The new rule 20 requires the specific hail "Room to tack":
> A boat may hail for room to tack and avoid a boat on the same tack by hailing 'Room to tack'.
My interpretation would be that the hail has to be *exactly* this, not just include that phrase. So hailing "I need room to tack" would not trigger the rule.
Is that right?
I could imagine someone saying they did hail "room to tack" but also hailed "I need...". I don't think I'd see it that way unless there was enough of a pause after the incomplete sentence "I need" that we should look at this as two separate hails.
It complies with the requirements of RRS 20.1.
The reason I'm uncertain is that the rule doesn't say "... by making a hail that includes the words 'Room to tack'. It says: "... by hailing 'Room to tack'". I wasn't sure, but I was guessing that that says your hail (your entire hail) should be the phrase 'Room to tack'.
I don't think think this can really be interpreted as including any hail that includes the words. For example, probably we can all agree that these examples don't trigger the rule:
Where's the line?
How about these?:
I'd agree that "I need room to tack" seems pretty unambiguously like an attempt to invoke the rule, but it doesn't seem easy to figure out in all cases what will count.
I'll admit I was also hoping the rule change requires the *exact* hail "room to tack", since to me it seems like that's what would make it easiest for boats on the water to quickly know whether the rule is being invoked.
Discussions like we have here all the time are part of what drives the rules that direction.
I'm not saying either approach is better. I think they are both necessary. We need to be precise and still remember that the goal of the rules is to get us around the course safely and fairly while maintaining "the game."
The precise wording of hails, as I understand it, was driven in part by the need to make communication clear--especially among competitors for whom English is not their first language. This, too, is in service of being safe and clear.
If I hear "I need room to tack," I'm going to assume rule 20 is invoked and I certainly wouldn't protest someone for adding two words.
As a judge, I would rule that the key words were included. Then I would wait for the appeal (Anyone who protested the inclusion of the extra two clarifying words is likely to appeal my ruling against them).
The rule says it is the hailing boat's obligation to invoke the rule in time for the hailed boat to respond. The hailed boat need not anticipate the hail.
The hailing boat has to make some sort of estimate as to how much time the hailed boat needs to respond in the prevailing conditions and they should do this early enough that if they are not heard, they can use additional signals to get their point across (rule 20.4 and US case 54).
On the other hand, Appeal 33 says that you break the rule if you invoke it too soon. In other words, if you hail "room to tack" before you really need to tack, the hailed boat needs to respond, but could protest you under 20.1a.
So, as the hailing boat, you have to hail early enough but not too early.
Because of these requirements, I'm in favor of communicating early, without invoking the rule.
Then, use the "trigger" words when needed.
It's not obvious to me whether this is the right answer, but I just wanted to say this is the kind of answer I was looking for and I appreciate that. Thanks Graham.
Restating Graham's answer, I think he's saying rule 20.1 is invoked if:
Later it also states that a hail was not valid because it did not "include the words..."
Nowhere does it state that other words in the sentence, such as "I need," would invalidate the hail if it did include "room to tack."
While I might agree that a hail that included three paragraphs of discussion about depth soundings and mud being churned up might obfuscate the matter, any simple declaration that included "room to tack" would suffice, in my opinion.
I also maintain that dialog is useful. "I'm going to need to tack in the next 30 seconds or so," followed by "Room to Tack" at the point where it is requested would decrease the chance of mishap.
I don't agree that the proposition that a boat can 'be run into an obstruction because they failed to use the [provisions of RRS 20 correctly] is valid.
A boat does not need to avail herself of RRS 20 to avoid an obstruction.
As Case 54 Answer 3 says
The lack of a response from B does not mean that A must hold her course. If needed, A should avoid the obstruction in the safest manner, which may include luffing up to head to wind or gybing.
We have Case 54 and Q&A 2025.007.
How much more do we need?
It's a principle of judging that we don't add any requirements or restrictions to a rule that are not contained in the written rule.
It's not the business of judges to be inventing new or additional rules.
Thus, in international environments, there might be a mixture of hails in English and hails in other languages.
WS would have to explicidly claim that there shall be no translations of specified hails in the rules. As far as I am aware, until today there is no such claim?
WS has done exactly the opposite. Since 2021 RRS Introduction Hails has provided
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.
Certainly! I think I've been asking this badly, but I'm really not asking about adding requirements - just trying to understand what's written in the rule as it stands.
Case 54 and Q&A 2025.007 make clear that including the words "room to tack" is a necessary condition for invoking the rule.
I don't think anyone here is yet saying that including those words is a sufficient condition. For example, if it did then "I'm going to need to room to tack in the next 30 seconds or so" would be improperly invoking the rule too early. (Does it?)
So what are the necessary and sufficient conditions?
I will admit that in conditions of poor hearing, I run the risk that the skipper of the other boat won't hear "I'm going to need...
and "in about 30 seconds or so," and only hear the "room to tack" part. Perhaps I should choose a phrase that could not be mistaken for an invocation of rule 20. But I think the risk is low and I'm willing to take it for the benefit of better communication.
If I thought it likely my counterpart didn't speak English fluently, I would probably leave out the dialog. But, generally, I think more communication is better than less.
I think the rabbit hole you are in could get a bit absurd. Suppose I say "We're getting close to the barrier." Then ten seconds later I say "Room to tack." Using your approach, we could end up arguing whether ten seconds long enough between the two sentences to make it clear that the second sentence is invoking rule 20. How much time must pass between the sentences for the first one not to invalidate the second? I don't think that argument serves a useful purpose.
Be clear with any communication. Make sure you use the magic words when you mean it. That works for me.
-Tony
John
I don't think it's really a "safety" rule. In most cases there are other ways to avoid a collision than hailing for room to tack. When there aren't, we have 14 that requires giving the room to avoid a collision, with any hail or no hail.
RRS 20 is not a 'safety' rule.
What RRS 20 does is provide an orderly method of tacking away from the obstruction while preserving as much as possible the tactical relativity between the boats and not sacrificing too much to competitors further away.
It is not necessary for safety. As Case 54, Answer 3 says:
If needed, A should avoid the obstruction in the safest manner, which may include luffing up to head to wind or gybing.
Even if RRS 20 was a 'safety rule' that would make no difference to its application. All rules in the RRS are equal. A 'safety' rule does not override any other rule.
I'm absolutely saying that a hail like your example that contains the phrase 'room to tack' triggers RRS 20.
Consider the point of view of the hailed boat. Possibly in difficult conditions, she hears the words 'room to tack' in amongst, as they often are, some other indistinct words and blather.
She knows she must respond and does so.
Whether that hail broke RRS 20.1 (a) is a different matter.
In my opinion if a boat is going to need room to tack in the next 30 seconds or so then she 'will soon need to make a substantial course change to avoid ...' and the hail would not break RRS 20.1(a).
This interpretation for R 20 is negating the safety of the boats involved just because someone failed to use the right words.
John