Two port-tack boats are sailing close-hauled toward the windward mark, outside the zone (so Rule 18 does not yet apply).
A starboard-tack boat is also sailing close-hauled on the opposite tack (the “stand-on” boat under Rule 10).
The inner port-tack boat wants to tack because she is on a collision course with the starboard-tack boat.
However, the inner boat only shouts “woi tack!” — and does not use the proper call “Room to tack for an obstruction” as required by Rule 20.1(a).
It's safety rule, what shall starboard boat do?
Bear in mind that, in this scenario, PL is exercising a choice under RRS 19.2(a): she can always change her mind and bear away and pass astern of S, and accept her obligation to give PW room to pass between her and S under RRS 19.2(b)
From google translate - "Woi tack" is likely a phonetic spelling of the Chinese phrase "我去" (w qùw space q ù
𝑤 𝑞ù), which translates to "I'm going" or "I'm leaving" in English.
That does not sound like an acceptable translation for 'Room to Tack'. Is there a Chinese version of the RRS and what words does that specify for the hail?
Again google suggests the phrase "room to tack" can be translated to "空間\" (kōngjiān) for the general meaning of "room" or space. But knowing what is in the RRS would help?
John
Rule 14 specifically requires boats to avoid making contact or causing contact between other boats, so yes, the windward port-tack boat should tack or slow if it becomes clear that the leeward port-tack boat will collide with the starboard-tack boat if she doesn't tack. But that has nothing to do with rule 20. If the leeward boat doesn't hail properly for room to tack, rule 20 does not apply and the windward boat is not obligated to tack or respond in any way.
My personal opinion is that rule 20 is far from being a safety rule, and in fact is the most dangerous rule in the RRS because it encourages boats to sail into danger and rely on a complicated set of hails and actions, possibly by multiple boats, to get her out of it. Without rule 20, she would slow or otherwise provide for her own safety, as a prudent mariner should do.
No, S is not on the same tack as the hailing boat. See RRS 20.1 first sentence.
PW might not be blocking PL from tacking, but that does not affect PL's entitlement to hail 'room to tack' under RRS 20.1. If PL hails 'room to tack' PW must respond and if there is plenty of space for PL to do so, PW mar respond 'you tack' and do nothing else.
Absolutely a starboard tack right of way boat is an obstruction to a port tack give way boat, with the usual Optimist v Commanche exception.
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;
(b) an object that can be safely passed on only one side; or
(c) an object, area or line that is so designated in a rule;
However, a boat racing is not an obstruction to other boats unless they
are required to keep clear of her or, if rule 22 applies, avoid her.
PL Is the inner boat. She is to leeward of PW. Unles PL is clear astern of PW, she is ROW, RRs 11 or 12.
Certainly she can, but that doesn't affect her RRS 20 entitlements.
I'm betting that the Bhasa Melayu version of RRS 20.1 does have those words <g>.
If so, what are the words shown in quotes in RRS 20.1?
In the 2025 RRS using exactly the right words is important.
Hails A language other than English may be used for a hail required by the rules provided that it is reasonable for it to be understood by all boats affected. However, a hail in English is always acceptable.
And fitting that with RRS 20.1?
To me if all boats use the local language and understand it, nothing has to be done to make a hail in that language acceptable.
There will always be a translation problem, as " room to tack" is strange wording.
So I believe the windward boat was required to respond to the hail.
This a bit like current UK law gived a two tier system, if you are in events where the competitors do not use the same language, " room to tack" is all that can be used.
In an event where all competitors use another language, something in that language, that may mean the same is now acceptable.
A strict rule if in English, but like the old rule for other language only regattas.
If the MNA publishes RRS in the national language then the words in the national language version of RRS 20.1 OR 'room to tack' must be used.
If the MNA does not publish RRS in the national language, then it is up to the jury to establish a jury policy stating what words, other than 'room to tack' shall be used.
The change Inserting '"room to tack"' into RRS 20.1 make it clear that exact specified words must be used.
A boat exercising either prudent seamanship or sound tactics will initially hail in sufficient time to repeat the hail, or have it passed on if necessary, before she 'sails into danger'.
Rob's (and my) main point is that if RRS 20 were not in the rule book, racers would deal with the situation much earlier using the existing rules. Using this case as an example, PL could luff HTW in a way where she avoided S and gave time to PW to avoid her, under RRS 10, 11, and 16. This would be a much safer option than waiting until she (PL) would "soon need to take avoiding action" and then expecting PW to bail her out of the situation by tacking immediately.
