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.

Useful thread!
Another possible minor issue is regatta with sailors from different MNA:s with different automatized "room to tack".... what if you choose the wrong language?  certain regattas has a somewhat unclear language identity, classification of regatta might be determining topic in the jury room.  
Follows: Do you need to learn this in unfamiliar language? 

Michael wrote:
 I think we agree that under the new rule, hailing anything other than "Room to tack" is a nullity. 

I do not agree that that is what the rule says. 
Most judges and sailors I have talked to read the rule as saying that an incorrectly worded hail breaks rule 20.1 and therefore the hailed boat should respond and protest, as with all the other instances where the hail is incorrect. 
It appears that we are heading towards an official interpretation that hailing anything other than 'Room to Tack' does not break rule 20.1, but means that the request for space to tack and avoid an obstruction never existed. If that is the official interpretation, so be it. We will implement the interpretation and hope that it will one day be re-written.

Gordon, thanks for clarifying the point of disagreement. 
The first question is whether an inadequate hail (in form) that does not violate the prohibitions in the second and third sentences of Rule 20.1 breaks the rule.
The second question is whether ANY hail, including an inadequate hail described above, creates the "hailed boat" condition that begins in Rule 20.2 (a) and is the reference for "hail" in the rest of Rule 20.2.
I read you as answering those questions YES and YES, while I am answering them NO and NO, based on a plain reading of 20.1 and the recognition that the close-hauled ROW boat can prepare to tack without any hail and luff as far as head to wind to avoid an obstruction, and the other boat needs to keep clear. So I am not worried about a safety problem, which is the consideration leading to the obligation on the "hailed boat" in 20.2(b). 
My interpretation (and I think Benjamin's above) is consistent with the World Sailing Racing Rules Question and Answer Service guidance (I had to go back to check it, because I was quite confused when it came out), not that such guidance is binding. In Word Sailing's question 2, the issue of the competitive effect of a noncompliant hail came up. The ROW boat making an inadequate hail might suffer from a competitive disadvantage as a result of slowing and luffing, but it is one she could have avoided by giving the required unambiguous hail. 
My takeaway is that I will feel comfortable judging on that basis, and I will wait to see if new World Sailing Cases come up that change that interpretation.

I agree that's what the QA says, but I submit that what you (and the QA writers? ) are missing is that not every boat in every conditions can successfully tack after luffing head to wind and slowing. Some boats have to tack first time at speed in order to complete a tack successfully. 

My friend John was following this thread and we had a quick email dialog about it.  Here's how I summarized the discussion. 

A few things here.

Anders Rydlöv

Good question.  English should always be acceptable no matter where you are.  It says that in the 'Introduction'.  However, it definitely makes sense to learn 'Room to Tack' in the language of the place you're sailing, especially if you are there at a local event.

Equally so, it makes me wonder though - - do translated versions of RRS include (and do non-English rules courses teach) the 'English' words as well as translated words, since 'English' is always acceptable.  I seems sensible for a non-English sailor to learn the words 'room to tack' in  English.

Tim/Gordon/Michael

Haha!  When I entered this thread, I didn't even know about the Q&A on the topic existed.  Phew! Glad to seem I'm kind of aligned with it.

--------------------------
Look.  Rule 20 is a safety rule.  It exists to give a boat the ultimate 'get out of jail' card in the time of desperate need.  While a boat may be able to luff HTW and avoid some obstructions, that might not be enough for other boats or other obstructions.  Bearing away for some boats is not a controlled move.  So the room afforded must be the room to fully tack (luff, pass HTW and achieve stability on the other board).  Notice, the word 'tack' is not in italics.  So read in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use.  So it's room to to "change the direction of a sailboat by turning the bow of the boat through the wind."  as Google puts it.

Michael, I wouldn't read too much into Q2 of the Q&A.  I don't think their point is the 'tactical loss' issue you are alluding to. I think they simply reinforcing that R20.2 didn't apply.

---------------------------
Tim says it shouldn't be ok that a windward boat can contribute to a crash by standing on, simply because the leeward boat didn't know the exact words to use.  To some extent he is correct - it would be very poor sportsmanship of the windward helm who would do that to a fellow competitor.  (This is what I tried to say in my last post.)

However Tim, from a rules perspective there is no way this can be incorporated.  A rule needs a trigger.  A safety rule such as this needs an unambiguous trigger so that it is unambiguously invoked when needed, and not accidentally invoked when not needed.

It could not work that a boat is entitled to that room to tack on a basis of an ambiguous hail. How can the windward boat know exactly what the leeward boat wants?  It could become like the boy who cried 'wolf'!

