If is season like to sail with the sail further in you must do it. Here blue is responsible for hitting the committee boat. Green gave room as blue could pass on the required side.

Both boats get exonerated for a rrs 14 breach as there was no damage.

Blue was not compelled to breat rrs 31 as she could have pulled the sheets in.
In 20kts of wind it is more unlikely that room was give, only a PC can find this fact on the evidence. Mike b

Sorry Michael, but Rule 14 does not know "damage" at all. Only "contact" is to avoid and a scratch, even if it can be polished is caused by  contact.

But the question from Angelo was if "room" includes the room to leave the boom fully outside or not or has blue to shorten the mainsheet to pass the RC-boat without contact during finishing.   
definition mark room: so the answer is no. Green has not given enough room to blue.

Greetings from Germany

I simply disagree. Read rrs 43.1(c)

Room is defined in as the space needed in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way. It is not seamanlike to over trim the mainsail, especially in 20 knots of wind. In this case, room also includes space needed to comply with RRS 31, touching a mark. 
In this case:
- Green outside overlapped at the zone failed to give Blue mark-room, and broke RRS 18.2(a)(1).
- Blue touched the mark and broke RRS 31. Since Blue broke RRS 31 while she was sailing within the mark-room to which she was entitled, she is exonerated under RRS 43.1(b) for this breach.

I am not convinced that Green 'caused' the contact between Blue and the mark. So RRS14.c) does not apply.
Blue did not cause contact between a boat and the RC vessel, so RRS 14 does not apply.

Michael: agreed

To add my pennyworth to Gordon, the definition of manouver in my dictionary talks about skill and care. To my mind that includes trimming sails skillfully and carefully, which in turn surely means correctly. 

That's an entertaining question, Angelo. I've been writing and rewriting for a while on this. 
It seems as though "seamanlike" ought to have a definition in the rules, since it's not a term in common usage outside of sailboat racing. This is purely an opinion. "Seamanlike" does not mean "perfect." To your question 1, I don't think "room" includes space to trim optimally anymore than it means space to round a mark optimally. Under moderate conditions, there would be nothing inherently un-seamanlike about blue trimming her main in a few feet. As for your question 2, "seamanlike" applies to Blue's actions, not Green's. I think you mean "Did Green give sufficient room for Blue to pass the mark in a seamanlike manner. Here, I think windspeed and sea state matters.
In mild-moderate conditions where trimming in the main presents no safety concerns, Green could be said to break the new 14c, but exonerated because she was ROW and no damage caused. Blue broke 31 and I don't think she was compelled. She had a reasonable way to avoid. So, my answer to Q3 is "yes." 
What if damage occurred? would green be DSQed under the new 14c? I don't think we will have a clear answer on that until we get clarity on what "cause" means in that rule. 

Under higher winds or rough sea state, it's possible that trimming the main in might be unsafe. In such a case, Green did not give sufficient room in the existing conditions. 

Room

Hi-
I looked around and found Case 21 and think it relevant for the discussion. While the entire thing makes for interesting reading (esp the part about no minimum or maximum amount of room), the 2nd to last paragraph of the case seems most relevant to the OQ:
"The term "existing conditions" deserves consideration. For example, the inside one of two dinghies approaching a mark on a placid lake in light air will need relatively little space beyond that required for her hull and properly trimmed sails." (Emphasis mine)
This strikes me as saying the inside boat needs enough room to fly her sails to the breeze and is under no obligation to trim to squeeze in a small hole. They should have to avoid hitting the Mark, then filed a protest against the boat that squeezed them. Agree with Ralf above that RRS 31 was broken even if the damage would buff out. Still contact, he should do his donut(s) and finish again. Then there's a potential redress aspect to the protest.

Case 103: The phrase 'seamanlike way' in the definition 'Room' refers to boat-handling that can be reasonably be expected from a competent but not expert crew of the appropriate number for the boat.
I would argue that the fact Blue is required to sheet in the mainsheet to avoid touching the RC vessel demonstrates that Green has not given mark-room.

