I think Mike is correct.

Myself and other posters have been basing comments on understanding Definition Finish (a) as saying 'takes a penalty in accordance with RRS 44', which would include the 'while racing' condition in RRS 44.1.

Mike has pointed out that the actual wording is 'takes a penalty under RRS 44.2'.

I think Mike makes good arguments about not burdening the race committee with observation and analysis about other parts of RRS 44.

The fact that, in accordance with RRS 44.1 the Two Turns taken by Red are not an 'applicable penalty' in accordance with RRS 60.5(c)(2) with respect to Red's breach of RRS 23.1 is a separate issue, which would be considered by a protest committee only at the end of all other considerations in a protest hearing.

So, I'm turned around:  the race committee should score Red's second crossing of the finishing line as her finish.

It may be that Y, seeing that result, may decide not to proceed with a protest.

If not, in a protest hearing, Red would be disqualified for breaking RRS 23.1, and would not be protected by taking the Turns Penalty.

@JimChamp ... and that is, of course, why I shouldn't depend on my memory of what a definition says.   I was forgetting the ' ... referred to in the rule using the term' caveat and therefore wondering whether the boat (in this case an obstruction) would fall under the 'in the absence of' part.  Obviously not, as the boat that is the obstruction is not referenced in the rule using the term.'   Thanks for the reminder. 

Great news - World Sailing has issued the corrections including this item..

Visit

to download both the 2025-2028 RRS with corrections and the detailed document listing the specific changes.

John

When we decide on breaches and do not believe the competitors fully understand the definition or advice.

It is what happens not what they say.

Ben ... I think there is a new MR Call .. or maybe it was a Rapid Response .. where they discuss, in the context of RRS 16, the concept of a KC boat 'not being able be given room to continue to keep-clear, if the KC was not keeping clear when RRS 16 initially applies.

The reason I bring this up in this context is to possibly frame this in the context of RRS 16 and how Case 50 creates a reasonable timespan of action between RRS 16 and RRS 14.

From RRS 16's POV
Each time a ROW boat changes course, she shall give the KC boat room to KC.  When the KC boat is in an obvious state of KC'ing (let's say P/S .. > 6 BL's apart  ... bow-to-bow course intersection), each time the ROW alters course, there is a reset opportunity for KC to 'continue to KC'.

From RRS 14's POV
A ROW boat need not act to avoid contact "until it is clear" that the KC is not keeping clear.  Rhetorically, RRS 14's "when it is clear" is a single moment in time at which time the ROW boat must act in the time-rhelm of "reasonable possibility".  At that point of time of action, the KC boat assumably is not in a state of keeping clear.  If ROW's action to avoid contact with an KC boat that is not keeping clear involves changing course,  that change of course doesn't effectively create new RRS 16 KC room entitlements to the KC boat already in a state of not keeping clear.  

So, Case 50 spans the space between "Clearly KC'ing" .. where RRS 16 provides new room to KC with a course change by ROW .. and "Clearly NOT keeping clear" where the ROW boat's actions may be too late to avoid contact.