--------------------------

Some people believe that the hail of 'water' breaks rule 20 and should be protestable.  This doesn't work.

There is no requirement that a boat ever invoke her rule 20 rights.  The rule doesn't say, "When about to hit an obstruction, thou shalt hail for rights using only the words 'room to tack'".

The first sentence of R20 specifies that 'room to tack' may only be done 'by hailing "room to tack"'.  That is the only phrase which triggers the rule. Not that a boat must hail in the first place.

If the wrong words are used, the rule is not triggered.  So the leeward boat cannot 'break' the rule.  She just doesn't invoke her rights to it.  Nor can the windward boat fail to comply with a rule which is not triggered.  (See the Q&A.)

--------------------------

All,

As a tactician, I think this is quite a tough rule to use well.

I'm required to plan ahead by giving the hailed boat 'time to respond'.  Yet, if that's construed wrongly as hailing when not yet approaching the obstruction, I could be accused of using the rule wrongly and protested.

I fully support early OTW communications between boats and I start well before the obstruction.  Here's what I do if approaching a shoreline or something.

Using this approach, I find that most windward boats just go well early anyway.  Others are prepared but want to wait until I signal.  Fine.  That's their right.  
When the time comes though, there are only three words I can use.  I hail 'room to tack' (and signal) and we both go simultaneously.

As Angelo just mentioned, it doesn't take much to learn those words.  You never know when you'll need to get out of jail free.

Safe sailing everyone!

This has been a great discussion. Now that I have absorbed the Q&A and the interpretation, my thoughts are around Sportmanship & Safety, Rule 14, and 20.1(c)/20.4

Sportsmanship and Safety

Boats A and B are 33-foot, 10,000-lbs displacement boats sailing in a river around 500 feet wide. Boat A is sailing close-hauled on starboard tack towards the shore. Boat B is sailing close-hauled on starboard, one boat length to windward and one boat length astern of A. Flat water, 12 knots wind. Boats are moving, but it is probably (?) easy to hear each other.

Boat A: "Room"
Boat B: No response.
Boat A: "Room!"
Boat B: No response.
Boat A: "Room!"
Boat B: No response.
Boat A: "Room!" and tacks, fairly quickly as they are now pretty close to the shore.
Boat B tacks at the same time.
A comes to B in the parking lot and says, "Hey, just want to make sure everything's cool. That was a little gnarly. Did you hear me when I hailed for room? I don't want you to think I tacked on you without warning."
Boat B: "Oh I heard you, but since you said 'Room' instead of 'Room to Tack' I ignored you."

I would not want to be on the water with Boat B again. Boat B is kind of a jerk who doesn't prioritize safety appropriately.

Rule 14

Same as above...
Boat A: "Room"
Boat B: No response.
Boat A: "Room!"
Boat B: No response.
Boat A: "Room!"
Boat B: No response.

Potential endings:
1. Boat A: "Room!" and starts to tack and runs aground briefly on mud, no damage.
2. Boat A: "Room!" and starts to tack and runs aground hard on rock, causing damage.
3. Boat A: "Room!" and tacks. Boat B, after a moment, tacks. The boats come together and the crew fends off. No injury, thankfully, and no damage.

For endings 1 and 2, Boat A protests Boat B under Rule 14 (c) -- Boat B breaks Rule 14 because it was reasonably possible for Boat B to not cause Boat A to run around.
For ending 3, Boat A protests Boat B under Rule 14 (a) -- Boat B breaks rule 14 because, given the communication, it was sufficiently clear to Boat B that Boat A was going to tack before Boat A even did. The moment Boat A started to tack, it was clear and thus Rule 14 (a) required Boat B to immediately tack.

From this exercise, the reasonableness rule of Rule 14 makes the "precise wording only" approach untenable.

Rule 20.1(c) and 20.4
Boat A: "Room"
Boat B: No response.
Boat A: "Room!"
Boat B: No response.
Boat A: "Room!", waves hands (Rule 20.4), and after a moment tacks.
Boat B, after a moment, tacks. The boats come together and the crew fends off. No injury, thankfully, and no damage.

Now if the PC finds that it was possible for Boat B to hear the hail, then Boat A is disqualified.
But in the exact same situation, if the PC finds that the wind was too loud for the hail to be heard, Boat B is disqualified.

How weird.

This gets into how 20.1(c) and 20.4 try to make safety the priority in a practical way. This is a safety rule. It was crafted to make the safest choice the default. 20.1(c) and 20.4 attempt to build this in. No collision and then arguing you didn't hear the hail. No collision and then arguing that they hailed before they were close-hauled.

