Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
New Hailing Requirement in rule 20.1
0
What happens when a boat hailing for room to tack does not use the new prescribed words for such a hail in rule 20.1.?
Green and Yellow are approaching a shoreline. Green wishes to tack and makes the hail “Yellow, I need to tack” indicating she wants room to tack, but does not use the new required wording in rule 20.1 -“room to tack”. Yellow, realizing the hail does not comply with rule 20.1 immediately hails “Protest” and adds that they will tack in a boatlength. Green immediately hails protest feeling that under rule 20.2, Yellow must respond to any hail indicating a desire to tack and Yellow has not responded as required under rule 20.2(b) and (c). The required response is a tack as soon as possible or a hail back “you tack”. Green feels a delayed response of tacking a boat length later is too late. After a further boat length sailed, both boats tack, one after the other and neither runs aground. Yellow feels she has complied with rule 14(c) by not causing Green to run aground and that is all she needs to do where there is no compliant hail.
On the question of whether Green’s non-compliant hail can be protested, Yellow says, the words “room to tack” are now mandatory in 20.1 if Green is asking for room to tack. Green says, the rule uses the words “may hail … by hailing “room to tack” so no hail is mandatory, it just has to be correct to invoke the rule. Any other hail is a nothing.
On the question of the delayed response by Yellow, Yellow says that the “hail” as stated in rule 20.2(b) is referring to the hail as defined in 20.1 and not any old hail or even a hail that indicates a desire to tack. It would be normal in English where an item or noun is defined in detail and then in a following sentence the item or noun is referenced with a single word, that the single word would mean an item satisfying the detailed description. Since the hail does not satisfy rule 20.1 then Yellow thinks she does not have to respond apart from the rule 14(c) obligation to not cause contact. In the 2021 Cases, indicating a desire to tack was enough to have a proper hail and invoke 20.2(b) but that is not enough now for a proper hail so the old Cases don’t really give guidance on how to deal with failure to use the required wording.
Old Cases with some relevance are 10, 33 and 54.
To summarize the key questions:
Question 1. Can a boat be penalized for making a hail for room to tack that indicates their desire to tack but that does not use the words required for such a hail as defined in rule 20.1 i.e. “room to tack”.
Question 2. Can a boat that ignores a room to tack hail that does not hail the words “room to tack” be penalized or does the failure to make the correct hail mean none of rule 20 is invoked.
Note that if you decide that a bad hail is not protestable but that the hailed boat still needs to respond if the hail indicated a desire to tack then that would make the new rule change meaningless as any hail that worked in the old rules would work in the new with no negative consequences for the hailer.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
A boat that ignores a hail for room to tack that does not contain the words 'room to tack' does not break RRS 20.2, but she may break other rules of Part 2 including RRS 14.
In my opinion, both boats break rule 20 (literal interpretation) or neither of them do (contextual interpretation).
I do favour the literal interpretation.
If one boat claims that the initial hail was invalid under Rule 20.1, ie, “Yellow, I need to tack” rather than "Room to tack", then the reply hail was also invalid under Rule 20.2(c) ie, “Protest and we will tack in a boatlength" rather than "You tack".
Rule 24 waters down the literal interpretation to some degree.
Rule 14 becomes highly relevant as it now includes the prohibition on "causing contact between a boat and an object that should be avoided."
20.1 is ON see 20.2(b) The hailed boat shall respond even if the hail breaks rule 20.1.
There for Yellow must respond 20.2 (A) After a boat hails, she shall give the hailed boat time to respond.
Yellow can only respond by tacking or hail “You tack” 20.2(C).The hailed boat shall respond either by tacking as soon as possible, or by immediately replying "You tack" and then giving the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her.
Yellow could now call protest on the hailing green boat but not before she has responded under 20.2 (c).
Question 1. Yes. 20.1, The protest committee may DSQ or at least a warning.
Question 2. Yes 20.2(c) via 20.2(b) The protest committee may DSQ or at least a warning.
Yes, thanks, that appeal is very helpful.
I don't believe that the hail "breaks rule 20.1" as mentioned in 20.2. Instead, I think it fails to trigger 20.1 at all. As such, neither boat breaks a rule in this case.
However, if given guidance that both boats broke a rule, I'm not against that interpretation for safety's sake. The reason I prefer the former interpretation is both for simplicity, and allows us to discuss the needed room in advance without triggering the rule: "I'm going to need space to tack when we get to this shoreline. I'll hail when needed."
*I have one add-on to John Allan's post. If the hail is insistent, I think it could break RRS2, fair sailing, the same way that hailing starboard when on port could break the rule if the intention is to mislead.
https://www.sailing.org/document/ac23-014-23-submission-rule-20-1-room-to-tack/
So it was the intention of the rule change that 20.2b included the possibility that the wrong hail was made and would still be required to be responded to.