Gordon, I like the fact that you're focusing on "seamanlike".  I also think that's what it hinges on and why I put in 2 wind conditions .. 6kts and 20kts.

I'd think that the vast majority of the boats would not overwhelm their helm by over-sheeting the main in 6kts. 

The other way I was thinking about it was the times I've trimmed in my own sails to avoid a windward mark on a tight rounding.  Was that unseamanlike or did it represent the maneuver of an "expert" crew?

It would be easy to make it clear in a Case and simply state that room includes the space for a boat's equipment to be in any normal position (or add "properly trimmed sails").

Carl .. nice catch in Case 21. It's not a definitive statement for sure .. but it is stated in a matter-of-fact way and the direct reference to "properly trimmed sails" is on the nose.

Angelo: I deleted a line from my post similar to your observation. I am certainly not the only one to have over trimmed my main rounding a windward mark to avoid touching it. That's why I stated I don't think there is anything un-seamanlike about over-trimming in the situation you present. 
On more than one occasion I have told a boat in Blues position that I (in Green's position) had to allow him to room to finish, but not necessarily to finish in front of me. 
I In bigger swell or higher wind, I think the facts you present would support a finding that there was insufficient room given. 
-Tony

Ralf .. I didn't say the boom scratched .. "There is no damage, only a surface mark on the RC's hull which was easily rubbed-off".

Angelo-
👍👍

It seems to me that Case 21, stating there needs to be enough room for “hull and properly trimmed sails" in even the most benign of conditions, is definitive. What more would any of you like to see in a case to satisfy you? 

Jim .. yea .. Case 21's "properly trimmed" is probably sufficient. 

I'm not so sure case 21 is clear on this. Had I read case 21 without thinking of this scenario, I would have interpreted that to be a limitation on the inside boat. That is, she cannot expect room enough for a sail that is out of position. Moreover, I think the proper trim for the mainsail in the case above would be sheeted in enough to miss the finish boat. We have all kept the main sheeted in to avoid a windward mark, as Angelo has said. Properly trimmed does not mean without regard to other considerations. I don't know if anyone else has thought this, but my first thought seeing the diagram was Blue should pump the sail in to avoid the finish boat and that would also give her a little jump in speed. 
Further down in case 21 it says: "The phrase "manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way" has implications for both boats. First, it addresses the inside boat, saying she is not entitled to complain of insufficient space if she fails to execute with reasonable efficiency the handling of her helm, sheets and sails while manoeuvring. " 
I am not prepared to die on this hill. But I am not yet convinced that case 21 would necessarily lead to the conclusion that Blue was given insufficient room.
-Tony

I think I have to repeat my question then. What wording of Case 21 would convince you that room includes the room necessary to have the sail sheeted correctly?

 I completely agree with you that the case limits boats from requiring room to let the mainsheet go and the boom fly when sailing upwind, but I submit your interpretation would require the inside boat to have the boom sheeted within the bounds of the hull when sailing downwind, which doesn't seem to me to be at all the sort of thing the rules normally require. 

After all, we have indeed all kept the main oversheeted to avoid touching a mark, but I submit that none of us thought it was properly trimmed while we were doing it! 

If you are addressing me, I am not at all convinced that case 21 means you must provide room necessary to have the sail all the way out in this situation.
I think the statement when viewed in context was clearly intended to limit the inside boat, as in, you are not entitled to room to have your sails out of proper position.
In the scenario drawn out, provided the condition are moderate, blue has been given room to finish on the correct side of the mark and need not have hit the committee boat. She could have missed it either by sailing literally an inch closer to Green (Angelo said there was barely contact) or by sheeting the main in an inch or two. I think that is perfectly seamanlike. 

