To continue the discussion, I'd like to emphasise the following.

1.  The 'sting in the tail' of the suggestion is that (for a non injury/damage Part 2 incident) if there is no hail of 'protest' at the first reasonable opportunity, the time for a boat to take a RRS 44 penalty never arises and:

2.  With suitable notification and publicity to competitors, it would emphasise the need for clear and prompt hails of 'protest', and, if applicable display of red flags.  It would make clear to competitors their responsibility to enforce the rules (RRS Basic Principles Sportsmanship and the Rules first sentence), which is complementary to the obligation of boats to take a penalty (RRS Basic Principles Sportsmanship and the Rules second sentence),  Hopefully competitors would get the idea that if they don't protest properly, they should not complain about other boats breaking the rules.

3.  The suggestion would just about rule out third party protests.  A boat that thinks she sees a Part 2 breach between two other boats will probably not be within hailing distance.  I acknowledge Angelo's very cogent points about the philosophical undesirability of doing this.

Thomas ..
  Both Case 77 and Case 91 when taken together imply your answer I think.   Both pertain to the obligations of a keep clear boat when  the equipment of the ROW boat is out of its normal position. 

A boom swinging from the starboard to port side is a boom operating in its normal operating positions.   A KC boat sailing DDW so close along side a ROW boat that if the ROW boat flops her boom over, without ROW changing course, that the boom hits part of the KC boat .. the KC boat has not kept clear IMO.  

In other words, a ROW boat that has to prevent their boom from moving fully to the port side to avoid contact with a KC boat has executed "an avoiding action" IMO.  

I think this is affirmed in the negative when you read the cases I linked to above.  In those cases they discuss the obligations of a KC boat when equipment is or moves out of its normal location.  

IMO, unless there is a case that says otherwise, there should be nothing unexpected about a boat sailing DDW on port-tack flopping her main over such that she is sailing on starboard-tack. A KC should be keeping enough space between them to allow that.

Brad:  I don't think so.  We have established that the boat on the right in the diagram, boat T, is the 'inside' boat.  She is overlapped.  But she is not a right-of-way boat, as she is the windward boat in the overlap with C.  So she must keep clear under 11.  So she doesn't meet the requirements of 18.4  She also has no need to gybe at the mark to sail her proper course.

18.4 typically applies in a situation like the following, where boat A is inside, right-of-way (starboard tack while B is on Port), and overlapped.

Boat A must gybe at the mark to sail her proper course.  She can sail to her proper course, which is the one she would sail in the absence of the other boat in order to sail the course as quickly as possible, but she can sail no farther from the mark than needed to do so.  [See the definition of proper course]  So in this case, she may swing wide, then sail close to the mark as she gybes, and obey 18.4

Tentatively, the change would be to replace 'the incident' in RRS 44.2 and 44.3 with 'the hail of "protest" and, if required, the display of a red flag'

What I had in mind (with some trepidation) was moving towards a 'No Flag No Foul' approach.

If there is no hail of 'protest' and if required display of red flag at the first reasonable opportunity, I am proposing that the there should be no obligation on a boat to take a RRS 44 penalty.

If there is no  If there is no hail of 'protest' and if required display of red flag at the first reasonable opportunity there can be no valid protest and no hearing.

I think it is fair and just to say that a boat should not be required to voluntarily take a penalty when there is no power to give an involuntary penalty.

Maybe an interpretation of 'promptly take an appropriate penalty' would be needed as follows:

A boat may promptly take an appropriate penalty by:

I'll run this in a separate post.

Meanwhile

Why would you want to convey that idea to a boat?

Fouled boats do that all the time by refraining from hailing 'protest' and displaying the red flag.

I don't feel too concerned about slangy converastions between boats on the water.

As they are entitled to do.  RRS 60.1 A boat ...  may protest a boat. 

I don't see how, as judges we can 'socially engineer' that problem, such as it is.

I'm not good at hydraulic engineering, but do you by any chance mean 'vicious circle'?

What is it that you think if particularly vicious?

Interesting discussion, thanks.

In a similar vein.  A boat has 2 handicaps - one with kite, one white sail.  But they (rightly) declare the kite handicap and the, should the conditions dictate - have to stick with that handicap whether or not THEY chose to fly a kite.  In my mind (and reading) you can't choose to use the white sail handicap just because you decided ( or were forced) to not to fly a kite?