No! R18.2b still applies " If a boat is clear ahead when she reaches the zone, the boat clear astern at that moment shall thereafter give her mark-room." Furthermore, at P2, the boats are not yet leaving the Mark until reaching a line perpendicular to the course - compass direction - to the next mark, which in this case would be perpendicular to the wind direction and not the course - vector direction - of the room-entitled boat. I would suggest that Blue is also entitled to sail above close-hauled at P2, forcing Yellow into the Mark. And Yellow is not entitled to room at the obstruction under R19.1 since the obstruction is a Mark.
Edit. On reflection (and from Nicholas' comment) I withdraw the suggestion that Blue is entitled to sail above close-hauled - R18.2(c)(2) since that would be upwind of her Proper Course.. But stand by R19.1 since the Mark is an invalid obstruction.
Edit. On yet further reflection, I reinstate the suggestion that Blue is entitled to sail above close-hauled right up to htw - so long as he can justify a prompt tack would be his Proper Course.

I'm not an authoritative voice on this, but I think the following:

In other words, if Yellow is about to hit the buoy with her windward outrigger, she is SOL because she is required to allow Blue to sail her proper course until mark room has been given.
I DO think there is a potential restriction on Blue that she cannot luff above her proper course without giving yellow room to keep clear which would include room to avoid the mark. That's only relevant if yellow is not already on a collision course with the mark.

@Nicholas and @Stewart: please read Submission 138-18 pag.185 RRS Study Version

Contrary to the premise of the question, yellow has not given blue room at the mark per 18(2)(b). The  room which is required of yellow in rule 18(2)(b) is "mark-room". "Mark-room" includes room to sail to the mark (per the definition of "mark-room"). Blue cannot sail to the mark because yellow has interposed itself. 

@David: as you can see... Blue rounded wider. Yellow did not prevented Blue to luff to close-hauled

Luigi. I've read the submission 138-18. But I don't see the point you are making. Can you explain please.

Luigi, I've read the 138-18 submission. Is there a particular part that supports a conclusion of rule 18.2a being on while 18.2b is off? I believe this is the final wording of the rules as well, right? Am I right that the intention of the new rule (and how it differs from the old wording) is to either leave 18 on in it's entirety OR to turn it off completely? It is specifically designed to avoid the situation that has been drawn up, where Blue might need to suddenly provide mark-room.

At position 1.8, when the inside overlap began, mark room has not yet been fully given and 18 still applies. I suppose it's possible that at position 2 (and not a moment before) rule 18 is turned off, meaning rule 18.2a is also off between these two boats. Therefore Blue would be ROW boat, and would not need to comply with rules 15 or 16 because Yellow put herself in this give-way position, and also because Blue is not changing course after the mark-room has been given.

Without getting into the specifics of whether it is 18.2(a) or (b) that applies (I think it is 2(b)) the question is does rule 18 still apply at position 2. I think the answer is YES.
As Blue has not completed her rounding or passing of the mark, and is manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way, she is still entitled to mark-room.
I make the reference to promptly and seamanlike as that is included within the definition of room which is included in the definition of mark-room.

@John: imho Blue rounded the mark as can not sail more then close-hauled and she is already on a beat to windward and mark is no more part of her rounding (if you take out the mark nothing will change in Blue course/bearing or else) BUT maybe she is still passing the mark. Can not understand what is the connection between the mark and Blue course... 

Luigi. I'm still not sure what you want me to learn from 138-18. In the drawing, at P2, Blue's transom might have just cleared the line extension from transom to the Mark. But it is my understanding that the Mark is still relevant to the issue until Blue's transom (though I might be persuaded it is his bow that has to pass) has passed the perpendicular to the straight line to the next Mark (or exited the zone).  If rounding in the absence of Yellow, he might have borne off but not yet cleared the perpendicular or luffed up so he could promptly tack - both of which could be argued to be his Proper Course. Furthermore, if the Mark is deemed left astern at P2, then I restate that Blue is entitled to luff above close-hauled since  R18.2(c)(2) no longer applies and, as stated already, the Mark is an invalid obstruction. No??

Luigi,
There is nothing to prevent Blue from sailing higher than a close hauled course, if she wishes, to prevent Yellow from squeezing in. Any change of course would be subject to rule 16 but, if rule 18 is still on she would be exonerated breaking it under 21 (a) in the current rules and 43.1 (b) in the new rules. This is where I see the difference between the old and new rules as 18 will turn off earlier if Blue sails further downwind and passes the mark (as per the earlier post) before turning up, so she would and not be exonerated if she broke 16 as 18 would be turned off.