If you read case 21 in its entirety, I don't think it suggests that the outside ROW boat has broken any rule if the inside keep clear boat has to sheet in a few inches. 
I don't want to print the whole rule here, neither to I want to pick and choose out of context quotes. But, consider the last paragraph:

"The phrase "manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way" has implications for both boats. First, it addresses the inside boat, saying she is not entitled to complain of insufficient space if she fails to execute with reasonable efficiency the handling of her helm, sheets and sails while manoeuvring. It also implies that the outside boat must provide enough space so that the inside boat need not manoeuvre in an extraordinary or abnormal manner (see also Case 103)."

Do you think sheeting in your boom a few inches or steering a few inches closer to the outside ROW boat in moderate conditions is "an extraordinary or abnormal" maneuver? I don't. 
Again, assuming moderate conditions, I think a competent (not "expert") sailor could have avoided the contact by executing "with reasonable efficiency the handling of her helm, sheets and sails while manoeuvring."

Hitting the RC boat is not safe conduct. Seamanlike manner would suggest sailing in a safe and competent way. It follows that properly trimmed sails falls under that principle. If it does not qualify as a condition in the context of "mark room" then the door is left wide open for more extreme examples which would open a can of worms we don't need...

Let's double-check this by flipping the script a bit.  

New Facts Found:

For those in the "properly trimmed sails" camp, are you comfortable with DSQ Yellow?

Yes. Consider the condition to determine a Proper Course - the absence of other boats. The term "Properly trimmed" bears a close resemblance to Proper Course, I don't think applying the same condition to both terms is out of line. Here, in the absence of another boat, would Blue have had to overtrim the main (i.e. not have it "properly trimmed" for the dead run condition) - even just a little - to avoid contact with the Mark? I posit no, she just would have turned left a bit to correct the misjudgment in her course that brought her too close to the Mark. That the boat that IS there preventing the left turn is on Starboard does not make her a ROW boat, as neither is on a beat to windward. Blue is owed the room.

Absolutely I'd be happy to DSQ Yellow. 

Because if room doesn't include room to set sails properly Yellow can squeeze Blue against the RC until Blue has to have her boom (and spinnaker pole if in use) on the centreline. Case 21 specifically mentions the bare minimum of room in the most benign of conditions as including the sails.

I'm with you Jim, Isn't triming your sails to avoid contact "seamanlike" ?

Surely the room required to be given, is the space in which the boat can be maneuvred in a seamanlike manner. Isn't that what rhe definition says?

Look you are all focusing on the wrong thing in the context really.
To me seamanlike means with safety not perfectly.
Do not forger the inside boat is Keep Clear, the starboard boat is right of way.
To me that means the Keep Clear boat has to do all possible to keep clear, this includes pulling the boom in.
In this position had he done it there would have been no contact and room was given.
This inside boat gets penalised.

Phil .. personally I think "seamanlike" is the weakest argument because I think we've come to apply "seamanlike" to include sub-perfect/optimum maneuvers.  Also, I don't think it's an unseamanlike maneuver if on one's own accord, one pulls-in a sail to avoid contact.  Therefore of all the arguments so far, I think Case 21's mention of "properly trimmed sails" is the best "case to be made" at this point.

I was also looking at Case 74's discussion of positions of crew and that there is no rule that limits where crew may be positioned as long as it's not "misused".  Aren't the crew and sails just components of the Term:"boat"? .. Given that, ideas in Case 74 should also apply here.  If a crew goes from a flat hike to a bend at the waist to avoid a mark, that's hardly unseamanlike.

That said (and to Jim's question of what 'what more do you want?'), I do wish that "properly trimmed sails" wasn't tossed inside an example inside a discussion of "existing conditions" in Case 21.  If what we are saying is true (and I believe it is), it is true in all conditions.

Given that, it would have been nice to have it written as a clear definitive statement which is outside of considerations of "existing conditions", and then have that statement applied in examples.

For instance the case could make the definitive statement like below .. (which incorporates ideas from Case 21, 77, 74 and 91). 

 .... then go on to apply that statement to differing scenarios.

