Ok, what do folks make of these:
Let’s assume a classic Rule 20 situation. Boat A is sailing close-hauled on starboard tack towards an obstruction that she must tack to avoid. Boat B is sailing close-hauled on starboard, one boat length to windward and one boat length astern of A.
To make it simple, the obstruction is a river bank, 9 knots of breeze, fairly flat water, everyone can hear each other just fine.
Interpretation 1 – If you use the wrong words, it still counts as a Rule 20 hail, but a noncompliant one
- Boat A hails “Water!”
- Boat B tacks, because 20.2 (b) says to tack even if the hail breaks 20.1.
- Boat B protests because the hail did not comply with 20.1’s instruction to use the words “Room to Tack.”
- PC finds Boat A breaks Rule 20.1 and is disqualified.
Interpretation 2 – If you use the wrong words, it is not a Rule 20 hail
- Boat A hails “Water!”
- Boat B does not respond, because that is not the required hail.
- Boat A hails “Water!”
- Boat B does not respond, because that is not the required hail.
- Boat A hails “Dude I need to go now!” and tacks. Given that Boat B is now quite close to the shore, the tack is fairly brisk.
- Boat B tacks, fast, to avoid contact and barely does.
- Boat A protests Boat B for breaking Rule 20.2.
- Boat B protests Boat A for breaking Rule 13 and/or Rule 10 and argues that Rule 20 does not apply because the hail did not comply with 20.1’s instruction to use the words “Room to Tack”.
- PC finds Boat A breaks Rule 13, Rule 10, Rule 20.1 and is disqualified.
Interpretation 1 – If you use the wrong words, it still counts as a Rule 20 hail, but a noncompliant one
Here’s a trickier version
- Boat A hails “I’m going to need to go soon” as an early warning. Skipper plans to hail “Room to Tack” in about 30 sec. Different skippers have different ideas about how close to get to the shore, Boat A likes to give plenty of warning.
- Boat B tacks immediately.
- Boat B protests because the hail did not comply with 20.1’s instruction to use the words “Room to Tack.”
- PC finds Boat A breaks Rule 20.1 and is disqualified?
I really appreciate all the wisdom and engagement on these forums. This community has taught me a lot. Thanks for putting up with some comments from the peanut gallery.
(Aside from this discussion, adding this requirement to a safety situation really requires a lot of communication. I wonder how we know if the communications are going well? Anyone ever do a survey to see?)
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.
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.
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 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.