Well, I suppose one could, perhaps, in every race protest another boat for, I dunno, maybe being over the line at the start, and then, on being assured by the RC after the race that they weren't, say that in that case I withdraw the protest. The right to protest is an absolute. But if that happens in a whole series of races then it seems to me it wouldn't be unreasonable for the RC to conclude that something dubious is going on and institute a RRS2 hearing on the grounds that there has clearly not been a genuine intention to protest.

Time to re-read RRS 11 and the definition of keep clear, plus RRS 14.
11 a) W kept clear of L, as L was able to sail her course with no need to take avoiding action.
11 b) W kept clear of L, as L could change her course in both directions without immediately making contact.
14 b) L caused contact between boats.

Thank you Mark and John and Jim.

I'd like to focus this thread on the dry facts.

In rowing I think there's a raised hand at the time of an incident to have an umpire review for interference, but that's closer to umpired racing than normal fleet racing.

Torts have filing deadlines on the order of 2-3 years, which are analogous to the protest time limit.

Any other-sport or legal analogs of the RRS 60.2(a)(1) hail-and-flag requirements?

Thank you Paul for the change. And thank you all for the helpful suggestions.

We have had this come up a few times at our club and have defined the winner of the trophy/prize/money as the person who entered the boat and paid the entry fee.

It is a good idea to set this out in NOR so that it is clear, especially when there is a large sum of money riding on the prize.