Q&A 2025-007 makes it pretty clear that:

Interpretation 1 - The PC made the wrong decision as rule 20 does not apply because no valid hail was made.
Interpretation 2 - The PC was correct that rule 13 was broken and wrong that 10 and 20.1 were broken.
Interpretation 3 - The PC made the wrong decision as rule 20 does not apply because no valid hail was made.

Interpretation 2 for me!

Rule 20 is not activated if the wrong words are used. 

in 20.2(b) it means 'Rule 20.1 broken' not by the wrong words, but by the correct words used  at the wrong time (no 20.1 conditions met). 

Cheers. 

Another scenario
Boat A hails “Water!”
Boat B does not respond, because that is not the required hail.
Boat A runs aground/hits obstruction
Boat A protests Boat B for breaking Rule 20.2.
PC also considers 14.c

I don't think you can have it both ways. If the incorrect hail does not activate Rule 20.1, then using the same incorrect hail or any other irrelevant hail can not be used to penalise you under Rule 20.1.

The key word in 20.1 regarding words to use while hailing is "A boat MAY hail for room." The implication (following Benjamin above) is that the PC cannot penalize the hailing boat for using the wrong words. However, if the hailing boat fails to hail "Room to tack," the hailed boat is not under RRS 20 obligations.  The leeward boat in this case approaching an obstruction can still a) luff up to avoid the obstruction and b) slow down. If the boat that strikes the obstruction failed to do either, I would be hard-pressed to penalize the windward boat under RRS 14(c).

I would agree with Rene. 

I would add: the effect of this is, as it must be, that you cannot then turn on Rule 20 either way by using an incorrect hail, then in the (realistic) scenarios, the effect of Rule 20 is frequently obtained without ever turning on Rule 20. 

If you can get the practical benefit of Rule 20 without turning it on and thereby exposing yourself to the potential risk, the sensible thing is initially not to use the correct hail and see if you get that benefit without the risk. 

For me, the excessive “Got to use the magic words” formalism of the new Rules is undermining the aims and application of the Rules. 

Rule 20.1 says a boat may hail for room to tack but the words are not in inverted commas.  Rule 20.2 says a hailed boat may reply “You tack”.  Can it be interpreted the ‘room to tack’ is not a specified form of words?

Charles - they are in (single) inverted commas on the WS website version. 

I think creative use of 20.4 (b) might be the way to go to a more pragmatic end.

I have great difficulty with the current interpretation:
If you hail using the prescribed words but are not approaching an obstruction, or are not sailing close-hauled or the hailed boat is fetching a mark then the hail breaks RRS 20.1 and the hailed boat must respond.
For some reason (probably based on the match racing call) if the hail does not use the prescribed words then this does not 'break RRS 20.1' and the hailed boat is not required to respond. The hailing boat's request is null and void.
The hail of  'Room to Tack' acts as some sort of incantation or magic spell that opens up the doors of RRS 20.2!

Gordon - exactly this. If the wording permits, then "magic words" interpretations are something to be avoided in all areas, in my view.

I need glasses.

Rule 20 action being by boat b first no rule broken because correct command not given so it doesn’t have to tack but tacks anyway take that action on his own. Boat A says got to go soon no rule broken because he is just talking and if boat B goes he does it on its own. Boat A doesn’t have to make later when it wants to take because the way was made clear by boat B so boat A can tack when needed. 
Now if boat A makes move first without saying room to tack it bring in different points or even takes action with wrong call. Now there is reason for protest. Remember there is no rule you can’t talk on course while racing. In small boat racing I teach to be vocal so there are no surprises unless there is the need for a surprise for a move but missing boats is first not to cause damage. 

I'm not sure I understand the heartburn over "magic words." Tim, there are only three I know of, one to hail "Protest" and the other two now bookended in Rule 20. 
Rule 20 is safety rule, and there are already magic words in the prescribed responses under RRS 20.2(c).  If it's an issue, the boats are close enough to allow communication between them, or responding "you tack" makes no sense at all. World Sailing has decided there needs to be an unambiguous claim that the conditions of RRS 20.1 have been met, as opposed to any conversation that has been happening along the way. The moment you hail "Room to tack" is the moment a PC could find you have broken 20.1.  As a competitor, you had best not invoke the protections of 20.2 unless you are pretty damn close to the obstruction.
And a mark doesn't count as an obstruction in this case. This is to keep people from using RRS 20 as a tactical tool when they are short of the mark. The logic to Gordon's scenario says yes, boats should respond to a spurious 20.1 hail when approaching the mark out of safety concerns, and then protest. For my money, it would be a protest under Rule 2 that couldn't be discharged with a penalty turn.  The PC should find that a Rule 2 violation--intentionally breaking a rule for tactical advantage--if it gets as far as a hearing. A DNE or two and this won't happen much in the fleet.

MIchael,


We have always agreed that if the hail breaks 20.1 then the correct action for the hailed boat is to respond and then protest (Case 10)

Can you explain why, under the new rule, where you hail can break RRS 20.1 but what you hail, if incorrect, does not break RRS 20.1, and no response is required?

“Space to tack” - clear, unambiguous, doesn’t turn on Rule 20. 

“Water to tack” - clear, unambiguous, doesn’t turn on Rule 20. 

“Room to tack” - clear, unambiguous, turns on Rule 20. 

When the operation of a Rule depends not on the facts or the information clearly and unambiguously conveyed, but on the use of one synonym - “room” - rather than another - “space” - then, yes, that is formalism where the Rule depends on the right word to make the spell work. That’s not a good idea, because what counts is the clarity of the information conveyed without ambiguity. “Space”, “water”, “room” - they all do it, so why not just remove the inverted commas in 20.1?

