Well our protest committee probably won't want to hear any protests. 

Thanks very much for the comments everyone. Bottom line, if the port tacker can complete their tack and be on close-hauled course, even if it's just a few feet in front of the starboard tack boat, then no foul. At least for dinghys. 

Ross, we had a pretty good discussion of "influence" in another thread and there were some divergent positions. https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/288-to-be-racing-or-finished-racing-that-is-the-question

I think the most conservative interpretation is that it is an immediate and direct effect on the course options of a boat.  If you are 100's of yards away, sure, the obstruction might be 'in your thoughts' so to speak .. and "influence" those thoughts about what to do next and when, but you could spin a 360 right there .. even at a gradual curve .. and thus your course is not "influenced".  

I've settled on thinking of it in those terms.  - Ang

I don't think OA/RC need to write War and Peace to cover drones.

As a bare minimum, it would suffice to extend rule 62.1b to include airborne objects that are required by law to keep clear (AIUI, Aviation Regulations just plain forbid any airborne aircraft from hitting anything on the ground).  A SI saying that rule 62.1b is changed to include airborne objects that are required by law to keep clear should do the trick.

Where a drone controlled by a person connected with the OA or RC,  interferes with a boat racing, I would be happy to take this as an improper action by the OA/RC under rule 62.1a, and I think, as discussed above, that it is highly undesirable for OA/RC to attempt to deny boats redress in this situation through an exclusionary SI.

Where a drone controlled by a competitor or a support person interferes with a boat racing other than accidentally, this might also be dealt with under rule 2 or rule 69, although redress would still be founded on rule 62.1b.

David Dalli

said Created: Today 13:51

If there was no contact then there was room to keep clear unless contact was only avoided by an unseamanlike act or a miracle.

If it was not possible for the give way boat to avoid, acting promptly but no sooner than the other boat actually gained right of way (in this case, reached her close hauled course), and in a seamanlike way, then the right of way has not given room to keep clear.

Relevant Cases are

Case 21

 

Definitions, Mark-RoomDefinitions, Room

When a right-of-way boat is obligated to give mark-room to a boat overlapped inside her, there is no maximum or minimum amount of space that she must give. The amount of space that she must give depends significantly on the existing conditions including wind and sea conditions, the speed of the inside boat, the sails she has set and her design characteristics.

Case 103

 

Definitions, Room

The phrase “seamanlike way” in the definition Room refers to boat-handling that can reasonably be expected from a competent, but not expert, crew of the appropriate number for the boat.

2- Does 'room to keep clear' in this situation imply that immediate  avoiding action need not be taken by the give way boat.

The rules do not expressly oblige a boat to act immediately on becoming a give way boat.

Case case 88 is not particularly relevant to your scenario.  Case 88 is a scenario where the right of way boat is NOT required to give room to keep clear.

A better explanation of 'keep clear' is in Case 50

Case 50

 

Definitions, Keep ClearRule 10, On Opposite TacksRule 14, Avoiding Contact

When a protest committee finds that in a port-starboard incident S did not change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the committee finds that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P should be disqualified.

There was a Yachting New Zealand appeal decision, a couple of years ago, on a similar issue.

It can be found on https://www.yachtingnz.org.nz/sites/default/files/2018-10/Appeal%2074%20decision.pdf