Deleting RRS 20 would put an end to all the questions and threads about the exact words used, when they were used, if they were heard, etc. Gee, one fewer rule and simplifying things. One less nuance to the rules. How can that be bad?
SCENARIO
NB: Other variables such as the relative positions, actual distance between the boats, their relative speeds etc could impact this.
As we're outside the zone, the mark is irrelevant, so the terms inner and outer become relative to the obstruction.
GREEN: Stbd, and an Obstruction - SOb
YELLOW: Port, Windward, Outer (relative to SO, the obstruction) - PWO
BLUE: Port, leeward, Inner, (relative to SOb, the obstruction) - PLI
All boats are required to avoid/and avoid causing contact (RRS 14).
SOb must hold her course (RRS 16).
PLI and PWO must both keep clear of SOb (RRS 10).
PLI must "choose" how she intends to avoid SOb early enough for PWO to keep clear of her RRS 19.2(a).
PWO must Keep Clear of PLI (RRS 11).
PWO must give PLI room to keep clear of SOb RRS 19.2(b).
There is nothing in the rules that says if a coultry publish a rule book they can change the words.
A translated version just contains a translation.
It is still open to a one language regatta to use similar words.
The translates rule book is not given preference.
No, but RRS Introduction Hails says
Hails A language other than English may be used for a hail required by the rules provided that it is reasonable for it to be understood by all boats affected. However, a hail in English is always acceptable.
The rules drafters are trying to have it both ways: specifying exact words in RRS 20.1 and saying 'any language' in the Introduction.
In my opinion, if a MNA translates the rules providing exact words, in quotes in RRS 20.1, that will meet the requirement.
Uhhh ... so MANY other threads ... we are running out of buses to throw rule 20 under.
But also, I don't know exactly what we mean in this case by "inner" and "outer". I think of "inner" as being windward in this scenario, but it could also mean leeward. Need better descriptions, complete situation, and a diagram.
Several of us have argued against the "strict wording" approach to hails. I won't recount those arguments here. But I had failed to appreciate that the rules still rely on the other approach -- reasonableness standard -- in these situations.
We shouldn't be too picky about how problem scenarios are presented.
Visualisation is an important skill for judges.
We should remember that not all posters here are experienced judges who are used to describing or diagramming situations.
No ads,
no live protests,
be kind,
be patient,
be respectful
be helpful, and
be accepting of all levels of expertise.
Along with those, the forum has only needed the very occasional gentle nudge from your friendly neighborhood forum moderators ;-)
If I wanted to continue on port, I would reply "You Tack" and would be prepared to tack immediately if it's "iffy", but hold course if Blue can continue her rotation in a seamanlike way and duck me. See Case 35
If I didn't mind tacking to STB, I'd say "you tack" and time my tack to put both Blue and Yellow in my backwind.
RRS Introduction: Hails A language other than English may be used for a hail required by the rules provided that it is reasonable for it to be understood by all boats affected. However, a hail in English is always acceptable.
It would seem the answer is...
“Woi tack!” can be used in Malaysia provided that it is reasonable for it to be understood by all boats affected as asking for room to tack.
"Chin, if it were me (Green), and I understood the hail as "room to tack" .... "
In the scenario, Green is the only boat affected.
Let's start with English. We have the recent Q&A 2025-007 which clearly indicates that the exact words "room to tack" must be used, regardless of understanding. It states .. (emphasis added)
OK .. thinking about the above, I think we've honed in on the source of confusion. In other languages, understanding is a key.
Requoting the Introduction .. (emphasis added)
So there we have it ...
When using another language it's all about understanding. When in English, 'reasonableness of it to be understood' has no bearing. The exact words must be used.
This begs the question: "Who decides what is 'reasonable to be understood by all boats affected' ?"
The first obvious answer is the hailed boats themselves (as stated in Introduction: Hails). If the hailed boat(s) understood that the hail meant 'room to tack', then the hail is acceptable. Is this true if the direct translation of that hail was a hail for "water", if that hail was well understood to mean "room to tack" in that language?
This is in contrast in the English speaking areas where calls for "water" was traditional and understood in this circumstance to mean "room to tack". Q&A 2025-007 tells us "reasonableness to be understood" does not matter and thus hails for "water" to mean "room to tack" is unacceptable.