To me .. that would be better.  But I think we can work with Case 21.

I'm with Mike B. on this. You are hanging your argument on this one sentence:
"For example, the inside one of two dinghies approaching a mark on a placid lake in light air will need relatively little space beyond that required for her hull and properly trimmed sails."
That sentence is clearly using "properly trimmed sails" to limit where the sails can be. 
Then you ignore the rest of the case. The summation paragraph sets out the criteria for what the inside and outside boats can expect to be judged on. I've posted it before. Please include that summation paragraph in your logic process. 

I'll ask again because Jim didn't reply. 
Do you think sheeting in a few inches constitutes "extraordinary or abnormal" actions on the part of the inside boat? If you do, I'm afraid I just disagree. If you don't, then you are not applying the whole of case 21. 

Let's suppose this is a leeward gate left to starboard. Port inside gybes and rounds the mark inside Starboard outside. No contact occurs and inside does not hit the mark. Looks like a normal rounding.
But inside hails protest and claims that after gybing, she had to sheet in her main 1 second faster than she wanted to.
You would disqualify outside Starboard for that? 
I think given the logic you have offered, you would have to. That would be a terrible decision. 
-Tony

I can't agree that the inside boat must be required to have her sails in anything but their normal positions throughout the rounding, which might even include enough room for her boom to gybe.  After all, if it is ok to require the boat to trim her main in 3 inches to avoid the mark, then why not 4 or 5 or even 10 feet?  What is the limit?  When does it become unseamanlike?  And what about her other sails?  She could drop her spinnaker and not put up a jib and put her boom on centerline when rounding a leeward mark or finish boat in this case.  The logical extension is that a boat is only entitled to just enough room for her maximum beam, anything not fixed outside the bounds of the hull could be brought in or taken down.  If there is too much wind then she could drop all her sails and let the other boat go around her before putting her sails back up.  Is that just plain silly or unseamanlike?  I don't think that is what we want the game to become.

The only obligation in rule 18.2 is for the outside boat to give the inside boat mark-room.  The inside boat is exonerated for breaking certain rules if she is sailing in a seamanlike way to and around the mark but that is not an obligation.  It is really the outside boat that must show that she met her obligation and gave mark-room and that the inside boat was either outside of that room or did something unseamanlike that caused her to hit the mark or outside boat.  Having your sails trimmed in their proper position cannot be considered unseamanlike.

The argument that a boat will trim in her boom to avoid a mark is a non-starter as that is not the result of having a boat outside of her that prevents her from being further from the mark.  It is the result of the boat not being far enough away from the mark in her own approach, it is the result of her actions.  If she can't do it she hits the mark and suffers the consequences.

John-
I'd say I agree off the top of my head, when is too much too much??

OTOH, looking at the diagram in the OQ, both boats are in the zone but not overlapped - the overlap occurs when they both turn dead downwind (between position 1 and position 2). When exactly would Blue obtain mark-room rights? Would 18.1 apply even if an overlap is established within the Zone??

I read the parentheses points of 18.1 as exceptions to when 18 starts to apply, and no overlap at the 3 boat length mark is not addressed. Both boats have to pass the Mark on the same side (and assuming that the Mark vessel is one end of the finish line, thus no turn toward a proper course to be sailed thereafter other than to clear the line). If it can be established within the Zone, then I stick with my position that Properly Trimmed (as is Proper Course) is conditioned upon no other boats in the vicinity,, and she requires room to have her sails in Proper trim (eased) for the current conditions. The outside boat would need to grant enough room for her to do so. If not, then it's a straight-up P/S.

Carl .. at position #1, the boats are overlapped as neither is clear astern of the other, they are both sailing more than 90 deg TWA and rule 18 applies between them.- Ang

Angelo-
Kinda nit-picky, I know. I guess the question is when 18 starts applying. It wasn't stated in the OG, and it's awful close in the picture, maybe a bit broader would have made it certain that 18 applies. If it does, then Blue gets the room it needs ..........

