My first reaction on reading this is that this is a dangerous conclusion.  Is there no obligation on the windward boat except when the jury decides it's reasonably possible that the hail could be heard?  Is it not clear to both boats that they are approaching an obstruction and that windward should be responsible for attempting to hear, or see, a hail for room?  Those that have listened to my rants on negligence understand my concern...

Paul,

A standard engineering technique for the testing of a system is to run it at the limits. With that in mind, let's consider two Mod-70s headed towards the breakwater at 30k. The rule as written and interpreted simply can't work. There is literally no physical way for a "hail" to be heard by the windward boat, even if the two boats were quite close together. One can't even shout across the cockpit on a Mod-70 at full speed. There is a similar problem with J-Class sloops, not to mention foiling Moths and foiling Kiteboards.  The entire idea of using a "hail" is a nostalgic anachronism from a time of slow moving small yachts in fair weather. 

Fortunately, if the windward yacht is keeping an appropriate look out she should notice as the leeward yacht comes head-to-wind as she starts getting dangerously close to the breakwater. Windward can protest but, as you clearly know, is required to avoid a collision under Rule 14. As you also know, there have been some pretty bad collisions along the San Francisco City Front breakwater from this combination: A rule that is out of touch with the realities of fast boats in windy conditions, and reliance upon windward keeping a sharp lookout for a luffing boat just to leeward of them. 

For a solution, I'd suggest taking a look at Rule 1.3 in the World Sailing Super Yacht Rule. It requires monitoring of a radio channel and requires a response to a hail. This seems a completely rational approach, but will probably prove difficult on a foiling Moth ;)
 

How about a more simple solution like what is in Appendix ?  

I agree with you Paul, seems a dangerous conclusion.

Come to think of it, it is surprising to me that sound-signals haven't been incorporated into the rules for this B2B comm in adverse conditions.  As a safely item, at least in US waters, all boats have to have a sound signalling device of some sort .. even it is just a whistle.  One could envision defining unique sound-burst sequences which isn't normally used for RC comm and could be unique to B2B hail/respond for rule 20.  Don't think that an RC could incorporate that into the SI's though as it changes Part 2.
 

PS ... "Room to-tack" .. Long-short-short ... "You Tack" .. short-short

If a boat is sailing into a situation where she needs to hail for room to tack, I think she has a responsibility to insure that she has the ability to communicate that hail. If she does not have that confidence, it is unseamanlike for her to go there. "My boat is too big and noisy." is not a good excuse. Arm signals and manditory use of the radio were added when necessary. Moths, iceboats (not RRS), and disabled sailing have all addressed the issue.
 

(As a seed for later discussion - Is anyone else concerned about protest committees automatically accepting the statement from the protesting boat that she hailed protest; sometimes adding the statement, "a hail is required, it isn't necessary that you, the protestee, hear it..."?)

i think the result is very dangerous. this is a common occurance and the rules should cover it. i agree that hand signals or vhf may be an answer.

i had a boat the other week that said it did not hear the you tack.

how many small boats say they did not hear the hail of protest a hIling boat may go to head to wind, and continue hailing.

5 BL to leeward, and 5 BL ahead, I'm confused by how L needed to ask for room, I'd question the validity of the hail.  Either L tacks and crosses, or tacks and ducks.  It may not be the most tacktically advantageous decision, but I'm not sure I would call it an unseaman like manuever with 5 BL to act within.

Steve, one of our rides is a 60' Alden schooner. Her turning circle is about 4-5 boat lengths. For a modern design with a fin and spade, sure 5 BL is plenty of room to tack and duck or cross. But in our ride, no way. No way in the J-Class either.

We're continuing to run into problems in all this by applying the same RRS to all racing things with sails. I seriously doubt that the same rules (this one in particular) can apply to all the various things we race in or upon.

This question is also tied into the changes to case that were made in the case book. The case now talks about about repeating the call and arm signals.
 

Good question by Steve, the boat could have slowed and passed behind.

