Rene,

I like your diagram.  Diagrams make rules much easier to discuss.

I will jump in early.

Your question has been discussed before and it was clear that there are generally two ways to read that word 'cause'.

It depends on your upbringing and where you learned English really.

So what are these two interpretations?

1. That 'to cause' something needs an action.  A Newton-esque action/reaction, 'Cause and effect' idea I suppose.

The effect could be a collision with an object which should be avoided.  What was the 'causing' action.

In 14(c) it would mean some kind of course change perhaps, which Blue could mot escape from.

I don't see that in your diagram.

2. That 'cause' simply means 'is the reason for' and even passive presance can cause something.

In your diagram you show Red sailing a course where there is not enough room between her and the mark for 2 boats.  Some would say if Red does not bear away she caused Blue to hit the mark. 

So, your diagram is good for Interpretation 2, but not for Interpretation 1.

The discussion ended (to me) with me understanding both Interpretations and accepting that a casebook case will be needed to sort this out.  So I don't get too worried about it now. 

Interesting stuff anyway.  Such is the joy of the English language, right?

(I personally agree with Interpretation 1 by the way!  What about you?) 

We really need a case about 'caused' in RRS 14.

I tend towards Ben's preference for there to be a positive action by a boat to 'cause' the contact.

BUT I note that Rene has carefully framed the scenario so that RRS 19 does not necessarily apply.

Supposing that A was an obstruction,  then Red is required to give Green and Blue room to pass it and I would be satisfied that Red's failure to give room caused contact between A and Blue.

IMHO in case of protest it would be as follows, assuming A is a mark to be left on port:
- Blue has right for room on Green
- Green has to pass that on to Red and Red has to give room to Green to avoid contact.
Protests would be a s follows:
Blue sets protest to Green, Green (has) to set protest on Red. In case Blue sets the protest she can continue to sail without taking a penalty for touching the Mark.

I am a little confused by most of these comments.  "A" is described as "an object that should be avoided". It is NOT a Mark. And it is NOT an obstruction - there is apparently navigable water all round and no great change of course is required to avoid it. And it does not have a proper side to pass. I don't think Blue has the right to Room - she should sail on the opposite side or tack to avoid the object. If she does not, then she has infringed R11. No boat has caused her to contact the object.

To clarify, Red is heading up a fraction and subsequently forces Green to head up a fraction causing Blue to run into a channel marker.

1. What in the rules is an 'object that should be avoided':
- an obstruction as defined in the Definitions, this includes RoW boats and boats entitled to room or mark room
- a continuing obstruction as defined in the definitions
- a boat that a rule requires another boat to avoid (I think that this is an obstruction)
- a mark of the course under RRS 31
Can anyone add to this list?

In the original diagram the size of the object that is to be avoided leads me to conclude that it is an obstruction. So RRS 19 applies.

2.  Cause does not mean compel

Cause appears in RRS14. Compel  appears in RRS 43.1(a).

Cause  The appropriate definition (one of many) of the noun 'cause ' is  'a person, thing, event, state, or action that produces an effect'
The verb is defined as ' to be the cause of; bring about; precipitate; be the reason for'

Compel 
The appropriate definition is 'to cause (someone) by force (to be or do something)'

So in the example: The effect produced by Red holding her course was that Blue hit the object. Or, the reason why Blue hit the mark was that Red held her course. Red caused Blue to hit the object.

As Blue could have changed course at 2 she was not compelled to hit the object. 

Gordon re: "Can anyone add to this list?"

I guess I would add any object which is small enough to not meet the definition of obstruction but which might cause damage/entanglement to/with the object or the boat.  

An example of that would be marks of other race-courses in the racing area.

Then, in answer to your question...

I'd say no!!!  Red's course change is so imperceptible in the diagram many words have been expended on the view that there was no course change.  Consider making it clearer whether there was a course change or not.

(My first post still stands.)
---------------
Rules discussions can get complex if the objective isn't clear in the facts, diagrams or questions.  To show 14(c), why not make it very clear that there was (or was not) course change.

Additionally, your 'object' here has spurred the inevitable side-discussion whether it is big enough to be an obstruction (invoking whole new rules) or not.

Food for thought.

We've spent A LOT of electrons navel-staring at "cause", but I think we've spent little time on "should be avoided". 

To me, "should be" seems clearly broader than "shall be as required by the rules" (what seems to be Gordon's approach).  Maybe that wasn't the intent, but that's how it reads to me.

This again opens up a judgement call it seems.

Maybe a RRS 17-like analysis is in order?  

Test: "an object that should be avoided"  = Any object that a prudent helmsman would avoid contact with, in the absence of the other boats referenced in the rule.

How's that???? 

Is size a criteria for deciding if an object is an obstruction. I have sailed on rivers and small lakes shared by sailors and anglers. A boat would ask for room to avoid or to tack to avoid a fishing float and the line attached to it.

Gordon .. is size a criteria for obstruction?

Seems so to me  .. changing course substantially when 1 hull-length from it sets up a geometric scale of the size of an object to meet the def: obstruction.