John S, I’d like to offer a counter opinion for discussion to your last post. 

Mark-Room
 
Room for a boat to leave a mark on the required side. Also,

Looking at 18.2(c) which applies: “... she shall also give that boat room to sail her proper course while they remain overlapped. “

Again, in the absence of other boats, Blue’s proper course is to reach close-hauled, which she has.  

IMO, Rule 18 no longer applies between Blue and Yellow at #2 based upon 18.1.   Therefore, rule 16.1 limits Blue’s course changes above close-hauled.

Hi Angelo,
I accept your comments, and perhaps we need more information as to where the next mark is. Assuming it is a fair windward leg does not Blue have a proper course on the other tack? She cannot pass head to wind as that would turn 18.2(b) and (c) off  but I do not see why she is prevented from luffing to prepare to tack. I think that is also be a proper course (A course she would choose to sail in the absence of the other boat). So the test for me is only whether 18 is still 'on'. Blue has not passed the mark so I consider it is still 'on' so Blue could be exonerated for breaking 16.  
If there was clearly only one proper course (e.g. if  the boats would be reaching to a finish line) then I agree Blue's change would be subject to 16. 

John, thanks for that reply.  

I have never seen proper course interpreted like that when going to windward with Rule 17 for instance.    A boat overtakes another boat by sailing close to leeward of her from clear astern, I have not seen it applied such that the leeward boat could luff Windward head to wind claiming her proper course was to be on the other tack. [again, assuming the next mark is to a good distance to windward]. 

Also I think we can see this in Case  13. In the decision excerpt below, there would be no need to point out that she had no proper course before her starting signal adding, “Therefore L’s luff did not break rule 17 ....”. The clear implication is that if she had a proper course, her luff would have broken rule 17. 

“[....] Therefore, she was required by rule 17 to sail no higher than her proper course. However, she had no proper course before the starting signal (see the definition Proper Course) and the starting signal was not made until after the incident. Therefore, L,s luff did not break rule 17 and she was in fact entitled to luff higher than she did, even as high as head to wind, as long as while so doing she complied with rule 16.1.”

Hi Everyone,

Here’s my tuppence worth:

In answer to Luigi’s initial question - whether 18-2(a) applies at position 2 - I think the answer is No. I think 18 was never turned off.  18.2(b) still applies and there is no requirement in the scenario above for Blue to try and give Yellow room under 18.2(a).

As we all know, mark -room for Blue is room to round or pass the mark as necessary to sail the course, and now we even have an official meaning of sailing the course. At position 2, Blue has not finished passing the mark and is within one of its boat widths of the mark, clearly rule 18 is still on & Blue has mark-room under 18.2(b).

I remain unconvinced that a boat choosing to take a wide course around a mark turns mark-room off before she finishes passing the mark. One can hardly say mark-room has been given if the official definition of mark-room has not been satisfied. So for me, as in the scenario above, if Yellow chooses to take advantage of any room given her by Blue, she does so at her 

Luigi raised an interesting matter - the reason given for a rule change in a submission. Do such reasons have much authority? Official interpretations of new & revised rules require Cases. Even Q&A’s are insufficient. So all ideas are valid pending robust discussion & consensus. 

Phil, for what it’s worth, if we contend that Blue has not quite yet passed or rounded the mark, that’s an argument unto itself. 

As Blue’s stern-perpendicular is drawn just at the mark as drawn at #2,  I could buy the argument that she has not “pass[ed] the mark ...” at #2. 

The idea of “influence” has made its way into the new quad, where it only resides in a case before.  

Maybe that’s a standard here as well.   In the absence of Yellow, is Blue still being influenced by the mark?  It’d say “yes” as if she did intend to be on tbt opposite tack, she undoubtedly would not tack at #2 being so close. 

Angelo.
I must admit I was not thinking about how 17 might apply on a windward leg when discussing this topic but I see the point you are making.
I agree with Phil that Blue has not passed the mark at position 2 so 18 is not turned off by the new words in 18.1.
This brings us back to whether or not Blue is allowed to 'shut the door' by sailing above close hauled and whether she can be exonerated if she breaks 15 or 16.
What if there has been a wind-shift that means the next leg is a fetch on stbd? Is Blue entitled to luff to prepare to tack then as she only has a proper course on stbd? 
If yes then where would the crossover point be between being able luff (legally) and not being able to?
So, whilst acknowledging your point about how 17 applies, I am not totally convinced that this logic can be applied to this situation.
The proper course definition is the course a boat 'would sail in order' etc.
I can think of many cases where a boat would, in the absence of any other boats, tack at a leeward mark and I am not yet convinced that  a luff to prepare to tack would be an 'improper' course.
Open to other opinions though.