Is the intention not to remove ambiguous shouts like "I will need room to tack" and the discussion of "do you need room NOW, or room in 5 boat lengths"
Working through options in my head - if the call is ambiguous the better response is "you tack" rather than the hailed boat tacking. That way the hailed boat retains control to some extent.
The problem is if you don’t think rule 20.2 is ON via an incorrect hail and you don’t respond you could very well be breaking other more important safety rules EG 1.1, Fair sailing Rule 2 and rule 14. And to top it off maybe a unnecessary repair bill.
A boat may hail for room to tack and avoid a boat on the same tack by hailing 'room to tack';
A hailed boat shall respond even if the boat breaks rule 20.1
These are:
- A hail conveying a request for room to tack but does not use the words 'Room to Tack' is not a hail for room to tack. RRS 20.2 does not apply and the hailed boat is not required to respond; or
- A hail conveying a request for room to tack but does not use the words 'Room to Tack' is a hail for room to tack, but the hail breaks RRS 201. RRS 20.2 does apply and the hailed boat is required to respond. The hailed boat may protest the incorrect hail.
In my opinion the second interpretation serves our sport far better.
Radio sailing provides a test-bed to stress test RRS 20.
When sailing from right to left (as seen from the control area) boats starting on starboard reach a very solid continuing obstruction (the bank!) seconds after starting. The entire fleet, of between 15 and 24 boats, will need to tack. To say that the situation can become confusing, noisy and stressful, would be an understatement.
When the first boat approaches the bank there may be several (often 5 or more boats) that will have to tack before she can tack. There will be other boats a short distance astern, and the tacking boats will have to weave their way through the fleet, or tack back on to port. Cases 35, 101 and 113 explore simple examples of these situations.
However, if following an incorrect hail the hailed boat is not obliged to respond the following scenario will occur.
The hailing boat is RoW boat, she cannot hold the course, nor tack, her only option is to luff, without passing head to wind. The first boat outside her cannot hail for room to tack without breaking RRS 20.1, as she is too far from the bank. She must respond to the hailing boats luff. She cannot tack as she has a boat(s) outside her, so she will luff. This will force the next boat to luff, and the next...
The result will be a line of boats, all above close-hauled, all slowing, and in stronger winds getting into irons, as the second wave of boats approach rapidly from astern. In the ensuing chaos boats will collide, get damaged and become entangled.
I would argue that this is a scenario we should do everything to prevent.
I agree with the RYA interpretation of the rule.
this could be written as
Question
For the purposes of RRS 20.2(b) when does a hail break RRS 20.1
Answer
A hail breaks RRS 20.1:
- if the hailing boat not approaching an obstruction and will soon need to make a substantial course change to avoid it safely;
- If the hailing boat is not sailing close-hauled or above;
- If the hail clearly conveys that the hailed boat requires room to tack, but the hail does not include the words 'Room to Tack’. If the hail does not clearly conveys that the hailed boat requires room to tack, then no hail under RRS 20.1 has been made.
- If the obstruction is a mark and a boat that is fetching the mark would be required to change course as a result of the hail.
If anyone has a video of a radio sailing fleet approaching the bank soon after the start they would do us all a service by posting a link here.
Clearly written ...
This is the same format as taking a scoring penalty ..
Also, I have only just read the link posted by John Allan which clears up this entire matter (other than Angelo's point). I will repost for posterity here: https://cdn.revolutionise.com.au/site/3ikvtnvysem1iang.pdf
The RYA have already made clear that they have a very different interpretation of the rules: When a hail does not conform to RRS 201 the hailed boat reponds and then may protest. The RYA interpretation respects the long held opinion that rules 19 and 20 are primarily safety rules, to allow boats to avoid dangerous situations.
I believe that the rules should never create a situation in which a boat can avoid taking action and as a result putting another boat in a dangerous situation.
I was surprised to read the outcome and find it hard to align myself with the logic.
It's like not coming to a full stop before a stop sign, and because of that, the stop sign rule is nullified altogether.
It seems nonsensical, mainly because these rules are based on avoiding damage and injury.
What is needed is an urgent authoritative interpretation by way of an updated case or we will continue to have different interpretations around the World which would be very unsatisfactory imo.
If it ain't broke don't fix it and imo it wasn't broke!
The call states that when arm signals have been made but no hail then the umpires shall apply the 'last point of certainty' and assume that no call has been made. As no call has been made then the 'hailed boat' is not required to respond. Apply this at Cowes Week, Burnham Week or any club that sails on a small pond or river.
The MR Call, in the very specific context on match racing, effectively over-rides RRS 20.2(b) by declaring that a real, observed, signal that complies in part with RRS 20.1 did not happen.
This goes against the principle established in RRS 20.2(b), cases 10, 33 and 54 and the RYA interpretation set out in the submission: when a hail does not comply with RRS 20.1 the hailing boat should respond then protest.
The only people who will welcome the 'incorrect hail does not exist' interpretation would be the boat yard owners, as demand for their services to repair and re-build damaged boats will increase. Is it the role of RRS to act as a job creation scheme for boatyards?