When a leeward boat and a windward boat on the same tack contact each other, a rule has been broken.
Prima facie, Rule 11 has been broken.

You cannot disregard the leap in credibility that is required to accept the testimony that the mast swung to windward through an arc of 70 degrees on a J24 going to windward in 15 knots with the jib sheeted in.

Nevertheless, purely for rules discussion, the right way and only way W gets exonerated is under Case 77 which ruled:
"A boat obligated to keep clear does not break a rule when touched by a right-of-way boat’s equipment that moves unexpectedly out of normal position"

Set TWD (mag)
Leg#  Mrk1 Mrk2 Bearing TWA(p/s)  Dist

That could easily fit width wise on a phone. 

When setting the marks, if they are govt marks hyperlinking to details regards bells/flash height etc .. avail as a pop-up will keep the list clean. 

Richard, thank you for your open minded response, but i agree with Sue that relaxing the promptness of the hail and RRS 44 penalty requirements would be undesirable.

One of the purposes of the suggestion was to reinforce the requirements for prompt hail and prompt response.

If you let go of those requirements you will get into all sorts of disputes about:

AIUI the purpose of making the respondent (not a word in this RRS) field mandatory is that the system automatically messages that entity that they are the subject of a hearing.  Naming a boat there will make it appear that that boat has been protested.

Wouldn't a better solution for requests fo  redress be to either omit the respondent field or make it non mandatory, and message the race committee that a request has been received in every case?

Thank you for everything that you do.