Side note- the "Normal position" was tossed from the definition of Finish last quad, I'm guessing it's only a matter of time till it's gone entirely.

Carl - I disagree that the boats are not overlapped.  Let's assume that they have been sailing the course in position 1 for some time, i.e. well before either entered the zone.  Even though they are on opposite tacks, they are both below 90 deg to the true wind and neither is clear astern of the other.  The last sentence of the definition of overlap applies, so the overlap has probably existed for a long time.

I don't think that any of the things in the numbered list of 18.1(a) is true and 18.1(b) isn't true so the first sentence of 18.1(a) says that rule 18 applies once one of the boats is in the zone.  That's when the outside boat has to give the inside boat room.  Also, the preamble to Section C isn't true.

Rule 18.1 just tells us when the rest of the rule applies, everything else is contained in 18.2 through 18.4.  You can look at any mark and ask yourself does rule 18 apply between these boats at this point in time?  If 18.1 is not true then you stop and the rest of the rule doesn't matter.  Rule 18 can turn on anytime the conditions in 18.1 are true, even if both boats are already in the zone.  The most common time this happens is at a windward mark that is being rounded to starboard (something that happens often in SF Bay).  When starboard tacks to port to round the mark and another boat on port tack establishes an overlap, 18.2(c) & (d) turn on.  Rule 18 'turns on' at position 2, once Blue and Yellow are on the same tack.  At that point in time Blue is the outside boat and required to give Yellow room while they are overlapped per rule 18.2(c).  In position 3, when Blue overlaps Yellow on the inside, Yellow is now required to give Blue room per 18.2(c) unless she can't and 18.2(d) applies.  Between positions 2 and 3 the overlap is broken and neither boat is entitled to room.

It is true that if the port boat is not sailing within the mark-room she is entitled to she does not enjoy the exoneration for breaking rule 10 that comes while sailing in that room.  Go outside of that room at your own peril!

Carl .. here'ya go .. I just happened to have saved the drawing.  I added a position zero. - ang

PS re: "normal position" will still have a life in this context as it is used in Cases 77 and 91.  It was removed from def:finish only because finish is now determined by when the hull crosses and not equipment as before .. so 'normal position' went away along with what it referred to ..  which was "equipment".

Anthony, I don't think it's relevant whether sheeting in sails is an abnormal action or not.

Case 21 starts by talking about minimum and maximum room. We then get on to the benign conditions, which I submit is mainly about the minimum. In the more extreme conditions the case goes on to discuss then room required is greater than this minimum and arguably the odd six inches doesn't come into it anyway. 

So what is this minimum? On the one hand it is clearly more than just the hull, otherwise the example in the case need not mention sails at all. On the other hand it is less than sails out of position, be it a loose mainsheet or a flogging kite. So I submit room for sails in their normal position is a rational, indeed the most logical choice, and the most consistent with the rest of the RRS. 

As John cogently argues, how much is too much? If your definition of minimum room includes sail pulled in 6 inches, then why not a foot, or even centrelined? If sail position is included at all then the only rational choice is trimmed as it would be in the absence of other boats. Otherwise the PC is left with a most nebulous judgement call. 

Gents-
I appreciate your setting me straight. I will stick to my guns on the Proper Trim as opposed to Beam Max in the room requirement department here. Thank you again!!

Jim:
"Extraordinary and Abnormal" are the words used in the case to describe what outside cannot expect inside to do. They are the words used in the case and so they matter as much as the two words on which you have hung your whole argument.

