Sorry for the long post - but here goes.
I think sometimes we lose a bit of focus through these long conversations and maybe miss some significance in some of the responses.

To help the mathematicians I would suggest that even if the boats were a bit closer (say ¾ boat length) I would suggest most of us would find W met the definition of keep clear in most conditions. It is not unusual for two well matched boats to sail some distance that far apart and there is never any shouting or protests as this is accepted as normal.

Also, where the contact occurred is not really relevant. We should just accept it happened.

So who broke a rule?

There was contact so W did break rule 11.

There was no change of course or change of relationship so L did not break 15 or 16.

This brings me to rule 14.

Does a boat break rule 14 by simply being there?

If a boat gets caught in irons while tacking and is stuck in dirty wind at the top mark and is there for a minute and is then hit by another boat and there is damage. Would it be fair to make that boat responsible for the contact or damage? I think not.

I accept that the rules are not always fair but I do not see why we should not interpret them in a way that is fair to each competitor depending on the circumstance.

So in regards to rule 14 should we not be deciding responsibility (as any insurance company or court of law is likely to do) by asking ‘Who caused the contact’.

In this case, by losing her mainsheet L performed an entirely unexpected action which caused her mast to swing towards W and CAUSE the contact.

Sue Reilly asks ‘Would you think differently if a boat sailed on top of another and it was thew wind shadow that caused L to stand up. The answer is yes as in this case W should have expected that would happen as it was within her control so it was W that caused the contact.

Was it reasonably possible for W to avoid contact in this case? I would suggest not.

Therefore, I don't not think W broke 14.

Did L break rule 14? Well, she caused contact by her actions that were within her control so my answer would be yes.

Now we come to exoneration.

L broke 14. If there was no damage then she is exonerated under 43.1(c). If there was damage then she cannot be exonerated.

For W to be exonerated we would have to find she was compelled to break a rule by another boat breaking a rule.

If we determine that W was keeping clear (by definition) then her breach would in my opinion, be caused by L not complying with 14 so she could be exonerated.

When I started sailing (in the 1950’s) I recall we had a rule entitled ‘Misleading or baulking’ or something similar. This would cover this case nicely!

So in summary there are two possibilities for me that comply with the rules and give a fair outcome

1 W exonerated for breaking 11. L exonerated for breaking 14 (if no damage or injury)

2. W exonerated for breaking 11. L DSQ for breaking 14 (if damage).

This is, imo, a reasonable interpretation of these particular facts and I readily accept that a small change in the facts, along the lines of Matt Michel's latest post, would likely find W would be disqualified and L exonerated if no damage but both DSQ if there is damage.

Antonio re: "any other proof"

My question is "Proof for what?"   That single person is the RC.  RRS 29.1 says ".. the RC shall ...".  

It's not an issue of proof.  It's an issue of obligation.  

There is nothing in the rules that require anything more than RRS 29.1, A5 and A10 for OCS.  All other things an RC might record for their own records is up to them. 

Other than that, I'm not sure what you are asking.  

Jim Champ Reply to: 22039 - John Quirk: furthermore, in CASE 50, in the first sentence, it actually uses the term "genuine and reasonable apprehension" (this of course a standard used by courts with applications for an arrest in connection with non-bailable offences), and in the second sentence 'reasonable doubt' (again, a well-tested legal / court term). Quite some complexity for a competitor and PC to become acquainted with :).

And I appreciate it.

I never called you a blockhead.