Agreed John,

There’s a case for Blue to argue she can luff as high as HTW in preparation of tacking if it’s clear her proper course is to tack. But she had better be an excellent witness in the protest room.

Hi All
Sorry for my vanishing but I was in a training week and fully busy.

The first step is to stay focused on what "has been given" is. It is quite far from "she is using (or used) the mark-room she was entitled to".  If Yellow gave the mark-room to Blue... the 18 is off in pos.2. How to decide if mark-room was plenty done? 
Ok let's talk about it.

I will try to give some hints and clarification about the scenario.
a) next mark will be windward, next leg is a beat on the windward (it is in the original statement)
b) I can slightly agree that Blue still has to pass (a bit) the mark but she already rounded.
c) proper course: there is no reason for Blue to luff except for tacking BUT if tacking, Blue will collide with the mark (in absence of Yellow) so actually the only proper course of Blue is close-hauled on port and she is
d) 18.2b is (a bit) still on? well... I assume YES as b) but can't see a proper course on the other tack and luffing is fine only of Blue can tack but she can't as c). BTW any tacks will make OFF any 18 anyway
e) definition of "to pass"..., the idea "to pass" something, imho, can not be something physical or abstract (the imaginary line passing for the aftermost part...." but has to be consistent with reality. I passed "something" when this "something" has no more influence with my course/sailing. Also, in a hearing or worse on the water, we can not evaluate centimeters.. 
Can I tack without touching the mark? Yes so I passed the mark...  Can I sail to the next mark and the mark has no more influence with my course/sailing? Yes so I passed the mark. 

The next step will be to talk about Call J5 (maybe J4.. I don't have the TR Call book with me now) and the distance from the mark to assume that rule 18 is off.   

I also agree that when it is clear that her proper course IS to tack, then she gets room to luff to HTW as she is rounding. 

Likewise, if her proper course is not to be on a beat, but rather on a reach on the same tack as she rounded, her room does not include sailing to close-hauled (see Case 144).

However, I can not find any support for the idea that a boat on a beat to windward, far from the next mark and where she will spend substantial time on both tacks, and with no other rationale, that such a boat can claim her proper course is both tacks and therefore can luff a boat HTW when she is proper course limited.  I think Case 13 is clear on that. 

PS:  We can also refer to Case 144 when thinking about the bounds of mark-room when a boat entitled to it swings overly wide.  In the discussion, it points out at position #3 (in the Case 144 diagram) that Boat A’s mark-room no longer includes room to sail close to the mark, which would represent a point of sail at or just below close-hauled for her. 

Luigi - I humbly bow to your credentials - but have some disagreements.

a) Yes
b) Disagree.I disagree that the Mark has been passed at P2. I stand by my opinion that the Mark is not passed until her transom has passed the perpendicular to the direction to the next Mark. Is there Case history which supports your premise? (see comment at c - shooting the Mark and e - highway analogy)
c) Disagree. There is reason for Blue to luff. For example, if the "best" way to approach the next Mark is by tacking promptly onto starboard at this Mark, then Blue would choose to tack promptly as soon as he can clear the Mark. Blue might be entitled to tack at the Mark if he can prove his Proper Course is on Starboard tack (inhibited by 13 in this case). He might choose to shoot the Mark at head to wind. In Radio Controlled yachting (my current pastime) this is common place in the fluky winds encountered on inland waters surrounded by trees, houses etc. by a boat whose dimensions match the minor turbulences encountered. He might claim that his Proper Course is to tack at the Mark (e.g. to avoid tide) therefore the tack is part of the rounding (but inhibited by 13).
d) Yes/No. If Blue can justify tacking as part of her rounding (see c), then she is entitled to luff to htw. (but not tack per 13)
e) Disagree/Agree. I see your point about the concept of passing. I'd compare it to a car having passed a highway road junction if you can no longer make the turn when your car is beyond the point when turning the wheels gets you onto the new road - despite your car stopped while straddling the junction. However, our nautical case is not the same. In the absence of Yellow, Blue could have tacked and would not yet have passed the Mark until he has passed it on Starboard tack - which, in my opinion, means passing the perpendicular to the course (direction) to the next Mark. You seem to be claiming that Blue has "passed" the Mark because his tack is inhibited by Yellow's presence only.

Call J5 - Team racing only?