I know and respect John Christman greatly (and I'm looking forward to seeing you as a member of our club down here in San Diego soon, John). But I disagree with him here. There are slippery slopes on both sides. An inside boat in the scenario I mentioned above (a normal-looking rounding of a course-left gate) could use your argument to say "I had to sheet in faster than I wanted. Even though there was no contact between boats or the mark, I don't feel there was enough room given."  I also disagree with John's position that the burden of proof is on the outside, ROW boat.  In all places in the rules except 18 2e, the idea of who has the burden of proof has been dropped.  
It is not the case that the Outside ROW boat would have to prove that the inside boat sailed in an un-seamanlike manner. That's not the test. 
The Seamanlike test asks "Did inside have to do anything un-seamanlike in order to sail in the room provided?"  
Case 21 goes on to elaborate on what "un-seamanlike" looks like by adding "extraordinary or abnormal." 
In this scenario, no such un-seamanlike, extraordinary and abnormal maneuvers are required for Green to finish safely (at least, not at 6 knots). 

The PC is always free to decide what enough room is for the existing conditions, the size and speed of the boats etc. That is the main point of case 21. 
I just don't want this additional test, which I think is taken from a sentence out of context, to be added as a definitive one. I want to preserve the spirit of case 21, which is that there is no definitive answer to "how much room is enough." The protest committee looks at the evidence and decides. In Angelo's original drawing, there is roughly one third of the boats beam available between the two boats. 
Inside could have avoided by being more aware and steering 2 inches further towards outside. I don't want a case where inside, keep clear says, "well, I altered my sail trim a little" and that is enough for outside ROW to be DSQed. 

I think it's clear from case 21 and others what the governing principles should be: Could a competent but not necessarily "expert" crew of the right number to sail the boat execute the maneuver in a seamanlike way. In the scenario drawn out, I think any competent crew could execute this maneuver with no trouble if the conditions were flat sea and 6 knots. 
The inside boat in this scenario is the keep clear boat. She is entitled to the room she needs to finish in a seamanlike manner, not doing anything extraordinary. She is not entitled to "proper course" and she is not entitled to do the maneuver exactly as she would have done if the outside ROW were not there. 
I want the PC to be able to say either "Yes, in the existing conditions inside could have finished in a seamanlike manner without doing anything extraordinary," or "No, it was not enough room to execute the maneuver."
I don't want "he moved his mainsail an inch" to be the one and only deciding factor. 
Under the six knot scenario, all inside had to do was be aware that he needed one more inch on the committee boat side and steer accordingly. He didn't do that. The contact was avoidable. 
I would DSQ him. 

-Tony

I'm not sure that we aren't talking slightly at cross purposes. I certainly don't really understand the source of your dramatic vision.
 
To me the key question in this exercise is Angelo's Q1 which I paraphrase as "Does room include room to get the sail through as well as the hull?"
 
I then paraphrase Q2 into "if inside has been squeezed so close to the mark that they must sheet the sail in to avoid contact then has sufficient room been given?" 

And my answers to those are yes and no. 

I'm not so much interested in the specific scenario except for the extent to which it illustrates Q1 and Q2. 

So if I imagine a hearing in which Blue alleges she was not given enough room, and adds as evidence of lack of room that her boom touched RC, and Yellow claims enough room was given, how do I see things proceeding? 

If there was contact then Blue broke relevant rules about avoiding contact, and I might well find that she could readily have avoided such contact by sheeting in. That's one set of facts found. 
 
Then my PC proceeds to the question of room. The contact is evidence that Blue was closer to the finish boat than she should have been, and she should have sailed a course some inches further away, and on my interpretation should have been given room to do so. So the PC now has to determine whether enough room was given. I don't see that this differs from any other determination of whether enough room was given, other than the fact that the contact demonstrates that Blue was too close to the finish boat. 

Yes, there are various scenarios that Yellow and Blue can dispute. Yellow will presumably say that she gave ample room for Blue to get through, and Blue simply misjudged the distance to RC. But if the PC finds as a fact that Blue could only negotiate the gap by sheeting in the sail then I suggest that demonstrates inadequate room was given. 

Given that my PC would presumably penalise Blue for avoidable contact, and Yellow for insufficient room. 

