I don't think that's right:  The leeward boat was initially the right-of-way boat (RRS 11).  If boats start out on port tack and the leeward boat gybes onto starboard tack, she does not acquire right-of-way, she already was the right-of-way boat, only the right-of-way rule has changed from RRS 11 to RRS 10.  Because the leeward boat does not acquire right of way in the transition, RRS 15 does not apply.  See the discussion above:  RRS 16.1 probably does apply.

John Q re: "and a given boat can decide whether they are really affected by another offending boat or not (if so, raise flag"

If one was talking about Match Racing with only 2 boats and no judge boats .. yea maybe. 

But we are talking about Fleet racing.  When one boat is not exonerated for a rule breach, that boat does not only benefit relative to a single boat involved ... but also the entire fleet. 

Take for instance a boat barging at the RC at the start.  The closest ROW boat that changes course and let's her in a says "no problem .. I only altered course a little .. you owe me one next time" .. has now given that barger a controlling position on all the boats in the fleet.

Or perhaps a port tracker inside the zone cutting too close in front of a line of boats on the starboard layline.  The first in that line lets them go without a protest .. but now that boat is ahead of the line instead of them having to take the stern of those boats.

This creates an uneven playing field as some boats will protest and others won't.

Over time .. pairs of boats create their own tally's of who owes each other a "protest-pass" and they get to bank future advantages against other boats in the fleet. Or worse .. boats agree to never protest each other .. given them advantages against the fleet.

Bottom line ... when a boat breaks a unexonerated rule in a fleet race, they gain an advantage against all the boats in the fleet, which is incalculable by a single boat in the moment of the incident.   

This is already a problem in our sport .. this would make it worse IMHO.  

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?