The facts as I understand them...

Rule 45
Rule 45 states:

Therefore, the mere fact that the crew member is standing in the water is not, by itself, a breach of Rule 45.

The rule expressly permits a crew member to stand on the bottom, even after the preparatory signal.

Rule 42.1
Rule 42.1 states that the boat shall compete using only wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her speed.

The critical question is whether the crew member is:

Situation 1: Merely holding position
Suppose the crew member stands beside the boat and lightly holds it to prevent it drifting into another competitor while adjustments are made.
In that case, one could argue that the crew member is not increasing or decreasing the boat's speed, but merely exercising a right expressly permitted by Rule 45.
There would be no breach.

Situation 2: Using the bottom as propulsion
Suppose the crew member repeatedly pushes the boat forward, drags it backwards, or walks along the bottom to reposition the boat into a better starting position.
Now the crew member is no longer merely "standing on the bottom"; he is using an external force to alter the boat's motion.
That would almost certainly breach Rule 42.1 because the boat is no longer competing using only wind and water.

The key distinction
Rule 45 permits contact with the bottom.
Rule 42 prohibits using the bottom as an engine, brake or steering mechanism.

My interpretation...

The answer depends entirely on what "fixing the boat's position" actually means.

The protest committee would need to determine the facts:

Those factual findings would determine whether Rule 42 was broken.

Niko: I like your "the RC should always work to have an appropriate level of management commensurate with the competition level/importance" comment.

There is one event that may partner and I run every year ... the Warneet Around French Island race. While Monica runs the briefing giving numerous examples of the flags used during the start sequence there is usually an America's Cup skipper sitting quietly and respectfully at the back of the room with his family or mates. At the other end of the spectrum we have some who have NEVER raced before or perhaps doing their second race since last year.

During this race I tend to be very chatty on the radio to be sure that even those with the least experience have a great day on the water.

One boat in his first year actually missed the starting line, but we considered him a starter. The next year his missed the finishing line but we gave him a finish regardless. He was so pleased that he got the start right the second year ;-)

That said, it is quite a different matter if I am running a one-design race.

I fully endorse John Standley's summary.
And I add this:
Neither boat was required to act to avoid contact until it became clear that the other was not keeping clear.
There was no action that W could have taken in time before L's contact.
And L undoubtedly began trimming her main back in before contact occurred as fast as possible.
Hence, neither boat violated RRS 14.

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.