Now let's consider the case where Blue does sheet in to avoid a risk of contact. The task in front of the PC is exactly the same as regards room, except that Blue is claiming a reasonable apprehension of contact in an analogous way to Case 50.

I really don't see that this puts the PC in any more difficult a situation than they would be if one considers the sail irrelevant and Blue makes hull to hull contact with RC. In both cases the PC can be certain that Blue was too close to RC, and needs to decide whether this was due to Blue's misjudgement or Yellow not giving room. 

In your scenario of inside claiming she had to sheet in to avoid contact, I really don't see this as very different to Case 50s change of course to avoid contact. Except that it's probably rather hard for inside to comfortably satisfy the PC that she did indeed have to sheet in a second or so too early. But is it so very different from the judgement required if there is contact with the boom end, and outside claims it was because inside sheeted in too late? Or even if there is no contact, and outside claims she had an apprehension of collision with the boom end and sailed a wider course as avoiding action, and thus inside was outside her room? 

No matter how you play it these are always tricky judgements for the PC, but I really don't see that "room includes room for the sail properly handled" adds any overall difficulty. 

As an analogy, might we consider two boats overlapped on the same gybe, running downwind with a continuing obstruction to windward? Is leeward entitled to squeeze windward so close to the obstruction that windward must centreline her mainsail to keep clear, or is windward entitled to room to sheet the sail normally? 

Jim .. yea .. that's why I phrased the OP questions  in terms of room and not mark room (though my example was a MR one).

I think this standard would need to be applicable in, and to stand the test against, any application of room.

I haven't thought of an application where it's a problem yet. 

Hi Angelo,

I'm baring my soul. I'm a KISS practitioner and love to keep it simple. As with many many things in sailing, the term :"it depends" always applies..The sea and wind conditions for instance in the current discourse. I think one has had to umpire match or teams events to fully appreciate the fact that the principle of "one size fits all" just doesn't apply.

Giving room is so subjective. On the water it's so easy - "you know it when you see it". In the 'room', one mustn't get carried away over-analysing situations. Did the "mark-room" boat take advantage of all the space provided by the ROW boat? Yes or No. Was sufficant space provided? Yes or No.

And whilst I agree that timming the sails "properly" as in Case 21 is seamanlike, so too do I believe trimming a sail to avoid contact is seamanlike, as it is most unseamanlike not to do so.

One point: in a good wind sheeting in the mainsail risks making the boat luff. If this happens does it influence our decision?

Another point: the overlap between these boats has been established for some time. Yet Green only changes course to give mark-room very late, once (almost) completely in the zone. Does this influence our decision?

Phil re: "And whilst I agree that timming the sails "properly" as in Case 21 is seamanlike, so too do I believe trimming a sail to avoid contact is seamanlike, as it is most unseamanlike not to do so."

I agree .. that's why I'm staying clear of "seamanlike" now (though I started believing it might be at the heart of it).  I'm of the opinion now that Case 21 indicates that space for "properly trimmed sails" is as fundamental as space for crew (Case 74) or for the hull (though, I am left wishing it was more definitively stated as such as in my example wording).

This has been an interesting discussion. It is clear that when sailing along a continuing obstruction, room has got to include room for your sails.
I stand by my decision on the case Angelo drew out in light air because Blue has ⅓ of its beam available on the port side. It had room to avoid the finish boat and didn't do so. In high wind or rougher seas, the same diagram would indicate not enough room given by Green.

I would not have DSQed Green if Blue had missed the finish boat by sheeting in and protested because: A, she had other options and B; I think the situation is different from a continuing obstruction.

I think hanging the argument on one line in case 21 is inappropriate. As I've said, that sentence clearly is intended to limit where Inside can position its sails. Angelo said it is not the clear statement he "hoped" to have but that he "Could work with it." I'm not sure you are supposed to work with it. If there were a clear statement, I would follow that case. As it is, you are doing an eisegesis on the language. 
You are also ignoring other clear statements of what is and is not expected from each boat. The closing paragraph is very clear and you just refuse to include it in your thinking. 