"An obstruction is (a) an object that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially, if she were sailing directly towards it and one of her hull lengths from it;"

 an object that a boat could not pass without changing course substantially, 
That would include a fishing line. A float, the line to which it is attached, and the fishing rod held by the angler are physically small but create a line that a boat should avoid. It is not seamanlike to trail metres of fishing line and fishing tackle behind a boat

Gordon  What in the rules is an 'object that should be avoided':

Circularly, it's an object that a boat breaks RRS 14(c) bi causing another boat  to make contact with

Archtypically, see  Match Race Call D1

So now Rene says Red changed course.   The answer is 

My 2 cents:

Conclusion: in this case, Red causes the collision by choosing a course that makes it impossible for Blue to avoid the obstruction.

OK - so A is not a Mark to be rounded - which takes rule 18 out of the equation - PLEASE describe situations more precise since Syntax and Sematic discussions do not HELP (especially in a real hearing)

A is a fixed Buoy .... not cleat if there is a line/chain attached and whether it is floating at an angle due to currents.....

Then: in situation 1 all 3 boats are sailing towards an obstruction upwind with Blue in a squeeze. Blue could/should hail she wants room to avoid an obstruction.....RRS19
Green could answer - You Tack, not my problem since RRS11 is in effect. Green is not changing course.
Red is on a straight course - so no problem with green - she might even luff up a bit.

In situation 2 Blue is changing course, but to leeward despite RRS 11 and hits the Buoy ..... Her mistake, but......
Green should have tried to prevent Blue colliding with the obstruction (RRS14) and call out to Red to give space.
If Red did gave the room, next Green should set a protest against Blue on RRS 11 if Red gave the room - Red can testify for Green.
If Red did not give room, but had the opportunity and time to do so.... Then Green keeps her protest against Blue (RRS11) and Blue (surely in case of damage) can protest against Green for not avoiding collission RRS14 and Green can protest agains t Red for not giving space and should get exonorated from Blue's protest under RRS 14 since she could not help avoiding the collision due to Red not responding. Blue and Red would get DSQ.

Bottom line in safe & clever sailing - Blue should have tacked away and not force an impossible situation fot itself by not sailing in a seamanlike manner having to boats put in a split second dependancy.... 

Thanks all for your comments and please excuse my clumsy drawing and even clumsier description. Below perhaps more accurately illustrates my intentions: the "object" is not to scale. My question aimed to create a situation where 14(c) is unambiguously applicable.

I read in several comments that Blue made a bad choice and shouldn't have, but this is always the case where Rule 14 is invoked as there must be another rule broken for Rule 14 to come into effect. I do not think "an object that should be avoided'' is ambiguous and can easily be argued on a case-by-case basis, hence my nonchalant description. The only thing it excludes is another boat, which is expressly dealt with under Rule 14(b). Is there agreement that Green breaks Rule 14(b) (between Blue and Yellow) and Rule 14(c) (between Yellow and an object that should be avoided) in the diagram below?

Rene.

That's a better diagram.  Much clearer.

I agree that Green broke 14(b) and 14(c).  Also, 16.1.

And perhaps 19 (but let's not go there right now).

---------------------------
That's easy.  But what about the case where leeward makes no course change, but is just there.

Can a boat be the 'cause', but not 'cause' a crash?

Ha ha. Talk about moving the goal posts! Yeah, I guess outside leeward did luff a bit.

There was a Q&A back in 2018 that held that it was unseamanlike to cause a boat to hit a mark that wasn't a mark of the course. So a leeward boat luffing windward such that windward couldn't avoid hitting the mark (without penalty mind you), broke rule 16 because it was unseamanlike to hit a mark - even one for which there was no penalty for hitting it.Is that much help?
 As I found when looking back when disecting Obstructions a couple of weeks ago, the basics haven't change much over a very long time. Talking about "objects" works fine because the 'something' in the water could be anything from a swimmers head, a small buoy attached to a line marking a fish trap or cray pot on the bottom; a mooring line floating on the water from a concrete block on the bottom, or a small dinghy left on a mooring. Could be any old "object", and each boat approaching has to make a value judgement whether it's an Obstruction on not  depending on the size of the 'object', the size of the boat approaching it and the angle of the dangle..It might not be an Obstruction to Green in the diagram but it might be so to Yellow. So it's an endless variable issue requiring an answer commencing with "it depends".
Personally, I'd like to think I wouldn't luff a boat into an object. But I'd sure as hell try to luff it aboue the object if it was tactically to my advantage. That's just me.

I think our rule makers have stuffed up rule 14. We wre all pretty happy with it on the water just as it was. Consider the two discussions we've had on the meaning of "cause" . The new 'improved" rule is going to require a Case to tell sailors what it means and that aint going to be easy.. A Q&A won't do because that isn't definitive. We'd still have arguments. 

Phil,

I don't think it's all that bad.

English is full of instances where there may be two valid interpretations.  An authoritative casebook steps in then. 

Only with this case, one interpretation clearly doesn't work the other seems to.