@Angelo: Talking about proper course (PC) on a windwand leg (well... on any leg..!). The PC should be something that a boat CAN sail. To luff to HTW if a boat can not tack just for the purpose to smash another boat on the mark is not seamlike and is not giving room to the windward boat to keep clear. Can we apply RRS 43.1 on that? Arguments? I agree with you: in next 5 sec after pos.2 Blue can luff to HTW, Yellow has to keep clear (no more excuses.. mark is no more!). But in Pos.2? 

 @Stewart: I'm still learning... not sure about ANY rule. My experience as Rule Avisor during Olympics and in the last 7 years also support the idea of unpredictable outcome of hearings...
Back to the scenario. J5 is in Team Race but is quite often used (same rules) as an "example" during Fleet Races.
b) I agree (as I wrote). Blue is still to pass the mark but she rounded already.
c) as I wrote, if Blue, in absence of Yellow, is tack in pos.2, she will touch the mark. So, no reason to tack there and luffing will be done only for smashing Yellow on the mark .
d) see c)
e) again, on your example on the road we have withe lines on the floor. Police can see if your wheels will be out of white lines. On water? 

Hi Luigi,
Thanks for your reply.
I think that Blue can justify tacking AND clearing the Mark at P2 since his turning will not be instant but will describe an arc which will keep the Mark to his port side. Only the presence of Yellow will inhibit that action. Therefore he can justify the tack as his Proper Course since "- - in the absence of the other boats - - " he would do that. Therefore he can luff htw.
My highway analogy was intended slightly different to your take. Imagine a car driving along a highway looking for a turn-off. He sees it, brakes hard, but ends up just too far to be able to turn onto the turn-off (but not yet all the way across the junction), so he has to reverse.  He had therefore passed the turn-off (c.f. boat passing the Mark).

Stewart and Luigi, I want to push back against this idea that a boat that is proper-course-limited on a beat to windward can luff HTW claiming he wants to be on the other tack (assuming an equal windward leg).

Case  13 (on the books since 1965!) does not make sense as written if that were the case.  They would have pointed out that it doesn't matter when the luff occurred, the leeward boat's proper course could have been on the opposite tack and thus she could have luffed HTW at any time.

Also, please consider the following scenario at the start.

I believe it would be a consistent application of the rules that in Fleet Racing, Leeward breaks Rule 17.  Leeward is obliged to start falling off to no higher than her close-hauled course (her proper course) immediately following the starting signal.

If that is not consistent with how rule 17 is applied, then I welcome that correction on my part.

I think there is a minor, but significant, difference in the wording of R17 and R18.2(c)(2). R17 states "- - not sail ABOVE her Proper Course - " while R18.2(c)(2) states "- - to sail her Proper Course - ". Now maybe it is a fine distinction, but I read it as a significant distinction. "Above Proper Course", on a windward leg, could mean above close-hauled - but "Proper Course" could permit tacking.  I therefore stick with my interpretation that Blue IS entitled to sail to htw if he can justify that being his "Proper Course".

Stewart .. I haven't give up on you! Let me toss another couple cases at you. [bold emphasis added]

Case 25.  First sentence of the Decision: "IW's proper course was to sail close to the mark, and the course change necessary to sail the course was to round up to a close-hauled course."

Case 118 In the Decision:

In order to sail the course, it was necessary for UM8 to change course from a broad reach to a close-hauled course as she rounded the mark. Therefore, her proper course was to sail close to the mark at some point in her turn. Because UM8 was entitled to mark-room, she was entitled to room, as defined by the definition Room,

I think you can see, if you put together Case 13 along side of Cases 25 and 118, they align with the application I am suggesting.

Not convinced!  

In Case 25 it may indeed have been the Proper Course to "round up to close-hauled course". But that doesn't negate the possibility in another case that the ROW (OL) might have continued her Proper Course by tacking. The Case 25 only describes the first part of her Proper Course and doesn't deny the possibility that the next step in her Proper Course could have been to tack if she could justify that. (but that didn't apply in this Case)

Case 118 looks to embrace a similar logic. The only references to "Proper Course" I can see is with respect to "sail close to the mark". Otherwise only "course" is stated. There is also reference to "entitled". By the way, there was no contact, nor near contact, between UM8 and UM10 in Case 118 so I can't see what it is all about??

I'm sticking with the opinion that there are circumstances when a boat's Proper Course could be to change tack and that her ability to sail her "Proper Course" is restricted by R13 and maybe also R16.1 - but in both of these circumstances, it is the presence of the other boat which has inhibited her ability to sail her chosen "Proper Course". Therefore, if she can justify a tack as being part of her "Proper Course", but inhibited by R13/16.1, then she is entitled to sail up to htw.

But, hey, we antipodeans see things upside down, so lets agree to different opinions.

