In cricket there must be an appeal for an umpire to give out. A batsman is not obliged to walk. 

No shout, not out!

It works in cricket.  And they say cricket is a true gentleman's sport. ( Sorry to Americans who haven't got a clue what I'm talking about.) 

My point is that sportsmanship and ethos molds around the rules of the game.  The sport won't fall into anarchy overnight.  In fact, I can't it as much different. The basic principals don't seem affected. 

The effect of the proposal would be to simply cause the flag to come out more and the shouts to be louder, and eliminate some of the grey cases. 

Is this what John is trying to fix or do? Or am I missing something?  John? 

I need to think more about this before I dismiss this. I don't really understand what the aim is. At the same time, I don't really understand what all the fuss against is. 

re: second question:
I don't think 15 would apply, as the newly starboard boat is not acquiring ROW... they are already ROW.
However, I think that 16 would apply. They'd be hard-pressed to argue they didn't change course while gybing.

Depending on how close they were before the gybe, they might argue that RRS 11 had already been broken, that they were gybing to satisfy RRS 14 (in an effort to avoid contact) and that the minor contact is exactly the preferred outcome from RRS 14 as opposed to the more dangerous alternative.

Lastly, in the second situation, it's more likely the booms would hit than boom on boat.

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?