The "precise wording only" approach contradicts the prioritization on safety. How weird that the situation is safer when the boats can't hear each other.

As someone who grew up racing on a 500-foot wide river, this situation came up all the time. We never had a problem with ambiguous hails and our races were won and lost on the river banks. I am not a fan of the precise hail approach, but with "Protest" I can see the problem. We often didn't know if the other boat was going to protest or was just mad. But with Room to Tack, I don't think there was a huge problem that needed solving. But the judges can answer that better than I can.

Angelo, Benjamin, I profoundly disagree. 
A fundamental principle of safety systems is that an error or problem should fail on the safe side. 

If a communication is misinterpreted as being a RRS20.1 hail then the result is that the hailed boat tacks off or hails you tack earlier than necessary. No risk, and the hailed boat may protest. Failure on the safe side.

If an intended RRS20.1 hail is rejected as not containing the magic words then the result is a risk of collision or damage. Failure on the danger side. This should not be acceptable.

Its all very well saying that competitors should know the magic words and its not much to ask, but I've heard it said that in the real world we still have people calling mast abeam. For safety we have to accept people as they are, not as how we would like them to be. Yes, standardising the words is a good thing and aids clarity. But turning them into magic words whose absence invalidates the hail is a very bad thing. 

Michael wrote:
 The first question is whether an inadequate hail (in form) that does not violate the prohibitions in the second and third sentences of Rule 20.1 breaks the rule.

The question is 'does a hail that does not use the words 'Room to tack' break the first sentence of 20.1?
The Q&A says no the hail does not break the rule, but because the correct wording has not been said the rule does not apply.

Having asked many sailors, judges, umpires and other race officials (regional, national and international) how they read the rule they nearly all read the rule as meaning that if the hail does not use the wording then rule 20.1 has been broken and rule 20.2(b) applies. The exceptions frequently have some association with match racing as sailors or umpires and are referring (possibly unconsciously) to MR Call M3. In this call the boat may not penalised for NOT HAILING but only signalling( or vice versa) but for deliberately breaking a rule or for a breach of sportsmanship.

This reading was also the reading in the original submission to WS from the RYA.  This looks like an unintended consequence - a rule was proposed in the belief that it meant one thing and has been read differently. Perhaps it should be re-drafted to express the original intention. Unfortunately, this is a rule of Part 2 so can only be changed with approval of the MNA or WS.

While I agree with almost all of what Benjamin says, and above all that we should not be interpreting a Rule in such a way that those who do the common-sense, sportsmanlike, thing of communicating early in plain terms to be able to avoid trouble can be penalised or suffer due to the likes of Dan's Boat B, I think Dan's points on Rule 14 and on the safety aspect have a lot of weight, and I agree with Jim on the need for a fail-safe approach, even with the point Angelo makes about learning the words.

That's because Rule 20 is a safety rule for one of most stressful situations going - a situation where if nothing changes, the boat is going to hit something or someone; in other words, a crisis. I use that word because in "The Art of Coarse Sailing" - a marvellous book, including a chapter starting with the immortal words, "That morning I blew up the boat" - the late, great Michael Green defined a Coarse Sailor as "one who, in a crisis, forgets nautical language and shouts, "For God's sake, turn left!" 

If we're going to draft universal rules for a sport where crises happen all the time and where, if things go wrong, people can get killed, I think we have to at least keep in mind in so doing that most sailors are Coarse Sailors.

I was wrong above in citing 86.1(b) to say you can't change this in local race docs, as it is a rule of Part 2. RRS 86.1 says you can change it, if the change is permitted in the rule itself, which in this case  RRS 20.4(b) allows. 
That means a local club could loosen the language and allow addition valid hails as an "alternative communication." (Angelo is right again, blast his eyes!) That should mollify Tim, Dan, and Jim. That language could be something like  SI X.X In accordance with RRS 20.4(b), a boat may also hail for room to tack and avoid a boat on the same tack with a hail that does not include the phrase 'Room to tack.'  This changes RRS 20.1.
I suppose the RYA could also write a prescription or suggest race doc language to achieve what it hoped to achieve, which was apparently to make hailing something other than "Room to tack" a violation of RRS 20.1. That's what happened in the States for dealing with the manifest error introduced in the new RRS 60.4(a)(2).

Michael, I never said you can change RRS 20.  You are confusing threads.  I said you can change nearly all of Part 5 in another thread (that's regarding protest requirements, "protest" hail and red-flag requirements).