Stewart, just to be clear, I'm not saying that there are no circumstances where a boat's Proper Course would be to tack.  I can certainly imagine circumstances where her proper course might be to tack.  

For instance if the next mark was on the port-tack layline from this leeward mark (caused maybe by a 50 deg wind shift for instance).. certainly it could be her proper course to round and immediately tack. 

We all seem to agree that if there was a clear proper course on the other tack then she is definitely entitled to sail up to HTW.
The only argument then is whether or not she would be exonerated if she were to break rule 16.
If she has passed the mark by sailing further downwind then I believe 18 is OFF and she would not be exonerated.
In the case shown above she has not passed the mark so 18 is still ON and she would be exonerated.
As Phil states, if this matter comes to a protest, then Blue would have to show that it would be a proper course to tack, and, as I said in an earlier post I can think of several reasons as to why that might be the case.
Wind shift and tide considerations being just 2 of them.

Can I check we also have agreement about Yellow's obligation to keep clear, R11 - whether Blue was sailing her Proper Course or not - whether inside Mark Room entitlement or not? In other words, whether Blue has an obligation to sail her Proper Course or not, whether inside Mark Room or not,  if there is contact, Yellow WILL be disqualified in any case?

Stewart I disagree with the last part of the statement. I believe it should be "Yellow will break rule 11."

“whether Blue has an obligation to sail her Proper Course or not”

Also, the rules do not obligate boats to sail a proper course. (Case 9 )

Mark. Can you explain why you won't accept that Yellow WILL be disqualified (unless she takes penalty?). I figure that Blue's Proper Course fault does not negate Yellow's R11 fault. Do you think that 18.2(c)(2) fault takes priority over R11 fault (R11 is earlier in Rules than R18 so I believe R11 takes priority) Or do you think R64.1(a) applies to exonerate Yellow? (The possible application of R64.1(a) is what I'm trying to determine) 

Angelo. the definition "Proper Course" only applies to rules where the term is used. In case 9, R10 doesn't use the term so the concept of "Proper Course" doesn't apply. And, as stated on case 9, they are not subject to R18 so the term "Proper Course" doesn't apply via R18 either.  In our scenario under discussion, Rule 18.2(c)(2) expressly uses the term "Proper Course". 

Stewart, all I am suggesting is the words you select can be important.  As I pointed out in my quote of yours, you used the word “obligation”.

There is no RRS that obligates a boat to sail a proper course. 

OK, Angelo, I get your point. I was trying to find a way to describe situations where the Proper Course was permitted and certain other courses were not.

Stewart, the original question was "Does 18.2a apply in pos.2?" If Yellow gets mark room under 18.2(a) and she is not keeping clear, then she would break rule 11, and be exonerated under rule 21. If 18.2(a) does not apply and she is not keeping clear, she breaks rule 11 and is not exonerated.

Sorry but I am a little confused by the latest posts from Stewart and Mark.
I thought from the earlier posts that it was agreed that Blue had not passed the mark and 18.2(b) applies so 18.2(a) does not.

As I see it:
While 18 is on:
If Blue has no proper course on the other tack then she is restricted to sail a proper course which would be close hauled on port.
If she sails this course and Yellow does not keep clear then Yellow breaks 18.2(c) and 11. Blue has not broken a rule.
If Blue luffs above close hauled and causes Yellow to hit the mark and break rule 31 then Blue breaks 16 and Yellow would break 11 and 31 but is exonerated under rule 43 and Blue would not be exonerated as she was not sailing within room to which she was entitled.
However when Blue's stern passes the mark then 18 is turned off by the last sentence of 18.1 as she has been given mark room. Her proper course is no longer restricted (all of 18 is off) and as 17 does not apply to her she can luff to HTW but must comply with rule 16 - which would include her giving room for Yellow to pass the mark if she was still at the mark. This is room under 16 NOT mark-room under18.

Actually having said that last bit I can see another complexity. If Blue has been given her mark room and 18 is off for the initial situation then as Yellow is an inside overlapped boat does 18.2(a) apply? However this does not really change anything as this is a new situation and 18.2(c) will not apply so the outcome is the same and it really does not matter under which rule Blue has to give room.

Hope you all have a safe Christmas and best wishes to those of you who are in lockdown.

 

John I agree with your analysis.

I was attempting to respond to Stewart's comment

If Yellow does not keep clear then Yellow breaks rule 11. However, Yellow would not be disqualified if she were to be sailing within the room or mark-room to which she was entitled. Some still seemed to be arguing for a proper-course restriction or room under rule 18.2(a).

Hope you all have a safe and merry Christmas.