I'm very much in agreement with Tim. The formalism has, I imagine, been introduced to deal with abuses at elite level. All very well, but I submit that this legalism doesn't serve the sport well at recreational club level. There are always exceptions of course, but I suggest the majority or at least many club level sailors wish to approach things in a relaxed and non confrontational way. 

A dialogue like
"oh come on Bill, that was too close, do your turns"
   'there was loads of room' 
[Bill doesn't do turns] 
"OK then, protest" 
Ought not to render a protest invalid at club level. 

Similarly
"We'll have to tack in a bit" 
"another ten yards" 
"water now please" 
Ought to be legitimate at club level. 

In both cases communication is clear and unambiguous. Perceived problems with nit-picking sea lawyering at elite level should be dealt with separately. 

Angelo has suggested that clubs could make changes in SIs to loosen up requirements, but I suggest it should be the opposite. Write the rules to suit recreational racing, and if there is a need for magic words at elite level then add that to the SIs for those events. 

In general, actions in RRS are either permitted ("may") or required ("shall"). If a boat MAY do something under a rule, but chooses not to for whatever reason, that in itself does not violate the rule, and so cannot be penalized by a PC. What to hail is covered by MAY in the first sentence of the rule. The prohibition about where to hail begins with in the second sentence: "she shall not hail unless" a) the obstruction is close and b) she is sailing close hauled or above. Then in the third sentence, there is a special condition of "shall not" for approaching a mark, also a "where" issue.
I think we agree that under the new rule, hailing anything other than "Room to tack" is a nullity. I can imagine the rules committee wanted a single unambiguous hail to make in tight circumstances where time is short for safety reasons and not all competitors have English as a first language. I can understand why the committee didn't want a list of potential hails under those conditions. 
The downside of not hailing properly is you get no protections. On the other hand, the benefit of having a specific hail is you can't be penalized if someone misunderstands and tacks away early.
The new rule is also a benefit for a jury. The key question will be,"How far away was the obstruction when you hailed 'Room to tack?'" 
All in all, it seems like a straightforward improvement. 

If we're heading for a river bank and the leeward boat shouts, "Water" at me with arms flailing wildly, I will probably tack allowing her to safely avoid the river bank.  So rule 20 was not tested, but everything worked out great.

Why?  Context.  I knew what she wanted. I'm not a nasty a person. Let them get out, and tell them they owe me a beer in the bar afterwards.

That's different to us both on port tack on a beat, and leeward sees a starboard boat which I can't see.

If she shouts "Water" at me, the context is not as obvious.  The meaning is ambiguous.  Daughter?  Who?

I may just find a bottle of Perrier and throw it over  whilst shouting, "Don't drink it all at once!"
---------------

Well, the point is that the wording for this rule is crucial.  Being a critical safety rule, there must be no ambiguity of what is needed, and how to react.

The process needs to work without context if it is to save people and equipment.

Hence, the " ".  Use these words to have the best chance of survival.  Anything else, and you're risking it.

If Boat A did not luff near head-to-wind AND ease her sails to slow down, then I would not fault boat B, even on 14.c
Boat A's proper course when approaching an obstruction is to avoid it, and she may use her right-of-way to do so.

You get the same issues with club racers that you get at higher levels. I can think of an appeal involving professionals now working its way to US Sailing (and probably on to World Sailing) and a recent club appeal where the issues interpreting Rule 14 in a serious collision causing damage are the same. At the club level, the damage was $11,000; at the other end, the damage was $750,000.
In some ways, it's worse among the club racers, as they tend to think they can interpret the rules in a way that feels "fair" to them. Then when club members disagree, it turns into a personal dispute where each party thinks the other is acting in an unsportsmanlike way. That is bad for the fleet all around. And that leads to people being unwilling simply to file their protest, get their hearing, and make an end to it one way or the other. (They are always ready to file for redress, on the other hand.) Grievances pile up, and the sport suffers. I have heard people who think that it is not "Corinthian" to protest. Besides misunderstanding what Corinthianism meant or means, the protest procedures are part of the rules, and following the rules is a key requirement of sportsmanship (see Rule 2 FAIR SAILING). Absent enforcement of the rules, the number of violations tends to increase. I don't know any racing sailor who thinks that is fun.

I agree with you on the enforcement of the Rules, Michael. It's part of what I dislike about the choice of one word permitting someone who has broken a safety rule (as, ultimately, all Part 2 Rules are) to get around enforcement. It's why I would agree with Jim. In fact, I would say his second example (with perhaps specific words alone being required at WS-level events) is how everyone should be doing it at all levels. It's about communicating the information so the rules are complied with and safety is ensured.

Communicate early, communicate often, communicate loud (because the helm won't be listening anyway, the brains of the operation is on the wire, and it's not quiet out there).

Tim, I'm not following what you mean by "the choice of one word permitting someone who has broken a safety rule...to get around enforcement." 
I'm not sure a less stringent approach could be organized through the SI's or other race docs. RRS 86.1(b) does not permit such changes to rules of Part 2.
Changing all that would require a major overhaul in the way the rules are put together, which seems like a pretty big reaction to a small change.
I think there is a job for judges, fleet captains, and club officials to keep reminding people of the tricky points in the rules and what they need to do to defend their rights. Nothing ruins a day on the racecourse faster than the feeling that someone has taken advantage of you by breaking rules, unless it is a major collision with damage or injury. Much better if people know that if they break a rule they will get protested, and if they can't exonerate themselves on the water with penalties, they are headed to The Room after the race instead of to the bar. That's for adults. The benefit for youth sailors is obvious, as they will be going to at least regional events where local variation in the rule interpretation will not be tolerated. So I say, think ahead about what is about to happen, keep talking on the racecourse, warn if you need to, and say "protest" and hoist the red flag immediately. People would start to take your warnings seriously.