I don't really have a problem with this.  First, as described, I believe that this is an improper hail.  A boat that is 5 BL below and 5 BL ahead of another boat should be able tack and avoid the other boat by ducking in that distance even if it is a big duck.  RRS 20 does not mean that the boat that needs room gets to tack and sail away from the shore on the new close hauled tack, although this is a common interpretation by some.  On the SF City front this is one of the most broken rules I see.  The fact that the hail could not be heard tells me that the boats were too far apart for the leeward boat to need the other boat to give room for her to tack.  I think of it this way, RRS 20 is a get-out-of-jail-free card for breaking RRS 13 and nothing more.  Otherwise, when does the room afford by RRS 20 'turn off'?

I think the problem here is the flip flop nature of rule 20 in respect of a hail. If the boat approaching the obstruction does not hail before tacking she breaks a rule while if the hailed boat does not respond then she breaks a rule - there is no obvious middle ground where no rule is broken if the hail is not heard. If you place the onus on the hailing boat to make sure her hail is heard (as the answer does) then that is unfair on her as she cannot guarantee that her hail is heard but if you place it on the hailed boat it is equally unfair as you are requiring her to respond to something she hasn't heard.
 

The common sense approach is that as this would only occur when the boats are some away apart (if they were closer the hail would be heard) there would be room for the hailing boat to start her tack and the hailed boat seeing this would respond by tacking - this is in fact a suggested course of action in WS Case 54 if the hail is not heard. In that circumstance I think it is not only sensible but correct under the rules to call no penalty. The hailing boat has hailed and is therefore entitled to room to tack under 20.1(a). The obligation on the hailed boat is to "tack as soon as possible" under rule 20.2(c) and clearly it is only possible for her to respond by tacking when she is aware that she has been hailed which, if she did not hear the hail, would be when she sees the other boat starting to tack. As long as the first boat tacks slowly enough to allow no contact I would call that as no penalty. Bear in mind that 20.1(a) only requires the hailing boat to give the hailed boat time to respond, nowhere does it say that she has to wait for the response before tacking. 20.2(d) says what she must do if the hailed boat does respond but is silent on the subject of what she may do if the hailed boat does not respond.
 

I realise that my "solution" is a bit of a fudge but as judges we have work with the rules as they are and not as they appear on our wish list. The alternative is to either penalize a boat that is running into danger and has hailed for room to tack for taking the only safe course of action open to her or penalize a boat for failing to respond to a hail which she has not heard, I think my proposal makes the best of a bad job.

What is wrong with the Q & A answer is that it devalues the rule, which is a safety rule and should be treated as very important.  The facts of this actual case I agree raise the question as to whether it was necessary.  A rule 20 call should always be respected and complied with and World Sailing should not do anything to provide an argument to reduce its effectiveness.  Of course a boat has an argument if it didnt hear the hail, which is why hand signals are useful, but it can be argued just as easily that the hand signals were not seen.  In this case as in nearly all cases, both boats should have been aware that they were standing into a dangerous situation and should have been ready to take steps to avoid the danger.  The windward boat should have been ready for a Rule 20 call and the inside/leeward boat should have been ready to slow down and tack away in case she had to.
 

This isn't something for judges or World Sailing to play with - it is a matter of serious safety.

Given the scenario, the hailing boat should be prepared to at least luff HTW to slow and to get the attention of the windward boat.  Also, I go back to a sound signal .. a 50ft boat will have at least a hand-held air horn or bell.  Also, 5BL x 5BL means they were 7 BL's apart or 350ft .. more than an american football/soccer field length apart.  Given that distance,  I would think that even in 12kts of breeze a hail that far might be an issue ..  as well as hand signals.

.

Also, seems we are missing the speed of the boats and the type of boat such that it can be determined if the R20 call was even appropriate.

.

Wouldn't the SI's of most regattas that would include 2 50'ers in 20kts have a requirement to have functioning radio equipment, that radio to be on and monitoring the race-comm channel as well as safety channel(s) in the jurisdiction?  If we take the case at face-value, that the R20 hail was required given the conditions, speed and turning-response of these vessles, and given that failing to have an effective R20 comm could result in a grave safety issue (either a t-bone or seawall crash), wouldn't radio comm boat-2-boat be approriate and acceptable under the rules or SI prescriptions of most races?

Given that L is 5 boat lengths ahead and 5 to leeward there she should be able to tack and pass astern of W if the later does not also tack.