 RRS 20 is in Part 2, so IS  NOT available for change. 

No, adding additional communications in SIs would not mollify me. As Tim points out the rules need to be universal in their default form for the coarse sailor. Clubs should not need to write SIs to make the RRS safer. However the problem is not really in the rule. The problem is with the QA. The QA is where the magic word concept really comes in. If the QA stated that an incorrectly worded hail breaks the rule but must still be responded to then the safety problem pretty much goes away. 

One more thought. It's been said you should consider how something would sound in a newspaper or Coroner's Court. Just how would "They said water instead of room, so I didn't let them tack away from danger" go down? 

Angelo, I did not read the other thread. I was responding to the way I thought it was characterized above. I first read 86.1(a) and (b) as prohibiting local changes to rules in Part 2, as you say, but then I second-guessed myself by looking at 86.1 introduction which says 'A racing rule shall not be changed unless permitted in the rule itself [my emphasis] or as follows...' RRS 20.4(b) says 'A notice of race may specify an alternative communication and for a boat to indicate her need for room to tack or her response, and require boots to use it.' I thought you were way ahead of me, as usual. Any way you look at it, RRS 20.4 allows the NOR (but not the SI) to make change in the rules regarding the hail. How broad does that authority to make changes go? I don't know. It's not very specific. So RRS 20 is?/could? be a rule that authorizes changes to itself, as imagined in 86.1. We are only left arguing over whether the Introduction to 86.1 applies to all the other exceptions in 86.1, or whether they are somehow mutually exclusive. Maybe I got it right the first time, when I didn't consider the introduction. It would be interesting to know, either way, purely as a matter of construction and interpretation.

Jim, I'm sorry my attempts at peacemaking landed so badly. There's a lesson in there, somewhere.
Like many others here, I'm sure, I'm thinking about the question with multiple hats on: 1) tactician on my boat, 2) club official who needs to help the other sailors understand the rules and have fun racing safely, and 3) judge. There is a lot to think about in this rule. 
Some people may think WS got the rule wrong. That happens (see above); but on the other hand, it is not wrong for the rules committee to see value in a single, unambiguous standard. Some may think the WS Q&A got the interpretation wrong. That's possible, too, but the discussion here explains why it is possible to defend that they got it right as a matter of construction. 
As a tactician, I will hail "Room to tack" and not worry about it further, and if a boat on my tack and just to leeward is headed for an obstruction, I will keep a close eye on them, whatever they say. As a club official, I will encourage the fleet to be unambiguous in these situations and to follow the rules.  As a judge, I can work pretty reasonably with the WS Q&A interpretation as a fair reading of the plain language of the rule as it now exists. If WS Cases come along to change the interpretation, or if WS wants to change the rule so be it. 

Oh yes, I quite agree that the rule can be interpreted either way, either than an incorrectly worded hail breaks and yet triggers the rule, or that an incorrectly worded hail has no significance. It seems to me that the "not a hail at all" interpretation would appeal to a more legalistic mindset and make for easier PC decisions, and generally function better at elite level, but the fact remains that the QA, in clarifying which interpretation should be used, has transformed one of the most important safety rules in the book into a danger side failure that didn't exist before.

Sorry that I wrote such a long post (again). One simple question for the experienced officials... it would shed light on what to consider when drafting an NOR on the subject.

Has anyone heard a protest where a non-standard wording for a Rule 20 hail caused a problem, either on the water or in the room? What happened?

Sorry.  I'm still struggling with this.

Could someone explain how "A boat may hail for room to tack and avoid a boat on the same tack by hailing ‘Room to tack’," may be interpreted as '...an incorrectly worded hail breaks and yet triggers the rule'.

I am all for fail-safe and all that, and where there are two interpretations, the safe one would be preferable.  But whether I like/agree or not, I can't see two interpretations here.

I can't see a prescription in the current rule to seek room to tack.  The word 'may' empowers a boat to call for this right, and the method to do so is by using the words.  Nothing in the rule requires a boat to ever seek 'room to tack'.

Nothing in the basic rule 20.1 entitles the boat to room to tack by using a different means.  Hence the later need for 20.4 and App C2.10.

So I don't blame the Q&A for anything.

The following variations provide alternative words which meet Jim's intended purpose. But rule 20.1 doesn't include anything of the sort.

"A boat may hail for room to tack.  When she does, she must use the words 'room to tack'".
"A boat may hail for room to tack and avoid a boat on the same tack by hailing."
 
If you want to achieve a penalty for using the wrong words, you must have a prescription to use the right words!  If you want to allow alternative wording, then 20.1 needs re-writing to do so.