Or ....
Are we saying that Introduction "hail" requires a word-for-word translation, such that a hail for "water" in another language, though 100% understood by those affected as "room to tack", would be unacceptable?
We are used to this in the UK as the government has responsibilities for citizens, but all others are eligible for lesser requirements.
Two boats are close-hauled on starboard tack, approaching an obstruction, such as the shore or the bank of a river. Boat A needs room to tack and avoid boat B. Boat A makes a hail in English that does not include the words 'Room to tack'. Boat B understands A's need and does not tack. Boat A tacks. Boat B shouts that A does not have the right to tack, then tacks. The boats make contact. They would not have made contact if Boat B had not hesitated and had tacked immediately when they saw Boat A start their tack.
If Boat B understood Boat A's hail, it seems clear that Boat B would be expected to tack immediately when Boat A tacks. Given the advance warning, it would be immediately clear that Boat A is not keeping clear. Boat B breaks 14 (a) and cannot avail themselves of the "need not act until it is clear" clause.
So, by adding the "magic words" clause, the new rule 1) doesn't change what happens on the water -- Boat B is still required to treat a call for "water" or any other reasonably understood hail as if it were the "magic words" hail, 2) encourages Boat B to then protest not because Boat A didn't have rights to room but because they used the wrong words (who would do that?), 3) still puts the PC in the role of deciding whether Boat B reasonably understood the hail, but for RRS14 instead of RRS20.
Seem like a reasonable view?
No correct hailwindward need do nothing.
It is all on the boat needing room.
They can luff subject to 16 but not tack.
If they tack and there is contact with no damage the row boat is exonerated. They should not expect the other boat to tack so they to me may not break 14 at all as they did not anticipate.
This is a horror zone look at the ws case on port starboard by the shore. Port is toast as as the boat failing to make the correct hail.
I think is if harsh but ws seem happy with this hardship, they created it when there seemed no problem.
Hence, even if the 20.1 hail doesn't have the magic words, the reasonably risk-averse skipper (and let's face it, the better sportsman) will treat it as a conforming hail, either by tacking or hailing you tack.
The corollary I can think of is calling a first serve in tennis "in" when it was out, and then forcing the server to play the point off that bad serve when they weren't really ready. Playing the game as written is most useful for new racers.
It is well established you do not have to anticipate, you follow what happens then make the call.
Lots of boats on port shout tacking expecting other boats to keep clear as soon as they tack trying to avoid rrs 15
Case 54 (emphasis added)
If there is some seperation you do not have to rack, call you tack to lee bow them so there is not a lead change.
This goes back to the previous posts, the boat gets room to tack, not tack and go down to closehaulled.
John .. your seemingly endless supply of buses is quite impressive. :-)
I don't think there is an analogy in another sport. This is not like calling an out ball in in tennis. It is more like "I win the point because you called the score '30 to Zero' instead of "30 Love". I don't know many sports, but I don't know one where saying "Room" (accepted for generations) and leaving out "to tack" changes whether the rule applies.
As for sportsmanship and teaching, in my experience, technicalities like this are best taught off the water in the coaching room, the parking lot, or the bar. If you are racing in 35 foot boats toward a seawall and ignore a hail of "Room" because you think they left out "to tack"... I cannot guarantee that they will think you a good teacher or a good sport.
A change of row need not be anticipated but apparently you should anticipate a hail.
This if course contrasts with the other case, where you have to hail early enough to allow for a second haid. Ws looking both ways at once, not good for clarity.
I do not like the current hail requirements, but they, and the effects are forced onto us by ws
It is inconsistant in itself, in describing a hail as having to be sufficieltly loudfor the other boat to hear it hardly consistent with anticipation.
As i see it you wait to hear the hail that must be capable of you hearing it, then you responed.
If you do not hear, do not fear as they will hail again.
I am sure this case from its original has been edited and edited, this shows how commirtee creep, comes in and what was originally agreed by a large ws body gets changed by a small committee.
I was shocked to be at an evenr weeks off the rule bok being finalised, to find a jury member was stll in edit mode. The ws main committee had approved subject to edit, this was done by a few possibly without reference to the main committee again.
It is sloppy and leads to the mess of a rule book ( i mean on changes) we have this time.
Whether if you see an incident and can protest, very sensible, is resolved we do not know.
Weas judges on this are in a horrible position caused by the rewrite of the rules.
A mess!