The scenario drawn, in light air, falls squarely within the first limitation stated in the last paragraph of the case. "[Inside]... is not entitled to complain of insufficient space if she fails to execute with reasonable efficiency the handling of her helm, sheets and sails while manoeuvring."
She could have steered a few inches farther from the finish boat. If she failed to do that and then had to sheet in the main to miss the finish boat, that's on her. 

The reason the scenario is not strictly comparable to the continuing obstruction is because this is a maneuver, where direction, sail trim and other components of the picture are changing.
Blue is turning down and eased her sheets out. The last sentence of the appeal states: "...outside boat must provide enough space so that the inside boat need not manoeuvre in an extraordinary or abnormal manner."
I think Green met those criteria. Easing your main out in a controlled manner so that you don't hit the committee boat as you pass is neither extraordinary nor abnormal. 
She didn't actually have to sheet in. She just had to control how she sheeted out--which would be seamanlike. 
Was Green supposed to anticipate exactly how Blue would adjust her sails as she turned? 

Bottom line: Blue had room to finish by employing seamanlike maneuvers in 6-knot conditions. If she hit the committee boat because she steered too close or let her main out too fast, that's on her. 

> Was Green supposed to anticipate exactly how Blue would adjust her sails as she turned? 
Isn't that a judgement we all have to make every time we are giving mark room? Green isn't required to judge exactly how much room to give, only to give enough.

Green is required to give enough room. Blue is required to sail within the room. If Green hasn't give enough room she should be penalised, and if Blue fails to sail in that room she should be penalised. 

If Blue is given inadequate room and consequently hits the mark with the boom end due to not sheeting in when she could reasonably have done so then it would certainly be fair to penalise rather than exonerate her, but that wouldn't absolve Green from not giving enough room in the first place. 
On the other hand if Blue was given enough room but misjudged and failed to utilise it then of course that would be on her. 

Anyway I've wibbled enough on this topic. Apologies if I've sailed outside my room! 

Very enjoyable discussion!

The inside boat is entitled to mark-room and will be exonerated for breaking rule 10 when sailing within this space. This is where the situation starts. I argue that she has this right until she´s clearly outside it. I would put some of the weight to the inside boats evaluation of the circumstances. She is sailing seamanlike until it´s proven that she does not. The outside boat has to give her this space. Same thinking in 18.2e or C2.5. This means to me that the sheeting of main or not must be on the inside boats discretion (.. ?). 

I suggest the following:
The rule says outside ROW must give room
The definition says that is room to complete the maneuver in a seamanlike manner
Case 21 lays out what the criteria for seamanlike look like for both inside and outside. 

 

Two different cases might go like this (we’ll keep the basics of the drawing of a finish boat etc. the same). Sea state is calm, and breeze is 6 knots. Boats have a beam of 5 feet

 

Facts found (not appealable)

 

Conclusions:

 

Decision

Green broke rule 18 and is disqualified.

 

In a separate case, all the same except facts except Fact 1 

 

Conclusion        

 

Decision

                Protest is dismissed.

               

Angelo keeps saying he now wants to stay away from deciding whether the maneuver Blue had to execute was seamanlike. But that is EXACTLY what we must decide.

-Tony

Tony .. re: "Angelo keeps saying he now wants to stay away from deciding whether the maneuver Blue had to execute was seamanlike"

Hmmm Tony .. not exactly.  What I am saying is that, until I'm convinced otherwise (or a new Case slaps some sense into me), I think   ...

Above is a static determination of the outlines of the minimum-inner-bounds of room's "space".  

"Seamanlike way" is an adverb modifying "maneuver" .. which is describing an action.  To move this inner-bounds of "space" through a maneuver, room's "space" will increase from this inner-bounds based upon conditions, margins of safety, while the boat is maneuvering in a seamanlike way.

That's what I'm saying to be clear (for the time being).