Surely we should be referring to and following the precedents established in the Case book?

I enjoy all these discussions about "root causes" and I love your analogy about an air crash investigation.

However the case book seems clear.  In order not to penalize W for Rule 11 ,  the jury would have to determine that L's mast was not in its normal position.

That determination is a finding of fact and will depend on examining the testimony. 
Nobody disputes that W did not expect the leewards boat's mast to return from the heeled position. It was "unexpected"
But Case 77 requires that that it must be "unexpected" and "out of normal position".

In Case 77, the equipment was unexpected and out of normal position
In Case 91, the equipment was out of normal position, but the KC boat should have expected it.

It is clear to me at least, that when a boat makes an unintentional error, both requirements must be met to exonerate the Keep Clear boat. 

So, was L's mast out of its normal position?    

Which of course is the same question you are asking.

Angelo, 

based on your logic I would need to carry multiple red flags, one for each incident I might be involved in?

 

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.