboard tack, Blue port. The mark is clearly upwind (R 10)  When Blue tacks she has to stay clear of Red while tacking until she is on close-hauled (R 13). Once Blue has tacked she may not push Red upwind further than Red close-hauled. (R18.3) and has to respect Red's initial possibility to stay clear (R15)  - all the above when contact occurs define what can be said on Rule 14....
In case Blue made a correct tack and did not luff red above cluase hauled then Blue has RoW and there is still the closing statement: 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.

Catalan - please provide situations that are more clear

Catalan re: Has Red violated rule 14?

In your new diagram below, there is no contact shown. So how could 14 be broken?

Thanks you so much all of you.
I'll send situations more clear in future

Catalan - download the program boats.exe from the below link - it is free - but allows you with some practice to draw more precise situations.
This is how I see what was likely to be the case
https://sourceforge.net/projects/boats/

There is another side to this discussion - if a ROW boat alters course to avoid the other boat to avoid contact and possible R 14 infringement and protests, then the PC has to be amenable to respecting the position of the ROW boat,

I am reminded of a protest where I was leeward boat, luffing an overtaking bigger boat. Before we reached HTW, I felt we were getting so close that I was in risk of contact and breach of R 14 if I luffed further before bearing away - so curtailed the luff and bore away without contact and protested - but the PC dismissed the protest.

John

Gijs .. would you like to write-up a hearing decision based on your new diagram for the benefit of those who are still learning? I'd recommend repasting the diagram along with it so people don't have to scroll up in the thread. 

Thanks - Ang

Based on the diagram I posted earlier my insights would lead to the following outcome of a hearing:

Not in the diagram, but may be disputed during the hearing:

As a sailor and experienced tactician this is how I judge the situation in the diagram and the other possible scenarios around it....  Feel free to comment.

If I would have been on the Yellow boat I would have never have chosen to tack on the inside with higher speed due to current on my tail and being pushed into Blue by the current, since Blue will also be slowing down due to the current but can also more easily fight the current by bowing down.

Gijs, thank you for posting how you see your scenario.  As you state, it's how a "sailor and experienced tactician .. [would] judge the situation" .. so you've offered a lot of commentary and extra info that wouldn't usually be included in a written decision.

One error you made was in your first statement ..

Def: Overlap states ...

Because the boats are on opposite tacks on a beat to windward, RRS 18 does not apply between the boats due to RRS 18.1(a)(1).  Also, both boats are not sailing more than 90 deg from the true wind.  Therefore, they are not overlapped.
-  Ang

@ Angelo - you are fully correct in regards to my overlap error  - One is never too old to learn - THANKS !