-------------------------------------
I also am intrigued why the non-precision approach camp are so hell bent on allowing alternative wording that they would consider changing NORs and petitioning WS to change.

We have rules.  Port keeps clear of starboard.  Windward keeps clear of leeward.  If you want room to tack, you say "room to tack".

Perhaps the problem lies in people describing these as 'magic words' (rather than just rules).
 
Perhaps the danger is that people are not taught and enforced to use these words (but instead are being defended for using other words).
-------------------------------------
My main point here is the interpretation issue  I don't see the other interpretation yet.

To be honest, I have no problem if someone wants to try re-write the rules to allow for "Water", "I'm in trouble here!", "Tack you idiot!".  (Although I think eventually there will be more issues.  Normally there's a reason why rules are as they are.)

I agree fully with 'fail-safe', but I think the 'fail' is already written out of the rules.  Use 'Room to tack' and you are given the rights you need - hopefully.

Benjamin, 

I think I'd direct you to Gordon's posts that the majority of judges he has asked see it differently. I think this is in part because  Rule 20 has been turned on countless times without this prescription. So there is plenty of experience of clearly communicating "I am going to tack and want room" without using the magic words. Hence, under their view, those hails now appear to break Rule 20. It would be safer if, like the other parts of the rule, the onus is put on the hailed boat to err on the side of safety and protest later.

Yes, an additional danger is the transition. I took some time off racing, came back to it, was fouled at the start. PC agreed that I was fouled, but we didn't use the word Protest and were late with the flag. We learned the hard way, but not unsafe. In this transition, people who learn the hard way will too, but in potentially dangerous situations. 

That why my question is: Why would we encourage the hailed boat to ignore an unambiguous hail, especially one that last year was sufficient? 

I would assume it is to solve a really dangerous problem? So that's why I asked if anyone has encountered this problem in a protest or while racing.

Don, no one is being 'encouraged' to disregard a hail. All the rules requiring that people avoid contact remain. Even if the leeward boat hails incorrectly and tacks, the windward boat is obligated to avoid contact, which may well involve tacking. What may happen is that the leeward boat has broken RRS 13 or perhaps 10 along the way, and perhaps RRS 14 if there is some kind of contact, depending on the facts of the case. The windward boat might also have broken RR14 or perhaps 11, again depending on the facts. Except as described in RRS 44.1(b), these can be discharged by taking a penalty and life goes on. No one has to run into anything.
Unlike the judges Gordon describes, I will not be voting to DSQ a boat that hails incorrect words as breaking RRS 20.1. Neither will I vote to DSQ a boat that did not respond to such a hail as if RRS 20.2 had been invoked. (Either boat or both might get DSQ'd for other reasons.) As an appeals judge, I will be voting to reverse any PC that does. As a competitor, I would appeal. If some higher jury wants to reverse my jury's decision on appeal, we will all have learned something.
Perhaps anyone in doubt should talk to his local judges to find out where they land on the question.

Michael re: "Have there been any forum posts on 86.1? It might be helpful to work through how to construe the language before (a). We do know that Part 2 can be replaced altogether in the NOR. Goodbye Rules 15, 16, 17,18, 19, 20, etcetera."

Let's look at it together ...  notice that I bolded the important text in (b)

So .. ALL of 86.1(a) is included in 86.1(b).  

"continues" s/b "contains"

Michael --
Last year, I would be DSQ for disregarding a call for "Sea Room". Next year, I won't be. Maybe "encouraged" isn't the right term, but certainly the new rules make clear that ignoring the hail is now ok.

Still interested in hearing the stories about the problem that the old system caused, that this system solves.

I've said too much on this, and haven't changed my mind on any of it! I was just as opposed to the suggestion the rule should be abolished, as I am to this change, and remain surprised (other adjectival constructions have been discarded!) that anyone could consider that this isn't a vital safety rule. I can only suppose they must have sailed very different boats to me! Tim O'Connor's post 17668 remains to me the best post on the subject. We should not be making the sport less safe for the casual sailor.

Has anyone a link to or copy of the submission that lead to the wording change from 
"A boat may hail for room to tack and avoid a boat on the same tack."
to 
A boat may hail for room to tack and avoid a boat on the same tack by hailing ‘Room to tack’.

Found the submission. 0014-23

Jim ... yes the assumptions and some assertions in the submission are at odds with the Q&A. 

This is a great reminder that neither submission-text nor Q&A's are authoritative and really smart and rules-knowledgeable folk can disagree on this stuff.