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: